reported the Royal Assent to,—

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the export of hay from Austria-Hungary has been stopped; and whether the Government will make representations, so that exceptions may be made in favour of those who have made contracts before the date of the forbidding of the exportation, which contracts are as yet unfulfilled?

The exportation of hay from Austria-Hungary has been stopped, and Her Majesty's Government have made urgent representations that contracts entered into previously to this prohibition should be excepted from its provisions. It is understood that this matter is still under consideration at Vienna and Buda-Pesth.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there have been very few vacancies for boy clerks of late in the Civil Service, and many have in consequence been obliged to seek other employment, although the record of their work for three years has been satisfactory; whether he has noticed that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, in their Second Report, thought it might be desirable to reserve an increased proportion of men clerkships for them; and whether anything has been or will be done to carry out this recommendation?

Entry to the Second Division is obtained by open competition, and it is not desirable to lower the qualifications of that class of the Public Service by the appointment of persons who cannot obtain clerkships in the ordinary method. An exception is already made in favour of boy clerks. They are allowed to compete among themselves for the Second Division on any occasion of open competition for the same, and one-fourth of those so competing are admitted. I do not think that the exception should be further extended.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether be will consider, with reference to the new Warrant, which it is understood is about to be issued with regard to the Army Ray Department, the advisability of making arrangements under this Warrant for appointing a Chief Paymaster to a suitable position at the War Office in order to represent the Army Pay Department and to bring it into closer relationship with the War Office?

It is intended to employ at the War Office a member of the Army Pay Department on the staff of the Quartermaster General for the purpose of conducting the business of the personnel of the Department and of the corps of clerks; but it is not proposed to employ a Chief Paymaster on this duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Defence Association in a letter to the Secretary' of State for the Colonies, and contained in the Blue Book for May, 1892, page 11, that the present colonial engineer, when formerly acting as engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners, was removed from the latter office on the ground that he could not and did not satisfactorily perform the multifarious duties which he had undertaken; that on two separate occasions this same official had been reprimanded by Secretaries of State for the Colonies, under circumstances which alone justify the want of confidence expressed at the public meeting in regard to his having the control of any works wherein the ratepayers are concerned; and whether the scheme proposed by the said engineer for boring a tunnel, six feet by five feet, through the Rock of Gibraltar in search of water, has now been finally abandoned?

As regards the question referring to the colonial engineer, similar questions were asked and answered in the House on the 9th of May last year. There is nothing to add to the answers then given. As regards the last question, I am not yet in a position to extend the answer I gave my hon. Friend the other day.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if the following statements are correct: that a notice was received on the 15th May by the Local School Authorities of the large and populous school district of Hounslow, requiring them to provide additional school accommodation for 300 children within one month; that proposals were thereupon made to the Education Department by the said School Authorities to supply the necessary school accommodation, but on the 6th June, nine days before the expiration of the month, the Vice President of the Committee of Council ordered a School Board to be set up; and, if so, under what clause of the Education Act of 1870 was this summary action taken?

A final notice was issued by the Department on the 15th May, requiring provision to be made for 295 children, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1870. On the 18th May the ratepayers of the school district passed a resolution for a- School Board in due form, and an order for a Board was issued accordingly under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1870. The action was in no sense summary, but in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Department.

Is it not necessary, according to the section under which the right hon. Gentleman says he acted, to have in writing the signatures of 50 ratepayers, or one-third of the number in the district? And was not the meeting on which the Education Department took action merely attended by 40 persons and the resolution carried by a bare majority? Does the right hon. Gentleman think lie is acting rightly in forcing a School Board on a district with a population of 19,000 people?

A great many School Boards have been formed under the sections, and as long as the Department is satisfied that the Clerk of the Guardians has duly summoned the meeting, all Vice Presidents proceed to act. It appears that this mooting was attended by 67 ratepayers, any 10 of whom could claim a poll, but that was not done. If the clerk certifies that the meeting has been duly summoned and held, it is quite impossible for the Department to go into the size of the meeting.

I shall call attention to what I believe to be the illegal action of the Department in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Prisons Board has been called to the facts connected with the death of Henry Pedley, in the Cork District Lunatic Asylum in February last, as proved at the trial which has just taken place at the Cork Assizes, where Daniel Murphy, an attendant in the asylum, was tried for the manslaughter of Pedley, and acquitted; is he aware that it was established in evidence at the said trial that Pedley died from blood poisoning arising out of the fracture of four of his ribs from violent treatment received in the asylum; whether it is intended to institute any inquiry as to how Pedley's ribs were fractured; and whether any person is responsible for his death?

The facts are as stated in the question, and one of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums has been instructed to hold an inquiry into the circumstances connected with Pedley's death.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Attorney General for Ireland of the late Government instituted a suit before the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, against the Irish Society, with reference to their Irish estates, in consequence of a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which investigated this matter in the year 1891; and whether he can state what the exact object of the suit is, what stage it at present has reached, and when it is expected to come to a hearing?

The action referred to was not, I am informed, instituted by the Attorney General for Ireland of the late Government. It was instituted in January, 1892, in the Chancery Division, before the Master of the Rolls, by the Rev. Hugh Johnson, of the Presbyterian Church, against the Irish Society and others, and the Attorney General's connection with the case was limited to his having granted the usual fiat for the proceedings as required when proceedings are taken by information. The object of the suit was for a declaration that the defendant companies were the trustees of lands in Londonderry for the objects of the plantation of Ulster, and that they should apply the purchase-money of the lands and profits thereof for those objects. I believe the plaintiff has not yet de- livered his statement of claim, and the case cannot come to a hearing until he does and the defendants file expenses.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several actions in this case have been tried before the Master of the Rolls, and have all resulted in verdicts for the defendants?

I am not acquainted with the facts, but I know the hon. Gentleman has taken great interest in the case, so it is no doubt as he has stated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a fisherman named Patrick Murphy was drowned recently while fishing near Bailydavid, County Kerry, through the striking of his canoe on some sunken rocks; also that six persons have boon drowned at the same place during the past few years; whether repeated representations have been made to the Congested Districts Board to have these rocks removed; and whether, if the Congested Districts Board are unable to remove them, the local coastguards will be instructed to blow them up?

It is a fact, I am informed, that Murphy was drowned as stated; but the local police are not aware that any other person has been drowned at these rocks within the last 40 years. The Congested Districts Board have received a Memorial for the removal of the rocks, and the matter is now under consideration.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Fishery Inspectors have recommended the removal of these rocks?

I have not heard that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board will send an Inspector to inspect the houses of the Dingle fishermen, who have forwarded them a requisition to that effect, as those fishermen state that many of their houses are unfit for human habitation?

The Dingle Board of Guardians met last Thursday, and, having considered the representation under the Labourers' Act made to them on behalf of the fishermen, passed a resolution, in which they state that they are satisfied that the applicants are bonâ fide fishermen, and not labourers, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act of 1886. The medical officer's certificate shows that in only two eases are the houses of the applicants unfit for habitation. The Local Government Board are of opinion, under the circumstances, that the provision of the Act referred to, empowering them to order an independent inquiry, does not apply to a. case such as the present one.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has received a Petition from upwards of 400 persons, praying for the extension of the telegraph to the Island of Canna for the accommodation of a large fishing population frequenting the harbour in that Island; and if he is prepared to grant the extension asked for?

I have received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers. An extension of the telegraphs to Canna would lie very costly; and as the receipts would not he sufficient to cover the expenses, estimated at a, sum equivalent to £260 a year, it is not in my power to carry out the extension unless a guarantee can be given.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Scotch Education Department intends to grant the school accommodation petitioned for by the inhabitants of Cullipool, Luing, and Easdale?

The Department has been in communication with Her Majesty's Inspector on the subject of the Petition referred to. He finds it necessary to visit the places named before making his Report, and he hopes to do so early next month.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are still upwards of 400 writers unpromoted to the class of assistant clerk or abstracter, created by the Treasury Minute of 10th August, 1889; whether there is any practical difference between the work performed by those yet unpromoted and those who have been promoted to this class; and whether he will take steps to ensure that all the eligible writers remaining unpromoted shall be promoted without any further delay?

The statement in paragraph I is correct, but nominations to abstracterships already made will bring the number down to about 386. Appointments to abstracterships are not made unless a Department satisfies the Treasury that there is work to be provided for, which is superior to copyists' work. As difference of duties is the only justification for appointing abstracters and increasing the public charge, it is impossible for me to give the pledge asked for.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noticed, in the Official Report of the British Consul just issued, that trade in Samoa is paralysed in consequence of the politically disturbed condition of the country, that all progress has been checked, that no public works have been attempted during the past year, and that, under existing circumstances, it is almost hopeless to expect the carrying out of any public works; and whether, in view of these facts, he will confer with the other Treaty Powers with respect to giving early consideration to the serious situation that has arisen in Samoa, and taking the requisite steps to establish some stable form of Government in a group that now numbers 300 British-born subjects amongst its population?

I must refer the hon. Member to a reply given on the 17th, from which he will see that we are in communication with Germany and the United States, and that the three Treaty Powers have sent ships of war to Samoa with the object of putting an end to political disturbance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to an article in The Star of Saturday by Mr. Theodore Dodd, entitled "Spoiling the People;" whether he is aware that Mr. Culley, Commissioner of Woods and Forests, stated in 1889 that there was an immense acreage of quit rents, extending over a large part of Ireland, which belongs to the Crown; what is the amount of quit rents in Ireland now in arrear due to the Crown, and would those quit rents, if recovered, be appropriated in aid of the Public Revenue; whether it is the fact that there are large tracts of laud in Ireland in which the Crown has a reversion on lease fee; and whether, in view of certain recent proceedings, the Government will oppose any attempt to give away to the landlords any quit rents or Crown rents, or remissions of land held on lease fee?

Mr. Culley stated in 1889 that the quit rents belonging to the Crown in Ireland issued out of properties containing an immense acreage extending over a large part of Ireland. Of course, Mr. Culley referred to the quit rents as originally imposed. A large number have since been sold, and the properties for which these quit rents were payable are now free of such rents. The amount of the arrears of quit and Crown rents in Ireland on the 31st March last, considered to be recoverable, as shown in the Accounts of the Commissioners of Woods, was £15,883 16s. 6d., and this amount would, if recovered, be appropriated in aid of the Public Revenue. It is not known that there is any reversion in the Crown to lands subject to quit rents proper excepting in the ordinary way of escheat. In the case of Crown rents, the Letters Patent or Crown Grants reserving them sometimes contain a limitation, and no such routs are now sold until inquiry has been made as to whether there is a reversion in the Crown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received from Mr. J. Latham, of Bryun, near Wigan, a confirmation of the statement that the Rector of Downall Green, Lancashire, on learning that, he intended to have a Nonconformist Service at the burial of his wife, refused to grant him a private grave, and that the interment, therefore, took place in a grave in which two bodies had already been buried; whether he has also received from several inhabitants of the parish a statement to the effect that the rector has in other cases refused to allow parishioners to be buried in private graves when the relatives have not required the Church of England Burial Service, and, as a consequence, Nonconformists to obtain private graves, have been obliged to surrender their right to a Nonconformist Service; whether be has received from the Rev. G. Jarman, tin; Nonconformist minister who was obstructed in the performance of a burial service in Whitchurch Churchyard, Somerset, on 9th July, a copy of a letter addressed to him by the Rev. E. J. Franklin, the Vicar, in which he expresses sincere regret that he interfered with the Funeral Service, he having previously assured the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he bad offered no obstruction; and whether, in view of such occurrences, he will consider the expediency of adopting some means for securing for Nonconformists the free exercise of their rights under the Burials Act of 1880?

As to the first two paragraphs, I have received the statements to which my hon. Friend refers, together with some comments by the rector upon them, and a. Petition signed by certain inhabitants defending the rector's action. I am satisfied that the rector claims and exercises the right of appropriating private graves to members of his own congregation, and of leaving Nonconformists to be buried in graves where one or more interments have already taken place, lie seeks to justify his action on the ground of the limited space; available for new graves in the churchyard. I am not prepared to say that the rector is not acting within his legal rights. I can only express my own strong opinion that such a discrimination as he seeks to exercise is in entire variance with the intention and spirit of the Burials Act. 1880. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. As I stated on a previous occasion, I think that the Vicar in this instance violated the law, nor can I look upon the statement which he made to me in the first instance as a fair or complete account of the facts. As to the last paragraph, where the law is not broken it is obvious that no one can interfere with, however much he may condemn, the proceedings of the clergy. Where the law is broken it is open to anyone to prosecute.

On behalf of the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) the cause of the delay in building two labourers' cottages in the Bonis-in-Ossory and one in the Moneenallassa Electoral Division of the Roscrea Union, Queen's County, which were sanctioned by the Local Government Board on 30th May, 1S90, the final award for compensation being made on 18th January, 1892: (2) whether this Board rejected representations for 13 new cottages in lieu of 13 old ones condemned by the medical sanitary officer as unfit for human habitation: (3) whether he is aware that a representation for a house was sent in prior to 1892 for Richard Council, whose present house was condemned by the medical sanitary officer, but was rejected by the Roscrea Board on the ground that there were vacant houses in the district, but, on a second representation being sent in, the Local Government Board ordered them to make further inquiries, and they had to acknowledge through their officer that they were in error: (4) and whether he will instruct Mr. E. Bourke, Local Government Board Inspector, who is to hold an inquiry at the Roscrea, Workhouse on Friday, 18th August, to inquire into this case for the purpose of including it in the scheme under consideration?

(1) It appears that the Guardians have accepted a tender for the erection of two cottages in the Borris-in-Ossory Division, but that the contractor has so far failed to perfect his bond. As regards I he cottage in the other Division mentioned, the occupying tenant has refused to accept the compensation awarded to him, and the Guardians have taken steps to obtain possession of the site. (2) A number of applications were rejected by the Guardians in September last because the applicants were not labourers and on various other grounds, but not for the reason assigned in the second paragraph. (3 and 4) The statements in the third paragraph are substantially correct; but I am informed by the Local Government Board that the proposal that, the case be dealt with at the inquiry to be held on the 28th instant (not 18th August, as stated) is one that cannot legally be adopted. The ease can only be disposed of in a new scheme.

I beg-to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has boon called to the fact that on Saturday the 22nd of July, at Clapham Junction, about 20 passengers with tickets were thrust into a luggage van of the 2.58 train for Woking and Aldershot, there being just room for them to stand up in, and no more; that many of them were women and children; that, though they were told they would be released at Surbiton, the van did not come near the platform at that station, and they were forced to remain in this position as far as Woking; whether such conduct on the part of the Loudon and South Western Railway Company is in accordance with the law; and whether any steps can be taken to protect the public from such danger to their safety and destruction of their comfort?

I have communicated with the Company, and learn that, in consequence of several attractive events, including regattas and the Bisley meeting, on the afternoon of Saturday the 22nd instant, the suburban traffic was very great, and the resources of the line severely taxed. The Company do not admit that passengers were thrust into a luggage van, and inform '.no that their officials, anxious to accommodate everybody, suggested to some 15 or 20 passengers that they should get into the guards' vans rather than be compelled to wait for the following train. Overcrowding is the subject of bye-law, and it is difficult to prevent it; but I have asked the London and South Western Railway Company to give careful attention to the matter.

I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the reason why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland refused to grant the teacher of Killough, County Westmeath, boys' school, his full class salary for quarter ended 30th June, 1893, having regard to the fact, that the daily attendance during that period was up to the required average; and why the Commissioners refused to give the said teacher the benefit of Rule 164 (a) in granting his salary for quarter ended 31st March, 1893, the diminished attendance during that quarter having been caused by a serious outbreak of scarlatina and measles in the locality of the school?

I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that salary at the highest rate was not refused for the June, 1893, quarter, but that second-class salary only was paid as a provisional arrangement pending further consideration of the case by the Commissioners. For ii similar reason salary at the second-class rate was paid provisionally for the March quarter of 1893. If it can be clearly established that the cause of the decline in the average attendance was of a temporary character full-class salary will be paid.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teacher sent a medical certificate to the National Education Commissioners proving that the falling-off in the daily attendance was due to the facts stated in the question?

I can add nothing to my answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to re-enact during the present Session of Parliament the Act of 1881 regulating the carrying and possession of arms in Ireland and the preservation of the public peace in Ireland, and which expires this year; and, if so, when a Bill for that purpose will be introduced?

This subject has not escaped the attention of the Government; but I hope the hon. Member will postpone the question to a later day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Police Code in force in Ireland, the Police Authorities of each county are bound to lay before the Judge of Assize at each Assizes a Return of the crimes and outrages reported to the police since the last Assizes; for what purpose is this Return laid before the Judges of Assize; how long has the practice of laying such Reports before the Irish Judges continued: whether any such Returns are laid before the Judges of Assize in England: whether the Irish Executive uses its own discretion as to the principles on which these Returns are framed; whether the Reports laid before the Chief Justice at the Assizes in Clonmel were framed, so far as injuries to property were concerned, on the same principles as those1 laid before him at Kilkenny; and whether he will state to the House what were the terms of the strongly-worded complaint and criticism of the Executive by the Chief Justice at the late Kilkenny Assizes.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if it was suggested by the learned Judge in the speech referred to that outrages believed by the police to be bogus should be included in the Return: and whether the result of such a manipulation would be to enable evil-disposed persons to pretend that crime is on the increase in Ireland since the suspension of the Coercion Act, whereas in reality the contrary is the csse?

I am not aware of the learned Judge's object in making the recommendation. I do not suppose it was made, otherwise than with a view to the Public Service. The answer to the first of the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions is in the affirmative; hut it is specifically directed that care is to he taken that none but outrages, recorded as such at headquarters, are included in the Return. In answer to the second question, there is no record of any reason for laying these Returns before the Judges; but I should suppose that the principal purpose was to give the Judges assistance in determining sentences, in case any particular form of crime should be especially prevalent. The Chief Justice at Kilkenny observed that the Code said that the object is that the Judge may address the Grand Jury with reference to the state of the county. The Code docs not appear to contain any statement of the kind. The practice has existed since 1862. I understand that no such Returns are laid before Judges of Assize in England; but, as the Chief Constable is a local and not a central officer, I am unable to say what actually takes place. The Irish Executive does and must use its own exclusive discretion in framing these Returns, for it is the Irish Executive and not the Judges who are responsible to Parliament. But I may repeat that no change whatever, great or small, in the principles, in the practice, or in the officials concerned has taken place since the present Government came into Office nor for many years past. The County Inspector at Clonmel Include certain cases which, according to the instructions in the Code, should not have appeared in the Return. The County Inspector in that made, by inadvertence, a mistake. The Lord Chief Justice described the system of preparing the Returns as unsatisfactory, as mistaken, and as confused, and in much need of amendment. I regard this as strongly worded. I had in view, not merely his language at Kilkenny, but the proceedings at Clonmel on July 12, when the Lord Chief Justice cross-examined the County Inspector at much length in open Court as to the system on which these Returns are prepared by the Executive Governmenl—a performance entirely unusual, and open to grave objections.

May I ask whether the Code does not provide that the County Inspector is to attend and to afford any information or explanation that may be required; and whether the matter on which the Chief Justice questioned the County Inspector was that it was stated in the Return that there were no eases of intimidation, whereas amongst the Reports there were actually two cases of mutilating cattle because evicted farms had been taken?

I wish to ask whether the Code has any statutory authority, or whether it is a local regulation of the Police, and whether it is a private or a public document: and also whether the Chief Secretary can suggest how the Members for the University or the Chief Justice got a copy, because we have pressed several times to have a copy laid on the Table, and were always refused by the late Chief Secretary?

Is the designation "outrage" not given in the Return to ordinary police offences, thereby misleading everyone interested in the administration of justice?

I am equally shocked at the designation "outrage" being given to what are offences against the law, and which I am perfectly sure those who read these Returns do not think of in that connection. The Code is not exactly a private document, because I believe there is a copy in the Library of this House. My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the Executive Government to furnish these Returns, and there is no right on the part of the Judges to call for such a Return except so far as the Code directs it. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin is quite right in saying that the Code directs the County Inspector to afford any information or explanation that may be required: but what was peculiar in these proceedings at Clonmel was that, I think for the first time, these communications between the County Inspector and the learned Judge took place in open Court, and not, as hitherto, privately, and that the proceedings in open Court were made the opportunity for criticising the system of the Executive Government.

Had not the learned Judge's remarks to the County Inspector in Court reference to the entry in the Return which the Chief Secretary has stated was mistaken and contrary to the rules of the Code: and J may further ask whether, if the learned Judge had not called attention to the matter, the mistake would have passed unnoticed: is it not the duty of the Judge to refer to any defects or irregularities in the Returns, whether they affect the Executive favourably or unfavourably?

And may I ask whether the police are directed, in cases whore no prosecution is pending at the suit of the Crown, to submit themselves to the cross-examination of Judges: whether this has occurred before: and whether the Judges receive salaries for cross-examining the police?

I think this is a practice more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It puts the officers of the Executive Government in a false position, and I think it puts the learned Judge himself in a false position. The hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh cannot have read very carefully the cross-examination by the learned Judge of the County Inspector, or he would see that the question is much wider than he supposes.

Docs the right hon. Gentleman say there is a copy of the Code in the Library?

I believe there is. It is not for sale, and consequently, in that sense, the Code is a private document.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an English steamer, subsidised as a mail steamer both by the Canadian and by the Newfoundland Governments, and running from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland, lately brought down 400 boxes containing cans for packing lobsters consigned to a firm nominally French: whether these were landed on the Newfoundland Government public wharf at St. George's Bay: whether the consignees refused to pay duty or to acknowledge the Colonial Custom House: whether, after due notice, the Customs seized and condemned the shipment for non-payment of duty: whether the French Admiral protested, and, sailing for St. John's, addressed the Governor in a Despatch asking for payment for the lobster cans seized and refund of duties paid by French residents on other goods imported by the same steamer: and whether Her Majesty's Government are in correspondence with the French Government in support of the action taken by the Colony?

The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first five paragraphs of the question. With regard to the last paragraph, a protest has been received from the French Charge d'Affaires, and the matter is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Law Officers of the Government of India or the Government of Bengal have been consulted on the question of the legality of the proposal of the Bengal Government to impose the heavy burden of the cost of the Behar Cadastral Survey, by au Executive order, exclusively on the landlords and tenants of that Province without special legislation; whether all the Native Associations of Bengal connected with agriculture have submitted a Joint Memorial to the Viceroy, urging that this order is ultra vires and illegal, and intimating that any attempt on the part of the Government to recover such cost is likely to be generally resisted in the Law Courts; whether the Viceroy will instinct the Government of Bengal to introduce a Bill on the subject into the reformed Legislative Council, with permission to the Official Members to vote thereon as they may think proper: and whether the Correspondence on the subject, including the opinions (if recorded) of the Law Officers, can be laid before Parliament?

(1) The order for undertaking a Cadastral Survey in North Behar was issued under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the Law Officers of the Government in India were consulted respecting the order, or upon the question of apportioning the cost of the work under Section 114 of the Tenancy Act. (2) The Secretary of State has not heard that the payment of the cost of the Survey is likely to be contested in a Court of Law. (3) If the existing law sufficiently provides for the Cadastral Survey, it is not probable that the Indian Government will introduce a Bill on the subject. (4) The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India as to the possibility of laying Papers before Parliament on the subject.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he hits some time since received a Memorial, numerously and influentially signed by the inhabitants of the town of Elphin, in County Roscommon, complaining that by a delay of nearly six hours en route of the ear conveying their mails they are deprived of all benefit of the accelerated mail service, and are compelled to leave any letters arriving by the evening mail, however urgent, unanswered until the following day; and whether he will give the said Memorial his careful and immediate consideration, with a view to providing a prompt remedy for the grievances complained of?

I will make inquiry into the circumstances and communicate to the hon. Member on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty charts show that there are islets and rocks in Loch Broom preventing the safe navigation of the loch from its entrance to Ullapool?

There is nothing to prevent the safe navigation of Loch Broom from its entrance to Ullapool. The Sailing Directions state that it is remarkable for being perfectly free from rocks and dangers of any sort, excepting the squalls natural to narrow seas encompassed with mountainous land.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Army Medical Officers are giving attention to the peculiarly destructive character of wounds inflicted by the nickel-covered bullet?

Army Medical Officers are fully aware of the effects of the nickel-covered bullets. Extensive experiments have been made, and every oppportunity is taken of studying the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a tailor named M'Kinley, in Stirling, whose workmen are on strike, is having work done for him by soldiers in Stirling Castle; and, if so, what action will be taken in the matter to put a stop to such proceedings?

I was informed of this case some time ago, and at once inquired into it. It appears that the civilian master tailor at Stirling Castle did as a favour to Mr. M'Kinley, who had on a former occasion given some help to him when he was short-handed, make two kilts; but he states that when he did it no thought of the strike was in his mind. When the fact was brought to the knowledge of the Military Authorities of the district the necessary orders were at once given to prevent any such occurrence in the future.

I beg-to ask the Postmaster General, with regard to the clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, who are divided into three classes—namely, second, first, and senior, whether all of these are instrument clerks; whether, under the present system, clerks on reaching the top of one class may have to wait for years before promotion to the next class, notwithstanding that their duties and qualifications are similar to those already in the upper class: whether he is aware that this system has been for years the cause of great dissatisfaction among the clerks who have frequently petitioned against it; whether this Department is the only one in which such a system of classification is adopted; and whether he will now make inquiry to see if anything can be done to remove the grievance complained of? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that during the period of the administration of the Fawcett Scheme (1881–91) no second class clerk in the Central Telegraph Office of good character reached the maximum salary of his class before his promotion to the first class; whether the early promotion in these cases was due to the increase of traffic; and whether, in view of the large increase of work, now proved by the employment of a large body of permanent temporary hands and much overtime, he will consider the advisability of reverting to this method of promotion?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative; but, as a matter of fact, there are only about 20 out of 600 telegraphists in the first class who have reached the maximum, and there are none in the second class. Petitions have, no doubt, been received in favour of an increase in the number of places on the higher classes, and such additions to those classes have from time to time been made as the circumstances have appeared to justify, but not, I can well believe, so as to fulfil all expectations. The system of division into classes in operation in the Central Telegraph Office is, so far as I am aware, common to the whole of the Civil Service. In connection with the foregoing matters I cannot admit the existence of a well-founded grievance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a request has been made by the Colony of South Australia to appoint the Chief Justice, the Hon. Samuel James Way, to-the office of Governor of the Colony; and what reply has been given to that request?

No such request as that stated in the question has been made. Chief Justice Way already holds a commission as Lieutenant Governor, empowering him to administer the Government in the event of the death, absence, or incapacity of the Governor. The Agent General has communicated a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister requesting that, as Government House at Adelaide is not ready, and as economy is desirable, the administration of the Lieutenant Governor, after the departure of the Governor, should be temporarily prolonged. This request will receive consideration at the proper time.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Australasian Colonies contribute a sum equal to £40,000 per annum (together with residences, &c.) for the salaries of Governors appointed and selected by the British Government; and whether a recommendation will be made to the Colonial Governments that, in view of the severe depression in the Colonies, one Governor General of Australasia or Viceroy be appointed at a salary of £10,000 a year?

The answer to the first question is "Yes," and to the second one "No." Such a recommendation would imply a want of knowledge by Her Majesty's Government of the theory and working of the Australian Constitutions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board of Ireland have refused to sanction a clause agreed upon by both sides in the Blackrock and Kingstown Main Drainage Bill, giving powers to consolidate the loans of the respective townships, and to have their repayments spread over a period of 60 years; and whether the Government will facilitate this arrangement in the interests of the ratepayers?

I am informed that the Local Government Board for Ireland have, in pursuance of the 52nd section of the Public Health Act, 1890, made regulations with reference to the issue and dealings with stock by Urban Sanitary Authorities. These regulations are similar to the regulations on the same subject made by the English Local Government Board, and provide, among other things, that in fixing the period within which loans shall be discharged, the Board shall have regard to the amount of the loans and the period allowed for paying them off by the statutory borrowing powers. The clause in question conflicted with these regulations on points of vital importance, and the Local Government Board could not, therefore, consent to its insertion in the Bill.

Am I to understand there is no prospect of the Board agreeing to the clause under any circumstances?

It would be ultra vires.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken, up to this date, to connect by telegraphic or telephonic communication with the shore any of the lightships as recommended by the Royal Commission on 8th December, 1892?

Orders have been given to prepare the Kentish Knock Lightship for the reception of the cable without delay; and communication with the lighthouse of Lundy Island is being rapidly advanced.

Are we to understand that the specific recommendations of the Royal Commission are to be disregarded?

No; the work is being done. We must proceed gradually, so as to find out what is the best thing to do.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands my question. The Royal Commission specifically recommended that certain lightships should be immediately connected. With the exception of the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is that recommendation to be disregarded?

No. But we can only proceed with one at a time. The work could not be done like a private undertaking. We propose to try first the result on the Kentish Knock.

I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

It is now the end of July, and the Report was issued at the beginning of the year, and we were promised that the vessels should be at once connected.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the work will be completed?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will cause investigation to be made as to the estates from which quit rents are payable to the Crown in Ireland, and which are liable under the 219 section of the Act of Settlement for the maintenance of a second College in the University of Dublin?

I cannot answer the question of my hon. Friend without further inquiry than I have yet had time to make. Perhaps he will communicate with me again in a few days.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the negotiations are going on for the establishment of a Catholic College?

I know of no negotiations.

Have not many landlords in Ireland refused to fulfil their obligations to the Crown in respect of these quit rents? Is not the owner of the Ponsonby Estate 40 years in arrear? Are the Government taking any steps to prevent the Revenue of Ireland being peddled away?

I cannot admit that the landlords have refused to pay.

How many Irish landlords are in arrear?

I cannot add anything to my answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, there being only one class of Inspectors provided for under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872," there was any statutory office of Assistant Inspector; under what authority the Treasury claims to have had power to create the office of Assistant Inspector of Mines, and to invest the holders of such office with the statutory powers conferred on the office of Inspector under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872;" whether if, as alleged, an Assistant Inspector only became an Inspector by promotion, the 43rd section of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, was complied with, inasmuch as such promotions or appointments of Inspectors were not published in The London Gazette; whether the intention of the Treasury Order of 14th June, 1859, was to meet cases in which the knowledge and ability deemed requisite for certain offices are professional and peculiar, and such as are not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service; and on what grounds the Treasury refuses to fulfil the terms of the Order of 14th June, 1859, in the case of Mr. Thomas Cadman, late one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines in Monmouthshire and South Wales, and other gentlemen appointed under the Act of 1872?

An Assistant Inspectorship of Mines is not a statutory office. It was created by the Treasury in the exercise of their general powers, at the request of the Secretary of State. The Assistant Inspectors were to be young men attached to, and subordinate to, Inspectors. They were to have no claim to promotion to that office, but might be selected for appointment on a vacancy. They were to receive lower salaries and to be appointed at an earlier age. It does not rest with the Treasury to define the duties which the Secretary of State may assign to an Assistant Inspector. All awards under the Superannuation Acts are subject to the discretion of the Treasury, and the Treasury Order of June 14, 1859, does not, in their opinion, apply to the officers referred to in the question.

I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, with reference to the Petition of General M. F. Fischer, Royal Engineers, presented to this House and printed in the Appendix to the Twelfth Report of the Committee on Public Petitions (16th–29th May, 1893), page 89, in which the Petitioner appeals to this House on the ground that, as he alleges, he has been illegally deprived of certain rights guaranteed to him by the Government of India Act through the operation of a Royal Warrant, and, being desirous of raising the question of the legality of the said deprival, has, during the past three years, endeavoured to have a Memorial submitted to Her Majesty through the Home Secretary, in accordance with "The Petition of Right Act, 1860," but "has been denied all access to Her Majesty as a British subject," under a letter, dated 27th May, 1890, written by direction of the late Homo Secretary, declining to recommend that the Petition should be endorsed with Her Majesty's fiat in the usual manner unless Clause 10 of the said Petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner; whether the ground on which the Secretary of State refused such recommendations is that the War Department is the proper authority to deal with Clause 10 of the Petition; whether the effect of this decision was to deprive the Petitioner of the opportunity of raising by a Petition of Right the question of the competency of the Crown to override an Act of Parliament by a Royal Warrant; and whether he claims the power to prevent, by withholding the fiat, any Petitioner from raising that or any other Constitutional question by a Petition of Right; and, if so, whether he will state the statutory authority under which he has acted in this case?

I am informed that General Fischer's Petition was referred both to the War Office and the India Office and the Attorney General. The result of the correspondence was that on the 27th May, 1890, General Fischer's solicitors were informed that the Secreary of State understood that the War Department was the proper authority to deal with Clause 10 of the Petition, but that if General Fischer would submit another Petition omitting Clause 10, or authorise the withdrawal of it, the Secretary of State would recommend that the Petition should he at once endorsed by Her Majesty. On the 30th May, 1890, a copy of the Petition was handed to General Fischer's solicitors to enable them to draw the Petition afresh if their client decided that this should be done. The Secretary of State does not claim any power, by withholding the fiat, to prevent any Petitioner from raising any Constitutional question by Petition of Right; but as it appears that the question raised in Clause 10 impeaches the action of the Army Purchase Commissioners, it did not seem to be one fit to be submitted to Her Majesty on Petition of Right. I was not aware, until this question was asked, that the Petitioner had raised any objection to the withdrawal of Clause 10.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal are proceeding with the Cadastral Survey in Behar notwithstanding the protest of the British India Association, the Behar Landholders' Association, the Bhangul-pore Landholders' Association, the Zemindars Punchayet, and the Indian Property Association, representing a, large majority I of the zemindars of Bengal; whether it has been strongly represented to Government that such surveys will, instead of being a relief to the ryots and a measure of utility to them and to the zemindars, be felt by all classes interested in hind in India, as a wholly unnecessary penal exaction resulting in no advantage to them or to the State; what, if any, progress has been made with the Surveys which have been sanctioned by Executive order; what the total estimated expenditure on such Surveys, which has been ordered to be borne by the zemindars and subordinate holders in equal moieties, is; and whether, in previous Cadastral Surveys of a, Province in India, the cost of such Surveys has been made a charge upon the General Revenues of the country?

(1) Yes, Sir; the Cadastral Survey of North Behar is being prosecuted after careful consideration of the arguments for and against the measure. (2) The view summarised in Clause 2 of the hon. Member's question has been urged on the Government in India by some of the opponents of the Survey. (3) Precise Returns of the amount of survey already done are not available; but it is believed that the survey of 1,000 to 1,200 square miles has been accomplished. (4) The estimated cost of the Cadastral Survey is 8 annas (about 8d.) an acre; of this, according to present arrangements, the General Treasury is to bear l–8th of the cost, while 7–16ths will be paid by the laud-holders, and the same proportion will be borne by the occupiers or ryots. (5) In temporarily-settled tracts the General Treasury usually bears nearly the whole cost of a Cadastral Survey, because the charge is recouped in a few years by the increase of Land Revenue secured. In permanently-settled tracts such as Behar no increase of Revenue will result from the Survey, and the Government only bears a portion of the cost.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a copy of a circular sent out by Mr. Fred L. Capron, agent to Lady Wallace, to the tenants on her Antrim and Down estates, in which they are threatened with the enforcement of payment, of all arrears of rent if they do not purchase at the price offered to be taken by Lady Wallace, and in which it is intimated that the tenants so purchasing will be forgiven one year's rent; whether he is aware that this year's rent, which is threatened to be enforced or offered to be forgiven, is rent that lay over as not collectable considerably upwards of 40 years ago, and that was never attempted to be collected in the lifetime of the late Sir Richard Wallace; and whether he will direct the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?

I have seen a copy of the Circular referred to, which the hon. Member has been good enough to send mo. I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question. The matter, however, has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Justice Bewley, in the Land Commission Court, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of 25th instant, with reference to the treatment of the purchasing tenants on the County Down estate of Lady Wallace; whether he is aware that, in a number of cases on this estate, the late Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy refused to sanction as being excessive the amount of purchase money mentioned in the agreements, but lesser amounts were named; also that new agreements were made out in which the lesser amounts were stated as the purchase money, but no reference was made to any moneys having been paid by the tenants in excess of the amounts stated in the agreements; is he further aware that it afterwards appeared, though it had been concealed from the Court at the time, that the tenant in each case had paid into the landlord's office additional purchase money to bring it up to the amount which the Court had refused to sanction: that, in the case of John Keman, who applied for £92, only £50 was sanctioned, and in the new agreement it was stated the landlord was selling for £50, notwithstanding that the tenant had to pay the additional £42 to the landlord, and that Mr. Justice Bewley declared the dealings to be cases of the greatest, injustice; and what steps will be taken to protect these and other tenants purchasing through the Court from the payment of prices which the Land Commission had refused to sanction?

The subject of the first question has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them. With reference to the second matter, I understand that the facts are generally as stated in the question, and that the published report of Mr. Justice Bewley's observations is also substantially correct. The Land Commissioners inform me that the prices named in purchase agreements are for the parties and not for the Commissioners to settle, their duty being to consider the adequacy of the security for the advance applied for. The Commissioners have communicated with the Inland Revenue in reference to the case, and are also at present considering what steps should be taken by them in the matter.

Seeing that the tenants have been charged an annuity on the basis that the whole of the money is being advanced by the State, and bearing in mind the fact that the Commissioners were not aware it was otherwise, what steps will be taken to reduce the annuity, and thus do justice to the Commissioners?

Is it the fact that the tenants paid money behind the backs of the Commissioners? Have they not themselves lessened the value of the security to the Land Commission?

I will communicate with the Land Commissioners on the subject?

Did the tenants have to give promissory notes? Does not the Act provide for wiping out all arrears of rent, and will the attention of the Land Commissioners he called to these notes?

I do not suppose they have escaped the notice of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that. Daniel Noonan, Tomaline Doon, County Limerick, who was evicted on 27th February, 1893, a short time before eviction, served an originating notice to get a fair rent fixed, which notice was dismissed on purely technical grounds—namely, that the father on the marriage of his son, which took place over 20 years ago, reserved to himself a few acres of the farm without the written consent of the landlord, though with his knowledge; also that the tenant before his eviction offered to pay a rent as well as all arrears fixed by arbitration, and if both offers were rejected by his landlady: whether he is aware that the rent of the farm was £66, and the valuation £34 yearly, and that two experienced valuators swore before the Land Court that a fair rent would be about £28 yearly; also, that the tenant, in the presence of his late parish priest, the Rev. Canon O'Donnell, offered one year's rent, there being then only one and a half year's rent due, and a future rent of £40 yearly; whether he is also aware that the tenant offered to leave the fixing of the rent to Mr. Hobson, Sub-Sheriff, County Limerick, who is a relative to the landlady, and that on the day of the eviction the tenant's father, who is over 90 years of age, was evicted in a snowstorm; and if the landlady should still refuse those terms, will police protection, at considerable expense to the State, be continued to the emergency man in charge of the evicted farm?

In September, 1887, Daniel and Jeremiah Noonan served an originating notice as lessees to fix a fair rent. In March, 1889, the case came before a Sub-Commission, and, with the consent of the solicitor for the tenant, the name of Daniel Noonan was struck out and the name of Jeremiah Noonan retained as tenant, it appearing that the holding was held under a lease for a term of 31 years and a life, made to the said Jeremiah Noonan. On the further hearing of the case the application to fix a, fair rent was dismissed by the Sub-Commission on the ground that Jeremiah Noonan was not in bonâ fide occupation of the entire holding. I understand that he had, some years previously, assigned his farm, except a, few acres which he reserved for himself, To his son Daniel, and that it is alleged this was done with the knowledge and consent of the then agent of the landlady, Mrs. Gladstone. Whether the allegation is based on fact I cannot say. None of the members of the Sub-Commission are now, I am told, in the employment of the Land Commission, and no appeal appears to have been taken against this order of the Sub-Commission. The various other statements in the question are, I understand, on the whole correct; and with regard to the concluding paragraph, it will be the duty of the police, which they cannot avoid, to afford protection to the caretakers so long as may be deemed necessary irrespective of any action on the part of the landlady.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what are the main objects of the inquiries of the Departmental Committee appointed to represent the Education Department, the Science and Art Department, and the Charity Commissioners; whether they include an investigation into the relative spheres of action of the Local and Central Authorities; if not, whether the powers of the Committee can be extended to such an investigation; whether the membership of the Committee can be increased in numbers so that it may comprise other than official members; and how soon will some account of the proceedings of the Departmental Committee be presented to the House? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will introduce legislation next year with a view of establishing a properly organised system of secondary education in England?

The primary object of the Departmental Committee is to bring about more co-operation between the Departments concerned in matters in which they are jointly interested. The value of such a Committee to the Departments is so great that it will very probably become a permanent arrangement. The question of the organisation of secondary education has been before this Committee, which will gladly receive information from the Local Authorities as to the subject mentioned in the hon. Member's question. If each Local Authority were willing to forward to the Committee an account of the present position of secondary education in its district, and to give evidence if necessary, much very valuable information could be acquired. I do not propose to lay any formal Report on the Table from the Committee; but I hope to publish at a later stage sonic of the information received, whether from the Departments or from outside, which may seem likely to be of general interest. Considering the special character of this Committee, as I have described it, I do not think it would be feasible to add further Members to it. It is impossible to give any promise as to legislation next year; but it is very desirable that some further powers should be given to Local Authorities with a view to the establishment of a well-organised system of secondary education.

Why should any selection be made? Would it not be more satisfactory to place the whole particulars before the House, and not make any selection?

A great deal of it is purely Departmental matter, and refers to discussions between various officers of the Department.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now come to any decision in respect of directing the issue of distress warrants at Fulham to enforce Vaccination Orders; and whether the police are authorised to call at the houses of defaulters and threaten the wives with consequences for default in obeying the Orders for vaccination, using the name and authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?

With regard to the first paragraph, it was through an omis- sion on the part of the police to observe the instructions, which in all such cases require a previous reference to the Secretary of State, that the Inspector took the action which he did. No further proceedings have been taken for the execution of the warrant, and the instructions of the Secretary of State will be brought again to the notice of all the Metropolitan Police, and their observance strictly enforced. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is prepared to assist Agricultural Colleges, and Colleges whore a leading position is given to agricultural teaching, to acquire model farms for the better instruction of students?

I am afraid that the limited means at our disposal would preclude us from entertaining any application for assistance in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend; but I should be glad to receive information as to any particular proposals which he may have in view.

Would not technical education, by the aid of model farms, prove more beneficial than vexatious restrictions against the importation of food supplies?

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to the cost of a few acres of land to be used for this work?

I am afraid that with the small sum at my disposal that would be of no use. I should be glad, however, to receive any suggestions.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, after the Court Martial upon the Victoria and Camperdown disaster, the full technical evidence as to the closing or otherwise of bulkhead doors, scuttles, &c, will be laid upon the Table of the House, or be accessible to Members, in view of the extremely meagre reports in the newspapers upon these points?

Information on these points will be given to the House. The time to decide whether the Minutes of the Court Martial will be laid on the Table will be when the proceedings are complete and the Minutes are before the Board of Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that, at the recent Petty Sessions at Newtown-barry and Oulart, in the County of Wexford, a number of cases had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a, second Magistrate; how often cases in those districts had to be adjourned this year through the same cause; whether there are a number of gentlemen resident in those Petty Sessions districts fully qualified to act as Magistrates; and whether any appointment to the Bench has been made in those districts since the present Government came into Office?

I am informed that in no instance within the past six months did a. Petty Sessions lapse at either of the places mentioned in consequence of the non-attendance of a Magistrate, although it appears that on two occasions at Newtownbarry the Petty Sessions had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a second Magistrate. At Oulart Petty Sessions I understand that eight cases were adjourned in February last, and six during the present month, for a similar reason. With regard to the third and fourth paragraphs, the Lord Chancellor has no information as to the eligibility for the Commission of the Peace of gentlemen resident in the districts referred to, and no recent appointments have been made to the Oulart Bench. Two appointments, however, have been recently made to the Newtownbarry Bench.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the communications between Her Majesty's Government and Foreign Governments, in respect to the occupation of Egypt, that have been submitted to the French Chamber of Deputies by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs?

We do not propose to lay any further Egyptian Papers at present, but a copy of the French Yellow Book will be placed in the Library for the use of Members.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the preliminary examination for the Army is to be discontinued in future; whether, in consequence of this, certain subjects which were only taken up at that examination, and not required at the further examination, will henceforth be added to that examination; and, in that case, whether candidates who have already passed the preliminary examination will be excused from taking up again those subjects in the further examination which were included in the examination they have already passed?

It is contemplated to do away with the preliminary examination, which has not effected the purpose for which it was instituted, and an announcement to that effect has been made. The subjects of the preliminary examination will substantially be incorporated in what will be the competitive examination. Candidates who shall have passed the preliminary examination will go up for the further examination in November next under existing Rules; but when only the competitive examination is in force, which will include most of the subjects of the present preliminary examination, it would be a loss to the candidates competing if they were not examined in those subjects, which will carry marks counting in the competition. It is to be remembered that the preliminary has only been a pass examination. On the general question I may say that I have decided that it is desirable that the whole system of entrance examinations on non-military subjects should be inquired into, and I have appointed a strong Committee to consider the question. Lord Sandhurst will act as Chairman, and I am glad to say that several Members of the House have been good enough to agree to serve on the Committee.

Will the candidates who have passed a portion of the preliminary examination be credited with it, or will they have to go through examination on the same subjects again?

Will not the abolition of this preliminary examination increase very greatly the already large number of unsuccessful candidates at the other examinations?

The preliminary examination was expected to have the effect of weeding out unsuitable candidates, but it has failed in its object to a great extent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many candidates, after passing the preliminary examination, do not present themselves for the other examinations until two or three years have elapsed? Will he make the order retrospective, so that those who have passed the preliminary examination shall have the benefit of it when they come up again?

I believe this preliminary examination only answers to what is known as the Fourth Standard in elementary education, and, with the exception of geography and arithmetic, all the subjects are included in the competitive examination.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether the Charity Commissioners have yet come to a decision as to the feasibility of providing places on the foundation of Christ's Hospital for the sons of naval officers?

The Charity Commissioners have long since expressed their opinion that if certain endowments which were excepted from the Scheme of 1890 now governing Christ's Hospital, and which are still held by the old Governing Body, were restored to the hospital, it would be practicable to make some special provision in favour of sons of naval officers. The question which has arisen as to the destination of the endowments now with- held from the Hospital has been certified by the Commissioners to the Attorney General, and the Commissioners now await the issue.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that rice will be considered a contraband of war by France during the Siamese blockade?

The views of Her Majesty's Government as to contraband of war will be found stated in Blue Book, France, No. 1, 1885; but I may add that the question of what is or is not contraband of war does not arise in connection with a blockade.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, as stated in The Daily Express of the 25th instant, on Sunday evening last an attack was made upon a Protestant congregation at Bundoran, County Donegal; that a mob of over 1,000 men gathered from Leitrim, and attacked every person suspected of going to the evangelistic meeting; and that the congregation were struck down with bludgeons and stones, and seriously maltreated; whether the police are able to identify the ringleaders; and if steps will be taken to bring them to justice?

I have received a Report of this occurrence, and am awaiting further information from the Police Authorities as to whether any persons can be identified as having taken an active part in the assaults committed. I understand that the affair was of very short duration, and that no one has been identified as a party to the actual commission of assaults; but, as I have already said, if any persons can be identified as having taken an active part in the disturbance proceedings will be instituted against them. The police report there has been no repetition of disturbance since Sunday last.

Are steps being taken to prevent the: services being interfered with?

Would these attacks be allowed under a Home Rule Parliament?

I must ask for notice of further questions on this matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on Sunday night, the 16th July, the house of a farmer named Gildea, near Kilfenora, County Clare, was fired into, the supposed motive being that he is a friend of a man who took an evicted farm; and, if so, has the case been recorded as one of intimidation?

It is alleged by the individual named in the question that two shots were fired at his house on the night mentioned. The police are not satisfied as to the genuineness of the alleged outrage, and, pending the result of further inquiries in the matter, the Inspector General will not, he tells me, record the case under any heading in the Returns.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Committee of Council on Education will be in the hands of Members before the Education Estimates are taken?

I may remind my hon. Friend that the statistics for the year have been published some weeks, and the Report is only a running comment on them. It is now in the hands of the printers, and will be circulated to-morrow morning.

Did the right hon. Gentleman present the Report to the House in dummy, and does not Sir Erskiue May lay it down that this practice is irregular?

I have simply followed the usual practice in these matters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the blockade instituted by the French on the coast of Siam is a pacific blockade, or is it an act of war and carries the consequences of such; whether it applies to the ships of all neutral States, including Great Britain; whether in that case any arrangement can be made for the transport of mails to Bangkok; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement concerning the progress of negotiations at Paris?

Is it not the fact that the phrase "pacific blockade" is a contradiction in terms?

I think the hon. Member will find that the phrase is discussed by various writers on International Law, though it is one which requires much consideration. In answer to the question, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the British Ambassador at Paris that no information is as yet available as to the precise date on which the blockade will be enforced, or as to its geographical extension. Assurances have been given by the French Government that sufficient time will, according to custom, be afforded for the departure of such ships as might have loaded their cargoes previous to the date of the enforcement of the blockade, and that the earliest possible information on all these points will be conveyed to Her Majesty's Government. In answering the last paragraph, I have to ask for the indulgence of the House while I make a rather lengthy statement. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a full statement about Siamese affairs to-day. This is not owing to any reluctance to take the House into its confidence, but from the fact that M. Develle has been unable from various causes to see Lord Dufferin since their first interview on Saturday until yesterday, and we await a fuller Report of that interview. It may be well, however, once more to define the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this question. From the very first if has refused in any way to intervene in the dispute between France and Siam. On the merits of that quarrel Her Majesty's Government do not feel called upon to pronounce an opinion. They have, therefore, limited themselves to providing for the safety of the British lives and interests at Bangkok, and it is to be regretted that some should appear to suspect in that provision—none too large for the security of life and property in an Oriental population of 350,000 souls—an encouragement to the Siamese to persevere in a hopeless resistance. In tins connection it is, I think, unnecessary to state in this House, that from the commencement of this Siamese difficulty we have scrupulously avoided giving any advice to the Siamese Government, beyond, when they have asked for it, urging them to come to terms as quickly as possible with their powerful neighbour. But the events now passing in Siam are by no means indifferent to Her Majesty's Government. We have, in the first place, great commercial interests in that country, and British shipping constitutes 87 per cent, of the whole shipping in Bangkok in point of tonnage, and 93 in point of value. For this reason we regret that a blockade should be deemed to be necessary by the French Authorities, and it might raise some difficult questions of International Law; but it is not yet formally notified, and perhaps it is not too much to hope that the necessity for it may yet be averted. Moreover, the territorial arrangements consequent upon this dispute involves matters of British concern. Her Majesty's Government are glad to believe that the French Government are not less alive than themselves to the value of Siamese independence, and that they regard it as a matter of moment both to France and to ourselves that we should nowhere have conterminous frontiers in the Indo-Chinese Peninsular, for such a frontier would involve both States in great military expenditure and constant liability to panic. Her Majesty's Government can well understand the anxiety of the House for Papers on this subject, and they will take an early opportunity of gratifying that wish, by laying Papers on the Table which will embrace the course of negotiations on this subject for the last three years.

May I ask a further question with reference to the question I have put? In reply to the first portion of the question, the Under Secretary told the House that he could give no information, and that the Government had no information as to the time or extent of the blockade. My question, which is a very important one affecting commercial interests, is as to the character of the blockade. I wish to know whether the hon. Baronet understands it to be a fact that, although it is, I believe, a recognised principle of International Law that a pacific blockade does not apply to ships flying the flag of another Power, France is, in spite of that, on the verge of establishing a blockade which would have that effect, and which would not so much injure Siam as British trade and shipping. I have just come from the City, and I find great anxiety exists there in commercial circles about this question. Our commercial interests with Siam are at a standstill.

The information I have given in answer to the question is the latest information received by the Foreign Office by telegraph and in answer to inquiries made of the French Government as to the particular character they intended to attach to the blockade. So far we have received no formal notice of the blockade, and the French Authorities have not defined what the character of that blockade will be.

We are anxious not to embarrass Her Majesty's Government while dealing with a matter of so much difficulty and delicacy; but I hope the hon. Baronet will take the first opportunity of giving us information on the points raised by my hon. Friend as soon as the Foreign Office is acquainted from Paris with the intentions of the French Government in respect of this blockade, and also of other matters in Siam.

The importance of all this has been brought before the French Government, and Her Majesty's Government have been assured that the French Government will give us the earliest information in their power.

As to the possibility of a pacific blockade, I wish to know whether it is not the fact that, although certain unauthorised persons in an unauthorised conference have suggested its possibility, every one of the text writers on the Law of Nations does not lay it down that a blockade is a procedure which can only be based on and arise from a state of war, and whether it is not so laid down by, among others, Grotius, Vattel, Puffendorff, Chancellor Kent, Wheaton, Story, Ortolan, and even Hautefeuille?

I cannot say that my researches in the text-books of Inter- national Law have been so extensive as those of the hon. Member; but, as far as they have gone, I observe that there is some difference in the various text-books on this particular question, and where the International text-books differ I do not feel authorised to pronounce any decision.

Will the hon. Baronet name one text writer who admits the possibility of a pacific blockade?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what British men-of-war are at present in, or are on their way to, Siamese waters—namely, before Bangkok and the mouth of the Menam?

The Swift and the Linnet are at Bangkok. The Pallas is off the bar of the Menam. The Admiralty have no information of the movements of any other ships in or to Siamese waters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the interests of economy, and having regard to the prevailing depression in the Australasian Colonies, he will suggest to tin; Governments concerned the propriety of their abolishing the present system of separate London Agents General, with a view to Australasia being placed in the same position as Canada, and be represented in London by one High Commissioner?

I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have known that the matter is essentially one for the Colonial Governments to consider and decide, and not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government could judiciously interfere.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return "Grants in Aid of Local Purposes in Ireland" will be laid upon the Table of the House?

The Return is in hand and well advanced, and I hone that it will he presented at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the Regulations varying the basis of distribution under Section 17 of "The Police (Scotland) Act, 1890," of the Exchequer Contribution in Aid of Police Superannuation, although ordered to be printed on 28th June, were not distributed to Members until 13th July, he will extend the period of one mouth for which the said Regulations have to be upon the Table of the House; and whether he would consider the desirability of providing that Regulations of this character should, before being laid before Parliament, be submitted to Local Authorities, who at present have until the last moment no information regarding proposed quasi-legislative changes?

With reference to the first portion of the hon. Member's question, I am not responsible for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers; but I may point out that under Section 17, Sub-section (6), of the Police Act, 1890, the Regulations in question do not come into operation until they have lain on the Table of each House for not less than 30 days on which the House has sat. These have accordingly three and a half weeks to run of the time in which the Regulations are before the House. The Regulations have been prepared according to the Act of Parliament, and in consequence of representations made to me from various parts of Scotland against the inequitable mode of distribution, in which I fully concurred. I do not think there is any convenient means of bringing the Regulations to the notice of all Local Authorities beyond those provided by the Act.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the only prohibition of a charge for books in Public Elementary Schools is contained in Section 3 of the Education Act of 1891, and applies only to schools where the average rate charged and received in respect of fees and books and for other purposes was not, previously to that Act, in excess of 10s. per child in average attendance; whether in all other schools a charge for books is permissible; and upon what statutory authority the Education Department have recently declared that managers of all schools, whether they are free or not, are bound to provide books and apparatus, and cannot make any charge to the parent in respect of them?

No compulsory charge for books is permissible in any Public Elementary School. The statutory authority is that of Section 7 (4) of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which provides that every Public Elementary School must be conducted in accordance with the conditions required in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant. The Code lays it down as one of these conditions that the school must be properly provided with books and other apparatus of elementary instruction. This Rule has nothing to do with the Act of 1891, though the working of the Act of 1891 has brought it into special prominence, and applies to all schools in receipt of annual grant, whether they have accepted fee-grant or not.

Was not the practice of the Department in an entirely opposite direction until the right hon. Gentleman took Office? Why did nor, the right hon. Gentleman act as directed in the Act of 1891, Section 3?

No; there is nothing in the Act of 1891 which supersedes the Act of 1870.

In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India on what grounds the regulation that one-half of the commands in India, shall go the Indian Army are habitually disregarded: whether the old Indian Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer officers who are for the purposes of the Regulation treated as Indian Army officers are so nominally only, and in reality are classed as in Imperial Service, and whether all Home commands are open to them, whereas none are open to the Indian Army; and if the Government of India can arrange with the Military Authorities that the Regulation shall be carried into effect by dividing the higher Indian appointments equally between the officers of British and Indian Armies in India?

If the question relates to the commands in chief in India, there is no Regulation which requires that one-half shall go to the Indian Army. If to district commands, the answer is that they are equally distributed between the two Services. Officers of the old Indian Artillery and Engineers have always been considered as officers of the Indian Army for the purpose of selection for district commands, and have been selected accordingly. They have also occasionally held Home commands, but it is not correct to say that all Home commands are open to them. The Secretary of State does not propose to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be has received from Sir Henry Loch any further information relative to the Matabele raid into Mashonaland; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House?

A telegram was received yesterday from Sir H. Loch, in which he says—

"From information received I believe Impi had acted contrary to Lo Bengula's wishes, and that if facts were clearly placed before him he would withdraw it; and, knowing that he would probably accept my word before that of others, I. therefore, sent explaining what had occurred, and pointing out the danger of exciting the anger of white men, and asked him to at once withdraw Impi, punish the Indunas, and live in peace. Whether I shall have been successful in preventing war cannot be known till I receive Lo Bengula's answer; but I apprehend Her Majesty's Government will approve my having exercised my authority and influence in the interests of peace. Latest information received last night the whole of Impi has returned to Matabeleland."

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it-is proposed to make any alteration in the service of the homeward American Mail between Queenstown and Euston?

Yes, Sir. In view of the acceleration of the Mail Service to and from Queenstown, it has been decided to abandon as too costly the experimental arrangement of sending American Mails from Queenstown to London by special train, and packet services when they reach Queenstown at certain times when connection with the regular day and night services to London would not be maintained. The arrangement will be to carry on to Liverpool Mails which cannot advantageously be lauded at Queenstown, and send them by special or ordinary train from Liverpool to London.

Has the Postmaster General considered the great inconvenience which will be caused to traders with the United States by this decision?

I do not think it will make much difference in the time of arrival in London.

How often has this extra service been run, and what has been the cost?

It costs about £130 each time. It was estimated it would be required 11 times a year: but it has been required more frequently, and the Estimate has been considerably exceeded.

I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

Does not the existing contract terminate on the 30th September, 1894, at a year's notice? What steps have been taken to provide for its continuance?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a meeting held in Salford on tin 25th instant to protest against the polluted condition of the water in the Ship Canal Docks; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will do what they can to expedite the works for the purification of the River Irwell?

My attention has not been called to the meet- ing at Salford to which reference is made; but I may state that the Local Government Board are dealing as promptly as possible with the cases which come before them with regard lo works required for the purification of the River Irwell. I will do my best to prevent delay.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will consider the desirability of omitting from the Bills of Sale Bill, 1893, now before the House, the clause exempting debentures of the nature of Bills of Sale, created by Incorporated Companies, from the operation of the laws regulating Bills of Sale; and whether he knows that the Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce has emphatically condemned the exemption referred to?

I cannot agree to the suggested omission, for the reason that the Bill is substantially a codification of the law as it now exists, and that existing law exempts debentures from the rules regulating bills of sale.

Is the Bill to go before a Grand Committee?

No: if is proposed to send it to a Select Committee.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour will he presented to Parliament in the course of the present Session?

I am afraid there is no likelihood that the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour will be presented during the present Session. I am informed that it is improbable that the Report will be completed until towards the close of the present year.

May I ask what the Commission have been doing during the last few months, and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how long it is since it last had a, meeting?

If that question is to be raised, it must be brought forward in the form of a discussion upon the proceedings of the Commission. It would not he courteous on my part, and it would be totally inconsistent with the practice, it I were to assume to myself the authority of superintending its proceedings.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated to charge the cost of the Opium Commission, about to be appointed, to the Imperial or to the Indian Revenues?

Without prejudice to any ulterior question which may arise out of the results of the inquiry, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the cost of this inquiry should, in conformity with what we think to be usage and propriety, be charged on the Indian Revenues.

In consequence of the answer of the Prime Minister, I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter, and to this improper application of the Indian Revenues.

May I ask whether it is not the fact that such a charge cannot be made on the Indian Revenues without the consent of the Indian Council; and has the consent of the Council to such an application of the Revenues yet been obtained?

I must ask for notice of the question.

I will put it on Monday.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can hold out any hope that the Government will deal during the present Session with the question of the evicted tenants in Ireland?

This question is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but the time has not yet arrived when I can make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is any truth in the rumour of the outbreak of some unknown cattle disease in England during the last few days? I may add that the disease has been described as rinderpest.

No, Sir: I have received no information of any outbreak of the rinderpest or other disease.