I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government have satisfied themselves that equity was done to the L'Herault family by the decision whereby a sum of over £5,000 passed on intestacy to the Crown; and if the matter can be reconsidered on behalf of the legatees of Madame L'Herault?

Madame de L'Herault was granted the real estate of her deceased husband and one-half of the personal estate to which she was entitled. Advertisements were published for next of kin, and several inquiries have been hold before successive Attorneys General, at which claims were put forward by persons claiming to be such, but none have hitherto been proved, and in the meantime the remaining moiety of the personal estate is retained on behalf of the Crown. The interest on this sum was, however, paid to Madame do L'Herault till her death. Several applications have been since received on behalf of her legatees, but Mr. Justice Madden advised that the claims of Mrs. de L'Herault were fully considered and liberally dealt with. The same view has been taken by his successors, and I am therefore unable to recommend a reconsideration of the case.

Is it not a fact that Madame L'Herault's property was brought into the settlement, was seized by the Crown and confiscated on the intestacy of her husband, that a charge was made upon her for its regrant, that she made a will while living, and was she not entitled to leave it to whom she pleased? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this case? I understand the Attorney General was Madame L'Herault's counsel, but cannot the Solicitor General be instructed to inquire into the matter.

I will consider whether this can be done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the case of a man named Russell, who recently laid claim to a field in the occupation of Mr. Eager, the rector of Killorglin, and in the possession of the Irish Church Body, and who was fined for trespass committed thereon; whether he is aware that notices have been since posted on the doors and gate of Mr. Eager's residence, threatening him with death if he does not give up the field, and that his work- men were threatened and obliged to leave the field; what stops have been taken to afford Mr. Eager protection; and whether any persons have been made amenable in respect of the threatening notices?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask if it is a fact that the Rev. Mr. Eager has published in the local papers a letter in which he bears testimony to the kindly relations existing between him and the Catholic people of Killorglin, whom he exonerates from the charge of annoying him, and in which he states that the parish priest denounced that annoyance in the most emphatic manner, declaring that if there were a continuation of it he would be the first person to help in bringing the offenders to justice. Is it not also true he thanks the priest for his action, and repudiates the opinion that he requires police protection.

Has anybody been made amenable?

I answered the question on the Paper on Friday. I have seen the letter referred to by the hon. Baronet, and it entirely bears out the statement made by my hon. Friend. It has not been deemed necessary to grant Mr. Eager personal police protection. Since the publication of the letter there has, I am told, been no recurrence of the conduct complained of. No one has been made amenable, and it looks as if the matter was at an end.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that three Roman Catholics in the employment of Mr. MacGeorge, of Silverbridge, County Armagh, were attacked by a number of men on Saturday night, 18th March, and that two of them were knocked down, kicked, and severely injured; and whether any persons have been made amenable?

I am informed that the occurrence did take place. The assaults were committed by two men who were drunk, and one of those assaulted was also the worse for drink. The persons assaulted are not able to give a description of their assailant, and no one has yet been arrested.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that telegraph extension from Poolewe to Aultbea, Ross-shire, was promised some time ago by the Post Office authorities; can he state the cause of the delay in putting the work in hand; and whether he will in this matter consider the interests of the large fishing population of the district?

I am not aware that an extension of the telegraphs to Aultbea has ever been promised by the Post Office. As the result of careful inquiry it appears that the annual expense would far exceed the revenue; and the Post Office, therefore, has no power to make the extension unless a guarantee be forthcoming. The terms of the guarantee have been stated to several applicants; and if the hon. Member would like to obtain them, perhaps he will be good enough to apply to the Department.

Is it not a fact that the landlord objects to the telegraph wires passing over his land, on the grounds that they would be injurious to the game on his estate?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a statement made by Judge Chalmers, that the perjury committed by witnesses in the Birmingham County Court exceeds anything he ever experienced in India; and whether he can take steps to deal with the matter, either by recommending the institution of criminal proceedings or by any other methods?

I have communicated with the learned Judge, and he confirms the statement referred to in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question. The present machinery for the conviction and punishment of perjury is cumbrous and expensive, and I am con- sidering whether it may not be practicable to devise some simpler, and therefore more effective, check against what appears to be a growing evil.

Does Judge Chalmers give any reason for the enormous amount of perjury in Birmingham?

No, Sir; he does not.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that there are a very large number of crofters in the Highlands who suffer great hardship through holding their crofts under lease; and whether the Government see their way to introduce a measure this Session which will bring leaseholders under the provisions of "The Crofter Act, 1886"?

Yes, Sir; I am aware that there are Highland leaseholders who ought to be in as good a position as the Irish leaseholders. There is a Bill before the House to place them in that position, which the Government will support if it comes on.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that Portnaguran, in the Point District of the Island of Lewis, was specially recommended by a recent Commission as standing greatly in need of a boat slip, pier or harbour, and that up to the present time nothing has been done, steps will be taken to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission without delay?

It is true that the Western Highlands and Islands Commission recommended the construction of a harbour at Portnaguran, to cost £30,000. But no grant of such a large amount has been made by the Treasury, nor, considering the large sums being spent elsewhere in the Lewis, am I prepared to recommend this one.

I beg (1) to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Report of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, why the accounts are not balanced or audited; (2) whether the 17 stallions and the 68 bulls which appear to have been bought at a cost of £7,500 are alive and still in the possession or control of the Board; (3) whether the words on page 42 of the Report, that the bulls are not located with actual farmers, mean that they are located with landlords; if not, what they do mean; (4) whether, seeing £1,556 was paid for curing codling and baddies, part of £8,000 spent on fishing experiments in Galway Bay, what moneys were received for these codling and baddies after they were cured, and if such receipts are fully represented by the sum of 12s. which appears in the accounts; (5) and whether, seeing he is a member of the Board, and that the revenue of the Board is obtained exclusively from an Irish source, he is willing to take steps to restrict further outlay of the nature described until the Board is placed under a properly qualified Irish authority?

I think this is a question which might well have been addressed to the Department and answered by letter, still I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the information he wishes. I am informed that (1) the accounts are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, who will report in due course; (2)15 of the stallions are alive and in the possession of the Congested Districts Board, the remaining two stallions were only hired by the Board for the season, and have been returned to their owners. Of the 68 bulls, 63 are in the possession of the persons to whom they were sold, though they are still under the control of the Board, and the remaining five are in the possession of the Board. The sum of £7,500 does not represent the actual cost of the animals; it includes also the expenditure of feeding, stabling, employment of grooms and other incidental charges; (3)the words referred to at page 42 of the Report relate only to those bulls which were located in Kerry for the improvement of the Kerry breed of cattle. They were placed, I understand, with persons considered suitable in the particular localities in which it was thought desirable that bulls should be placed for the benefit of small occupiers; (4) the sum of £1,556 for fish-curing was expended for the greater part in building curing stations, and in the payment of wages of Norwegian, Scotch, and English fish-curers. Up to the 31st December, 1892, a sum of about £60 was received for the sale of dried fish. The sum of 12s. which appears in the accounts was a refund of discount in connection with the purchase of some fishing gear.

I should like to ask the Chief Secretary why the accounts are not published with the annual balance sheet?

I do not know why, but I am aware that the energetic Secretary to the Board has done his best to get them out.

Is it not about time the first Report was issued?

I think it is already out.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the vacancies created by the revision of the Cork telegraph staff, whereby the staff was augmented, received Treasury Authority on the 20th July, 1891, have been filled with one exception, to which attention has been repeatedly called; whether he will order that the vacancy, as intended, will be filled without delay, and direct that the promotion of the officer selected shall be ante-dated to the 20th July, 1891; and whether it is proposed to transfer an officer from another post office to fill the vacancy referred to, while there are upwards of a dozen officers of long service in Cork qualified for the position?

With one exception, the appointments created by the Treasury Authority of the 20th of July, 1891, have been filled. For the appointment that remains unfilled the District Surveyor was unable to submit the name of an officer on the Cork staff whom he could recommend as thoroughly qualified. A name has now been submitted and the remaining vacancy will be filled; but the promotion cannot of course take effect from a date prior to the period which the certificate of qualification covers. How far back this certificate extends is a question into which I am now inquiring.

DO I understand it is impossible to fill up this vacancy with an officer already in the Cork office?

I understand that a recommendation has now been made. Till now the Surveyor has not felt able to recommend anyone, because he held there was no fitting person in the office.

Is it a Cork official now recommended?

I think it is; I will find out.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that a revision of the clerical staffs (postal and telegraph) of the Limerick Post Office has not taken place since November, 1887, if one has been in contemplation for over two years; and, if so, can the probable date of its application to that office be given?

The hon. Member is mistaken in saying that the revisions referred to have been in contemplation over two years. The last general revision took place in 1888, and the supervising staff was revised in 1891. New proposals have recently been made to me which involve a considerable sum of public money. I am now investigating the subject, which will be dealt with in ordinary course.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to any Order given by Guardians for the re-vaccination of all the inmates of a workhouse; whether it is made clear to the medical officers that this can only be done after consent asked and obtained; and whether any such Order applies to old and young alike?

The attention of the Local Government Board has not been called to any Order given by Guardians for the re-vaccination of all the inmates of a workhouse, but there have, no doubt, been several instances where, in consequence of cases of smallpox occurring on the workhouse premises, the Guardians have directed that, so far as the circumstances admitted, the inmates should be vaccinated or re-vaccinated when this was deemed needful by the medical officer. In the case of an adult inmate the vaccination should not be performed unless he is willing, nor in the case of a child when the parent objects. The Board have no reason to doubt that this is understood by medical officers of workhouses.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has considered the Report of the Director of the National Gallery for last year, and the strong opinion expressed in it that the proposed additions to the National Gallery on land behind it should be commenced immediately; and whether he is taking any steps to carry out his recommendation?

I have seen the opinion expressed in the Report of the Director of the National Gallery, and I quite admit that the time is approaching for a necessary extension of the Gallery. I am now negotiating with the War Office with a view to obtain for the purpose a portion of the barrack laud at the rear, by exchanging for it a part of the site of Millbank Prison.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, for the better protection of the coast fishermen against steam trawlers in the Firth of Clyde, the Government would substitute for the present sailing cutter an efficient steam vessel; and whether the station of that vessel could be transferred from Rothesay to one of the lower ports in closer proximity to the fishing grounds in danger from illegal trawling operations?

I am glad to say that the Admiralty have just granted another steam vessel, the Cockchafer, for the protection of Scottish Fisheries, which will be at the disposal of the Fishery Board according to their judgment of the use to which the vessel should be placed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Board of Works in Ireland have furnished any plans showing how the people on the east bank of Lough Corrib could avail themselves of the Galway and Oughterard Railway; and, if not, would he ask the Board of Works to prepare a Report showing what advantages would be obtained by the baronies of Clare and Moycullen from the establishment of a bridge at Knock Ferry across Lough Corrib, and what would be the probable cost of such a bridge?

No, Sir; the Board of Works have made no plans for the purpose indicated. Further, as there are no public funds applicable to such a work, I am afraid I could not call upon the Board to prepare such a design.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Board of Works to make a Report on this?

They have no power to deal with the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the applications of the tenants on the M'Cartney Estate near Belfast, whether any other applications that came before the late Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy were transferred at the same time with these to Mr. Commissioner Lynch, and if there were any special reasons for transferring the applications of the M'Cartney tenants to Mr. Lynch's Court; whether such notice was given to the tenants of the intended visit of the court valuer, Mr. Adamson, as they received prior to the visit of Mr. Babington; whether he is aware that Mr. Adamson's valuation was not produced before the second day of motion to fix the amount of security in February last; and whether any court valuer or official has since been sent to inspect these holdings?

I hope to be able to answer this question before we rise for the Easter Recess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will give a copy of, or state what are, the instructions furnished to the Sub-Commissioners acting as Inspectors under the Redemption of Rent (Ireland) Act?

I shall be happy to give the hon. Member a copy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the insanitary condition of the following police barracks in the County of Donegal: Barnescross Hut, Glengish, Kilcar, Linsfort, Glen Arranmore, Glencuigh, Dooghan, Fintown, and Cloghan; whether the police barracks at Cloghan have been condemned as unfit for habitation, and the men withdrawn there from; and whether, having regard to the fact that in the other police barracks there have been many cases of rheumatism, colds, and fever, and frequent complaints of the unhealthy state of these buildings, steps will be taken to put the several police barracks referred to in a proper sanitary condition?

I am informed that the several barracks referred to in the first paragraph (with the exception of the barrack called "Dooghan," which cannot be identified) are all in a proper sanitary condition. The police were withdrawn from Cloghan Barrack in September last, because the landlord refused to put it into a habitable state of repair. I am informed it is not true that cases of sickness, as alleged, are frequent at the other barracks in the County Donegal.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will kindly allow me to give him the information on which my question is based.

Certainly.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the men belonging to the Royal Navy because it is alleged that the cloth and serges used for their clothing do not wear so well, and especially do not retain their colour, as they formerly did; and whether, in view of the fact that during the last few months the price of indigo has advanced very considerably, care is being taken that the interests of the men shall not be prejudiced by the substitution of inferior dyes for colouring their clothes?

The Admiralty have no reason to believe that any such dissatisfaction exists. Only one complaint has been received since the new serge was introduced, which is being investigated by the Admiralty. No change has been made in the cloth issued. The tests applied render it impossible that inferior dyes to those contracted for can be used.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether these cloth serges are obtained through the Army Clothing Factory at Pimlico, or how?

I will ascertain, if my hon. Friend will put the question down.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the statement by Mr. County Surveyor Jackson, before the County Grand Jury at the present Cork Spring Assizes, that it was difficult to get Magistrates to sign sudden Bench orders, and on one occasion he had to bring three Bandon Magistrates through West Muskerry (and pay their expenses) to get these orders signed; and, if so, will he communicate with the Lord Lieutenant of the county with a view to provide a remedy for this state of things?

I have only seen a newspaper report of this statement alleged to have been made by the County Surveyor, but the matter shall have my attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he has received a further resolution passed by the Kinsale Harbour Commissioners in reference to the receivership; and, taking into consideration the present embarrassed condition of the finances of the Board, will he allow the present acting receiver to perform the duties as set forth in the resolution, in order to enable them to practise all the economy possible?

I have seen the resolution referred to, but I cannot add anything to my answer of the 21st February on the same subject. A receiver has been appointed by the Court of Chancery, and it is not in the power of the Board of Works or the Treasury to substitute another for him.

Cannot the Board of Works communicate with the Court of Chancery with the view of retaining the present manager?

The Harbour Commissioners might have appeared to urge their views before the Court, but this course was apparently not taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War to what extent the magazine rifle has been issued to the troops; how many rifles have been distributed in India; what steps, if any, have been taken to give the soldiers magazine practice with the rifle; and whether the Government have adopted any system of miniature practice for the magazine, such as that used in the Martini rifle?

The magazine rifle has been issued to all the battalions of Infantry at home and in the Colonies, except to eight battalions in Ireland and four abroad, the rifles of which are ready and will be issued as soon as suitable ranges can be provided. Twenty-three companies of Royal Engineers have also got the now rifle; 70,000 have been sent to India; but the distribution there rests with the Local Authorities. Magazine practice forms part of the regular annual course of instruction for all troops armed with the Lee-Metford rifle, for which a system of miniature practice has been introduced.

Does the miniature system extend to practice with the magazine rifle?

It is suitable to the new rifle.

Is it not the Morris tube system?

I must ask the hon. and gallant Member for notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to supply the Volunteers with a rifle of the same bore as the magazine rifle?

For the present the Volunteers will retain the Martini-Henry rifle, of which a large number are available.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Government propose to introduce a Bill this Session to give effect to the unanimous recommendation of the Committee on the Solway White Fishing? In asking this, I may explain that I understand a certain number of Amendments are being drafted in respect of the Bill now before the House.

The Government cannot introduce another Fishery Bill until that now before the House is disposed of. If the hon. Member will introduce a Bill on the Sparling Fishery which will work in with the Deep Sea Fisheries Bill, under which the counties bordering on the Solway Firth will be included in the South West Fishery Committee, and will help to return a member to the Fishery Board, the Government will give it favourable consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the War Office has been called to the fact that aluminium horse shoes have been tried by the Russian Cavalry, with the most successful results; is he aware that they preserve the feet of horses much better than iron ones, as the shoes never break, that they can be used over and over again, and are only one-third the weight of iron shoes; and whether the War Office will see their way to giving them a trial?

My attention has been drawn to these horse shoos, which have been well tested in the German and Russian Armies. The aluminium shoes have several advantages, but it is doubtful whether they preserve the horses' feet better than iron shoes, and their cost is at present prohibitive.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to statements in The Daily News and Daily Telegraph regarding the great difference between the prices of fish paid to fishermen at Grimsby, Yarmouth, Galway, and other fishing ports, and those charged in Billingsgate Market; and whether, in view of the great importance of a cheap and constant supply of fish to the population of London, he will communicate with the London County Council as to the establishment of fish markets in various parts of the Metropolis?

My attention had not been directed to the statements referred to prior to notice being given of the question. The London County Council have no powers for the establishment of fish markets in the Metropolis, and I cannot undertake to communicate with them as suggested. The County Council were empowered by their General Powers Act, 1891, to make inquiries as to markets; and I observe that a Bill has been introduced this Session to enable them to establish markets in the County of London. The Bill now awaits Second Reading.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the last few days six tons of fish have been destroyed to keep up the price?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that letters which arrive at the Chief Post Office, Belfast, viâ Dublin and Larne, shortly after 9 a.m., are not delivered in some parts of the Knock District within the Parliamentary borough until 4 p.m., too late for reply by that day's post; and whether he will take steps to have this delay done away with?

The hon. Member's statement is correct; but I have just sanctioned an arrangement under which the letters referred to will be sent out for delivery at 11 a.m.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that Glasgow has only one shipping office, while Liverpool has three and Glasgow has two; whether he is aware that the Glasgow Shipping Office is fully a mile from the two largest docks, and fully two miles from the quarters where seamen most live; and whether he will undertake to establish a second shipping office in the neighbourhood of the Queen's Dock for the benefit of men living in Partick, Govan, or Plantation, and shipping from the Queen's and Cessnock Dock?

Under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, the duty of establishing Mercantile Marine Offices devolves upon the Local Marine Board of the port, if there be one, which is the case at Glasgow. No representations have been made to the Board of Trade showing the need of a second Mercantile Marine Office at Glasgow.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland from what source the moneys recently promised by him to the Counties of Ross and Inverness for roads and footpaths are derived; and whether they come from sums already voted by Parliament, or whether they are included in the present Estimates; and, if so, under what Vote?

The Treasury made a special grant of £10,000 in aid of roads in the Highlands and Islands. Of this sum £4,500 is being spent this year, and is being met by savings in other Estimates. The balance will be met from the Vote of the Highlands and Islands Grant in Aid of Public Works and Communications.

Is the grant of £10,000 an annual grant?

It was refused by the late Government, but made by the present one.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, as stated in The Freeman's Journal of 23rd March, 1893, a process server, attempting to serve nine writs from the Superior Courts in Dublin, was attacked by a mob, knocked down, and beaten and pelted with mud; that eight of the writs were taken from him by force, and that he was told not to come there again if he valued his life; whether the Vice Chancellor of Ireland, as Vacation Judge, has directed that sealed copies of the writs be issued out of the Record and Writ Office, and service effected by means of registered letters; and will the Government institute steps to enforce the law in County Mayo?

I understand there is another side to this story. I say that without impugning the facts mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I will make inquiry into the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade at what date the works at the Channel Tunnel were last visited by an Inspector from his Department; and if he will lay upon the Table the Report then made?

Major Marindin last inspected the works at the Channel Tunnel on the 12th April, 1890, when he reported that the works were in exactly the same state as upon the date of his previous visit in July, 1888. His Report of that visit was laid upon the Table on the 30th July, 1888, and printed.

Has there been no inspection since 1890?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Channel Squadron will visit Lough Foyle and Lough Swilly this summer or autumn?

This question has not been under consideration as yet.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will lay upon the Table a list of the names and addresses of the newly-appointed local Labour Correspondents?

As already stated, I propose to present to the House shortly after Easter a Memorandum as to the organisation and work of the Labour Department, and in this Memorandum I will include the names and addresses referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if it is a fact that a Mr. Gray contracted with the Irish Board of Works to erect the pier at Kinsale for the sum of £13,879, and after performing portion of the work the Board of Works released him from his contract; and whether Mr. Gray gave security for the duo performance of his contract; and, if so, why he was released from fulfilling his obligations in connection therewith?

Mr. Gray entered into the contract referred to in 1883, but after performing a portion of the work he fell into financial embarrassments, and the Board of Works had no alternative but to take over the works, rescinding the contract and taking possession of plant belonging to Mr. Gray to the value of over £1,000. Mr. Gray did not give personal security for the fulfilment of the contract, but security was taken in the form of retention of a proportion of the payments due to him for work done.

In consequence of Mr. Gray being unable to fulfil his contract did not a heavy expenditure fall on the Harbour Board?

asked for notice of that.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table the text of the Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and France in respect to trade with Canada, cither with or without correspondence us may be convenient?

The text of the Agreement will be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the dangerous condition of the road to the Druidical stones at Callernish, Island of Lewis; and whether these stones and the approaches thereto are claimed by the Crown under the Ancient Monuments Act; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to put the road in a proper state of repair?

The stones of Callernish are an ancient monument under the care of the Commissioners of Works. The approach to them appears to be a public footpath loading to other places; but I am advised that I should not be justified in relieving the Local Authorities of the cost of maintaining this footpath.

Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the illegal notice-boards, by which the Crown claims the approaches to the stones, so that persons interested in ancient monuments may have the necessary repairs done to the road?

was understood to reply in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to raise the Mission in Washington from the rank of a Legation to that of an Embassy; and whether Her Majesty's Government have been notified by the United States Government of their corresponding intention to raise their Minister in this country to the position of an Ambassador?

Will the present First Secretary of the Legation be affected by the change?

On the 20th instant Sir Julian Pauncefote was appointed Ambassador to the United States, and at once notified the fact to the Secretary of State. Her Majesty's Government have been informed that it is the intention of the United States Government to accredit a Representative of similar rank to the Court of St. James's, in acceptance and reciprocation of Her Majesty's friendly action. With regard to the supple- mental question, I can only say that promotion is made at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and that discretion is in no way impaired by the new appointment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention was called to a meeting held on 25th September, 1892, at Brade, near Myrosswood, in the County of Cork, for the purpose of denouncing Captain Townshend, of Myrosswood, for evicting a tenant, at which meeting the Rev. J. Lyons, Administrator, said that he expected the people of that locality had been sufficiently educated to know what their duty was on that occasion, and knowing it to act up to it; whether he is aware that, since the delivery of that speech, Captain Townshend and his family have been subjected to constant annoyance, and that the women belonging to the family of the evicted tenant were recently bound over to keep the peace for molesting Captain Townshend and his mother and sister while going to church; whether he is also aware that letters and notices have been received by the blacksmiths who work for Captain Townshend, and by a neighbouring shopkeeper who has supplied his servants with provisions, threatening them with death; and whether he is taking any steps to put a stop to this system of persecution?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the gist of the speech was simply the expression of a hope that nobody would take the farm?

My attention was drawn to the proceedings at the meeting mentioned in the first paragraph of the question. Several members of the evicted tenant's family were convicted and fined on February 17 for trespass on the lands of the evicted farm, and on the 17th instant two female members of the family were bound over to keep the peace as stated. The facts are correctly set forth in the third paragraph, though I am glad to say that the notices have not had the effect desired by their authors. Every possible effort is being used to put a stop to these practices, and protection of the most ample nature has been, and is, afforded to Captain Townshend and his servants.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can say, for the information of owners and breeders of stock in the United Kingdom, what is the period of incubation in a case of pleuropneumonia before the disease can be detected with certainty in a living animal; whether he is aware that there are various instances on record in which it is impossible to detect the disease in the living animal, although it has been proved by examination after death that it must have been affected for a prolonged period of time; and what is the longest period within the knowledge of the Board of Agriculture during which an animal has been so affected without detection of the disease?

The period which occurs between the exposure to infection and the appearance of symptoms of pleuro-pneumonia is ordinarily about 30 days, although it sometimes extends to 90. Instances are on record in which post-mortem examination has shown an animal to have been affected with disease of long standing, the existence of which was not previously suspected, but in these cases it is probable that the disease would have been detected if the animal had been examined by an expert prior to slaughter. In one exceptional case which came under the notice of the professional officers of my Department, an animal appeared to have been affected for about a year without being detected, but the ordinary period of development of the disease is that which I have stated.

Is it intended by the Board to institute a series of scientific experiments, so that such questions as these may be decided?

I should like to ask whether in many cases in which disease has been found after death it was latent and not attributable to infection?

I should like to have notice of that. I have stated to the House the best opinion I could get, that of the highest experts. I am not a veterinary surgeon myself.

But will a series of scientific experiments be instituted, so as to secure for us the information which the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot give?

I shall be happy to consider any suggestions by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Auditor from the National Debt Office in auditing the Accounts of the Royal Patriotic Fund for the years 1891 and 1892, in which he stated that the requisite administrative authority for the payment made for office salaries, &c. not having yet been obtained, he was again unable to certify the accuracy of the disbursements made under that head, but learned from the minutes of the Executive and Finance Committee that the matter Is under investigation, and suggests that this should be brought into accordance with the requirements of the Supplementary Commission of the 26th March 1868, with as little delay as possible, as this is now the third year in which he has had to take exception to these payments; and what steps, if any, have the Royal Commission of the Patriotic Fund taken to carry out the Auditor's Report of 1892?

This question should in strictness have been addressed to the Secretary of State for War, but I am in a position to state that a scheme has been sanctioned for the office establishment referred to, and the necessary Royal Warrants have been issued and reached the Office of the Commission of the Patriotic Fund on the 18th instant.

But has the Report of the Auditor been carried out, and, if not, what steps are to be taken?

The warrant fixing the establishment for the office for the Royal Patriotic Fund has been signed, and that carries out the Report.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the attack on the house of the Rev. J. Lewis, Congregational minister at Castlefin, County Donegal, on Saturday night last, when stones were thrown through the lobby and kitchen windows, nearly hitting the servant and children on their heads; if he is aware that the Rev. J. Lewis asserts that the only cause for such treatment is the fact that he spoke a few mild words against Home Rule the previous evening at a Unionist meeting; and if now the house of the reverend gentleman is under police protection?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this clergyman has for 10 years been in his present sphere of duty without the slightest molestation although his opinions are well-known; and is he also aware that in recent times a serious difference of opinion has arisen between him and his parishioners, with the result that his services have now to be conducted with a force of police at the doors?

Does the hon. Member think it such a great affair for a man to be allowed to live 10 years without molestation in Ireland?

From a Report received from the Constabulary authorities it appears that stones were thrown at two windows of houses. The regrettable circumstance referred to in the hon. Member's question did take place. The police will take all necessary steps to prevent its recurrence. I am not aware whether the only provocation given by the Rev. Mr. Lewis was his speaking against Home Rule at a Unionist meeting. I cannot say whether the circumstances mentioned in the supplemental question are correct.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement of the rev. gentleman, that he believes the only provocation he gave was speaking at a Unionist meeting?

Looking at the notorious circumstances there has been a feud among the Congregational body so violent that the police had to be called in, is there any ground for suspecting that the stone-throwing was done by the Nationalists?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now give an approximate estimate of the number of new electors who will be placed on the register under the provisions of the Registration of Electors Amendment Bill; and, if not, whether he will cause such inquiries to be made as will enable him to give this information to the House?

The answer is precisely the same as I gave a week ago.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the reasons why the Evicted Tenants Commission refused to consider the case of Mr. Patrick Kelly, Coore, County Clare, an evicted tenant?

While I am not directly responsible for the acts of the Evicted Tenants Commission, to which the hon. Member refers, I may say I understand they decided that the cases of tenants not resident in Ireland did not come within the scope of the inquiry, and that in this particular case the tenant was resident in America, and they were, therefore, unable to deal with his case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Military Authorities have reason to believe that any men of the Army Reserve serve as Militia soldiers in regiments of Militia; and, if so, whether steps can be taken to prevent this practice; and whether he can now state if any system has been yet decided upon for the coming drill season to give some military training to men of the Reserve, without unduly interfering with their employment in civil life?

The Military Authorities have no reason to believe that the practice referred to by the hon. and gallant Member exists to any serious extent. On attestation for the Militia a man has to state whether he has served in the Regular Army; and a false answer, if subsequently dis- covered, would involve severe punishment. It is proposed this year to train all Infantry reservists who passed to the Reserve after March 31, 1891, and who have not been already trained, in the use of the magazine rifle.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of causing all soldiers in the Army Reserve and Militia to report themselves at some convenient place to themselves on a given day, so that any frauds of this kind may be discovered?

I dare say it would be desirable to do that if possible, and the hon. Gentleman has had ample opportunity of ascertaining the possibility.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the serious objections to the use in markets and fairs of dial weighing machines for weighing cattle, as they are generally graded in divisions only of 28 lbs., and are practically untrustworthy; and whether he would be prepared to enforce, by legislation or otherwise, the usage by Market Authorities of machines graded in divisions of 1 lb.?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the objections against the use of insufficiently graded machines for weighing cattle, and I think there is great force in the representations made to me on the subject. In view of the fact that the Market Authorities are required by law to provide and maintain sufficient and suitable accommodation for weighing cattle, unless exempted by Order of the Board of Agriculture, my impression is that further legislation is not necessary; and I shall be glad to receive and consider particulars of any case in which there is reason to believe that the accommodation provided is not of the character contemplated by the statute.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any provision has been made in the Government of Ireland Bill for Clerks of the Peace appointed prior to 1877 under the provisions of 1 George IV., c. 27; and, if so, in which clause of the said Bill; and whether they will be scheduled as Civil Servants entitled to the full special pension now provided for them by 40 & 41 Vict., c. 56, s. 24?

This is a matter at the present moment receiving the attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a County Council purchasing land under "The Small Holdings Act, 1892," for the purpose of letting it under Section 4, Sub-section 2, of that Act, may charge the rates with the repayment of the money borrowed; and whether, if thought desirable, County Stock might be created for that purpose?

The purchase of land by a County Council for the purpose of letting it under Section 4, Subsection 2, of the Small Holdings Act, 1892, is a purpose for which money may be borrowed under Section 19 of that Act on the security of the County Fund and of any revenues of the Council, or on either such fund or revenues, or any part of the revenues. Loans for this purpose may be raised by Stock under Sections 69 (8) and 70 of the Local Government Act, 1888.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Dublin Port and Docks Board under their Rules admit the importation of manufactured articles free, especially a great quantity of foreign joinery, whilst the raw material is subject to the payment of heavy dock dues; and whether, in view of the discontent engendered amongst Irish workmen, who state they have previously complained of this bounty system to importers, he can hold out hopes that some remedy will be found for the present state of things?

In reply to the hon. Member's question, I an informed by the Dublin Port and Docks Board that manufactured articles entering the Port of Dublin pay no duty as such. The ship conveys them as cargo and pays on her registered tonnage only. Practically there are no dues on goods in Dublin except that in the case of wood, raw material, a charge of 5½d. is made on a ton weight of timber, which it is apparent would not materially affect home manufactures.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Companies have under consideration the precise definition of a reasonable time as applied to the carriage of live stock; whether exceptional cases, such as the detention of animals for 30 or 24 hours in railway trucks, comes within that term; and whether compensation for undue delay and deterioration comes within the scope of the statement which is to be placed before the House at Easter?

The Board of Trade have no power to determine what is a "reasonable time" as applied to the carriage of live stock, but if any case of undue detention is brought under my notice I will call upon the Railway Company for an explanation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the proposal to station a Battalion of the Guards in Egypt is a temporary measure, or whether it is proposed that a Battalion of the Guards should be on foreign service permanently?

I have nothing to add to what I have already said on this question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the boycotting of Median, if he can state the result of his promised inquiries as to why the Inspector did not report that case to the Judge?

The County Inspector explains that the Judge only arrived at Carrick-on-Shannon half-an- hour before the Commission of Assize opened, and that in the very limited interval at his disposal the Judge confined his observations entirely to the particulars in the Crime Returns handed to him by the County Inspector. The latter had with him a statement of Meehan's case, and his omission to acquaint the Judge with the facts was, I am satisfied, quite unintentional, in view of the limited time available for the interview. I have already stated that the Authorities had nothing whatever to gay in the matter.

May I ask the Home Secretary whether it is the practice of English Inspectors of Police to inform Judges of Assize about crimes which have not to come before them, and in regard to persons not named in the Calendar?

I do not think it is.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, in reference to the systematic examination that is to be made of the lungs of the cattle from Canada landed in this country, whether the lungs of all animals that are landed at the different ports will be examined and by whom the examination will be made, by officials of the Board or otherwise; what are the Regulations at present in force to prevent the introduction of animals from the United States into Canada, and whether those Regulations are thoroughly effective for the purpose; what is the length of the frontier between the two countries across which cattle can be introduced from the United States into Canada; and whether he is satisfied that no animals from the United States, by smuggling or otherwise, are introduced in defiance of the Regulations into Canada?

The arrangements for the purposed examination of the lungs of cattle landed in this country from Canada are not yet completely formulated, but we shall provide for the inspection of the lungs of all the animals under proper supervision, and for the submission to the veterinary officers of the Department of every case in which there is the least suspicion of disease. The Regulations at present in force in Canada prohibit the introduction of animals from the United States without special examination and a quarantine detention of 90 days, and they are only allowed to enter at certain fixed stations. The Canadian Government believe that those Regulations are thoroughly effective, and I see no reason to doubt that they afford reasonable security against the introduction of disease. The length of the frontier between Canada and the United States is approximately about 4,000 miles. I am assured that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the Canadian Government no animals are introduced into Canada, by smuggling or otherwise, in defiance of the Regulations; and inasmuch as the prevention of the introduction of disease into the Dominion, and the privilege of the free entry of cattle into this country, are involved, it is obviously to the interest of the Canadian Government to use every means in their power to prevent any breach of the law.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the Regulations are not violated in any case?

I am satisfied there is every reasonable security taken.

Before taking further steps, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of consulting Jewish Authorities, who have for many hundreds of years had a satisfactory system in this respect?

I am not at all acquainted with the Jewish system. I shall be glad to receive any information which can be afforded me.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the allegation made to him by a deputation of Clyde fishermen, on the 25th November, that the trawlers admitted under the bye-law of the Fishery Board for Scotland to trawl in a limited portion of the waters of the Clyde exceed the limit of size of 8 tons burden permitted by said bye-law, he has caused any independent and reliable measurements of the tons burden of said trawlers to be taken?

An inquiry has been made by Mr. Anderson Smith, a well-known and independent member of the Scottish Fishery Board, into the allegation of the Clyde fishermen that the trawlers exceed the limit of 8 tons burden allowed them by the Fishery Board. He considers that the allegation is not proved.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the additional holiday to the clerks at the General Post Office at Easter will be allowed to them this year?

The holidays will be the same as were given last year.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that all the counties in Scotland, except the Counties of Berwick, Haddington, and Forfar, have acted on the Rule laid down by the Scotch Office in 1890, and appointed medical officers who are debarred from accepting private practice; and whether, in view of the importance to the efficient sanitary administration under Scotch County Councils that their medical officers should be absolutely independent, and also in view of the provisions of "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890," he will continue to distribute the grant on the conditions laid down in 1890?

I am informed that not only the counties mentioned in the question, but Orkney and Shetland, Bute and Arran, Kinross and Ross-shire, were made exceptions to the Rule. I think the County Councils can best judge whether or not their medical officer should take practice, and that was certainly the intention of Parliament. I express no opinion about, and still less against, the policy of confining the medical officer to his public work; but where so many exceptions have to be made they should be made, if necessary, by the body which has total knowledge and total responsibility.

Does the right hon. Gentleman adhere to the Rule of 1890?

I thought I had explained the reasons of the departure. There are so many exceptions, that I think it necessary they should be made by the County Councils themselves, and not by the Central Board, which was not intended by the Act of Parliament to make the exceptions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what progress has been made in the arrangements for the removal of the Inland Revenue offices at Bristol to more convenient buildings in a central position?

Plans have been prepared for new offices in Small Street, near the post office, and they are under the consideration of the Commissioners of Works and of Inland Revenue.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has reconsidered the question of establishing in this country the "C. O. D.," or cash on delivery system, which is so popular in India and the Continent, and by means of which a person may order a book or any small article from a tradesman, and the parcel postman or letter carrier is authorized to receive payment for the same on delivery; and whether he is aware that the system is popular in the countries referred to, and the commission is a considerable source of revenue to the post offices concerned?

The subject to which the hon. Member refers has been engaging my attention, but I have not as yet arrived at a conclusion with regard to the matter, which requires a good deal of consideration. I may say I have been making inquiries into the working of the system in some of the Continental post offices.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is now, or, if not, when he will be, in a position to make a definite statement its to the intentions of the Government with regard to the abolition or otherwise of the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards; and when, and in what manner, the financial proposals necessary to give effect to the Amendment accepted by the Government on the 6th inst. will be placed before the House?

The inquiry into the numerous questions affecting the dockyards, of which this is one, is proceeding; but will take some time longer. As soon as a decision is arrived at I shall be glad to inform the hon. Member of the result. The second question, affecting all Government employés, is one which ought to be addressed to the Treasury.

When may we expect to know the result? This matter has been several times before the House.

I have said the inquiry must take some time longer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state what warrant officers, noncommissioned officers, and men in the Army, carry pistols or revolvers as part of their ordinary equipment; whether these soldiers are duly instructed and trained in the use of these arms; whether it is the case that commissioned officers never carry revolvers except when proceeding on active service, and never receive any instruction or training in the use of that weapon; and whether he will consider the desirability of officially recognising the revolver as part of an officer's ordinary equipment, and providing all ranks thus armed with a regular course of instruction and training in revolver practice?

In the Cavalry revolvers are carried by sergeant-majors, quartermaster sergeants, trumpeters, and sergeant farriers; in the Artillery and Engineers by corresponding ranks and a few others of the mounted troops, and by 25 per cent. of the drivers. Revolvers are not carried by the Infantry. The Regulations prescribe for these noncommissioned officers and men annual instruction and practice with the weapon. Commissioned officers only carry revolvers on active service, and are not instructed in their use; but arrangements are under consideration for improving the system of instruction in revolver firing. It is not contemplated to make the revolver part of an officer's ordinary equipment.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that Militia candidates for commissions in the Army are not, by the present Regulations, eligible for appointment to the West India Regiment; and, if so, whether he can state the reason for this disqualification?

Application from a Militia candidate for a commission in the West India Regiment has occurred but rarely, but I know of no objection to such an appointment if there should at any time be a vacancy available. As, however, a Militia candidate is eligible for a commission in the Line till nearly the age which is the present limit for appointment to the West India Regiment, and that limit is in course of reduction, it would be a doubtful advantage to offer commissions in the West India Regiment in exchange for the same number in regiments of the Line.

In the absence of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Government of India have, for many years in succession, pressed for the supply of the whole of the breech-loading field guns required to complete the equipment of the Royal Artillery in India; that money necessary for the purchase of the guns has year after year been granted by the Government of India; that these grants have lapsed owing to the failure of the War Office to carry out their engagement to supply these guns; and that the Government of India having, in consequence of such failure, proposed that the guns should be obtained from private manufacturers outside the War Office, he will explain the grounds on which this proposal was negatived by the Home Authorities?

There does not appear to have been any serious default on the part of the War Office in carrying out their engagements, but I may say that the manufacture of ordnance, both for field and fortress service, has been quite abnormal during the last few years, and that it has been impossible to supply all demands as quickly as we should have wished without an expenditure on plant, either in the Government factories or by contractors, which must have been left to lie idle when the re-armaments had been completed. The India Office have stated in the past that, as regards 12-pounder field guns, those they have asked for cover their total requirements. Omitting the batteries which were shipped to India in 1887 and 1888, the number demanded is 347. Of these, 270 have already been shipped to India; 36 more now await shipment; and of the remaining 41 there are 38 well advanced in the Ordnance Factories. I understand that the Government of India did propose that the field guns wanting to complete should be obtained from private manufacturers; the Home Authority which negatived the proposal was not the War Office, but the India Office. I may add that the experience of the War Department in obtaining this class of gun from contractors has been anything but satisfactory.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the annuities for the repayment of advances made under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," and "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1888," are among the sums which would be charged or chargeable on the Irish Consolidated Fund in favour of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom under the provisions of Clause 14 of the Government of Ireland Bill?

The advances made under the Purchase of Land Acts, 1885 and 1888, will be repaid by the Irish Exchequer to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom by means of the annuity set up under Clause 16 of the Bill; and this annuity will be charged upon the Irish Consolidated Fund by Clause 14.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament are to receive the same salaries as British Members?

The hon. Member seems to think there is an allowance or salary payable to British Members of Parliament. I am not aware of the fact. If there is I can see no reason whatever why Irish Members should be excluded from it.

Why should Members who do less work be paid the same?

What are the intentions of the Government as to concluding the Debate on the Employers' Liability Bill?

The Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill will be resumed at the earliest possible moment.

I desire, Sir, to call attention to an error in the Journals of Saturday morning's Sitting. It is recorded at page 288 that in the Committee stage on the Army Annual Bill—

"Mr. Conybeare rose to move on Clause 2 that the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put. Question put, that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 238; Noes 127."

Now, Sir, I desire to point out that that is hardly an accurate record of the proceedings at that stage. What took place was this——

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether a challenge as to the accuracy of the Journals should not be by Motion?

No; I think not. If there is an erroneous entry in the Votes I can order it to be corrected.

I wish to ask you, Sir, whether an alleged error in the Journals should not be brought personally to your notice, and not made the subject of debate in this House?

Action of this kind has been taken before in similar cases. If the hon. Member can substantiate his assertion that there is an error in the Votes and Proceedings I will have it altered.

Before you, Sir, or the House can be satisfied I must be heard. What took place was this; The hon. Member for King's Lynn, on Clause 2, was moving an Amendment. He had not moved. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire moved that the Question be now put. The Chairman took no notice of that Motion, and the hon. Member for King's Lynn proceeded with his speech. A few minutes later the hon. Member for North Louth asked the Chairman whether the Amendment of the hon. Member for King's Lynn was in Order, seeing that the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill" had been put. The Chairman ruled that he had not put the Question "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill," and called upon the hon. Member for King's Lynn to move his Amendment. Immediately after that the hon. Member for Camborne rose in his place, and simply moved "That the Question be now put." The Chairman rose and put the Question, "That the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put." I submit, in the first place, that no such Motion was made by the hon. Member for Camborne. The Motion moved by him was simply, "That the Question be now put." I have the Closure Rule in my hand, and desire to read the latter part of the Rule.

I rise again to Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member must not confine himself to the alleged error in the Journals? He cannot, I submit, discuss what did or did not take place?

Before I can adjudicate upon the facts I must he acquainted with what took place.

The second part of the Closure Rule reads—

"When the Motion 'That the Question be now put' has been earned, and the Question consequent thereon has been decided, any further Motion may be made which may be requisite to bring to a decision any Question already proposed from the Chair; and also, if a clause be then under consideration, the Motion may be made, as aforesaid, that the Question that certain words of the clause defined in the Motion stand part of the clause, or that the clause stand part of or be added to the Bill, be now put."

The House will see that the Motion must be made, and I submit that the hon. Member for Camborne made no such Motion, that no such Motion was made in the Committee; that the Chairman put it and that it was at once challenged.

I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member has said that the Chairman of Com- mittees put a Motion that was not made. In other words, he has said that the Chairman of Committees did not properly carry out his duty as Chairman. I desire to ask whether it is competent under the guise of a mere correction of the Journals to impugn the conduct of the Chairman of Committees?

I do not understand the hon. Member to be impugning the conduct of the Chairman. He is, I understand, stating his impression of what took place. I need hardly say that I will take no part in this matter. The Chairman of Committees will offer an explanation, and I can then decide whether the entry is right.

I have not the slightest intention of impugning the conduct of the Chairman. My point is that there appears on the Journals a record that the hon. Member for Camborne moved a specific Motion. I say that no such Motion was made. I am in the recollection of the House, and there is not a newspaper report in London that does not bear out my statement. What I desire to ask is whether the simple Motion "That the Question be now put" can be interpreted as stopping an Amendment before the Committee, and closing discussion on a clause?

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, and the permission of the House, I will take the unusual course of explaining my ruling on Friday. The hon. Member for South Tyrone has taken an extremely fine and technical point, and I should like to explain exactly what took place. The hon. Member has, I think, correctly stated the facts. Clause 2 had been called on for discussion, and was the only matter before the Committee at that time. I had, in the ordinary way, called out "Clause 2." The clause then became under consideration, and my duty as Chairman was to see whether any Amendment would be moved. I was waiting for an Amendment when the hon. Member for North Louth asked me whether Clause 2 had been put. I replied that it had not. If no Amendment had been moved, the next Question would have been "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill." Before I could put that Question the hon. Member for Camborne moved in general terms "That the Question be now put." That is the ordinary form in which the Closure is moved, and I think that if an hon. Member moves a Motion while I am in the Chair I am bound to impute to him that he is doing it in accordance with the Rules of the House and common sense. The only possible Question that could be put was "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill be now put," that clause being then under consideration. That is what I should suppose was what any hon. Member who moved the Closure at that moment meant, for it was the only possible mode in which the Closure could be moved or accepted. I interpreted it according to the mode in which I sincerely trust I shall always interpret the Motion of any hon. Member, and that is to put the only construction on it allowed by the Rules of the House. Under the circumstances, I put the Question in the form which the hon. Member for South Tyrone mentions. His complaint is that the hon. Member for Cam-borne did not move in precisely the same words as those in which I put the Question —that is, that I put an interpretation on the words of the hon. Member for Camborne, which I submit was the only interpretation I could possibly put upon them.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say one word in connection with what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman.

No Debate can arise. The House has heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I am bound to say that I do not think there is any error in the record.

I wish to ask the hon. Member for the Guildford Division whether he had permission of any gentleman in charge——

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not continue the discussion.

The question I was about to ask has reference to the Places of Public Worship (Enfranchisement of Leases) Bill—namely, whether the hon. Gentleman had any permission from the promoters of the Bill to move on Friday its adjournment for over a fortnight?

I had no permission whatever. I made that Motion because certain proceedings had taken place in the Grand Committee on Law which made it necessary that there should be further consideration of the Bill, that was not then printed. For that reason I moved the Adjournment.

Yes, at 5 o'clock in the morning.

I desire to ask permission of the House to make a few observations—a permission which I think it never refuses when claimed for the purpose of making a personal explanation. The occasion for the personal explanation arises out of a speech made on Friday afternoon by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not going into any matter which involves either argument or opinion. This I should not be justified in obtruding upon the House, and I desire to confine myself to an issue raised involving a matter of fact. On the Consolidated Fund Bill I drew attention to the fact that in my opinion the question as to how certain Estimates had been framed, and the Rules regulating such framing, were involved in doubt; and I went on more specifically to allege that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that no provision was made in the Supplementary Estimates for the Evicted Tenants Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated dissent. I proceeded to say that the circumstance had passed out of the right hon. Gentleman's recollection, but that the right hon. Gentleman, in reply to a question put across the floor of the House, had said that there was no provision in the Supplementary Estimates for the Evicted Tenants Commission. The Chancellor of the Exchequer again intimated dissent. That intimation of dissent is recorded in the newspapers, and it took a form, audible to myself, of a very definite and distinct kind. The right hon. Gentleman said in reply—

"I have never been asked the question before, but I am prepared to say now that I take the responsibility of the way in which these Estimates were framed. As to excluding the Evicted Tenants Commission. I was always of opinion that the proceedings of that Commission could properly be discussed under the Estimate, and they have been discussed."

I think the House will see that the statement which I attributed to the right hon. Gentleman, and from which he pointedly dissented, and which he distinctly contradicts in his reply, involves a very serious discrepancy between us as to a matter of fact; because I take it that it cannot be denied, and I was certainly informed by the Chairman of Committees, that if the Evicted Tenants Commission had been excluded from the Supplementary Estimates no discussion upon the subject could have been permitted in Committee.

I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask whether a personal explanation of observations justify the continuance of an argument as to a discrepancy between the right hon. Gentleman and the Chancellor of the Exchequer?