had the following Notice of Motion on the Paper:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill to strike out of the Bill the Provisional Order empowering the Llandrindod Wells Water Company to raise additional capital."

The other day the House sanctioned the Second Reading of a cluster of Bills of which this Bill forms one. To move an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to strike out one whole Bill is quite an unprecedented exercise of the right of Instruction, and would not be in Order. The hon. Gentleman, however, has got his remedy. The time for petitioning has not expired yet; and if a Petition is presented it will go, I understand, before the ordinary Committee, and will be dealt with as that Committee thinks fit.

, in moving that the Lords' Amendment to this Bill be considered, said, the Amendment had been introduced by the Home Office for the purpose of enabling different and more beneficial investment of funds intended for pension purposes.

, in moving that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered, said, the only alterations which had been made in another place were one or two drafting Amendments, with the addition of clauses proposed by the Scotch Office. One was to the effect that Magistrates would always sit in open Court, and the other was a saving clause in regard to a Glasgow Bill.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Lord Cromarty's gamekeeper and two watchers stopped a crew of Ullapool fishermen on the 13th ultimo at 11 p.m. when fishing for bait, at a spot which for the past 60 years has been regularly frequented by the fishermen for that purpose; that the gamekeeper seized a small sea trout which was in the net and threw it into the boat, with the object of securing a conviction against them for poaching for sea trout; and whether he will take any action in the matter?

This question appears to relate to an occurrence which took place at the mouth of the Ullapool River—the gamekeeper and watchers were not servants of Lord Cromarty, but of the sporting tenant, who is about to institute proceedings against two of the fishermen, charging them with contravention of the Act of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 95. The whole facts of the case will, doubtless, be elicited at the trial, a report of which I have asked to be sent to me, and I shall then see whether any further action is called for.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any opinion has been received from the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, relative to the public rights on the foreshore of Barry Links; whether the Memorial from the Commissioners of Carnoustie, respecting the danger to the lieges from artillery practice, has beer considered; and what decision has beer arrived at with regard to the same?

The opinion of the Lord Advocate has been received. It is to the effect that the War Department has power to make bye-laws to regulate the use by the public of the foreshore on Barry Links. The Memorial from the Commissioners of Carnoustie has been considered, and it has been found that no new situation as regards foreshores has been created by the recent purchase, seeing that artillery fire across them has gone on for several years past. Bye-laws will be made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government or Secretary of State have considered the state of things existing in St. Helena, as revealed in the Report No. 63 for 1891, recently issued, in which the Governor states that his gloomy forebodings in 1890 were more than justified by the year under review; and whether, in view of the general financial depression and the serious fall in the Revenue, the serious character of the Census Return, which shows an excess of females over males of about 16 per cent., and the state of things described in the Report, the Secretary of State will consider the advisability of assisting some of these people to emigrate to South Africa who may desire to do so, and generally to consider whether the condition of the island demands more attention than it appears to have received?

The melancholy state of things existing in St. Helena has received the most anxious consideration of the Secretary of State. An account of the efforts which have been made ever since the shipping began to decline, more than 20 years ago, to find employment for the people by developing the natural resources of the island will be found in the Annual Report for 1889. Unfortunately, these efforts have not been successful; and the only remedy for the distress is, probably, to be found in emigration. In 1891, through the kindness of the Admiralty, 75 persons were conveyed to the Cape by a troopship; and perhaps, if a similar opportunity occurs again, the Admiralty will allow some more emigrants to be taken.

Will the Government assist in emigrating these poor people, and, as was done on the former occasion, send a man-of-war?

We are in communication with the Admiralty on the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the Report on St. Helena, No. 63, 1891, by the Governor, and the postal charges therein complained of; and whether he will consider the desirability of relieving these people of the present rates of 6d. per ½ oz. on letters to the United Kingdom, with still higher rates to other parts of the world, and notably 1s. 2d. per ½ oz. on letters to Mauritius, together with other postal grievances to which attention has been called in the said Report?

My attention has been called to the Report of the Governor of St. Helena. The policy of the Post Office has been to allow the Colonial Postal Authorities to fix their own postal rates on homeward correspondence; and when the letter postage from this country to places abroad (including St. Helena) was reduced to 2½d. the ½ oz. the Colonies were left free to maintain or to lower their previously existing rates. St. Helena elected to maintain the high rates mentioned in the question, and I should not feel justified in putting pressure upon the Colonial Authorities, or in proposing a considerable subsidy to the Colonial Post Office, in order to induce them to lower the rates.

Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of that answer to the Governor who has made this very strong Report, so that he may know where the fault rests?

That is rather a matter for the Colonial Office.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Educa- tion whether he is aware that some of Her Majesty's School Inspectors have reported that diamond panes should be removed from national school windows and be replaced by ordinary square glass windows; whether he has considered that this would cause great expense to the school managers; and whether any special instructions have been issued by the Council to the Inspectors on this matter?

The Department have for many years past recommended that diamond or leaded panes should be avoided, as they obstruct light to some extent, are not always impervious to weather, and are not easy to keep clean. But their use is not objected to in moderation—for example, in the upper parts of the windows. No special instructions have been issued to Inspectors on the point. In some cases Inspectors have probably recommended the replacement of diamond by ordinary panes, on the above grounds, where the existing windows were not weathertight, or let in insufficient light.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether objections have been raised by Trades Unions against the instruction in technical schools of persons not connected by their ordinary employment with the industry about which they desire to be taught, and whether the managers of any such schools, either in London or elsewhere, have consented by agreement or tacit understanding, or in any other way, to exclude students unconnected with the trade about some branch of which instruction was being given; and in view of the fact that these technical schools were designed to give instruction to all persons who might desire it, and that the Charity Commissioners have allotted large sums derived from charitable sources to founding and supporting such schools, whether he will take steps to secure the open use of these schools by all who may wish to attend them?

I believe that the objections raised by Trade Unions have considerable weight. It is not the function of technical education, as understood in England, to teach trades, but rather to supplement workshop practice by a knowledge of scientific or artistic principles connected with certain industries. That being so, it may be reasonably held to be undesirable to admit to certain kinds of technical classes the se who have not the foundation of workshop practice. If a number of amateurs were admitted to such classes, the teaching given would have to he distorted, or even altogether largely changed. It is mainly a question of organisation for the Governing be dies concerned. I am not aware of any reason for interference.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can arrange to have the telegraph extended to Urlingford, County Kilkenny?

I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the extension can be granted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the stated intention of the War Office has been carried out, and the whole of the small arms in the hands of troops at home are periodically tested by viewers specially detached from the inspection staff—once a year in the case of Regular troops, once in two years in that of the Militia, and once in three years in that of the Volunteers; how often such inspections have been made in each case; and what are the arrangements as to the inspection of these arms abroad?

Inspections of small arms are carried out annually in the case of troops at home—once every two years in the case of the Militia, and once every three years in the case of the Volunteers. No special arrangements have yet been made as to the troops in the Colonies, and the Indian Government makes its own arrangements.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware, as has been stated in The Daily Express of 10th May, 1893, that cattle, the property of Mr. Matthew Bates, Primrose Lodge, Carnew, have been seized for rent duo to the hon. Member for West Kerry; whether he is aware that an ejectment has been taken out by the same landlord against the orphan children of the late John Bolton, of Gorey; and that these two families are Protestants, and have been recently visited by severe family affliction; and whether he will refuse to allow the Forces of the Crown to be employed in carrying out these legal processes?

I am informed that the facts are substantially as stated in the question. It is not anticipated that the Forces of the Crown will be requisitioned for the ejectment referred to, the ugh if such a requisition should be made I shall have no choice in the matter.

Is it not a fact that the Forces of the Crown will not be required owing to the circumstance that these people are Protestants?

By the indulgence of the house I may be allowed to state, with reference to the question of the hon. Member for South Belfast, that in the case of Mr. Bates his holding is an agricultural holding, the rent of which has been fixed by arbitration. The old rent was £41. The arbitration rent is £25. The Poor Law valuation of the holding is £29, and the acreage 75 acres. When the arbitration rent was fixed in 1889, arrears to the amount of £151 14s. 2d. were wiped out. In addition to the rent for which the Sheriff lately seized, Mr. Bates still owes £26 4s. 2d.—over a year's rent. I may add that in this case proceedings have been allowed to lie over for several months. Seizures were being made at the suits of other creditors, some of whom, I understand, are co-religionists of Mr. Bates. The seizure to which the question refers was not made at my suit only, but at the suit of another creditor also. In the case of the representatives of John Bolton, the holding is a town holding, consisting of a he use, yard, and garden situated in the main street of the town of Gorey, the rent of which is £18 9s. In 1886, at the late Mr. Bolton's request, I spent £200 in improving his he use. There is now duo on the holding £97 12s. 3d., over five years' rent. I may add that I offered to take £50 in lieu of arrears, and to reduce the rent to £15 per annum; but that offer was not accepted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he is aware that the Lord of the Manor of Fulham (the Bishop of London) in 1869 gave five acres of the waste of the manor to the Vicar of St. Clement's, Kensington, for building thereon a vicarage and conveniences without the consent of the commoners; and that since that time, 1869, nearly the whole of the five acres, with one rood and eleven perches of the waste of the manor added afterwards, has, with the Bishop's consent, been converted into a building estate, producing £360 per annum; and whether the Lord of the Manor was acting within his legal rights; and, if not, what steps the Government propose to take to have the land returned to the commoners?

I am informed that the five acres referred to, being part of the waste of the Manor of Fulham, was granted in 1869 to the Vicar of St. Clement's as glebe by the Lord of the Manor (the Bishop of London), with the concurrence of the commoners (as represented by the he mage Jury), although such consent is not required by the Act 51 Geo. III., c. 115, under which the grant was made. The land having thus become glebe, it was subsequently leased for building purposes. I am advised that the Lord of the Manor was within his right in making the grant in question.

May I ask whether it is the case that the Vicar, Mr. Dalgarno Robinson, although the Bishop had full power to grant the laud, has compensated the commoners to the full extent of their interest—£300; whether it is true that, on the parish having to make up the North Pole Road for about 350 feet, the Court Leet, who were responsible, had no money, and the Vicar paid the expenses on condition of their surrendering their rights over the rood and few perches in question, which offer was gladly accepted; whether the public have no right to Wormwood Scrubbs, but only the Lord and the commoners, about 80 of them; and whether it is not the case that, owing to the persistent efforts of Mr. Dalgarno Robinson, be the Greater and the Little Scrubbs have been secured to the public for ever?

I rise to Order. Is the hon. Baronet in Order in putting a series of questions which contain statements of facts as to which there is a dispute? I myself take an entirely different view of the matter.

If the hon. Baronet will take upon himself the responsibility of the statements he can ask whether the se statements are true.

I am not in any way responsible for the statements, but I simply ask whether they are true?

The better course would be for the hon. Baronet to ascertain the facts, or else to give notice of his question.

I am afraid the home Secretary did not quite catch the point of my question—why land which had been given for a vicarage has since been converted into a building estate; and whether it is legal that land given for one purpose should be used for another purpose?

Mr. Robinson has told me himself that he paid the money.

That is not putting a question.

I have no knowledge of the facts stated by the hon. Baronet, and am totally unable to answer his question; but if the hon. Baronet puts a question down on the Paper I will endeavour to answer it. As to the last question, I am informed that the land has been granted with the consent of all the persons interested, and that whatever has been done has been perfectly legal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India will be directed to consider the desirability of carrying out the recommendation made by two members of the recent Commission that trial by jury should be extended to all Sessions cases in the district of Bengal, where it now partially prevails; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of introducing it as an experiment into the se districts where it is not now in force, as the Commissioners have unanimously found it to have been successful over so largo an area?

A further Despatch on the recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission is expected from India, and the Secretary of State must reserve any expression of his opinion until that Despatch has been received and considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report on Wages and Conditions of Labour of Arsenal and Dockyard Labourers will be presented to the House?

This Report has now been completed for the consideration of the Government, and I hope no great delay will occur before that consideration is given. It is not a Report which can be, according to ordinary practice, presented to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether he is now able to give any further information regarding the young woman, in charge of two nuns, who in the month of March leaped overboard from the steamer Waterford between Ireland and England, intending to commit suicide, as to whether she was actually insane or not; and, if so, how this conclusion was arrived at; whether he is aware that a young woman named Mary Breen, the servant of a Methodist minister in Dungannon, County Tyrone, who had informed the priest there that she could no longer remain in the Roman Catholic faith, was forcibly taken by three men from her master's house on 7th July, 1891, and cannot now be found; and whether he will make inquiries into the matter?

I am unable to give any further information on the first part of this question beyond that which was communicated to the hon. and gallant Member by my directions on the 21st of April last, when I informed him that I had ascertained that the young lady had been duly certified to be insane. I am not aware that Mary Breen ever informed the priest that she could no longer remain in the Roman Catholic faith; but, so far from her having been removed forcibly by three men from her master's house in July, 1891, it appears from inquiries made at the time by the Irish Government that she went away with her father of her own free will. I am happy to be able to inform the hon. and gallant Member that Mary Breen was seen at her own house on April 10 last, and then expressed her intention of proceeding to America in two or three weeks' time, having received her passage money from a brother who is already there. I do not think any further inquiry as to either of these cases is necessary.

I beg to ask whether it is not the fact, as stated in a letter from the Bishop of Waterford, that the certificate of insanity was signed, not only by the local medical practitioner, but by the resident medical officer of a large Government institution, who is a Protestant, and one of the highest authorities on mental disease?

I believe the facts are as stated by the hon. Member; but I have no information as to the religious faith of the medical man.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the injury inflicted on poor basket makers in Essex by the importation of foreign baskets, frequently made by prison labour, and their sale as of English make, he will give effect to the prayer of workers from all parts of the country addressed to him by deputation on 6th May, and introduce legislation to enable purchasers to distinguish between home-made and foreign products?

No, Sir. I have no intention of introducing legislation to compel the marking of the place of origin on all goods imported into this country?

I beg to ask the Solicitor General which Acts of Parliament deal with the electoral privileges of Civil servants; and what is the section of any Act from which officials of Civil establishments derive their authority for restricting the actions of their subordinates who desire to take part in public affairs?

There are no Acts of Parliament unrepealed that deal specially with the electoral privileges of Civil servants. Whatever regulations are made with reference to the action of subordinate officials in the Civil Service, are made not under the authority of any section of an Act of Parliament, but under the inherent authority of Heads of Departments to make regulations for the discipline and government of the se under their control.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inquire into the circumstances in which a sentence of seven years' penal servitude was passed at Stirling two weeks ago on Mary Dymock for throwing her illegitimate child into a river, she being at the time exhausted from a long night walk, and almost desperate and starving; and whether, if the circumstances justify it, he will advise a reduction of the sentence?

This question should have been addressed to me. I will give any Petition presented to mo on behalf of the person referred to the most anxious consideration. I am sure the hon. Member will see I cannot say more than that.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, considering the importance of making the valuable Reports received by the Board on such subjects as rust or mildew on wheat, and on dairy farming in Denmark, Germany, and Sweden, as largely available as possible, he will lay them upon the Table of the he use; and whether, either through the newspapers, free libraries, or village schoolmasters, he will give a larger circulation to the useful leaflets prepared by the Board on matters of general agricultural interest?

I shall be happy to give effect to the wish expressed by my hon. Friend, and to lay upon the Table the two Reports to which he refers. With regard to the leaflets issued by my Department, I can only say that I am anxious to secure for them as wide a circulation as possible amongst the se concerned; and I will endeavour to arrange for them to be regularly supplied to any newspapers, free libraries, or village schoolmasters, who may signify their desire to receive them, and whose names are not already on our circulation list.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether copies of The Labour Gazette will be issued to such free libraries as may apply for them, or whether any other means will be taken to bring the information it contains under the notice of the labouring classes?

The Labour Gazette has been sent gratuitously to free libraries, mechanics' institutes, Trades Unions, co-operative, societies, workmen's clubs, and other similar institutions of a non-political character.

Will the distribution be continued?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the sanitary condition of the Grand Dôpot Barracks at Woolwich; and whether the medical officer of the district has reported on the state of the drains?

No Reports have been received as to the Grand Depôt Barracks at Woolwich being in an insanitary condition; but the system of drainage of the Royal Artillery Barracks is reported to be old and defective. A reconstruction of the whole system is under reconsideration. The general health of the troops has been reported to be good.

Will the right hon. Gentleman press this work forward? I am told that some of the existing drains are 100 years old.

My experience is that drains 100 years old are sometimes better than the se of recent construction.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether extra clerks are at present engaged in each County Inspector's office in Ireland, with a view of immediately winding up the benefit branch of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund, and distributing it amongst the subscribers to it, who are unanimous in having it wound up; and if the fund is about to be wound up, will pensioners who have contributed to it for lengthened periods, but who have ceased to contribute on the death of their wives and relatives, be refunded the amount they have paid into it?

No distribution of assets of the benefit branch of the Constabulary Force Fund is contemplated, or any winding up other than that already announced by me on more than one occasion in this House—namely, by meeting its obligations as they become due. The clerical work now being performed at County Head Quarters has reference solely to the collection of certain items of information for the Commissioners of the National Debt, in whose hands the management of the fund is being placed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to his statement to the effect that the Government have thought it desirable to make some addition to the pay of Colonels on half-pay during their period of suspended animation, he is now in a position to inform the house what addition it has been decided to make; and whether the additional payment will take effect from the commencement of the present financial year or from a prior date?

I am sorry for the delay which has occurred in this matter; but if the hon. Gentleman will repeat the question after the Recess, I shall be able to give him a positive answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. William Cotter, P.L.G., residing at Breenymore, Bantry, has applied to Captain Welsh, R.M., for a licence to carry a gun on his farm, but has been refused; and, if so, will he inquire what are the grounds for the refusal?

I learn that Mr. William Cotter has been refused an arms licence as stated. The power of granting or withholding such licences is vested by law in the Resident Magistrate of the district, and with this discretionary power the Government cannot interfere. Possibly the refusal in this instance may have had something to say to the state of the district at the time when application was first made some years ago. Of course, there is nothing to prevent Mr. Cotter from renewing his application now if he should see fit to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John Cotter, of Barna, Skibbereen, has applied to Captain Welsh, R.M., for a licence to carry a gun on his farm; that Dr. Lewis, J.P., gave Mr. Cotter a letter of recommendation to Captain Welsh; but that Mr. Cotter was refused the licence; and will he inquire on what grounds the licence was refused?

I am informed I that the Resident Magistrate has no recollection of having received an application from Mr. John Cotter. It also appears that the local Justice named cannot recollect having recommended Mr. Cotter for a licence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what fees in addition to salary are payable to the Solicitor General, under the new system recently introduced, in connection with the prosecution of Bottomley and others at the last Old Bailey Sessions; and how the amount of such fees compares with the amount that would have been payable under the former system?

The Solicitor General's fees in the Hansard Union prosecution amount to about £1,650. I am informed that in this particular case the same, or very nearly the same, amount of fees would have been payable under the old as under the new arrangement.

Ts it not the fact that there is a considerable increase in the amount of the fees payable under the new system over what was payable under the old system?

There are fees payable under the new system which were not payable under the old system; but that point does not arise in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the total amount of the costs, charges, and expenses incurred in the recent prosecution of Sir Henry Isaacs, Mr. Horatio bottomley, and others, in connection with the affairs of the Company known as the Hansard Publishing Union, Limited; and out of what Vote such costs, charges, and expenses will be paid?

The exact amount of the costs cannot yet be stated; but they are estimated to amount to about £6,200, and will be paid from the Vote for Law Charges.

Is the Treasury in a position to certify the costs of any particular trial in England or Ireland?

I cannot answer that question without notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he issue instructions to have the actual cost of foraging troop and transport horses in the Royal Irish Constabulary duly vouched and shown in the public accounts like other items of expenditure; how many of the 267 County and District Inspectors of the Royal Irish Constabulary in receipt of rent for a private house have their office in a barrack, while they draw rent for an office elsewhere; how many of such offices in barracks are wholly or partially furnished with articles of barrack furniture paid for by the public; how many County and District Inspectors in receipt of an annual allowance of £50 for a private horse and £45 for a servant, while residing away from the station, keep their horses, cars, hay, straw, &c, on the barrack premises; and on what grounds was it stated that sergeants in charge of stations had their stationery allowance lately doubled?

As regards the first paragraph, I see some disadvantage in this sort of contract with officers. There is this to be said, however, against the suggestion of the hon. Member—namely, that it would result in the loss of control over the expenditure. The allowance covers not only feeding, but also shoeing, medicine, and stable requisites; and if these were purchased and paid for separately, the total cost would, it is considered, be greatly increased. I will make further inquiry, however, into the matter. No allowance for an office elsewhere than in barracks is drawn by any officers, except eight District Inspectors, and the Inspector j General has no reason to believe that any of these do not provide offices in their own he uses. No articles of distinctively office furniture are supplied by the Constabulary Department. In some instances articles of furniture were supplied by the Board of Works in barracks built by that Department; the practice, however, has long since been discontinued, although the few articles so supplied were not removed. The Inspector General cannot reply to the fourth paragraph, but I have requested him to make inquiry into the matter, he informs me that in some instances, however, he is aware that it is most difficult for officers to procure suitable stabling in the town where stationed, and some are compelled to live in lodgings and cannot obtain he uses. In cases where such difficulty exists officers have always been allowed to keep their horses on barrack premises. It was not stated that the stationery allowance for sergeants in charge of stations had been lately doubled. The increase was granted from April 1, 1882, whilst the increase in the officers' allowance did not take effect till December, 1890.

We want to get the basis on which these officers propose to commute their allowances after the home Rule Bill is passed.

I quite understand that, and the point is being borne in mind.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there is no Nationalist holding the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim resident in the Petty Sessions district of Drumkeeran, in which 94 per cent. of the inhabitants are Nationalists; has a Nationalist Magistrate ever adjudicated in the Petty Sessions Court of Drumkeeran district; has the Lord Chancellor of Ireland been requested to appoint to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim a Nationalist residing in the district; has the Lord Chancellor up to the present refused to comply with the request, and why; and will the Lord Chancellor consider the advisability of appointing a Nationalist in the district to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim?

It is probably the fact, as I am told, that no Nationalist Magistrate adjudicates in the Petty Sessions district referred to; but the Lord Chancellor has no authentic information on the subject. The Lord Chancellor has been asked to appoint one gentleman to the Commission in this district; but he has not appointed him, and he has asked me to say that, as the result of his inquiries, he is compelled to decline to appoint the gentleman in question. The Lord Chancellor will be glad to consider on his own responsibility the claims of any gentleman whose name may be submitted to him, and to appoint him if he ascertains him to be fit.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that Procurators Fiscal are in the habit of employing clerks to make inquiries which should be made by themselves; and, if so, will he see that properly-qualified persons are employed to make these secret and important inquiries?

By the Act of 40 & 41 Vict., c. 50, Section 7, Fiscals were authorised to appoint Deputes with the consent of the Lord Advocate and Sheriff, and I believe that this provision has been generally taken advantage of. It is, however, clearly pointed out in the Crown Office Orders issued to Fiscals that the statutory provision for the appointment of duly-qualified Deputes is not intended in any way to deprive the Public Service of the advantage of the personal discharge by Fiscals of the duties of their office, but only to provide for cases in which it is impossible for them to do the work themselves. It may sometimes be necessary to employ the services of clerks, where neither the Fiscal nor his Depute can undertake the work; but successive Lord Advocates have done everything in their power to impress upon Fiscals the importance of personal discharge of duty. If any such practice exists as is pointed out in the question, I shall be glad to receive information in regard to particular cases of it, and shall cause them to be inquired into.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government will carry out their promise respecting Sir Thomas Brady's pension, as requested by all sections of the Irish Members?

I am not aware that any promise has been made, except that Sir Thomas Brady's case would be again carefully considered. The Treasury have made a proposal which they hope shortly to be able to communicate to the he use.

Have the Treasury power to increase a pension?

Is it the fact that all sections of the Irish Party agree in supporting the suggestion for an increased pension?

I think all sections are agreed on that.

No; I shall oppose any proposal which the right hon. Gentleman may make to increase the pension.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that last week another dwelling - house, near Camp, County Kerry, was set on fire by sparks from an engine of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and burned to the ground with everything in it; whether, in the event of the owner of the house obtaining damages against the Tralee and Dingle Railway, the ratepayers of the barony will have to pay the damages; and whether these ratepayers have any control over the management of the line?

I am informed by the company that no house was set on fire or burnt last week by the company's engine. I can express no opinion as regards the liability of the company or the ratepayers of the barony. The railway is authorised by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, and with the constitution of the company I have nothing whatever to do.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any communication with the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland relative to a refund of the excessive charges put on by that company in January last; whether he is aware that the se charges amounted in some cases to 40 and 50 per cent. on certain goods between Dublin and Sligo; whether the se rates have been voluntarily withdrawn by that company, or whether it was owing to competition from a competing line; and if any or all the se increased charges are still continued on goods to intermediate stations where no competition exists; and whether those charges are regulated by mileage rates, or by such as the circumstances of the case will permit them to make?

I have received a communication from the company informing me (1) that where rates have been reduced since the 2nd January, refund is made in all eases where applied for by persons paying freight; (2) rates (Dublin and Sligo) put out on the 2nd January contained increases varying from 1 to 29 per cent., and also decreases from 1 to 30 per cent.; (3) Dublin and Sligo rates have since been reduced, and now stand, compared with 1892, increases varying from 3 to 20 per cent., and decreases from 5 to 35 per cent. With regard to the last question of the hon. Member, competition is undoubtedly an element in fixing a rate.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Faversham Division of Kent, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Judges of the High Court of Calcutta, have protested against the interference of the Government of Bengal with the administration of justice; and whether any Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table?

The matter referred to is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council; and no Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has further considered the subject of the public registration of mortgage debentures created by Limited Liability Companies?

Yes, Sir, I have; and I am now in communication with the Lord Chancellor with reference to a Bill dealing with the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can state how many prisoners, male and female, were in confinement in Inverness Prison each day between 8th May and 10th May, both inclusive?

In reply to the hon. Member, the numbers in Inverness Prison on 8th to 10th May, both dates inclusive, were:—8th May, 1893, 34 males, I female; 9th, 37 males, I female; 10th, 38 males, 2 females; 11th, 37 males, 2 females; 12th, 38 males, 3 females; 13th, 33 males, 3 females; 14th, 33 males, 3 females; 10th, 30 males, 3 females. S The accommodation of the prison consists of:—For males, 27 ordinary cells, 3 large cells (for three prisoners each), I infirmary cell, and I punishment, cell, accommodating in all 38 male prisoners. For females:—9 ordinary cells, I large cell (for throe prisoners) and I infirmary cell, accommodating in all 13 females. From the 11th to 10th, 3 prisoners were associated on medical grounds; and when the high number of males on the 9th was reported in the weekly Return to the Commissioners, the Governor submitted the names of three long-sentence prisoners for removal.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he has considered the desirability of utilising the pilots round the coasts of the United Kingdom as a cordon or line of defence against the 'introduction of cholera through our seaports; and, if so, will he state what decision has been arrived at?

Assistance is frequently rendered by licensed pilots in connection with precautions against the introduction of cholera., and the assistance is fully appreciated. But I do not see that the pilots can be utilised as a cordon, or line of defence, as suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the home Department whether, when he recently ordered the release of Elizabeth Ireland, who was sentenced in 1879 to penal servitude for life for the wilful murder of George Rolt at Spalding, he also took into his consideration the case of the two men, Henry Howitt and John Vessey, who were convicted of the same crime?

Yes; the case of all three persons concerned in the outrage was fully considered; but in advising the release of Elizabeth Ireland on licence I had special regard to the fact that the violence which caused the death of Rolt was inflicted by the men, and not by the woman, and that she had during her punishment been certified to be insane, and had passed nearly three years in Broadmoor. The case of the men referred to will, under ordinary circumstances, come under review again in 1895; but I am not prepared at present to make any recommendation in regard to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government has yet come to a decision as to the limit of age in case of Writers recommended for promotion to the Class of Abstractors; and, if so, what is the maximum limit now prescribed?

The question is still under consideration.

how soon will a decision be arrived at?

I cannot answer that without notice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that, early on the morning of Sunday last, the house of a man named Fleming, near Castleisland, County Kerry, was attacked by a number of armed men, and fired into several times; has anyone been apprehended; and has protection been afforded to Fleming's family?

The house of James Flynn was fired at on the 13th instant in this locality. Three men have been arrested in connection with the outrage, and have been remanded without hail to Petty Sessions. Flynn and his family are receiving police protection?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the Return showing the majorities necessary for changes in the Constitutions of Foreign Slates, whether he can state when the Reports will be presented from the States not included in the Parliamentary Paper, C. 6970?

Reports from all the more important places have been received and laid. Of the remainder only three have yet been received, and we are waiting for more before laying a further batch.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain why the weekly pay day at Bull Point, Devonport, which hitherto has been as in the Dockyards on Fridays, has been recently altered to Saturdays, thereby causing considerable inconvenience to the weekly shopping arrangements of the men and their families; and whether there is any reason why the original day should not he reverted to?

The wages at the different dôpots were formerly paid on different days: but, this being found inconvenient for purposes of account, Saturday was fixed upon as being, on the whole, the most convenient day to pay at all the dôpots: and that day being a half holiday, and the men receiving their wages at mid-day, it was considered ample time would be given for shopping. Should, however, real inconvenience be felt in consequence of the change, I shall be happy to consider any representation on the subject.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept the statement from me that it is felt to be very inconvenient?

Certainly, if the hon. Member makes it with authority.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether, when the, employés at Bull Point, Devon-port, were transferred from the Army Ordnance Department to the Naval Ordnance Department, they were guaranteed the continuance of certain privileges in respect to leave, sick pay, and medical attendance; whether he is aware that recently when some of the men were offered a small increase in their weekly wages, such offer was made conditional on these privileges being surrendered; whether several refused the proffered advance rather than submit to such conditions; and whether this attempt to break the agreement was made at the instigation of the Admiralty, or on the responsibility of the local officials?

The arrangement made was that the men should retain all the privileges to which they were entitled under the War Office, so long, and so long only, as they remained in the same position as at the time of transfer; but that as soon as they received promotion or increased pay, they should come under the ordinary regulations. No information has reached me to the effect stated in the second and third paragraphs. I may add that the operation of this arrangement is one of the many questions into which the Admiralty has recently been inquiring, and will receive careful consideration.

Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that at the time the agreement was signed the men were told that they would forfeit these advantages in the case of promotion?

Yes, the agreement set forth that so long as they remained under the War Office there should be no change, but when they were promoted then they should come within ordinary Rules of the Admiralty.

Is this change the outcome of inquiries which the Admiralty have been milking?

No, Sir. The original bargain was that the men should retain all their old privileges until they changed their position, but when they did change they should come under the ordinary Admiralty Regulations. I added that the operation of this arrangement was now being considered by the Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, since 27th February last, any steps have been taken to procure from the Admiralty steam cruisers for the purpose of protecting the fishermen on the North-West Coast of Scotland and the Western Isles against trawlers?

Yes, Sir; communications have been passing between the Scottish Office and the Admiralty, in order to insure that, when the great summer herring fishery begins the usual additional cruisers given for its protection shall be forthcoming.

May I ask whether, seeing that the Secretary to the Admiralty has declined in this house any responsibility on the part of his Department for supplying sufficient ships for this purpose, he will consider the advisability of inserting in the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill some provision for maintaining a proper sea fleet? Otherwise the new Act will not be workable.

That is a very interesting and proper suggestion, but I am not sure it will be necessary to introduce any legislation. The Fishery Board, undoubtedly, is not at all prepared to acquiesce in the amount of protection now afforded by the Admiralty, and I am quite aware that it is not sufficient.

Will the right he n Gentleman apply to the Treasury for money to purchase vessels to be at the disposal of the Fishery be and?

That is a proper matter for consideration. Lancashire has a vessel of its own, but then that is a rich county. With regard to the summer herring fishery, I have every reason to believe that the protection given by the Admiralty will be sufficient.

Will steps be taken to secure the removal of that old sailing tub, the Jackal, which costs more to keep up than it is worth?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can now state whether he proposes to take any action in order to carry out the recommendations of the Committee on Swine Fever?

I am afraid that as yet I can only refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to the questions addressed to me on this subject a few days ago. I have not yet received the evidence on which the Report of the Departmental Committee is founded, but I understand that it will roach me in the course of the present week, and we shall then be able to see how far it will be possible for us to give effect to the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived.

Arising out of that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as a matter of fact, whether in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever there is any information whatever which could not have been obtained in his own Department without the appointment of any such Committee at all; and whether, under these circumstances, he cannot make up his mind to deal with this question, so important to the agricultural interest, and to carry out the recommendations of the Report without waiting for the evidence upon which the Report is based?

I cannot admit for one moment that the Committee was unnecessary, or that I had the information in the Department already. I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Report. With his knowledge of public business he must know it is impossible for the Government to decide on a Report without seeing the evidence on which it is based.

Well, then, I have examined it carefully, and I will ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can say what the information is in the Report which be could not have obtained in the Department? and, failing an answer to this question, I shall take the earliest opportunity of raising this question again.

I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman any further answer on the subject.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been given to a Rill already before the House on this subject?

But that Bill does not contain the provisions which enable us to deal with this question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Furness Railway Company is charging for the carriage of agricultural products rates 50 to 60, and in some eases even 100 per cent. above the rates current in December, 1892; and whether he will make representations to the management of this company against such abuse of the powers conferred upon them?

I have received representations to the effect stated in my hon. Friend's question, and have placed myself in communication with the Railway Company on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the present salary attached to the office of Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; whether the said salary was increased, and by what amount and upon what grounds, when Sir Robert Hamilton was Under Secretary; was Sir Robert Hamilton, when holding that Office, allowed any extra sum for the payment of premiums upon life assurance, or for the education of his children; and, if so, upon what grounds; and is the present Under Secretary granted the same allowances, or when were the same discontinued?

The salary attaching to the office of Under Secretary is £2,000 per annum, without extra allowances. In April, 1883, the salary was temporarily increased to £2,500 under exceptional circumstances, the increase being personal to Sir Robert Hamilton, the then Under Secretary. The special increase of £500 was continued to Sir Redvers Buller while acting temporarily as Under Secretary. It ceased on Sir West Ridgeway's appointment in October, 1887.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the third portion of the question.

I really do not think that the third paragraph of the question at all affects the root of the matter. I do not think there is any reason for me to go into the grounds which induced the Government of the day to increase the salary. A certain amount of delicacy is called for in these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman responsible for what was done by the Government 10 years ago?

I only want to know if the sums of money named were allowed?

I have already stated that the allowance was special and personal. Sir R. Hamilton received £2,000 a year, plus £500 a year as a special allowance in his case.

Were those allowances plus the £500?

No, Sir; the hon. Member is entirely mistaken if he thinks that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us the amount of special fees paid to all the Tory lawyers under the late Government?

And also the amount paid to the prisoners' counsel in the Maryborough trials?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Major General Hutchinson has reported that the bridges carrying the line of the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway Company over Bath Avenue and South Lotts Road are in an unsafe condition, and require reconstruction; whether he is aware that Bath Avenue is a most important thoroughfare, along which the Dublin Tramways run; and what steps have been or will be taken to compel the Railway Company to reconstruct these bridges at their own expense and with the least possible danger to the public using these thoroughfares?

Yes, Sir, General Hutchinson has reported that the Railway Company should lose no unnecessary time in adopting the requisite measures to place the bridges in a safe condition. The Board of Trade have urged the Company to do this, and have received a reply that their engineer intends to adopt a trough girder to support each rail, the side high enough to act as a guard rail. This is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any commissions have been granted to officers of the Royal Naval Reserve under Article 43 of the Revised Regulations for Royal Naval Reserve, sanctioned by Orders in Council of 23rd February, 1891, which provide that officers who shall have greatly distinguished themselves in action with the enemy, or who may, by the character or length of that service, obtain the special approbation of the Admiralty, will be eligible to receive commissions as officers in the Royal Navy; and, if no such commissions have been granted, whether the Article is to be considered inoperative?

No commissions have yet been granted under the Regulations, but they are not to be considered as inoperative, and they will be put into operation when suitable cases arise.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the recent correspondence between the Local Government Board and Messrs Joseph Delahunt and Patrick Corrigan as to the inquiry on oath into the recent election for Guardians for the Fitzwilliam Ward of the City of Dublin, in the course of which Messrs. Delahunt and Corrigan asked whether, if they should substantiate the charges made, the Board would direct a new election, and the Board replied that they could not properly set aside the Return unless it should be shown at the inquiry that votes had been wrongly allowed or disallowed to such an extent as would affect the number of voles forming the majority recorded; whether, having regard to the letter of Messrs. Delahunt and Corrigan of the 24th April, 1893, charging, amongst other things, that the Returning Officer has a direct personal interest in discouraging contests at Poor Law elections for the reasons set forth in the said letter, will he direct, should the charges made be substantiated, a new election to be ordered?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that counter-charges have been made of gross misrepresentation?

I am not aware of that. In reply to the question on the Paper, I have to say I am informed that the purport of the correspondence between the two gentlemen named and the Loral Government Board is correctly set forth in the question. Section 23 of the Act 6 & 7 Vict., c. 92, empowers the Local Government Board, when a question is raised as to the right of any person to act as an elected Guardian, to inquire into the circumstances of the case, and to issue such Order as they may deem requisite for determining the question. If, on inquiry under this section, the Board as certain that the Return made by the Returning Officer is correct, i.e., that the person returned by him has obtained a majority of good and valid votes and is in all respects qualified to fill the office of Guardian, the Board do not disturb the Return; but if, on the other hand, they find that the Return is incorrect, they issue a scaled Order setting it aside and directing the holding of a new election. Complaints not affecting the validity of a Return would not constitute a legal ground for setting aside such Return, though of course if such complaints were substantiated it would become necessary to take some action against the persons affected by them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received from the Education Department a statement of the grievances under which the attendants at the Edinburgh Museum believe themselves now to labour, as compared with a similar class of public servants at South Kensington; and what steps the Treasury propose to take in the matter?

The Treasury has received a letter from the Science and Art Department respecting the rates of pay of the attendants at the Edinburgh Museum, and is now in communication with the Department on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War how many of the Lee-Metford magazine rifles, Mark I. pattern, have been returned by Commanding Officers owing to defects in the working of the bolt and bolt-head?

When the rifles of early manufacture were first issued complaints were made in regard to the bolt and bolt-head. Modifications were introduced and have been applied to all arms of the pattern in question. Since the introduction of these improvement all complaints have practically ceased, and no failures have been reported.

asked that the period during the Recess might be allowed him in order to ascertain.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is acquainted with the facts in a recent case of mistaken identity at Oxford, in which a tutor of Mansfield College (Mr. Lewis) was arrested at mid-day, at the Oxford Railway Station, without warrant, on a charge of theft from a public-house, he being entirely innocent of the charge; whether he is aware that Mr. Lewis wrote a letter to the Principal of his college to prove his indentity and entrusted it to the police for delivery, and that, instead of delivering the said letter, they used it to endeavour to obtain further evidence against the accused, thus extending the time of his unjust detention; and whether the Home Secretary will think it his duty to take any action or make any inquiry into the matter?

I have received a Report from the Chief Constable of Oxfordshire, from which it appears that a barmaid employed at the public-house at Wolvercote, where a theft had been committed, was leaving Oxford for Wolvercote by the canal towing path, when she met Mr. Lewis, and thought she recognised him as the thief. She followed him to the rail way station and there gave him in custody, charging him with the theft. He was brought to the County Police-station, and as the Bullingdon Bench of Magistrates was then sitting, he was brought before them and remanded on her evidence for a week, the Bench offering to take bail. He then asked for a piece of paper to write to the Principal or Bursar of Mansfield College, asking them to he bail for him. This note was banded to the sergeant to deliver, but at that moment a friend of Mr. Lewis's came in and offered to fetch the Bursar. Mr. Lewis then told him not to trouble about the note, which was put down in front of Mr. Lewis on the table, and his friend fetched the Bursar. The sergeant, who had been told by Mr. Lewis where he lodged, went there to make inquiry, taking the paper with him to help to prove his identity. The inquiries he went to make were as much in Mr. Lewis's interest as in the prosecution's, and the time of his detention was not in the least extended by the action of the police. I think my hon. Friend will, after hearing this account, agree with me in thinking there appears to be no reason to impeach the conduct of the police in question, and I do not, under the circumstances, consider it my duty to take any action in the matter. If Mr. Lewis has sustained any legal wrong the remedy by action is, of course, open to him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement of Mr. Lewis and his friends differs materially from that given by the police. Is if not their duty to protect the innocent as well as detect the guilty?

The statements do differ; but, as I have said, Mr. Lewis, if aggrieved, has his remedy in his own hands. I have no control over the Oxfordshire Police.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the ravages of foxes amongst the lambs in the Lochearron district of Ross-shire, and the inability or unwillingness of the Landlords' and Sporting Tenants' Association to capture or destroy these vermin; and whether steps will be taken to deal energetically with this grievance?

My attention has not been called to these special ravages. If there is a serious grievance from the neglect to kill foxes in deer forests, there are bodies representing public opinion in the Highlands officially and non-officially from whom I should expect to receive resolutions.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is the case that a collection of plaster casts of fish, and models for fish culture, and a sum for eventually founding a curatorship were left by the late Frank Buckland, and accepted by the Kensington Museum for the nation; whether he is aware that the collection is in a very neglected state; that many specimens have been lying on a piece of building land for many months exposed to the weather, and are now so much damaged as to be useless; and, that those which remain are deteriorating in an old and damp shed; whether the collection is considered of sufficient general interest and value to be preserved; and, if so, whether immediate steps can be taken to place and keep it in a proper state; whether, for this purpose, the terms of the legacy admit of the collection being transferred to the Natural History Museum; and whether such transfer can be effected?

Under the will of the late Mr. F. Buckland, his collection illustrative of fish culture was bequeathed to the South Kensington Museum, together with the reversion of a, sum of money in which his widow was to have a life interest. Certain specimens were some years ago removed from the collection as being useless or unsuitable for exhibition, and some of these have, no doubt, deteriorated. I am not aware of any deterioration in those specimens which are exhibited. The building in which they are cannot be said to be very suitable for a museum, but the collection is believed to be quite in as good a condition as when Mr. Buckland left it. A Treasury Committee, of which Sir J. Evans was Chairman, reported in 1889 that it was desirable that the collection should be removed from South Kensington. In order to transfer the trust, the sanction of the Court of Chancery, or possibly of an Act of Parliament, would be necessary. The authorities of the Natural History Museum declined to receive the collection. The Department has been in communication with the Marine Biological Association to endeavour to arrange for a transfer of the trust, but hitherto without success.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Report of the Departmental Committee which sat in Dublin early in January last with reference to the clerical and other office allowances to be paid to the Clerks of the Crown and Peace in Ireland, in view of the additional duties which they have to discharge under the Registration of Title Act, has yet been made; and, if so, will he cause it to be laid upon the Table of the House; and has the Treasury yet fixed the amount of those, allowances; if not, what is the cause of the delay?

The remuneration of the Clerks of the Crown and Peace and their allowances for clerical and office expenses under the Act to the 31st March last have been settled, and also their remuneration for the future. I expect to receive in a few days the Report of the Committee as to the future clerical and office expenses, and the Treasury will then be ready to fix the amounts to be allowed. I do not think that any good purpose would be served by laying the Report upon the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the number of breech-loading and muzzle-loading guns respectively available for the use of the Reserve of the Mercantile Marine when undergoing annual drill; and whether, in view of the importance of this Reserve for manning the increasing fleet, and the nature of the modern ordnance on men-of-war, steps will at once he taken to largely increase the present supply of modern guns in batteries and drill ships?

My answer is as follows: (1) Guns available for drill of Royal Naval Reserve—breech-loading, 92; muzzle-loading, 146. (2) Arrangements are in progress to gradually replace the older pattern guns by modern ordnance. During the past two years all Royal Naval Reserve drill ships, and certain drill batteries have been supplied with quick-tiring guns of the latest pattern.

Are not the guns the hon. Gentleman refers to the old 68lb. Palliser M.L. guns which were practically obsolete 25 years since?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any, and, if any, what public Departments are not subject to the Orders in Council requiring attendance books to be kept for the purpose of registering the arrival and departure of their clerks of both divisions of the Civil Service; and whether all the Departments have yet formulated their normal establishment; and, if so, whether a statement will be laid upon the Table before the Votes for the various Departments are taken showing the proposed establishment in each case?

With regard to the Legal Departments, the hon. Member is aware that they have been held to be outside the Order in Council of l5th August, 1890. I cannot, therefore, at present answer either paragraph of the question, so far as relates to matters under the jurisdiction of judicial authorities not responsible to Parliament. Subject to this qualification, I am not aware of any public Departments except, perhaps, the Houses of Lords and Commons that are exempt from the requirements of the Orders in Council. All Departments except the Legal Departments, the Houses of Lords and Com- mons, the Foreign Office, the Admiralty, and the Education Department, have submitted schemes for their future normal establishment; but as, owing to reductions which have been made in the Upper Division and other causes, the normal establishment cannot be reached for some time, and the increase or diminution that may in the meantime take place in the work to be done by the Departments may necessitate changes in that normal establishment as now estimated, I think it would not be desirable to lay upon the Table particulars which must, from the nature of the case, be more or less theoretical.

Is it the intention of the Treasury not to give this information for two or three years?

Oh no! I thought the hon. Member wanted it laid on the Table for the purposes of to-night's discussion.

And what is the objection to that?

It could not be done in time.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury will he explain on what grounds the immense properties owned and occupied by the Government in the parishes of Woolwich and Plumstead are not rated at more than half their real value, thus causing a high rate to be paid by the inhabitants of those parishes generally; and whether he will cause a due assessment of the Government property in those parishes to be made, and wait to see what reduction in the rate it will produce, before he calls upon other parishes, by fresh legislation, to assist the ratepayers of Woolwich and Plumstead further than is now done under the existing law?

There is no warrant for the assumption in the first paragraph. The properties in question have been carefully valued, and the assessment fixed with the Assessment Committee of the Union on three separate occasions, in 1875, 1884, and 1891, and on each occasion the Committee have Informal resolution declared the valuation to be fair and equitable. On the last occasion the following resolution was passed:—

"The Assessment Committee, after going through all the details of the value of Government property in the several parishes comprised in this Union, are of opinion that the figures proposed by the Treasury Valuer at their special meeting to-day is a fair and equitable revision of the valuation, and they accept the figures accordingly."

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if it is the intention of the Government to reduce the grant-in-aid to provincial museums from £800 to £500 for the present financial year; and, if so, if he will state the reason for such reduction?

The grant-in-aid to local museums, which was made to assist them in the purchase of casts and other reproductions, has been put this year at £500 instead of £800. On the other hand, the Purchase Vote for the museum and for circulation to local museums has been increased by £3,450. The £800 grant was not fully taken up last year, and it is believed that £500 will be sufficient to meet all demands. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think that I have any evil designs against Birmingham, for that city with one other last year absorbed six-sevenths of the grant, and in the year before two-thirds. I think there will be sufficient now for Birmingham.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the leading Local Authorities have made special arrangements this year to purchase specimens and original examples, a special opportunity having offered itself, and will he, by a Supplementary Estimate or by some other means, assist the Local Authorities in that respect?

I wish to know whether the Government will refuse to give any more money for the purpose to Birmingham until Northampton has had some?

I have to make a similar inquiry in the interest of Dundee.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will give the day and hour of the delivery at London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and Belfast respectively, of the correspondence brought from the United States by the Campania, which sailed from New York after the Paris, and the time of the delivery of the mails at these places brought by the latter vessel; and which of these vessels was selected by the United States Government to convey the mails to the United Kingdom?

At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman when the American mails per Campania and when those per Paris were delivered in London and Provinces, and in Dublin and Provinces; and whether he has received any intimation that the American Government, would consider favourably a representation made by the Post. Office as to the carriage of the mails from the United States to England?

The times at which the delivery of the correspondence in question commenced at the places named were as follows:—London, from the Campania, May 13, 8.30 a.m.; from the Paris, May 13, 8.15 p.m.; Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool, from the Campania, May 13, 7.0 a.m.; from the Paris, Sunday, May 14, 7.0 a.m.; Glasgow, from the Campania, May 13, 10.15 a.m.; from the Paris, May 15, 7.0 a.m.; Belfast, from the Campania, May 13, 7.0 a.m.; from the Paris, May 15, 7.0 a.m.; Dublin, from the Campania, May 12, 7.0 p.m.; from the Paris, May 14, 8.0 a.m. The vessel selected by the United States Post Office was the Paris. The method of choice announced by that office is comparison of results attained on eastward voyages: and the Campania had made no such voyages. There is no ground for doubting that any reasonable representation made by the British Post Office to that of the United States would receive due consideration; but it would not be reasonable to ask for preference to be given to a steamer concerning which the materials for the customary comparison do not yet exist.

Do these times relate to the delivery of newspapers us well as letters?

I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the London and provincial postmen who wore recommended good conduct stripes by their superior officers have not yet received them, and what is the cause of the great delay?

So far as I am aware, there are no such recommendations on hand, but if the hon. Member will furnish me with particulars I will have inquiry made.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that the recent Order compelling postmen to work with their tunic buttoned at the top is regarded with dissatisfaction; and whether he will give instructions that postmen who have to climb stairs and carry loads shall during the summer months be exempt from such Order?

I am not aware of any dissatisfaction cruised by the Regulation referred to in the question, and I am not prepared to relax the Regulation, which is intended to prevent a practice which led to a slovenly appearance on the part of the postmen. In the summer the men wear lighter tunics.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain on what grounds the Senior Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission has received salary at the rate of £1,200 per annum after the age of 70, in contravention of the Order in Council of the l5th August, 1890; for what period such salary has been paid; and on what authority the provisions of Clause 10 of the Order in Council have been departed from?

The services of the late Senior Civil Service Commissioner were retained to meet a temporary emergency, pending the appointment of his successor. The whole matter has come before the Public Accounts Com- mittee, and I do not think it desirable to make any further statement in anticipation of their Report.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he can state when the Code for Evening Schools will be issued?

I have laid the Code for Evening Schools on the Table to-day, and it will be circulated towards the end of next week.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is true that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have recently declined to entertain applications of removal to Ireland made; by officers of Inland Revenue stationed in England; and, if this is so, what is the rule on the subject?

The general rule is that officers are allowed to serve on stations for which they apply. The Board of Inland Revenue, however, reserve to themselves an absolute discretion to refuse or postpone such applications, in the interests of the Public Service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Irish Great Northern Railway has refused to refund to the Dublin milk trade the differences between the old and new rates where the old rates have been reverted to?

I have received no information to the effect referred to. If the hon. Member will furnish me with any particulars I will have them inquired into. We have asked the question of the company, but have not yet received their answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a meeting at Fethard, County Tipperary, on 7th May, reported in The Nationalist or 13th May, over which the Rev. Archdeacon Ryan, P.P., presided, and held for the purpose of denouncing a Mr. Ashmore for having taken a farm which had been surrendered by a man named Fenelly; whether he is aware that a resolution was adopted to treat Mr. Ashmore as a grabber, and the attention of the meeting called to the fact that a certain trader was supplying those on the farm with provisions; whether it has been brought to his notice that last autumn several outrages to cattle were perpetrated on a neighbouring farm which was being worked in conjunction with the farm in question; and whether he will take steps to prevent the holding of public meetings to intimidate individuals who are exercising their legal rights?

My attention has been drawn to the proceedings referred to in the first and second paragraphs of the question. With regard to the third paragraph, it appeal's that two such outrages were reported to the police as having taken place. In one of these compensation was awarded by the Grand Jury, but in the other case the claim for compensation was rejected at Presentment Sessions. As regards the fourth paragraph, steps have been, and will continue to be, taken to prevent and to prohibit, if necessary, public meetings where there is reason to believe that they will endanger the public peace or intimidate individuals in the exercise of legal rights.

What is meant by the word "denouncing" in this case? Is it not perfectly legal for persons to maintain the advisability of non-grabbing of evicted land?

I rather think that denouncing in this case meant pointing an individual out to public disapproval. If it leads to overt acts, or if the denunciation is so directed to the individual in question as to intimidate him in the exercise of his legal right, then the Government will interfere.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the decision of a London Magistrate within the last week, whereby persons circulating in front of his door handbills calling attention to the fact that an employer had refused to allow his servants certain holidays were held to have acted legally?

I did not say this was illegal.

On what ground was one of the two claims for compensation refused?