I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the fact that the maximum grant awarded by the Education Department to evening schools for successful students in French or German is 3s. per head, while the subsidy paid through the Science and Art Department to evening classes for successful students in science, such as geology or biology, is at the rate of £2 for a pass in the elementary stage, he is prepared to recom- mend such grants from Imperial sources as will encourage teachers and students to give equal prominence to the study of foreign languages as to the various subjects of the science and art syllabus, and thus, at the same time, afford an example to the organisers of classes under the Technical Instruction and Local Taxation Act?

The grants paid from Imperial sources to evening schools under the Education Department are on a quite different scale and footing from those paid to science schools under the Science and Art Department. I am not prepared to recommend an addition to Imperial taxation by an increase in the scale of grants from the Education Department. The Vote for the Science and Art Department is restricted to certain definite purposes, among which instruction in modern languages is not included. The hon. Member is, of course, aware that the funds under control of Local Authorities under the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act may be applied to such instruction, and I am glad to say that many Local Authorities are applying them. It may be hoped that where there are considerable grants for science from the Central Authority the Local Authority will specially consider the case of modern languages.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will consider the advisability of instituting scholarships from Imperial sources, whereby a limited number of teachers could, by residence abroad, become competent teachers of foreign languages in our Normal Colleges and Technical Institutes; and whether he is aware that such travelling scholarships have existed for some years in France and Germany, so that French and German students reside in England in order to become competent Professors of English, and are then engaged in French and German schools?

I am aware that travelling scholarships of the kind mentioned exist in France and Germany with great advantage to the teaching of English in these countries. In this country, the only class of teachers under Government supervision are those employed in, or being trained for employment in, public elementary schools. A provision was arranged some months ago, and has been inserted in the New Code, by which students in training colleges may, after two years' training in the college, receive a third year's training which may be taken abroad, and for which their training college may receive an Imperial grant. Such additional training will be recognised by a special entry on their certificates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether several Civil Service writers over 50 years of age, who had no previous Naval or Military service, have been recently promoted to the class of abstractors; and, if so, whether the same privilege can be accorded to other writers over 50 years and of long service, especially to those who, in addition, have rendered good service as temporary clerks, and have been recommended to such promotion by Heads of Departments?

I cannot find that more than three copyists, with no previous Naval or Military service, have been appointed abstractors after the age of 50. One of these copyists was not over 50 when the Treasury approved his presentation to the Civil Service Commissioners for a certificate, and the other two were passed by inadvertence. In these circumstances, there is no ground for altering what is, in my judgment, a sound rule.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, with reference to the recommendations contained in paragraphs 46 and 118 of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, what reduction has taken place in the First Division of the Admiralty since 1886, and how many staff appointments, such as accountantships, registrarships, and higher supervision posts, have been given under the above recommendations to the Second Division in the Admiralty (excluding the new Naval Ordnance Store Department and Dockyards); and whether he will cause an inquiry to be held on the clerical staff of the Admiralty with a view to determining where these posts can now be created, and of formulating the normal establishment as recommended to be done by the Royal Commission?

Twenty-four Higher Division Clerkships have been reduced since 1886. Twenty staff appointments have been given to Second Division Clerks in the Admiralty Departments (excluding the Naval Ordnance Department). It is not proposed to hold any inquiry or to formulate a normal establishment until the Higher Division Staff is still further curtailed and the new Admiralty buildings are in a more advanced condition.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state when the Crofters' Commission expects to visit Glencoe to fix fair rents, for which application was made six years ago?

Glencoe is in the parish of Appin, and the cases there will be disposed of during this spring or early summer, along with the other cases in that parish and district.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether three male wards, the female ward, and the reception wards at Carlisle Prison are in charge of assistant warders, and only one ward is in charge of an officer of the rank of warder; whether the senior assistant warder has been 19 years, and the junior assistant warder 10 years, in the service, and each of them in charge of a ward during the whole period of their service; when was the last promotion at Carlisle from the rank of assistant warder to that of warder; and can he hold out any hope of a speedy improvement in the position and prospects of assistant warders?

There are only two ordinary wards at Carlisle Prison, one for males and one for females. The male ward is in charge of a principal warder, assisted by one warder and three assistant warders, who, for the purposes of supervision, are each assigned the charge of a section of prisoners. The female prisoners are in the charge of one female officer of the rank of warder, assisted by two of the rank of assistant warder. It is a fact that the senior assistant has been 19 years and the junior assistant 10 years in the service, but, as I have already stated, there is only one ward for male prisoners, consequently they can only have been in charge of a section. The last promotion was in November, 1881. I am informed that the Prison Commissioners are unable to hold out any hope of speedy promotion. The pay and allowances of assistant warders were, however, very considerably improved in 1891 on the recommendation of Lord De Ramsey's Committee.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Sir E. Palmer, the financial adviser of the Egyptian Government, had full power to convert the 5 per cent. Domains Loan for £8,500,000 into a 4¼ per cent. loan; how many financial houses were asked to tender for the same; and whether he is aware that the 3 per cent. Egyptian Loan for £9,424,500 is quoted at 102?

I am informed that Sir E. Palmer has full powers to arrange for the conversion of the Domains Loan, the amount of which outstanding is £4,800,000, into a 4¼ per cent. loan on contain conditions. It is understood that tenders have not been called for, but that he is authorized, if he cannot obtain the requisite conditions from one financial house, to apply to another. The high price of the 3 per cent. loan is no doubt due to the fact that it is guaranteed by the six Great Powers.

Is Sir E. Palmer to be allowed to conclude the loan without submitting the offer to the Government?

I should say it was a question for the Egyptian Government, but if the hon. Member will put his question on the Paper I will give a definite reply.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the communication addressed to him by the London and South Western Railway Company, that they had reverted to their former rates, there has been an increase on the carriage of coal of from 2d. to 4d. per ton; and that so far from reverting to their former rates, as promised, they have ceased to carry 21 cwt. to the ton and charged as for 20 cwt. only, from 1st March; and whether he will make further representations to the Company?

I am not aware to what communication the hon. Member refers. Since the letter addressed to the Board of Trade by the Chairman of the London and South Western Railway Company, on the 3rd of March, I am informed that no increases whatever on coal or any other rates have been made, neither has there been any alteration in the computation of the weight of coal.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the approximate number of complaints which have reached the Board of Trade since the 1st January in regard to treatment of traders and to the charges made by the Railway Companies under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888?

Up to, and including, March 17 (irrespective of deputations and verbal complaints) 835 complaints of increases of rates have been communicated by the Board of Trade to the Railway Association; of this number 211 are resolutions in general terms; many of the complaints are made on behalf of a number of complainants. It is impossible to say to how many of these complaints the provisions of the section referred to by the hon. Member can be ultimately held to apply.

May I ask If that number is in excess of previous years?

Certainly, it is an unprecedented number.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when he proposes to lay upon the Table the Return which he promised of the prices of paper and the firms from whom it is bought; whether he can now state the names of the firms who, as mentioned in the Stationery Office Report for 1890, sent in 29,845 reams of paper which were absolutely rejected, and 12,370 reams which were only accepted at reduced prices, as being in various respects of inferior quality; and will he state the amount of orders given by the Stationery Department to each of such firms since they attempted to supply such inferior articles?

The Controller of the Stationery Office is now preparing a Memorandum in further explanation of the statements made by me to the House on the Supplementary Estimate. I am not without hope that this Memorandum, which will be ready in a day or two, will give my hon. Friend substantially the information for which he asks.

Will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information asked for in the last two paragraphs?

I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a speech made by Mr. Thomas Barry, Poor Law Guardian, at Killavullen, on Sunday 12th March, in which Mr. Barry is reported, in The Cork Herald of 14th March, to have said that he had been told on most reliable authority that two Catholic tenant farmers and high ratepayers in that district had signed the Petitions against Home Rule; that it was not his intention to mention the names of those parties there in connection with the matter, which was as yet sub judice, until they could find out who they were; and he assured those present that there are men in the House of Commons who will search every Petition sent in from the County Cork, and find out the names of all those parties who signed the Anti-Home Rule Petition; whether he is aware that Mr. Thomas Barry is well-known in the district as an active boy-cotter and a promoter of the Plan of Campaign; and whether he will endeavour to ascertain if intimidation is being employed in parts of Ireland to prevent persons who are not supporters of Her Majesty's Government signing Petitions against the Government of Ireland Bill?

I have seen a report of the speech referred to, and I believe there is only one Mr. Thomas Barry known in the district. It is the duty of the Constabulary, which I have no doubt they will perform, to report to headquarters any cases of unlawful intimidation arising out of this or any other matter. This is the only means of inquiry I possess.

Was not the speech referred to in the hon. Member's question delivered at a meeting held in view of a local election, in which certain persons were posing as Nationalists? Was not the object to expose their pretensions? Is there in any part of the speech any suggestion that these men should be boycotted or in any way injured?

The account my hon. Friend has given of the speech is correct so far as I can gather.

The right hon. Gentleman used the expression "unlawful intimidation." Will he tell the House what he means by "lawful intimidation"?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the meeting at which this speech was made was a public meeting held under the auspices of the Irish National Federation?

I do not understand the point of the hon. Member's question.

I understood the question of the hon. Member for North Kerry to be, whether the speech was not delivered at a meeting held in view of a local election. I am asking whether it was not a political meeting held for the promotion of the purposes of the Irish National Federation.

I really fail to see the point of the hon. Member's question. So far as I can gather it was a meeting held, among other objects, in view of a coming election.

The right hon. Gentleman says he believes the statement of the hon. Member for North Kerry as to the objects of the meeting is correct. Will he say why he thinks so. Was not the real object of the meeting to strengthen the local branch of the Federation?

I still fail to see how that affects the question. I supposed that the meeting at which the speech was delivered was a meeting which, like many others, had various objects in view, and among them an electioneering object.

I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is answering upon absolute facts, or only upon what he calls reasonable grounds?

May I, as a point of Order, ask whether the description in the question on the paper of Mr. Barry as "an active boy-cotter" is not a description of a libellous character? Is there any precedent for allowing such statements to be made in the form of a question; and is it not now the practice at the Table to allow questions which certainly would have been disallowed a few Sessions ago?

The practice is now the same as it has always been. There has been no change. I think the expression "active boycotter" is to be deprecated.

I should like to ask whether the meeting at which Mr. Barry spoke was not a meeting held for the purpose of discussing the claims of certain local persons in connection with an election; and whether all that Mr. Barry said was to endeavour to show that two persons, in signing Petitions against the Home Rule Bill, had not acted in a manner incompatible with their professions?

That is so.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that on the Great Western Railway, under the rates which came into effect on 1st March last, there has been on full churns of 17 gallons of milk an increase of ⅛d. per gallon as compared with the old scale, including the charge for returned empties; whether he is aware that this charge, amounting to 1s. 7⅛d. per full churn, is also ⅝d. in excess of the rate issued on 1st January on all distances between 50 and 75 miles; that the charge to the farmer under the old rate was 1s. 5d. per full churn, and under the present rate 1s. 7⅝d. per full churn; and whether, in view of the fact that, owing to existing contracts, the whole of these increased charges are borne by the farmer, he will make further representations to the Railway Company on the subject?

I have received a statement from the General Manager of the Great Western Railway (which I shall be happy to show the hon. Member), from which it appears that while in the particular instance referred to there is an increase of one-eighth of a penny upon a 17 gallon churn for a distance of between 50 and 75 miles, in every other case there is either a reduction or the rate does not exceed the rate in operation prior to the 1st of January last, and that in the total result the Company will incur a substantial loss of revenue in the receipts for their milk traffic.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for repairs at the Sheffield Barracks has recently been given to a firm not carrying on business in Sheffield, and whether such contract provides for the payment under it of such wages as are generally accepted as current in the trade at Sheffield for competent workmen; and, if so, whether the contract is being complied with in that respect?

The repairs at Sheffield are executed under the triennial contract entered into in April, 1891, by the late Government with Messrs. Wilson and Co., of Hulme, Manchester. The contractors undertook to pay the current rate of wages of the district, and we have no reason to suppose that they are failing to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the periodical Returns, which must be laid before Parliament in each year, under Section 33, Sub-sections (b) and (c), of "The Fur-chase of Laud (Ireland) Act, 1891," have been duly presented; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when may their presentation be looked for?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has asked me to reply to this question. The Treasury Rules, dated 26 February, 1892, prescribe that the Returns to be presented to Parliament pursuant to the section of the Act quoted shall be prepared as soon as practicable after the 1st April in each year, and shall be made up to the last day of the preceding mouth. The Land Commissioners inform me that during the period to 31st March, 1892, there were no transactions of the nature indicated by the sub-sections mentioned.

In the absence of the hon. and gallant Member for East Antrim (Captain M'Calmont), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what provision it is intended to take regarding the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund in the Bill for the future Government of Ireland?

I have already explained, in answer to a question by the hon. Member for West Kerry, that the Constabulary Force Fund consists of two branches—the reward branch and the benefit branch. Into the reward branch are paid portions of fines awarded by magistrates, or which are otherwise payable to the Constabulary, and from this branch rewards to members of the Force are paid. The disposal of such fines will no doubt in the circumstances mentioned be a matter for the Irish Government. Respecting, however, the benefit branch of the fund, it has been decided that it shall not be wound up, but shall continue to exist until all its obligations to the families of present members of the fund (whether serving on pay or on pension) shall be, fulfilled; and to that end the funds of the benefit branch (including the sum of £150,000 voted by Parliament in 1890–91) and its actuarial concerns have been placed under the management of the National Debt Commissioners.

I presume that in the event of the disbandment of the Force the balance of the fund would be distributed.

Whatever may happen, the benefit branch of the fund will continue to exist on the present conditions until all obligations in connection with it shall have been fulfilled.

Will there be any Imperial guarantee for its security?

It will remain exactly as it stands now.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the official head of the Fishery Board, at a mooting preceding-the construction of the Baltimore Railway, promised that a pier, in connection therewith, should be provided; whether the railway has passed the final inspection, and at what definite date will the line be opened; and whether it is intended by the Congested Districts Board to send down a competent Inspector to report on the condition of matters generally?

The Inspectors of Fisheries report that no such promise as that referred to was made by them. The railway has not yet passed the final inspection owing to Board of Works requirements for a foot-bridge at Skibbereen which was not contemplated by either the working company or the promoters of the railway. I understand, however, that the promoting company are taking steps to compel the Working company to provide the footbridge. The line could be worked without the bridge and opened within one month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the advisability of granting season tickets or railway passes to Troop Sergeant Majors of Yeomanry who, under the new Regulations, will have charge of two troops, in order that they may be enabled to perform their necessary duties without extra expense, in those cases whore the two troops of a squadron are at some distance apart?

It is recognized that some increased expenditure for travelling Trill be involved in the change from troop to squadron organisation of the Yeomanry; but the arrangements to be made are still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the hardship that has arisen in some cases to Troop Sergeant Majors of Yeomanry who have qualified for pension, by being compelled under the new Regulations to give up their appointments at short notice, he will recommend Commanding Officers of Yeomanry to give such Sergeant Majors at least three months' notice before they are retired, in order that they may have an opportunity of obtaining civil employment?

Those sergeants on the permanent staff of Yeomanry regiments who had completed service for pension at the full rate were given three months' notice, all but a few days. Those who, by a few months' more service, would complete another year for pension and so earn a higher rate were specially retained for the few months.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on the steamship Waldensian, which sailed from Glasgow in February last upon a voyage on which she is now engaged, 12 men were signed on her articles as able seamen, not one of whom were able to prove that they were competent seamen under the Act of 1880, and the articles of agreement were marked to that effect; is he also aware of the fact that on the steamship Peruvian only five out of 14 were able to prove their competency, and on the steamship Sarmatian two out of 16, and on the steamship Assyrian one out of 15; whether these boats are all the property of the Allan Line, and have passengers certificates from the Board of Trade; whether under the Emigration Laws, the Board of Trade officer must satisfy himself that the crews are competent before granting a certificate of clearance; and whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to why the Emigration Officer gave certificates of clearance on each of those vessels, seeing that the able seamen engaged were not able to prove their servitude under the Act of 1890?

The four vessels named belong to the Allan Line. The Peruvian and Sarmatian hold passenger certificates granted by the Board of Trade, but the Assyrian and Waldensian do not. The Peruvian was the only vessel cleared under the Passenger Acts. The Emigration Officer of the Board of Trade had no power to interfere with the crews in the case of the other three ships. As regards the rating of A.B. under the Act of 1880, that Act does not provide for the rejection of seamen who have not fulfilled the conditions specified in it, and officers of the Board of Trade have no power to reject such men unless they know them to be incompetent. The absence of a certificate does not prove either that they are incompetent or that they have not the necessary length of service. As regards the Peruvian, the Office copy of the Agreement for that vessel confirms the statement of the hon. Member so far as the numbers of A. B. s are concerned, but it does not follow that the men who do not hold certificates could not otherwise prove the requisite amount of service to entitle them to hold certificates. The officer reports that the crew were mustered in the usual manner, and he saw nothing in their appearance that would justify him in refusing to clear the vessel. The Board of Trade, however, is of opinion that there are sufficient grounds for inquiry into the question of under-manning, and I am considering the form the inquiry should take.

If it is a fact that these steamers had crews on board which were not competent, why did not the Board of Trade officer detain the vessel? I should like also to ask if seamen are to be judged by their appearance?

The Act does not give power to the Board of Trade officer to refuse to allow men to serve because they do not hold certificates. He has only to satisfy himself that they are otherwise competent. I am, however, not at all satisfied with the present state of the law and will inquire further into the matter.

When the right hon. Gentleman says the crew do not hold certificates as A.B., does he mean they were O.S.?

I mean A.B. But men may be engaged who do not hold a certificate, and the Board of Trade officer cannot refuse to allow them to serve.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he has seen in the Northwich Chronicle a report of an interview with Colonel Warburton, in which it is alleged he said he would require in future that any new tenant coining to his estate must be a churchman, and that he must also join his Yeomanry; considering that Her Majesty's Forces are recruited by volunteer enlistment, is it competent to Colonel Warburton so to press men into his troops; and will he inquire further into this case?

I answered a similar question a few days ago. I have no power to interfere with the terms of a lease given by a landlord to his tenant, but this condition as to serving in the Yeomanry is certainly not well advised in the interests of that Force.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proposed Employers' Liability Bill will apply to the workmen in the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards, and to the seamen, engineers, and marines of the Royal Navy?

No. The Bill does not extend to persons in the employment of the Crown.

Do the Government intend to make it apply?

The proposal to make the Bill apply to the workmen in the Royal Arsenals and Dockyards is under consideration, but at present I cannot hold out any hope that the proposal will be embodied in the Bill.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not the Bill will apply to workmen in the Dockyards and Arsenals?

My present view is that the Bill will not be extended in the direction indicated.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether it is true, as reported, that he is about to rescind the rule laid down by his predecessor, that County Medical Officers of Health in Scotland are debarred from engaging in private practice; and whether, as the present rule is believed to have improved the conditions of sanitary administration in Scotland, he will not interrupt its working until he has satisfied himself, by full inquiry, that the step which he proposes to take is not a retrograde one?

Clause 52 of the Local Government Act for Scotland enacts that the Council of every county shall appoint and pay a medical officer—

"Who shall not hold any other appointment or engage in private practice without express written assent of the Council."

Parliament thus lays down in the clearest terms that it is for the County Council to determine whether or not their medical officer is to be debarred from private practice. Parliament by the Probate Act appropriated £15,000 a year to be distributed among the counties of Scotland in aid of their medical expenditure. In distributing that grant the Scotch Office made it a condition that none of this grant should go to any county where the medical officer took private practice. In my opinion, it is not expedient for the Central Office to use the grant for the purpose of regulating a matter which Parliament clearly intended to be left to the discretion of the Local Body; and I have accordingly, in the distribution of the grant, ceased to exact any condition with regard to a medical officer taking private practice.

I will take an early opportunity of drawing the attention of this House to the matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sanitary authorities are agreed it is undesirable that a public Medical Officer of Health should undertake private practice, for the reason that he is apt to be influenced by private considerations in the discharge of his public duties?

Yes, I agree with that view; but, as I have explained, I consider that the decision of the County Council on the point should be authoritative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Returns given to this House showing the large loss of life and property on the coast of Spain and Portugal, and the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that he is advised that an improved system of lighting would conduce to the greater safety of ships, and that his Department have made repeated representations to the Foreign Office on this subject for communication to Foreign Governments, whether the Foreign Office have brought the subject to the notice of the Foreign Governments; if so, whether he will state the names, dates, and subjects of the communications his Department have made to the Foreign Governments, and lay the Correspondence upon the Table?

Numerous representations have been made to the Spanish Government since 1877. The difficulty of distinguishing the lights at the entrance to Bilbao Harbour, the uncertain appearance of the light on Cape Finisterre, and the need for a first-class light on Capo Villano and a smaller one on Cape Torriano, have formed the subject of our representations. July, 1888, February, 1889, April, 1889, August, 1890, December, 1890, November, 1891, April, 1892, February, 1893, have been the dates of the more recent communications. Early in this month Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid was instructed to repeat his last representation, and to supplement it by handing to the Spanish Government a list of British steamers lost on or near this coast in 1890, 1891, 1892, 1893. The Spanish Government have promised to improve the lights in question, but state that the works on Capos Villano and Torriano have met with unforeseen delay. A representation as to the danger of mistaking the lights on Fort Bergis and Cape Rosa was made to Portugal in September, 1884, and during the present month a request has been made to have the light on Burling's Island made quick-flashing.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will take steps to give effect to the recommendations contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Metropolitan Police Courts, and, in particular, to its recommendation that two additional Magistrates should be appointed at once; and whether he will direct that this Report shall be presented to the House of Commons?

The recommendations and Report are at present under consideration. I have given directions for the presentation of the Report to the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether in the Return just issued regarding the First and Second Schedules of the Government of Ireland Bill the 162,007 ratings valued over £20 includes ratings in the names of women occupiers; and, if so, whether the word "man" in Section 6, Sub-section 3, of the Bill is subject to the General Interpretation Act, which provides that words importing the masculine gender shall include females; whether he can state how many of the 162,007 ratepayers over £20 are women; and whether the total rateable value of £14,033,596, mentioned in the same Return, also includes the rateable value of women occupiers; and, if so, whether he can state what the rateable value of the women occupiers is?

The Return just issued regarding the First and Second Schedules of the Government of Ireland Bill includes all ratings and rateable values in Ireland over £20, and therefore does include female occupiers. The word "man," in Section 6 of the Bill, is not subject to the General Interpretation Act and does not include females. The Commissioner of Valuation has not any available information which supplies the number and rateable value of women occupiers; but he is taking steps to collect it, and I hope to have it before we reach Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he will, as far as he can, make arrangements that their share of the Equivalent Grant shall, in future years at any rate, be paid to the Parochial Boards before the 14th of May, so that the grant for 1892–3 (if unpaid before the 14th of May next; and the grant for 1893–4 will both be paid to the Boards within the 12 months ending the 14th of May, 1894?

The Equivalent Grant to Parochial Boards for the year 1892–3 will be paid during the summer, but not before 14th May. The Grant for 1893–4 will be paid before 14th May, 1894, and there is every reason to believe that it will in future years be regularly paid before that date.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture when the Report of the Committee on Field Voles (Scotland) will be published, and whether it will be made a Parliamentary Paper?

The Report of the Departmental Committee on the plague of Field Voles was laid on the Table on the 13th instant, and will be published in the course of a few days. I shall be glad to do what I can to expedite its delivery.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the applications under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act of 13 tenants on the Macartney Estate, near Belfast, whether he is aware that at the hearing before the Land Commission Court on the 24th February last it appeared that the valuation of the Court Valuer, Mr. Babington, was almost the same as that of the valuer for the tenants; whether, after Mr. Babington had sent in his Report, Mr. Adamson, another Court Valuer, was then sent down to make a valuation; whether his valuation was much the same as that of the valuer for the landlord, and practically double of the amount fixed by Mr. Babington; and whether he will state at whose instigation the second Court Valuer was employed; and if it is usual in such cases to have the valuation of one Court Valuer reviewed by another?

The Land Commissioners inform me that there were 10 applications under the Act mentioned on the estate of Mr. Ellison Macartney, which, under the General Rules, were referred to the late Mr. Commissioner MacCarthy, by whom, in May and June of last year, the two Assistant Commissioners named were directed to make independent Reports to him upon the holdings. In consequence of Mr. MacCarthy's death the cases were set down for hearing before another Commissioner, and are still sub judice. The Commissioners state it is not unusual to obtain separate Reports in such cases.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will place on the Notice Paper the Amendments the Government have undertaken to move to the Liquor Traffic Local Veto (Wales) Bill, the Committee of which is fixed for 21st March?

No, Sir. I do not think the time for doing that has yet arrived.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state that the Bill will not be proceeded with until the Government Amendments have been put down?

I cannot state anything on the subject; but if the hon. Member looks at the Paper he will see that the Bill stands as the fifth Order of the Day.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the report that recently appeared in the Press is true wherein it is stated that last year, owing to mistakes made by medical men in notifying supposed cases of infectious diseases, 462 persons were removed to fever and small-pox hospitals who were suffering neither from fever nor small-pox, and that 102 of these lost their lives through removal to these centres of infection; and, if this report be true, what do the Government intend to do to protect the poor from this danger; and whether it is a fact that the fees, amounting to £57 15s., for notification in these cases, have been paid to the medical men who sent in these false certificates?

The 462 cases referred to represent the total number of patients who, during the year 1891, were admitted into hospitals of the Metropolitan Asylums Board, although those patients were not suffering from any disease for which those hospitals are intended. In 450 of those cases admission was granted upon certificates which were afterwards found to have been incorrect. The Report of the Managers for the year 1891, pages 85 to 90, shows the diseases from which the patients were really suffering as ascertained by diagnosis after admission. Out of the 450 patients admitted upon incorrect certificates, 97 subsequently died. But in every case the patient died from the disease from which he was suffering at the time of admission, and it is altogether incorrect to allege that the deaths were due to the removal of the patients to the asylums. There is little doubt that fees were paid to the medical officers who gave the certificates referred to, but a laborious search would be necessary in order to ascertain the facts.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as Parliamentary Charity Commissioner, whether it is a fact that a scheme has been promulgated by the Charity Commissioners, disendowing and abolishing the Grammar School at Charlbury, in Oxfordshire, which has existed for over 200 years; if he can state by whom the Commissioners have been moved in the matter, and whether it was by the Charlbury School Board and Brasenose College; and whether he is aware that the inhabitants of Charlbury are most strongly opposed to the abolition of the school?

A Draft Scheme has been published under the Endowed Schools Acts for converting the small endowment for a grammar school at Charlbury into the fund for exhibitions for Charlbury children. The Commissioners act under the Endowed Schools Acts, after inquiry, on their own initiative. As there appears to be a division of opinion on the question whether a grammar school can or cannot be maintained in Charlbury, the Draft Scheme has been referred to an Assistant Commissioner for a public inquiry there.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the intention of the Government to exclude from the operation of the Suspensory Bill for Wales those parishes which are partly in England and partly in Wales?

This is a matter of detail which is under consideration, and as to which I shall be prepared to state the intentions of the Government when the Bill comes on for Second Reading.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it was a rule of the War Office that Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans who had served 10 years and had been discharged with good characters should be entitled to pensions; and, if so, why Corporal William Calver had been refused a pension, although he had served 17 years and 339 days with the 58th Foot from 1858 to 1868, and with the 54th Foot from 1870 to 1878, and in the interval in the Army Reserve, taking part in the Indian Mutiny in 1858, and being discharged for disability with a good character in 1878?

No man of only 10 years' service can claim a pension, but a limited number of compassionate pensions have been awarded to men who, having served not less than 10 years in the Army, had a medal for a campaign before 1860 and wore in distressed circumstances. William Calver, whose case the hon. Member has mentioned, had not a modal, and his Army service had only been from 1858 to 1861 in the 58th Foot, and from 1861 to 1868 in the 54th Foot. His case consequently does not fulfil the conditions for the grant of a pension for life. On his discharge from the Reserve, in 1878, he was granted a temporary pension of 11d. a day for 51 months.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the appointment for filling up the rural post offices in North Huntingdonshire has been given to Mr. Grist, a tailor, living in another Parliamentary Division; and, if so, whether he can see his way to appointing some person who knows the postal requirements of North Huntingdonshire?

The nominations to post offices under £120 a year in England and under £100 a year in Scotland are made by mo on my own responsibility, subject to the veto of the Postmaster General when the persons so nominated or the premises they occupy are considered to be unsuitable. The question of the advice I seek, or whether I take any advice in the exercise of this patronage, is a matter which concerns myself alone.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps the Admiralty propose to take in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Target Practice Seawards; and whether it is their intention to prohibit all firing by gunboats over the coast fishing grounds in the neighbourhood of Plymouth, in accordance with the views expressed in the Report?

The Report has only just been published. It will be thoroughly considered. Meanwhile, arrangements have been, or will be, made at Plymouth and Sheerness respectively, both to enable the firing to take place further out at sea and to secure a better lookout being kept. The Commander-in-Chief at Plymouth will be directed to give the orders he considers necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Committee with reference to the coast fishing grounds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps he intends to take to carry out the recommendations embodied in the Report on Target Practice Seawards?

The Report was only received a day or two ago. It will be duly considered. I have not yet seen it, and cannot, therefore, say what steps will be taken on it.

Will the recommendations of Sir E. Birkbeck, which are of importance and value, have special attention given them?

I have no doubt they are valuable, but I repeat I have not yet seen the Report.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoum are still in prison without trial; and whether any steps have been taken with the object of procuring their release?

The Archbishops were tried and sentenced, and are still in prison; but Her Majesty's Ambassador has from time to time made unofficial representations at the Porte as to the irregularities at the trial. It is to be hoped that the Sultan will see fit either to pardon the prisoners or to order a strict inquiry on the spot into the mode in which the trial was conducted.

May I ask if the individuals named in the question are not subjects of the Sultan, and upon what ground interference is made by-England on their behalf?

May I ask, at the same time, whether the continued imprisonment of the two Archbishops is not a violation of the 61st and 62nd Articles of the Berlin Treaty?

I hope both hon. Members will give notice of the questions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the 66 cases out of the 712 in which he alleges police protection was given by the late Government to Sheriffs in Ireland while executing civil bill decrees between sunset and sunrise, he is able to say cattle or goods were actually taken and carried away so as to render the action of the Sheriff illegal; whether in some of the 66 cases the defendants had no goods or cattle and a return to that effect was made on the decree; whether he is aware that all the Sheriffs of the counties mentioned by him deny that any such illegal seizures took place; and whether, under the circumstances, he will furnish to the said Sheriffs a list of the cases in which they are alleged to have acted illegally, so as to enable them to inquire into, and, if possible, refute the charges made by him against them in this House?

Some of the 66 cases were attempted seizures only, and in such cases there would be no removal. These are probably the cases referred to in the second part of the question. In the other cases the reports, affirming the execution of the decrees, justifies the conclusion that both the taking and the carrying away were effected without regard to the statutory hours. As regards the third paragraph, I accept the statement in the question that the Sheriffs deny that seizures took place within the prohibited hours. I do not as to the fourth paragraph understand that they admitted seizure, and only deny removal. To follow the course indicated in the last part of the question would involve an inquiry, and this inquiry would in turn involve the production of confidential Official Reports, as the inquiry could lead to be just or satisfactory results unless these Reports and evidence in support of them were produced. Such use could not legitimately be made of Reports of this character. The Constabulary allege certain acts; the Sheriffs deny them. The situation will remain the same under any circumstances short of a judicial inquiry, such as I do not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to propose.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to state in how many cases the goods have actually been removed and taken away. Did he ascertain that before he accused the Sheriffs of being guilty of the misdemeanour?

Does not the fact of the Sheriff and his party encamping on the ground during the night, in order to effect the seizure at daybreak, render the proceedings just as illegal as if the seizures were actually made?

I do not like to pronounce a definite opinion on such a point of law, but I understand that it would be illegal for the Sheriff to encamp for the purpose of executing Civil Bill Decrees on the land during prohibited hours; it would be illegal, I suppose, as trespass. I cannot say off-hand in how many of those cases the goods were actually removed. I cannot, as at present advised, commit myself to the assumption that removal is essential to illegality under the Statute.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the words of the Act are not "shall take and carry away"?

And I will ask whether it has not been decided in England that it is illegal for the Sheriff to remain on the ground one moment longer than is necessary to effect the seizure?

The House will perceive that a nice point of legal construction has now arisen. I have been advised by those in whom I have every confidence that it would be rash to commit oneself to the doctrine that removal is essential to constitute illegality under the Act.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he took advice as to the meaning of the words "shall take and carry away," before making the statement that police protection was given in the 712 seizures which he alleges have taken place?

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact of numerous alien immigrants, who have been refused admission into the United States, having been landed at Glasgow, and having become chargeable upon the rates; whether, in particular, an imbecile named Alter Ravenholm, a passenger from Bremen to Philadelphia, viâ Glasgow, who was prevented from landing by the United States authorities, has been brought to Glasgow by the Allan Steamship Company, and is now being maintained at the cost of the ratepayers; and whether he has received any communication from the Local Authorities upon this subject, and what steps Her Majesty's Government proposes to take with a view to preventing the recurrence of such scandals?

I have had a Memorial from the Govan Parochial Board on this occurrence. The Board of Trade, to which I referred this case as soon as it appeared in the public Press, state that it is the first distinct case which has been officially brought to the notice of their Department in which an emigrant returned from the United States has become a charge upon the rates of this country. However, it is a very serious matter; and if such cases recur, the Board of Trade suggest that proposals for legislation might be necessary. The matter shall be watched carefully in Scotland and in England.

Do the Government intend to introduce legislation dealing with the subject?

I have had the honour of introducing a non-contentious Bill which has the support of the Front Bench opposite. It has, however, been blocked by the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Is it not the fact that under the laws of the German Empire persons who like those named in the question are unable to maintain themselves are returned to their homes, and has not that power been exercised against British citizens?

I must say I think our laws ought to prevent such an occurrence as this.

I shall ask the Prime Minister a question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Government are aware that from the early part of next month the French reserve squadron in the Mediterranean is to be fully manned, it having already been sufficiently manned to be frequently at sea for evolutions and gun practice?

The Admiralty are aware of the intentions of the French Naval Authorities, which are in accordance with their system of drilling their Reserves.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what grounds the Board of Inland Revenue require chemists who prepare and sell ginger wine essence to hold a compounder's and a spirit licence, when the essence is prepared from tinctures that can be sold separately as medicinal preparations, and when the essence only contains 10 per cent. spirit, and is unfit for drinking until diluted with one gallon of water, and then the percentage of spirit is less than ¼ per cent.; if he will consider whether the Board of Inland Revenue might allow the manufacture and sale of this article while containing 10 per cent. spirit, and the essence to be made and sold without a licence if it does not contain more than 3 per cent. spirit; and in case the Board of Inland Revenue is not prepared to grant either of these exemptions, is it intended to place equal restrictions on all flavouring essences which are wholly composed of pure spirit?

Potable essences containing so much as 10 per cent. of spirit cannot, with a due regard to the safety of the Revenue, be allowed to be prepared and sold free of licence duty. But when they contain not more than 3 per cent. they will not be interfered with. It is not thought necessary to interfere with the manufacture and sale of essences used for flavouring purposes only.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has boon directed to the case of Mr. Ginley, of Carrowreagh in the County Mayo, who has been severely boycotted for taking a farm from which the previous tenant was evicted; whether he is aware that several meetings to promote the boycotting of this man has been held in the neighbourhood of his farm, and that a meeting was held on Sunday, the 12th March, at which very violent language was used towards Ginley; whether any persons have been prosecuted for the boycotting or intimidation of Ginley; and whether this case has appeared, or will appear, in any official records of crime in Ireland?

It is true that Ginley is boycotted for the reason stated, and I am aware of the facts mentioned in the second paragraph of the question. A prosecution was directed some days ago against two of the speakers at the meeting held on the 12th inst., on the charge of conspiracy to injure Ginley and of soliciting others to join the conspiracy. With regard to the last paragraph, I have to observe that the mere advocacy of boycotting at public meetings is not recorded by the constabulary in the Return of outrages unless the offence be so serious as to demand the return of the accused persons for trial, in which event the case is entered in the Outrage Return as one of "intimidation." Should the persons now being proceeded against be sent for trial, the case of Ginley will be so recorded. This is in accordance with the established practice, from which no departure has been made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, as telegraphed by the Secretary of the Indian Association at Calcutta, the Government of India is conducting the Jury Commission contrary to a declaration made in this House, that the inquiry is held with closed doors and is of limited scope, and that no evidence is being taken; and whether he can assure the House that the inquiry will be held in accordance with the declaration made by the Government in this country?

The Secretary of State is not aware to what declaration my hon. Friend refers. The substance of the instructions to the Government of India was communicated to the House on the 24th February, in answer to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh. The Secretary of State has no reason to believe that those instructions will not be observed; nor does he think it desirable to interfere with the discretion of the Commission as to the mode of conducting the inquiry.

When is this Report likely to be presented, to whom will it be addressed, and will it be laid on the Table of the House?

I take it that it will be addressed to the Secretary of State. I presume it will be laid.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some five or six police pensioners attend as members at the meetings of an Association under the title of "The Cloughjordan County Tipperary Defence Union," which is a society of a few Orangemen in the district in opposition to "Home Rule;" and that, on a recent occasion, the sergeant of police attended their meeting in the discharge of his duty and was ordered to leave; and, if so, will the police pensioners in question be cautioned against being connected with any Association for political objects?

It is reported to be a fact that six constabulary pensioners attended as members of the Defence Union at Cloughjordan, and that two of the local police who attended in the ordinary discharge of their duty were ordered to leave their meeting on December 5 last. The Inspector General has no control over the action of police pensioners in matters of this kind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of an application made to the Grand Jury of the County Kildare, at Naas Assizes, on Tuesday last, on behalf of Sergeant Griffin, Royal Irish Con- stabulary, of Athy, for compensation for injury caused him by a tramp from another county whom he had arrested in Athy; whether he will state the amount of compensation awarded by the Grand Jury; and whether there is any means of protecting ratepayers in an Irish county from being obliged to pay compensation for injuries inflicted by strangers from other counties, under such circumstances?

I am informed that a sum of £900 was awarded as compensation by the Grand. Jury of the County Kildare under the circumstances stated in the first paragraph of the Question, the amount to be levied off the county at large. Under the Grand Jury Act, 1836, the compensation is payable by the county within which the offence has been committed, though it was open to the ratepayers to protect themselves by traversing the presentment.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Privy Council will withhold its assent to the Order of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners creating a new benefice in Colwyn Bay, Denbighshire, until the Correspondence and Minute of Proceeding relating thereto have been laid before this House?

As was stated in the House on the 16th February last by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the only question considered by the Privy Council before ratifying a scheme drawn up by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners is whether the scheme contains nothing contrary to law, and whether it is within the legal powers of the Commissioners. If both these questions are answered in the affirmative the scheme is passed. This appears to have been the uniform practice of the Privy Council.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state from any Returns, or from an approximate estimate, the number of electors who will be added to the constituencies if the payment of rates as a condition precedent to being placed on the register be abolished?

I find that, according to the last Census the total number of inhabited houses in England and Wales was, in round figures, 5,500,000. The number of occupation voters on the Register for 1892 may be roughly estimated at 4,130,000, being 1,370,000 less than the number of inhabited houses. From this 1,370,000 must be deducted the houses occupied by women, and, according to a Return in 1890, the number of women entitled to vote for County Councils and for Town Councils in county boroughs was between 600,000 and 700,000. This deduction leaves the number of houses in access of the number of occupation voters by between 700,000 and 800,000. As, however, there may be occupations of parts of a house conferring the right to the franchise, and the occupation voters include voters in respect of lands without dwelling houses, there must be some deduction from the total number of occupation voters when that number is compared with the number of inhabited houses. The figures which I have given show that, assuming that all who would be entitled to be registered were duly registered, there would not be less than from 700,000 to 800,000 additional voters placed on the register, in respect of occupation of dwelling houses, were it not for the conditions of the franchise as to the period of residence and rating and payment of rates, and the omissions to claim, and the large numbers who are disqualified through removals. We have no means of estimating the number who are disqualified by reason of non-payment of rates, but I should not expect to find that it was very considerable. I may, however, say by way of illustration that since my right hon. Friend's question appeared on the Paper I have received a communication from an officer of one of the largest parishes in England, containing upwards of 40,000 ratepayers, and he estimates that the additional number of electors who will be added to the register in consequence of the abolition of the rate-paving clauses will be exceedingly small.

Has there been any deduction made from the number of inhabited houses in consequence of "voids?"

That is another element to be taken into consideration. I have taken the actual number of houses according to the Census.

Is it not true that in London specially there are large numbers of houses which contain four or five voters, and would that not largely increase the total?

I believe that it is so in London, but the system does not prevail to any large extent outside the Metropolis.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether a contract for hair brooms was recently given to Mr. A. Smith of Stratford, Essex; whether, in accordance with the Resolution adopted by the last Parliament, such contract was entered into upon the condition that the trade union rate of wages should be paid by the contractor; whether Mr. Smith is fulfilling such conditions and paying the rate of wages agreed to by the employers and employed in the brush-making trade in 1872; and whether the sanitary conditions of the premises in which Mr. Smith's employés are engaged are approved by the Factory Inspector of the district?

Mr. Smith's contract contains the usual clause binding him to pay the rate of wages current for such work in the locality. The War Office is not at present aware how far Mr. Smith is fulfilling these conditions, but a complaint was received on the 18th instant from the Brushmakers' Union to the effect that he is not paying proper wages. Inquiry on the point will be made. The Inspection of Factories is under the Home Office.

Has the attention of the Home Office been called to the sanitary condition of this factory?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Secretary of the General Post Office, Dublin, has issued instructions to suburban post offices in Dublin embodying the reply to be given to depositors in the Post Office Savings Banks who might apply for information as to the future security for their deposits, or who might demand withdrawal forms; if these instructions have been issued since the introduction of the Home Rule Bill; and if he will state the terms of the reply referred to in the instructions?

No instructions have been issued such as those referred to in this question. The position of depositors in the Savings Bank in Ireland is unaltered until the Irish Government Bill passes into law, and by the provisions of the Bill six months' notice is given to depositors, during which period they can, if they so desire, have the full amount of their deposits paid to them or transferred to the Post Office Savings Bank in Great Britain.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can ascertain how these cock-and-bull stories get into the minds of certain hon. Members?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether a Member of Parliament who, directly or indirectly himself, or by anyone in trust for him, undertakes any contract with a Government Department, is incapable of sitting or voting during the time he shall hold such contract, or any share thereof, or any benefit or emolument arising from the same?

I have no authority to give an account of the state of the law, but what I understand to be the case is that any Member in such a position as is described in the question would find that his seat was made void, and that he himself was subject to penalties for sitting and voting.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the Vote on Account embracing all branches of the Civil Service, he will put it down for some day earlier than Monday, 27th March?

I am sorry to say that, in consequence of the failure of the Government to bring to a close last week the business of Supply then in hand, they are not in a condition to name the exact day when they can propose the Vote on Account; but it cannot be proposed during the present week.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will kindly state the numbers of the clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill which contain the provisions by which, in case of great emergency, such as foreign war, the Government expect to get fair and full contributions from Irish sources to Imperial exigencies?

The answer is a very simple one. I believe that the only portions of the Bill directly referring to the subject-matter of my right hon. Friend's question are two sub-sections in Clause 10—namely, Subsections 2 and 5—and the explanations of these we shall enter into upon the Second Reading of the Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that it is admitted by the Secretary of State for War that the Naval and Military Authorities responsible for the defence of the country had not modified their views, and were still decidedly adverse to the proposed Channel Tunnel on strategic and national grounds, and had not advised the Board of Trade to withdraw its opposition to that measure and support it, and having regard to the resolution of the Commission of 1883, which was reported to the House of Commons, and which stated that the majority were of opinion that Parliamentary sanction should not be given to a submarine communication between England and France, he will, following the same course he adopted in 1885, instruct the Board of Trade to move the rejection of the Channel Tunnel Bill?

The right hon. Gentleman has most ingeniously imported a long argument into his question, which I do not subscribe to, and which I will venture to pass by. I will merely say that we do not take part as a Government in this discussion, which we think is one that we ought to leave to the free judgment of hon. Gentlemen in this House; and I may observe, that when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham did object to the progress of the Bill in a former year, it was on special grounds which he explained at the time, and not on the merits of the particular scheme.

May I ask whether it is not the case that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, When President of the Board of Trade, opposed the Bill on behalf of the Prime Minister and every Member of the Government? In proof of that I will refer the right hon. Gentleman to Hansard.

I have not contested that at all. Undoubtedly it was on the part of the Government, but it was done on special grounds, and not on the merits of the scheme.

Can the Prime Minister lay on the Table any correspondence between the Government and the hon. Member for Hythe giving the reasons why the Government have changed their views?

I am not aware that we have changed our views.. The views of the Government at the time were explained with perfect clearness and correctness by my right hon. Friend behind me.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the promoters of the Bill, so that hon. Members may have due notice of the time when the Bill will come on?

That has already been answered twice.

That will be provided for by the Rules of the House, I have no doubt.

Is it not the fact that the Secretary of State for War stated, in answer to a question last Thursday, that the War Office and the Admiralty had not changed their adverse views?

It does not appear to me a convenient practice to call upon one Minister to say whether or not it is a fact that another Minister answered so and so. The documents and records of Parliament give ample information upon the point.

I am sorry to press the right hon. Gentleman, and I would not have pressed him but for the statement of the Secretary for War that he was not speaking on behalf of the Government. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Papers he will see that is so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was by the orders or with the knowledge of the County Inspector or the Executive that some members of the constabulary attended the Unionist meeting at Seaforde, County Down, last week, and the Unionist meeting at Dunmore, in the same county, on 13th March?

The Inspector General reports that the local constabulary did attend the meetings referred to in the ordinary course of their duty when on patrol. It was not by the orders or with the knowledge of the County Inspector or the Executive that they did so.

I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. It is whether he will assent to a Return showing what sums of money or their equivalent have been given by the State or derived from Imperial sources for the purpose of endowing in any way, directly or indirectly, the Established Church in Great Britain, distinguishing the particular sources from whence such sums of money or their equivalent have been derived, and whether they have been given to the Established Church in England, in Scotland, or in Wales? I ask the question because a Return granted on February 23 last approaches to, but does not cover, the ground of my Motion.

I am bound to say that if I interpret aright the words of the Motion it appears to me to be very difficult to say whether that would cover the whole ground. It is so wide that it would involve an inquiry which is more likely to occupy years than months, for the whole of the learning on the extremely dark and complex history of the original endowments of the Church in this country and Scotland would have to be investigated. I remember when I was younger, and had more time for attacking tough problems than I have now, that I spent a good many weeks in reading Selden on the subject, and the hon. Gentleman will find that Selden only supplies a portion of the matter. Putting it into its simplest form, it is still an extremely complex and difficult matter on which the opinions of learned persons have always been divided. If a Return can be prepared, I have not the slightest objection to its being presented to the House, and the more clearly the better, but the words of the hon. Member do not seem to be suitable.

I beg to ask whether, in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman expressly stated in a letter to a correspondent last December that the Church of England received no assistance——[Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Gentleman must see that notice should be given of a question of that kind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland a question of which I have given him private notice. I would like to know for what reason the military authorities in Belfast have been in negotiation with the owners of mills and other buildings in Belfast, and throughout Ulster, with a view to the accommodation of additional troops, and whether it is true that 2,000 more troops have been sent to Belfast?

I will give the hon. Gentleman the reason for the alleged negotiations when I am made aware that their existence is a fact. I have no knowledge of them. The other statement I am empowered by the Commander of the Forces in Ireland to entirely and wholly deny.

Perhaps it will be convenient to the House if the Prime Minister will tell us what Business it is proposed to take during the remainder of this week.

I am not able at the present moment to answer the right hon. Gentleman's question with perfect accuracy, but I will endeavour to put the House in early possession of the information asked for.

What is to be taken to-morrow?

Tomorrow, at the Morning Sitting, which is alone under the control of the Government, the Business will be the introduction of what is called the Parish Councils Bill.

With reference to the Order Paper, might I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that among the Notices of Motion there are Notices of Bills for the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church, the introduction of the principle of One Man One Vote, Anti-Vaccination, and Shorter Parliaments, and for dealing with Justices; whether he is aware that these Bills have been on the Paper for some time past; whether he really means to name a day for their introduction, or whether they are to be regarded as stillborn, and whether putting them on the Paper is simply an obituary notice?

I am unwilling, of course, to press the right hon. Gentleman if he cannot give me an explicit answer now; but it would be for the convenience of the House if he could tell us what would be the first Business on Thursday.

We certainly mean to go forward with the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill unless we are fortunate enough to get it to-night.

Might I press for an answer to my question?

Mr. Speaker, with your permission I must crave indulgence from the House— indulgence which, I am happy to say, is always given—for a personal explanation with regard to a speech made in this House on Friday last by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War (Mr. Campbell - Bannerman). The speech seems to have been a very amusing one, and to have caused great laughter; but the words used have conveyed an impression which I do not think the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey. I find it has been reproduced in the local papers as an attack on myself, to which importance may be attributed. The reason why this wrong impression is prevalent is that certain omissions and one mis-statement were made by the right hon. Gentleman —no doubt unwittingly. I have taken an extract of the words I object to from The Times newspaper, and will read them to the right hon. Gentleman to see whether they are correctly reported—

"The late Judge Advocate General was sometimes paid after one fashion and sometimes after another; but he was now only concerned with the last year for which the right hon. Gentleman held office—the year commencing April 1 last. The arrangement made with the Treasury was that the office should be endowed with a fixed salary of £500, and that the officer should be allowed fees for business actually transacted to the amount of another £500. But the late Judge Advocate General claimed that his £500 should be paid over to him on April 1 as a retaining fee for the coming year. The greater part of the salary for the year was thus absorbed. The right hon. Gentleman was paid £500 on April 1, and he proceeded with unusual, but praiseworthy, activity to transact as much business as possible, so that when the change of Government took place in the beginning of August there was only £150 available for the distinguished public servant who should be then appointed to discharge the duties of the office."

That statement created much laughter. Well, I must first call attention to the omissions made by the right hon. Gentleman. He omitted to state that for a long time the late Judge Advocate General was paid nothing at all.

I did state it.

Well, he was not so reported.

My words were to this effect: "And sometimes the right hon. Gentleman was paid and sometimes he was not paid, and that sometimes he was paid after one fashion and sometimes paid after another fashion."

Well, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's explanation. But he was not so reported in The Times. I wish, however, to mention a fact which should have been mentioned at the time. The impression that would be made on the mind of people who read this report is that the late Judge Advocate General was rather an acute gentleman, and that he had made more money out of his office than his predecessors. Now, the facts are entirely the opposite to that. [Ministerial, cries of"Oh!"] If hon. Gentlemen will listen with patience, they will see that this is so. The causa causans of the whole of this imbroglio was the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). In 1887 the hon. Member for Northampton was consumed with a great fit of economic zeal, and he attacked nearly all the salaries of the hon. Gentlemen who then sat on the Government Bench. I am only astonished to find that that zeal has cooled down since the hon. Member's revered Leaders have taken the places of the Members of the late Government.

Mr. Speaker, is the right hon. Gentleman entitled to continue the Debate, or do more than mention the facts he regards as necessary for his personal explanation?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in doing more than alluding to the mere facts, and I hope he will not go into any extraneous matter.

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, for your direction; but I think that I am bound, Sir, to go back to the root of the difficulty. In December, 1887, I was informed that certain changes were contemplated in regard to the office of Judge Advocate General, which I then occupied. That was told me by the then Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope). At that time I only did what every gentleman in that House in the same position would have done, whatever side he belonged to. I said, "If you are going to make any change I shall not stand in the way, and I am perfectly content to resign the office." An arrangement was made by which I was to resign, and the resignation was to take effect from April 1, 1888. But when that time came round the new scheme which the War Office contemplated was not hatched, and I was asked to carry on for some months. I agreed, and as a matter of fact the arrangement went through 1888–89 and 1889–90 without my getting any pay. During that time any other Judge Advocate General would have received £4,000 for the work, but I did not receive a single farthing. In the year following the then Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) thought that that state of things should not continue. The right hon. Gentleman suggested some salary, or payment by fees. I was not anxious about it, and said that I was still willing to resign, though the work, I may say, had been done without any complaint from this House or elsewhere, and if there had been any complaint to make it would certainly have been made. When Mr. Smith pressed the matter upon me I said that if I was not required always to be in the House on Government nights, but could have the freedom of a private Member, I would have no objection to be paid by fees. Here, then, is the omission which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) made. He omitted to say that in those two years I received nothing. And then the right hon. Gentleman said that it was agreed that there should be a fixed salary of £500, and that the officer should be allowed fees to the amount of another £500. He said that I claimed that this £500 should be paid to me at the beginning of the financial year as a retaining fee for the coming year. It was nothing of the kind. This is shown by a letter I received from Sir R. Welby, of the Treasury, who wrote—

"The Lords Commissioners having had before them the explanations and assurances given by Mr. Secretary Stanhope on your letter with regard to the remuneration of the Judge Advocate General, I am directed to inform you that they sanction the proposed payment of £l,000 for the year 1890–91."

There was no question of a claim. They agreed to this retaining fee, and, I may say, agreed against my advice, for I pointed out to the Under Secretary of State for War what would happen. I pointed out that the retaining fee must be paid at the beginning of the year. [Nationalist laughter.] Yes; but when else could a retaining fee be paid? A retaining fee is always paid at the beginning of the year. I am charged with having got a good deal of money out of the office. But the House will see that the practical effect of the circumstances which I have described is that in the time I was connected with the office, including the time when I got no salary at all, and the time when I was on the new arrangement, I got £6,000 less than the previous Judge Advocate General would have got. Then I come to another point. I found out in August last that there was some difficulty in regard to the work of this office. There have always been two opinions regarding the office — one that it is a political office, and the other that it is a judicial office. I take the latter view, the chief duty being to judge of the validity of Court, Martinis, on which there should be no political feeling whatever. Finding that the Government were in a difficulty, I wrote to say that I was willing to carry on the work to the end of the financial year. It was not for the sake of pay that I made that offer, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman should have mentioned the circumstances.

I think the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman would have better come on on Report of Supply. The right hon. Gentleman will not expect me to follow him into the whole of the history of the office of Judge Advocate General. I stated the other night that the right hon. Gentleman was sometimes paid and sometimes not. But I confined my particular observations to the current financial year, and the right hon. Gentleman has really confirmed everything I said—namely, that in the year when there was an immediate prospect of a General Election, and, therefore, a risk as to the endurance of the Government, he received as a retaining fee half of the money due for the whole year and during the time which elapsed between the beginning of the financial year and the General Election, which ended in the late Government leaving Office. He transacted more business than was usually done in that period——

I must deny that emphatically. Absolutely no more work was done than usual.

At all events, he did transact a large amount of business, and the result was that there was a small modicum of salary left for any unfortunate individual who might come after. I did not say whose were the arrangements which made this state of things possible. I am really very sorry if I have hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman by the recapitulation of these facts, but they are facts and cannot be departed from.

I beg to move that Mr. Gerald Balfour be a Member of the Select Committee on Building Societies (No. 2) Bill.

Would it not be convenient to the Government to postpone this until after Supply this evening? There is an objection, because three gentlemen from one city are proposed to be put on the Committee.

I think it would be convenient to postpone it until to-morrow.

I must point out that it cannot be postponed to the end of the Sitting. If it be postponed at all, it must be postponed to another day.