I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great inconvenience and loss is caused to the citizens of Kilkenny, especially the merchants and trading classes generally, by reason of the fact that the telegraph office in that city is closed at 8 o'clock p.m., while the offices in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Water-ford, and Belfast, with all of which places Kilkenny has important business relations, are open all night; and whether he will arrange to have the Kilkenny office open for the despatch and receipt of messages all night, or at least to midnight; and whether, in view of the fact that members of the staff are engaged until midnight, and that an extension of hours would convenience the public and increase the income of the Department without much, if any, additional cost, he will accede to this request?

In regard to the matter referred to in the question, Kilkenny is treated in the same way as other towns of the same size and importance. If, however, arrangements can be made, without additional cost, to despatch telegrams up to 11 o'clock, the hour up to which the staff are on duty for postal work, I shall be happy to give instructions accordingly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the scheme in which he had referred on June 20 for the abolition in certain districts of the corvée labour, annually employed in watching and repairing the Kilo banks, the labourers would be requisitioned, and forced to work; whether the wages paid for this forced labour would be the current market rate (about P. T. 4, ten pence), and whether rations and tools would be supplied by the Government; whether it is now proposed to pay the peasants throughout Egypt for the cotton and dhurra stalks laid on the Nile banks to protect them from the action of the waves; and, if so, whether this material would be paid for at the market rate; and whether it was correctly stated in The Egyptian Gazette, of June 20, that a special tax would probably have to be levied upon the laud, so that the poor villager might receive payment for his labour which is at present utilised, without any remuneration, for the benefit of his richer neighbour?

The reply to which the hon. Member refers was given on the 15th, and not on the 20th ultimo. Forced labour, as a means of guarding against accidents during the Nile flood, still exists in Egypt, and it has not been possible yet to devise any other system. According to a scheme submitted by the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works to the Egyptian Government, and still under consideration, the wages would be at a lower rate than the current market rate, and would be fixed at a sum sufficient to enable the men to support themselves. There does not appear to be any question of the Government supplying tools at present. The material is now partly supplied by the Government and partly by the labourers. It is not proposed to alter this system at present. I have not seen The Egyptian Gazette referred to; but although the additional costs which the proposed changes must entail can be met this year from funds in the hands of the Public Works Department, it is possible that in the future a fresh tax of some kind may have to be levied to cover the increased expenditure.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the proprietor of the Ballachulish Pier has obtained a prescriptive right by the undisputed possession for 30 years, the public also having had the right of undisputed and unrestricted access for the same period, have not also obtained a prescriptive right, of which they cannot now be deprived; whether he is aware that the fence now erected is within high water mark, and consequently upon the foreshore, which belongs to the Crown; and whether he will order its removal?

The question whether the public have obtained a prescriptive right in the matter of Ballachulish Pier is a legal one, which I am not competent to decide. The second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question were answered on the 26th of last month. The fence is, as I am assured, not on foreshore, but on private property above high water mark; and the Board of Trade have no power to order its removal.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the revision in the Limerick postal and telegraph staffs, which was promised two years ago, has not yet been granted?

As I informed the hon. Member on the 27th March last, there was no such promise made as stated in the question. The question is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, although dredging has been carried on in the Medway for a considerable time, it has been found impracticable to move the Benbow, when coaled, from Sheerness to Chatham; and whether, under these circumstances, he will suspend dredging operations which have failed to form a channel, and of which the chief result is the destruction of the Kent and Essex fishing grounds from the mud and rubbish thus discharged on them?

It is true that at present it is not safe to take the heavier battleships of the present day down the Channel of the Medway at all high tides at their full draught. The improvement of such a channel sufficiently for this purpose is not an operation which can be carried out in a brief space of time. As it is, however, manifestly necessary that the channel should be so improved in order to obtain the full value of the great Dockyard at Chatham, it is intended to proceed uninterruptedly with the work, which is now in a forward state.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to confirm the statement, contained in The Daily News of the 14th instant, that the Mutessarif of Cæsarea sent 300 police and bashi-bazouks in February to arrest men who were supposed to be in hiding at Everek; that they attacked every Armenian house in the town, broke open boxes for valuables, and violated many women; and that the above declaration was made under the seals of two Armenian priests and of the village authorities; and whether the Foreign Office will cause further inquiry to be made into the matter, and will take active steps with the object of preventing the recurrence of any such incidents?

The information stated by The Daily News to have been communicated to the Embassy at Constantinople has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government, but inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is considered that the authorised ration of the seaman of the Royal Navy is his own property to the same extent as the ration of the soldier; if so, is it a fact that the skimmings of the Fleet, derived from the cooking of these rations, have been alienated from the men, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Public Exchequer; and how much has been paid into the Public Exchequer on this account during the last 10 years, and will the Admiralty authorise this money, as well as all future sums obtained by such sales, to be credited for the benefit of the seamen of the Fleet?

The system in force for victualling the Navy differs widely from that in force for the Army, nor can the authorised rations of the seamen be regarded as their own property. The skimmings have never been so regarded, and have not, therefore, been alienated from the men as suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, before the Indian Financial Statement is made to the House, he will place upon the Table copies of the Despatches, Minutes, and official Papers which contain or explain the reasons why the Indian Government has conducted military operations beyond the political frontiers of British India on the western and northern side; and whether he can state to the House the cost per annum of such of those operations as are in contravention of the Act of 1858?

The Secretary of State is not aware that any recent operations have been undertaken in contravention of the Act of 1858. The Tapers relating to the two expeditions of 1891 were presented to Parliament in Return C [6526] of that year, and those relating to the Hunza Expedition were presented in Return C [6621] of 1892. The Secretary of State will have no objection to laying on the Table Papers connected with the recent fighting at Chilas if my hon. and learned Friend wishes to move for them.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the Return for which he has moved relating to Justices of the Peace for Scotland, notice will be taken of those who are absentees and non-resident, and of those who only reside for a few weeks during the year in the Highlands, and whose occupations require their constant attendance in England, on the Continent of Europe, in India, or in other counties of Scotland?

The Return which has been compiled during the last two months, at the cost of great labour, has already been sent to the printers to be set up in type. No alteration of the character suggested by my hon. Friend could be made without delaying it for a long time, if, indeed, such information could be obtained by the Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether two French gunboats, on Thursday night, 13th July, passed up the Menam River after nightfall, and anchored opposite Bangkok; whether a cannonade took place between the French gunboats and the forts, accompanied by loss of life; whether the Siamese Government was in receipt, at the time, of pacific assurances from the French Minister at Bangkok; whether the Treaty of 1856 distinctly requires that arrangements shall be made with the Siamese Government before French warships can ascend the Menam; whether the British Government had prior notification of this movement of the French ships of war; whether, in 1891, out of 307 vessels with a tonnage of 220,786 tons entering the Port of Bangkok, 259 vessels with a tonnage of 193,260 tons were British; and whether, out of 310 vessels with a tonnage of 224,248 tons clearing the Port of Bangkok, 260 vessels with a tonnage of 194,437 tons were British; whether the French gunboats are still anchored opposite Bangkok; and whether an ultimatum has been sent by France to the Siamese Government; and, if so, what are its terms?

At the same time I will ask the hon. Baronet the question which I put to him yesterday, and at his request postponed until to-day.

And, at the same time, may I ask whether, in view of recent events in Siam, and having regard to the Treaty of Amity and Commerce entered into between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Siam in 1855, and the Treaty of Amity and Commerce entered into between France and Siam in the same year, and especially the 15th Article of the last-named Treaty, wherein it is provided that French ships of war may not ascend the river towards the City of Bangkok beyond Paknam without the leave of the Siamese Government, the Government have received, or are taking steps to secure, assurances from the French Government that the terms of the last-named Treaty shall in the future be respected and the independence of the Kingdom of Siam maintained; and whether he is in a position, now or at an early date, to lay any Papers relating to the present position in Siam upon the Table of the House?

The information that two French gunboats ascended the Menam to Bangkok on the evening of Thursday the 13th, after an interchange of shots between them and the Siamese forts, attended with loss of life, is undoubtedly correct. As to the circumstances under which the encounter took place the evidence is conflicting. It is believed that assurances had previously been given by the French Minister at Bangkok to the Siamese Government that the gunboats would remain outside the bar. It is asserted, on the other hand, that the French gunboats, while still outside the bar, were subjected to an unprovoked fire from the forts, and that this led to the subsequent events. The information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficient to enable them to come to any positive conclusion as to the merits of the question. Article XV. of the French Treaty with Siam of 1856 provides that French ships of war shall be allowed to enter the Menam and anchor at Paknam; but that, in order to ascend as far as Bangkok, they must give notice to the Siamese Authority, and arrange with it as to the spot where they shall anchor. Her Majesty's Government had no prior notification of this movement of the French gunboats. They were informed by the French Government that these two vessels would remain outside the bar, and they can entertain no doubt that such was the intention of the French Government. The statistics of British trade with the Port of Bangkok quoted by the hon. Member are taken from the Trade Report of the Acting British Consul General there, and are believed to be correct. The French gunboats are still anchored opposite Bangkok. There are in all three French and two British gunboats there. It is understood that an ultimatum has been sent by the French Government to that of Siam. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make any announcement of its terms. But they are making inquiries on the subject, and as soon as they are able to do so they will give information to the House. I may add that the only part of the ultimatum which concerns Her Majesty's Government is that relating to territorial arrangements, and that they have determined at once to send Lord Dufferin to Paris to exchange views in an amicable spirit with regard to certain points which seem to require elucidation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of James Corrigan, or Maguire, who was convicted of larceny at the recent Tyrone Assizes: if he received the Victoria Cross and a £10 annuity for an act of great valour while serving in the 1st Bengal European Fusiliers at the capture of Delhi; if he has since forfeited both in consequence of convictions for various offences; if his conduct while serving in the Army was good, and that he attained the rank of sergeant while in the Service; if he is aware that Maguire is apparently suffering from some mental affliction, probably the result of sunstroke, and is in such a state that the learned Judge discharged him from custody; if inquiry will be made, and Maguire medically examined with a view to testing his mental condition; and if it is found that he has not been really responsible for offences with which he has been charged, will the War Office restore his forfeited annuity, or make other suitable provision for him in his old age?

James Maguire lost his annuity so long ago as 1862, when he was convicted of felony, and, under the Statutes of the Victoria Cross, was necessarily struck off the roll of that Order. The Judge who tried the case did not consider that there were mitigating circumstances, and as it was fully considered by one of my predecessors I am not prepared to re-open the question. The man served in the local Indian Forces, but he is eligible for consideration, among other applicants, for the special campaign pension now being awarded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of the regulation of prostitution, and the examination of the women, is still in force in Malta; whether it is the case that soldiers sent to the hospital are compelled, under threat of punishment, to name the woman from whom they have contracted the disease; whether, in the event of a soldier not being able to name the woman, he is taken in charge of a sergeant to the house in which he alleges she resides, in order that he may point her out; and whether he will order a stop to be put to the entire system?

A full Report on the points referred to in the question has been called for from Malta.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a fisherman named Patrick Cronin was severely wounded at Youghal, County Cork, on the 12th instant, by a shot fired from the rifle range, owing to some mistake in the danger signals; whether steps will be taken to secure the absolute safety of boats at sea during ball practice at this range; and whether, in view of the fact that the wounded man is dependent upon his occupation for his livelihood, reasonable compensation will be granted him for his injury and consequent disablement?

Patrick Cronin was wounded in his boat on the 12th instant by a shot from the rifle range, but there does not appear to have been any mistake as to the danger signals, nor is carelessness imputable either to the firing party or to Cronin himself. He was struck when outside the supposed range of danger, probably by a ricochet bullet, and the occurrence seems to have been quite accidental. I am glad to say that the wound is not likely to have serious consequences. Orders have been given to increase the zone marked as dangerous, and the question of compensation will be duly considered.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding of third-class compartments on the London and North Western Railway at Euston Station; whether he is aware that on Saturday the 8th, when the thermometer was at 84 degrees in the shade, one compartment of the 4.10 p.m. train to the North was packed by the order of the officials, notwithstanding the strongest protest, with 13 passengers, and remained so packed till it reached Rugby; and whether, in view of the fact that cattle trucks are forbidden to be packed with more than their registered number, he will order an inquiry, and enforce penalties against the London and North Western Railway Company, so as to insure that their third-class passengers at the Euston Terminus shall be treated at least as well in the hot weather as cattle?

The attention of the Board of Trade had not been drawn to overcrowding on the London and North Western Railway at Euston until the hon. Member gave notice of this question. The Company state that extra vehicles were added to the train referred to, but that an unexpected number of passengers arrived almost at the last moment, and amongst them a lady with a child in her arms and three other little ones at her side. As she was anxious to proceed by the train the lady and children were placed in a particular third-class compartment, with the intention that they should be changed at Willesden Junction. This was not done through a failure on the part of the telephone. The hon. Member can seethe correspondence. Overcrowding is the subject of bye-law; the case is not one for inquiry.

Arising out of the answer, are we to understand that the London and North Western Railway Company at their terminus at Euston has so little carriage accommodation that if a lady and three children happen to arrive at the last moment before the starting of a train the passengers must submit to be overcrowded on the journey all the way to Rugby? Is it not reasonable to require a great Company to have sufficient accommodation available to prevent that? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those complaints of overcrowding are made daily?

Our information is that this was a very unusual occurrence, and that the Railway Company do all they can to prevent overcrowding. If the hon. Member wishes to put any further question perhaps he will give notice. I may repeat that the Board of Trade have no power to deal with cases of this kind except by calling the attention of the Railway Companies to them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of Mr. Thomas Conway, who is a candidate for the office of Professor in the Training College at Marlborough Street, Dublin, the Board of Education has received any communication on behalf of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland protesting against his appointment; whether the Training College at Marlborough Street is the only Undenominational College in connection with the Board of Education, and on that account largely availed of by Presbyterian students; whether he is aware that on Tuesday, the 11th instant, the question of Mr. Conway's appointment produced a second deadlock at the National Board, the voting being six against six, and that Mr. Morell, a Presbyterian Commissioner, who had previously supported Mr. Conway, abstained from voting; and if it is proposed by the Resident Commissioner to still further press this gentleman's candidature?

A communication, as stated, was received by the Board of National Education protesting against the appointment of Mr. Conway until the public mind has been satisfied as to his suit- ability for this office. The facts are as mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of the question. The Resident Commissioner has not given any undertaking in respect of his intended action when the case comes up for final settlement in October next.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware that out of the votes recorded for this gentleman four were those of officials and two those of ex-officials of the Board, and that the legal and clerical element polled against him? Is not the right hon. Gentleman, in postponing action until October or November, when Parliament may not be sitting, running the risk of allowing a grave injustice to be done?

I have no opportunity of making any analysis of the voting, but I do not see, even if it were as the hon. Member indicates, that I could do otherwise than I have said.

Inasmuch as copies of the evidence taken at the investigation are to be had, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay one on the Table, so that it may be used in discussing this matter on the Vote on Account? I want the evidence regarding the moral character of this man whom it is proposed—[Cries of "Order!"]

I cannot undertake to place the evidence on the Table of the House until I have had an opportunity of considering it. I should think then it is extremely doubtful if it should be produced—the man may not be appointed, and may not continue to be a candidate even.

I shall raise the whole question on the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates, assembled at Petty Sessions, and representing every creed, unanimously decided that it was quite unnecessary to draft extra police into the town for the July celebrations, but that, notwithstanding this decision of those responsible for the peace of the district, 60 additional police were brought into the town from Connaught; whether any disturbance took place; and if the cost of this extra police force, brought into the town against the decision of the Justices, will be charged on the county?

It is true that the local Magistrates were of opinion that no extra force of police was necessary on the occasion mentioned; but the Divisional Commissioner and local police authorities considered that additional men were absolutely necessary, and it was probably owing to the presence of the force of police that no breach of the peace occurred. The men were drafted, not from Connaught, but from Donegal and neighbouring counties. The cost of the extra force, which will be something very small, is chargeable to the county at large.

But, Sir, as the peace of the county has not been disturbed on these occasions, is the right hon. Gentleman justified, when the Local Authorities declare that no assistance is necessary, in putting them to extra expense by sending in additional police?

I cannot take the advice of the Local Authorities over the opinion of my own officers. If that were done, decisions might be come to in other cases which the hon. Member would by no means approve.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been usual to hold competitive examinations for Second Division clerkships in the Civil Service in April and October; whether any such examination has been held since October last; and whether it is proposed to call upon candidates before October next?

Open competitions for Second Division clerkships are not necessarily held at fixed intervals, but at such times as may be necessary, in order to meet the requirements of the Public Service. It is true that during the last three years such examinations have been held twice a year; but, on the other hand, no such open competition was held between August, 1887, and May, 1890. No examination has been held since October last; and having regard to the present infrequency of vacancies, there is no immediate prospect of an examination being required.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General how many temporary clerks and senior substitutes, at present employed in the Central Telegraph Office, have been in the service of the Department for 12 months and upwards with no longer break in their service than three weeks?

I do not clearly understand my hon. Friend's question. There are 70 unestablished, i.e., temporary telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office who have been in continuous employment for more than a year. I presume that by "senior" substitutes my hon. Friend refers to "season" substitutes. There are 34 of these officers, who have been employed for as long as 12 months. They take the place of absentees.

Are not those who have been in continuous employment for a year eligible for the permanent service?

Some are over age.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Richard Hudson, rural postman at Moccas, Herefordshire, was dismissed from his post, at a week's notice, on 24th June last, in order that an Army Reserve man might be put in his place; and whether such dismissal was in pursuance of a policy to appoint Army Reserve men to positions under the Post Office; if so, whether he will consider the advisability of granting some compensation to Richard Hudson for being dismissed from the service of the Post Office?

I am inquiring into this case, and when I get the information I will communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that he proposes by the Local Government Bill largely to extend the powers of rating vested in Parish Bodies, and to limit the voting power of owners and large ratepayers, thus placing the appointment of both Parish and District Councils mainly in the hands of the compound householders, he will consent to state or to grant a Return of the number of rural parishes where an order of the Vestry under Section 4 of "The Poor Rate Assessment Act, 1869," requiring owners to be rated instead of occupiers is at present in force?

I have no information as to the number of parishes in which Orders have been made by the Vestries under Section 4 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, for the rating of owners instead of occupiers. In order to obtain the information it would be necessary to get Returns from the Overseers of about 13,000 parishes. There is not only great difficulty and delay in obtaining Returns from Overseers, who are unpaid officers; but if the particulars suggested wore furnished by them, the information would be of little practical use. It would afford no means of making any estimate of the number of compound householders under Section 4; and there are, of course, many parishes where, although Section 4 of the Act has not been put in force, the rates are paid by the owners instead of the occupiers under voluntary agreements between the owners and the Overseers under Section 3 of the Act.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with the clerks of the various Boards of Guardians in the country asking them to send circulars round to Overseers in order to gain the required information on this point?

That would be trying to obtain by two steps that which I think cannot be obtained by one.

I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now come to any decision with respect to the recommendation made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Metro- politan Police Courts, that two additional Magistrates should be appointed at once?

The Government have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified, for a Metropolitan purpose, in increasing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund to the extent which would be necessary if the recommendations of the Committee were carried into effect. The whole question of the best way of dealing with the difficulty is receiving my careful attention.

I shall call attention to the Report of the Committee on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the Charity Commission has any control over the administration of Lyons' Estates, in the County of Middlesex; and, if so, whether its attention has been directed to the unremunerative terms on which, in some instances, the leases on these estates have been granted; and whether, on the renewal of such leases, care will be taken to secure duly favourable terms for the beneficiaries of the Trust?

Though the Charities founded by John Lyon in Middlesex are within the general jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, the control usually exercised by the Commissioners over the grant of long leases of Charity Lands is, in this case, negatived by certain Private Acts of Parliament under which the Governors exercise leasing powers. In these circumstances, the Commissioners have no knowledge of the matters in question. It is, however, the duty of the Governors to grant leases upon the best terms obtainable, and the Commissioners would be prepared to consider and to inquire into any specific complaint of neglect by the Governors of this duty.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will cause the attention of the Education Department to be directed to the fact that under Section 40, Sub-section 2, of "The Local Government Act, 1888," such portions of the Administrative County of London as formed part of the Counties of Middlesex. Surrey, and Kent, wore severed from those counties, and now form a separate county by the name of the County of London, and to the fact that in their Provisional Orders made this Session under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," the Parishes of Fulham, St. Mary Islington, St. John Hackney, St. Leonard Shorediteh, St. Matthew Bethnal Green, and All Saints Poplar, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Middlesex, the Parishes of Charlton, Plumstead, St. Nicholas Deptford, and Greenwich, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Kent, and St. Giles Camberwell and Battersea, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Surrey?

I recognise that it is very important that these matters should be correctly stated. The descriptions of sites in Provisional Orders made by the Department have always been given in the words of the Schedule to the Petition of the School Board for the granting of the Order. The Department will, however, direct the attention of the School Board for London to the point, and will take further precautions on the matter in future.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir George Dibbs, Premier of New South Wales, has telegraphed to the Agent General of that Colony, now in London, instructing him to inform the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the great indignation which is felt in New South Wales at the conduct of the Imperial Government in relation to the detention of the ship Costa Rica as the result of the action of the Dutch-Indian Authorities in arresting the captain; whether he is aware that Sir George Dibbs submits that the award of £2,500 to the captain of the Costa Rica by no means meets the justice of the case; and whether it is the intention of the Imperial Government to demand compensation for the owners and crew of the ship Costa Rica, in accordance with the desire of the Now South Wales Government?

The Agent General has forwarded to the Secretary of State a copy of a telegram of the nature described from the Prime Minister of New South Wales, which is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how much, if any, of the sum of £65,000 entered in the suggested Irish Balance Sheet under the heading "Income from Crown Lands," is derived from estates brought into the possession of the Crown through the operation of the Act of Settlement, and liable under the provisions of that Act for the maintenance of a second College in the University of Dublin should such be founded?

Almost the whole of the Crown Revenue in Ireland is derived from quit-rents, and it is probable that a large part of these quit-rents come under the Act of Settlement; but investigation would be required before a definite opinion could be given on the point. The 219th section of that Act does not seem to bear the interpretation which my hon. Friend gives to it. It appears to direct that in the event of a second College being founded an annuity should be settled upon it, not derived from the quit-rents reserved to the Crown, but as a new charge to be placed upon the lands to which the section refers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been the custom at a convict prison, where officers have been in receipt of allowances on account of special circumstances caused by the situation, to add such allowance to their pay when calculating their pension on retirement; and, if so, whether he would recommend that those employed at Princetown Prison, Dartmoor, who are in receipt of "inconvenience money," may likewise have the "inconvenience money" added to their salary when calculating their retiring allowance?

The extra allowances made to the officers at Dartmoor Convict Prison were sanctioned by the Treasury not in order to meet expenses incurred by high rents, or increased cost of the necessaries of life, but in some measure to equalise the conditions of service for officers serving in so remote a situation as Dartmoor. The inequality of conditions, however, ceases when the officers' term there comes to an end; and the Treasury have decided that, in accordance with the practice observed by them in similar cases, they cannot permit these allowances to count towards pension, and I do not see my way to press the Treasury for a re-consideration of their decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of information, if any, the Government will give in the form of a Return of the income and expenditure of the Constabulary Force Fund; whether the Fund has ever been audited; and, if so, by whom; how many effective and non-effective members of the Force have a vested interest in the Fund; and whether any, and, if so, how many, widows and orphans are now a charge upon the Fund?

With reference to this question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the very full reply which I gave on the 9th May last to a question put by the hon. Member for Cork, and in which I stated that the invested balance of the Fund, amounting to £304,000, is in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, in addition to which there was at the same date a current cash balance of about £2,500 in the public account of the Inspector General; that the Fund has been audited from the outset of its career by the Exchequer and Audit Department; and that the number of officers and men now serving, whose pay is subject to the statutable deductions for the Fund, is approximately 8,730, and the number of subscribing pensioners 3,426. The concluding paragraph of the question seems to be based on a misapprehension. No pensions are granted from the Fund, and all claims cease with the payment of the gratuities to widows or children.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in the case of public companies (whose offices are registered in London, but many of whose shareholders are Irish) which pay the Income Tax on dividends for their shareholders, such Income Tax, as far as it relates to Irish shareholders, will be credited to the Irish Exchequer, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?

Any such receipts in respect of Income Tax as are contemplated in the question will not, under the proposed Financial Clauses, be credited to the Irish Exchequer, but a reference to Parliamentary Paper No. 337 will show that they are taken into account in estimating Ireland's contribution to Imperial Expenditure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has obtained a copy of the procès verbal of the cases of the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoun, on which the Court of Cassation at Constantinople based its decision?

We have not got a copy of the procès verbal; but, as I have previously stated, unofficial representations wore made as to irregularities said to have taken place at the trial.

Are efforts, still being made to secure the release of the Archbishops?

The matter continues to occupy the attention of Her Majesty's Representative.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recently-appointed Under Inspectors of Factories are only being paid £100 per annum, without any personal expenses, although they are doing similar work for which their predecessors were paid from £200 to £300 per year; and whether, in view of the fact that they have had to remove their homes from one part of London to another at their own expense, and also that this salary without personal expenses may place temptation of bribery in the way of these Inspectors, he will take steps at an early date in order to make arrangements for some increase of salary to be paid to these Inspectors, and for payment of their travelling expenses when away from home?

The scale of salary for the new class of Inspectors' assistants was fixed by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Home Office at £100, rising by £5 annually to £150, and all the applications and appointments were made on that footing. Their being required to take up their work at their own expense was in accordance with the universal rule of the Service. Any expenses incurred by these Inspectors in visiting workshops or travelling on official business are re-imbursed from public funds. They are allowed an allowance when they have been absent from home for not less than 10 consecutive hours of 3s., which is equal to that allowed to Her Majesty's Inspectors. I see no ground for raising their salary, or making in their favour an exceptional arrangement as to expenses.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the County Kerry Grand Jury and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company coming to an understanding as to the re-construction and future working of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, he will be prepared to advise the Treasury to assist the undertaking?

The Light Railways Act of 1889 does not enable the Treasury to make advances in the case of lines already constructed, and, moreover, all the money available under that Act is now expended or allocated.

Will the Treasury re-consider this special case?

I am afraid I can only say that I have no funds available.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what reply has been received by the Irish Local Government Board to their latest communication to the Dingle Board of Guardians on the subject of the housing of the Dingle fishermen?

The Local Government Board inform me that the Dingle Board of Guardians did not meet on Thursday last, and that they have addressed a letter to the clerk of the Union requesting him, in case the matter referred to is not disposed of at the Guardians' meeting to-day, to issue notices to each Guardian that the representation under the Labourers Acts will be submitted for final decision at the meeting to be held on next Thursday.

I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether his attention has been called to a case heard by Mr. Cooke at the Marylebone Police Court, on Thursday, the 13th instant, and reported in The Daily News of the following day, in which the Magistrate inveighed in the strongest terms on the conduct of John Warner, furniture dealer, in seizing the furniture of Sarah Shibbling, purchased of him on the hire system, after £4 2s. 6d. had been paid out of £5 3s. 6d. due; and whether the Bills of Sale Bill is intended to provide against, or will, in fact, provide against, such cases?

The case referred to did not turn out to be a case of hire and purchase. There can be no doubt that great hardships are inflicted under that system, and the Lord Chancellor has taken it into his serious consideration. He introduced in the Bills of Sale Bill in the House of Lords a clause intended to deal with the whole question, but found that it provoked so much opposition that it was hopeless to go on with it. The Bill was one of a totally non-contentious character. It was one of several Bills, including the Public Authorities Protection Bill, the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, and certain Consolidation Bills, which had passed the Lords once or twice. Unfortunately, they had not been allowed to proceed upon those Bills in this House at present; but he hoped hon. Members who had hitherto taken objection to them would remember that they came down with the sanction of all Parties, and that they contained nothing of a contentious nature.

Do I understand these Bills passed in previous sessions?

Yes; they were passed by the Lords.

Were they stopped in this House?

I cannot tell the history of them, but they did not pass through this House.

Is the Criminal Evidence Bill a non-contentious Measure?

I think it was introduced by the late Government and passed with the assistance of the present Lord Chancellor, who has again passed it through the House of Lords with the entire approval and assistance of the other side.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will take an early opportunity to promote legislation to put an end to this system of oppression of the poor?

The Lord Chancellor is determined to take the earliest opportunity to deal with the law, and to remove, at any rate, some of the abuses which are shown to exist.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the admission by Sir Peter O'Brien, Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, at the recent Kilkenny Assizes that the number of Serious offences has been reduced in that county by one-half, from 22 to 11, as compared with the corresponding period the previous year, and that the minor offences have also considerably decreased; whether his attention was also directed to the long and strongly-worded complaint, on the same occasion by the same learned Judge, against the method in which the official criminal Statistics are compiled, and the refusal of those responsible to include in the table of outrages fires and other injuries to property which the police believe to have been accidental, or to have been perpetrated by the owners for the purpose of obtaining compensation from the Grand Juries out of the rates; whether these criminal statistics have been compiled in the same way and by the same persons for many years, certainly during the whole of the last Administration in which the learned Judge acted as Attorney General, and whether during that period there was any official or judicial complaint, either by the learned Judge himself or by his colleagues in the law room of the Castle or on the Bench, as to the method in which these statistics were compiled; and whether, in view of the fact that any alteration in the system which has existed so long would destroy the value of these statistics as a standard of comparison between one period and another, he will continue unaltered the system so long in operation?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him, in reference to the same matter, whether the case which the Chief Justice alluded to as having been omitted was returned by the Grand Jury as a case of malicious, and not accidental, burning of hay on the farm of a man named Campion, and whether the Return was not in an altogether different form, as stated by the Chief Justice, to that laid before him at Clonmel, in which similar injuries to property appeared?

I must ask for notice of that question. I understand that the County Inspector made a mistake which he afterwards explained to the learned Judge.

It is all in the same Charge.

I think the hon. Member will find he is mistaken. With regard to the question on the Paper, my attention has been drawn to the language of the learned Judge in his address to the Grand Jury at Kilkenny Assizes. It is quite true that his Lordship admitted there was a considerable reduction in the number of offences of all classes reported since the spring Assizes as compared with the corresponding period of last year. In answer to the second portion of the question, my attention has also been directed to the strongly-worded complaint of the Judge with respect to Irish criminal statistics. I am not aware that the system of compiling those statistics has been commented upon either by this learned Judge or other Judges of Assize in any year before this. The learned Judge was mistaken in thinking that all doubtful cases are usually included in the Returns. The contrary has been the practice, as the Code reads—

"Care must be taken that no outrages, not recorded as such at headquarters, are included in the Return."

May I ask whether the Police Code does not direct that all outrages reported to the police shall be laid before the Judges of Assize when they come to the different counties? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will read to the House the words of what he calls the "Strongly-worded complaint of the Judge?" Was not that complaint a complaint that a particular outrage was kept back on the allegation that the man had himself set fire to the hay? And, if so, was not that as great an outrage as could be committed?

Is there any such practice known in England as that of a Judge in charging a Grand Jury commenting on cases which do not appear in the calendar?

I think it is, as the hon. and learned Member indicates, not the practice in England. It is undoubtedly true that an English Judge would not make an occasion of this kind an opportunity for criticising the actions of the Executive Government; and if he happened to be opposed in politics to the Executive Government, I am quite sure an English Judge would be doubly careful. It is undeniable that the Code says—and it has equally been the invariable practice—that

"Care must be taken that none but outrages recorded as such at headquarters are included in the Return."

I can tell you I am. For what purpose does the Code direct outrages to be returned to the Judge unless for the purpose of drawing attention to them? and may I ask whether it is the practice in England under any Code to lay outrages before the Judge of Assize? May I also ask—[Cries of "Notice!"]—I am not going to be mobbed by hon. Members below the Gangway—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can quote any case arising under the late Government whore an outrage found to be malicious by the Grand Jury was not included in the Return?

The House must see that the hon. and learned Member must know he is asking me a number of questions as to particulars which it is impossible for me to answer offhand.

Then you ought not to attack the Judges.

If the hon. Member will be good enough to put these questions on the Paper, I will give him the best answer I can. As for the attack on the Judges, what I have done has been to give a simple account of the matter; and if that simple account conveys in itself an attack on the Judges, it is due to what they themselves have said.

A most cowardly attack. [Cries of "Order!"]

I did not catch the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am told he used the words "cowardly attack." If he did they are out of Order, and he will, no doubt, withdraw them.

In deference to what you say, Sir, I do withdraw them. I wish simply to add it was in consequence of my questions not being answered that I thought the remark justifiable.

Is it not often the fact that claims are made to the Grand Juries for malicious burnings with the fraudulent object of obtaining compensation?

I believe there are such cases.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Treasury declined to aid the railway extension from Garve to Ullapool in consequence of the Report of the Treasury Commission being unfavourable as to the navigability of Loch Broom, and that, inasmuch as their Report is considered by many well-known persons possessing thorough knowledge of the loch to be inaccurate and misleading, the Treasury will authorise another Report to be made?

The matter has been considered and reported on by a Commission in 1890, and also by a Committee in 1891. Those who reported were very competent persons. Both Reports were unfavourable to this line, and the Government see no occasion for appointing a third tribunal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the Committee which condemned Loch Brown as unnavigable never went near either Ullapool or Loch Broom in order to take evidence from those accustomed to navigate the loch, which large steam and sailing vessels do navigate by day and by night with perfect case?

I have myself navigated Loch Broom, and can speak personally of the loch, but I believe the Report was founded on a very careful examination of the matter by a Commission.

I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his Department has received a letter from a member of the Aberdare School Board, complaining of an alleged irregularity in convening an extra ordinary meeting of the Board for 6th July, at which a resolution passed at a previous meeting was rescinded; and whether he is aware that the meeting was informally summoned; if so, what remedy the complainant has?

A letter has been received by the Department from a member of the Aberdare school Board complaining that an extraordinary meeting of the Board had been summoned on the 27th June last, without due notice. The Education Act of 1870 provides (schedule III., 1c) that an extraordinary meeting may be held at any time on the written requisition of three members of the Board addressed to the Clerk of the Board. The Department is not empowered to decide whether a meeting of a school Board has been properly summoned. As no remedy is provided in the Act, the complainant would have to have recourse to legal proceedings in order to contest the validity of the proceedings of the Board.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view of preventing the dismissal of workmen, he can see his way to adopt the system of shortening hours all round in periods of slackness in any of the Government Arms Factories?

A considerable number of discharges have taken place at Birmingham, where workmen have a fair chance of being absorbed in kindred occupations. At Enfield, where practically there is no other opening for men discharged from the small Arms Factory, it is sought to give relief in reducing the working hours all round by playing on Saturday. At Woolwich the precise nature and extent of the probable demands on the factories are not so obvious; but, in the event of the anticipated falling off of work, the policy of working short time, instead of diminishing the number of men employed, will be followed as far as is practicable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention concerning Swaziland, arranged with the Government of the South African Republic, has yet been signed; whether it requires, or has received, the ratification of the Volksraad of the South African Republic; whether it requires, or will receive, any ratification by the Imperial Parliament; and whether the Convention will be arranged and finally signed before Parliament have been given any opportunity of examining its terms or expressing any opinion thereon?

I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject shortly; and, Meanwhile, I would request my hon. Friend not to press his questions.

I hope the hon. Gentleman when he makes his statement will give an answer to the last paragraph in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the persistent opposition offered to the Crown Lands Bill, he will state as far as he can within the limits of a reply the terms of Reference he proposes to submit to the Committee of the House?

If the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, as I propose, I do not contemplate any special terms of Reference beyond those which have already appeared upon the Notice Paper, and which give power to call for persons and papers and to take evidence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that Judge Madden, in his Charge to the Grand Jury of the County Cork on Monday last, stated that the condition of the county was most satisfactory; and whether, under these circumstances, the extra police at present stationed in the County Cork will be withdrawn?

It is true, as stated by the learned Judge, that the condition of the County Cork is generally satisfactory and peaceful. But, as already stated by me, there is one portion of the county which does not bear favourable comparison with the rest of the county; and the local constabulary authorities, taking into consideration the nature of the duty to be performed by the police over so extensive a county as Cork, cannot at present recommend a reduction in the extra force.

May I ask whether the learned Judge said there was a considerable amount of intimidation, amounting in some cases to actual violence, which deterred people from coming forward to prosecute, and what steps the Government are going to take to put it down?

It is true, as the learned Judge said, there is a considerable amount of intimidation, and the Constabulary will do the best they can to cope with it. As the hon. and learned Member Must know, they are always on the alert.

How much of the county is subject to these special observations?

Only a small portion of a very large county.

Did not Mr. Justice Madden State that, compared with other large areas, this county was exceedingly free from crime?

The learned Judge said he observed with satisfaction that there was a decrease in the number of specially-reported cases as compared with the number in the corresponding period of last year. He also observed that, so far as the county at large was concerned, in a larger proportion of cases persons were made amenable.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Reference to the Royal Commission on Agriculture will include any inquiry into the substitution of sugar, molasses, rice, Maize, and other ingredients for barley malt, and of chemical substitutes for hops; and into the diminution in the number of small brewers, as disclosed by the Return issued this year relating to brewers' licences; and to the effect on the cultivation of barley and hops in this country?

I do not think this subject could be made the object of special Reference, but I have no doubt that it will be included within the general terms of Reference.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Bills have been introduced to lessen the adulteration of beer, and that these Bills have been backed by Members of all shades of politics, including the present Minister of Agriculture; and is he aware that at meetings of agriculturists throughout the United Kingdom some legislation in this direction is one of the most approved remedies?

I am aware of the zeal and activity of the hon. Member in efforts to Secure the purity of beer.

May I ask whether the House can be afforded an opportunity of discussing the question of the appointment of the Royal Commission?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Counties of Inverness and Perth the proportion of Liberals to Conservatives on the Commission of the Peace is 5 and 3 per cent, respectively; and whether the Government will take immediate steps to redress this disparity?

:My hon. Friend is aware that Her Majesty's Government have no means of operating in such cases as this excepting through the Lord Chancellor; and I think he is also aware from statements previously made, and particularly from a statement made by the Home Secretary with respect to the Metropolitan Counties, that the Lord Chancellor has been, and continues to be, employed in redeeming the pledge that has been given on his behalf as to giving effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons. I will take this opportunity of removing one misapprehension that prevails. It is supposed that the Magistrates who have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor Since this Matter came under consideration have been in all cases Magistrates recommended to him by Lords Lieutenant. It is not so. He has gladly and wisely availed himself of the assistance of the Lords Lieutenant, and he has found that assistance to be cor- dially given; he has also thought it his duty to avail himself of other means of obtaining recommendations and examining into the fitness of those recommended, and he will, of course, continue to avail himself of such assistance to the utmost extent that he can obtain it. But he will not consider his duties in the matter to be confined within these limits; he will pursue all the means in his power to carry into effect, as rapidly as it can be done with safety, the changes that are in contemplation.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the County of Argyll out of 164 Justices of the Peace, except officio Justices who are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, only five are believed to hold Liberal opinions?

I am not aware of it except from the hon. Member's statement. It is expedient that such cases should be brought under notice. They fall under the general answer I have given, and they will obtain attention in the effort to redress, as far as may be, existing inequalities.

Have any complaints reached the Government as to the way in which the Justices of the County of Perth have discharged their duties?

such complaints, if they existed—and I do not suggest that they do exist—would probably not reach me.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will take steps to make legal the hoisting of the Royal standard over any hotel in Ireland where Her Majesty or any member of the Royal Family might be staying, as, in accordance with the law now existing, over no licensed premises in Ireland can be legally hoisted any other symbol than that appertaining to the hotel, and the Irish Executive would, if they enforced obedience to the law, be bound to have it hauled down?

The question is whether the Government will take steps to make legal the hoisting of the Royal Standard over any hotel in Ireland where Her Majesty or any member of the Royal Family might be staying. For that purpose, of course, legislation would be necessary; and at this period of the session I do not think it is likely to be undertaken.

As it is not legal to so hoist the flag, would not the authorities or the Irish Executive be bound to haul it down if it were hoisted?

That is a very hypothetical question, and the contingency seems very remote.

I desire to put a question on a point of Order. It is whether, as it is essential that the decisions of the Chairman should be implicitly obeyed without comment, any step can be taken to put a stop to the growing habit of arguing with the Chair? There have been scenes in the House because the hon. Member for North Kerry on two occasions has declined to obey the Chair; and last Tuesday again several hon. Members below the Gangway declined to do so.

The hon. Member is not entitled to raise before me any questions as to what goes on in Committee. Such questions must be dealt with in the Committee. The House knows what is due to the authority of the Chair.

The hon. Gentleman, I understand, referred to me, but as his observations were not audible I will not make any reply to him.

I was not aware that he referred to any hon. Member. ["Yes, yes!"]

If I had heard what he said I would have answered him, but I did not hear what he said.