I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been directed to the case of the public elementary school at Kelston, Somerset, where a room, hitherto allowed by the Department to be used, is no longer to be recognised as supplying school accommodation, and where, in consequence, a class-room will have to be provided; if be is aware that this school, with an average attendance of 29 scholars, has only an endowment of £3 per annum, and is supported by voluntary subscriptions to the extent of £25 a year; and that the balance credit of the school accounts, amounting to about £50, is the result of many years' careful saving, with the express object of providing a fund available for special improvement or repair; and if, under the circumstances, he will be good enough to reconsider the recent decision of the Department, by which the managers of the school in question have this year been refused the special grants under Articles 104 and 105, solely on the ground of the financial state of the school?

The room no longer recognised at this school, though returned by the managers as a class-room, was really the kitchen of the mistress's house, and was furnished as such. No demand has been made for the provision of a class-room. The grants under Articles 174 and 105 of the Code were meant to aid small schools which could not otherwise meet their current expenses, and not to be saved up and used as a building fund for enlargements; but I will look into this case with the view of considering whether, in the circumstances, either or both of the grants may be continued.

But did not the Department allow the grant in 1891?

Yes; but the room is now furnished as a kitchen. I will, however, make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the managers of St. Thomas's School, Stockport, have recently imposed a fee on the children who had been attending free for some time, in consequence of which some hundreds of children were turned away from school; whether he can state the total sum received by this school in voluntary subscriptions and in school fees during the last school year; whether the school has a satisfactory playground area; what would be the accommodation of the school if it were measured according to the Rules of planning of Schedule VII. of the Code; and whether in the accommodation are still included the following class-rooms: three rooms, each 12 by 25½ feet; one room 50 by 37 feet by 8 feet high; and one room 12 by 25½ feet by 11 feet high, as specified on page 265 of the Final Report of the Elementary Education Commission?

The Department have been informed by the School Attendance Committee for Stockport that on the 17th November 337 children who had been attending St. Thomas's School as free scholars were sent home for fees. I understand that the greater number of these children are still not attending any school. The managers state that they were forced to this step by financial reasons. The voluntary contributions to the school during the last school year amounted to £7 5s. 6d.; the fees to £697 16s. 4d. Her Majesty's Inspector reports that the playground area is insufficient. The managers, while not denying this, urge that it compares favourably with those of the other voluntary schools in the borough. Without full plans of the school it is not possible to estimate the number of places which it would provide if measured according to the Rules of Schedule VII. Two class-rooms (including the room 50 by 37 feet by 8 feet high) have been condemned, thus reducing the nominal accommodation from 1,966 to 1,692, but four class-rooms of 25½ feet by 12 are still recognised. If the rooms which, primâ facie, do not meet the requirements of Schedule VII. were omitted, and the remaining accommodation calculated at 10 square feet, it would be reduced to 1,374 places. The average attendance last year was 1,376. It is, of course, smaller now.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement from the managers of the school? Has one been recently received?

I am not aware whether any statement has been received since the facts I have quoted were laid before me.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-private Daniel Linehan, late 108th Regiment, is at present an inmate of Midleton Workhouse, County Cork; whether he is aware that Linehan served 17 years in the Army, and was then discharged, owing to defective eyesight, on a pension of 9d. per day; whether he is aware that Linehan has since become quite blind, and that the medical officer of the Union has certified that his blindness is incurable; whether he is aware that, in consequence of this affliction, Linehan has recently petitioned the War Office for a small increase of pension, and that this Petition has been refused on the ground that Linehan was on the Indian Establishment; and will he, under these circumstances, recommend Linehan's case to the proper authorities?

When Daniel Linehan was transferred from the late Indian European Army to the Imperial Forces he elected to serve under the Indian Pension Regulations, and he has been granted the maximum pension to which under those Rules his services entitled him. It is certified that his blindness was not caused by the Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that ex-private John Barry, late Bengal Cavalry and Royal Artillery, is at present an inmate of Midleton Workhouse, County Cork; whether he is aware that Barry, having served two years in the Bengal Cavalry and 15 years in the Royal Artillery, with a good record, was discharged as unfit for further duty, and is now in receipt of 4d. per day; whether he is aware that Barry's Petition for an increase of pension to 8d. per day, to enable him to leave the Union, has just been refused; and whether, in view of the detriment to the Service and the injury caused to recruiting by reason of worn out old soldiers being compelled to end their days in the workhouse, he will request the War Office to reconsider their decision in this case?

John Barry, when discharged from the Army for disability partly resulting from his own irregular habits, had not served Long enough to entitle him to a permanent pension, He was granted a temporary pension, which he held for nearly four years, and. he established a claim to a deferred pension of 4d. a day, which he has received since 1885. Not having served in any campaign before 1860 he is not eligible for a special campaign pension, and no other is open to him under the Royal Warrant. I am afraid that I cannot undertake to revise the pensions of all soldiers who, after discharge, fall into necessitous circumstances.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly explain why similar difficulties never appeal when it is a question of adding £1,000 a year to a Field Marshal's pay?

I do not know that any such question has ever arisen.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the police engaged guarding the dismantled houses of widow Cahilahan, Cloonbunny, widow Moran Curraghard, and Pat Moran Curraghard, tenants on the Do Freyne estate, County Roscommon, who wore evicted, and whose homes were levelled by aid of the police in September last, have burned the turf and roofing of the houses of some of those people, and used the hay and Straw of others for bedding, rendering it unmarketable; whether he is aware that bills for the damage were furnished to Mr. Roberts, D.I., Castlerea, who is in charge of the police who so acted, and that the amounts are not yet paid; and whether he has sanctioned the conduct of the police; and, if not, will he order payment to be made at once?

With regard to the statement that the houses were levelled with the aid of the police, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has already pointed out, in reply to a question previously addressed to him by the hon. Gentleman, that the work of levelling houses on the occasion referred to was not carried out under the protection of the Constabulary. As regards the remainder of the question, inquiry is being made with a view to ascertain whether there is any foundation for the statements in the question so far as they affect the police.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Harbour Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire into the proceedings which have been taken against Cornelius Horgan, a tenant on the Massy estate, at Cahircaveen, near Macroom, for eviction from his holding for nonpayment of rent; whether these proceedings have been taken by the direction of the Chief Receiver to the Court of Chancery in Ireland; is he aware that the tenant, Cornelius Horgan, has offered to pay all arrears of rent according to an arrangement come to between him and the Receiver, but subsequently broken by the Receiver; and that, owing to the fact that Horgan had been a caretaker under the 7th section of the Land Act of 1887, and that his time for redemption had expired, the Receiver has refused to allow him to continue as tenant; and whether the landlord, Mr. Massy, is opposed to the proceedings against this tenant?

Ejectment proceedings were instituted against two joint tenants on the estate referred to for non-payment of rent, Cornelius and Jeremiah Horgan. A controvesy has arisen between these two tenants, who are cousins, in respect of the holding, which is wholly within the judicial jurisdiction of the Receiver Judge, and the Executive has no power of interfering in the matter in any way.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will arrange for the Army Medical Officers and their men, stationed in India, to be put through a course of ambulance manœuvres annually similar to those promised by the Secretary of State for War for the Home Army?

The Secretary of State for India will ascertain from the War Office the nature of the proposed special instruction in medical field duties, and will then forward the papers for the consideration of the Government of India.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India is aware that, on the retirement of the second Judge of the Bombay Court of Small Causes, an outsider has been appointed, superseding Mr. Cursetjee, the third Judge, who has three times acted as first Judge; and, if so, whether he will state on what grounds Mr. Cursetjee has been superseded?

The Secretary of State is not aware of the retirement of the second Judge of the Bombay Small Cause Court, or of any appointment to fill the vacancy, the appointment being within the discretion of the Government of Bombay. It is obvious that the fact of Mr. Cursetjee's having acted as Judge for short periods of time cannot be regarded as giving him necessarily a claim to the permanent appointment.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State for India has been drawn to a complaint in the Indian Press that at Chupra, in Bengal, in a serai or rest-house endowed by a Jani Hindu, and placed at the disposal of the authorities as a matter of courtesy, cows were slaughtered by the authorities for European troops, and hung up by the side of the main road in view of Hindu passers-by; whether cow-riot trials were then pending in the local Courts; and whether the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made?

The Secretary of State is not aware that any such complaint has been made, but the question will be transmitted to India for such notice as the Government may find necessary.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Council of the Young Ireland League, during the mouth of August, 1893, or a little later, forwarded to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with the object of facilitating the passing of the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill into law, a copy of the said Bill, amended to meet the main suggestions of the Irish Office; would he explain why it is that, although he promised to give the matter his attention, up to the present no reply has been given to the proposition nor statement forwarded as to the terms of the Amendments to be proposed by him; whether the opinion of the Law Advisers has been obtained; and what steps will be taken by the Irish Office to facilitate the passing of this non-contentious measure?

; A copy of the Bill was sent to the Chief Secretary on the 12th September last, as mentioned in the question; but the Amendments in manuscripts contained in this copy did not meet the objections entertained by the Irish Government to the provisions of the Bill. The promoters of the Bill, including the hon. Member, have, since the Bill reached another place, been informed of the views of the Irish Government, and the points in which the Government think the Bill needs amendment, but neither the promoters nor the hon. Member have signified their assent to these views. The opinion of the Law Officers has long since been obtained. The Government are unable to undertake to provide any special facilities for the passing of this Bill, but, as the hon. Member has already been informed, the Government will not in any way object to its further progress upon the hon. Member agreeing to the necessary Amendments being made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government will give Irish architects the opportunity of submitting designs for the proposed extension of the National Gallery in Dublin?

In answer to my hon. Friend on the 15th instant, I stated that I saw no prospect at present of being able to provide the funds requisise for the extension; I think, therefore, the question of an architect is premature.

But may I take it that an opportunity will be given to Irish architects?

Whenever the question arises, no doubt Irish architects will receive the same consideration as others.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have as yet received the Report from the Borrisokane Guardians' Engineer, previously asked for; and, if so, will he be so good as now to supply the information asked for?

The Report referred to was only received by the Local Government Board yesterday, and the matter is now receiving their consideration. The information desired by the hon. Member will be given if he will repeat his question when there has been time for the Local Government Board to consider and give their opinion.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for India whether there is any truth in the statement which had appeared in the public Press, that official pressure had been brought to bear (in a number of cases with success) upon the Indian (Native) medical men in Bombay, who signed the Petition to Parliament against the opium traffic, to lead them to recant; whether he has any reason to doubt the genuineness of the Petition; and whether he is aware that a Parsee medical man in Bombay was a witness to the signatures of some of the medical practitioners?

The Secretary of State has no reason to think that official pressure has been brought to bear upon medical men in Bombay to lead them to recant the opinions they may have expressed regarding the opium traffic. The Petition which my hon. Friend mentions was not addressed to the Secretary of State, nor has he seen the original document. But it has been specially brought to the notice of the Royal Commission on Opium, who are about to visit Bombay and will be able to verify the facts. The Secretary of State knows nothing as to the witnessing of the signatures to this Petition.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in view of the strong opinion expressed by the Committee on the Royal Naval Reserve, presided over by Admiral Sir George Tryon in 1891, in favour of a period of training on board ship for Royal Naval Reserve men, effect will be given to the recommendation by sending a drillship to Stornoway?

The importance of training the Royal Naval Reserve men on board ship is fully recognised by the Board of Admiralty; the mode of giving effect to the principle has not yet been finally decided upon.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have received a communication from the Nenagh Board of Guardians complaining of certain surcharges made by their auditor against relieving officer Haugh, in his recent audit of the Union accounts; whether he is aware that a surcharge of £8 2s. was made in the case of a man named Hegarty, a labourer, who had been in receipt: of outdoor relief for nearly six years, being disabled from working by an accident, and a surcharge of £3 in the case of a widow Buckley, to whom relief was granted on a medical certificate; and whether, as the Guardians in granting the relief to Hegarty were acting on the precedent of a similar case, for which they had received the sanction of the Local Government Board, 28th July, 1886, and the auditor admits that he was cognisant of that correspondence, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of having these surcharges remitted?

Representations have been made by the Nenagh Guardians to the Local Government Board regarding the surcharges referred to in the question, and the Board are at present in communication with the auditor on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will consider the desirability, before the inquiry into the Irish Land Acts begins, of requesting the various officials and ex-officials who have been engaged in working them, to furnish Reports giving their opinions as to the chief defects in the Acts and in the procedure affecting them?

I will convoy the suggestion embodied in the question to the Chief Secretary, who has already expressed his readiness to receive and consider any suggestions that may be made in connection with the contemplated Select Committee on the Rent-fixing Clauses of the Land Acts?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether arrangements have been made under which the School Attendance Committees, prescribed by the Irish Education Act of 1892, will come into operation on 1st January next; and, if not, what action the Government propose to take to give effect to the Act?

Of the 118 boroughs, towns, and townships affected by the Irish Education Act of 1892, 93 have signified their willingness to comply with the requirements of the Act. Of these, 89 appointed their half Committees, and approval has been given by the National Education Commission to compliance with their regulations in 82 cases. In 80 cases the Commissioners have before them names of persons deemed suitable for appointment on their own half of Committees. The proceedings, therefore. are well advanced in these cases; and as to the remaining cases, six of which arise from complaints under the Act of 1892, they are still under the consideration of the Government, and I cannot at this moment make any statement as to the course which will be pursued.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in all these cases the children are getting the benefit of free education?

I think I should have notice of that question.

Well, I will give notice. I wish to ask, do the Government intend without delay to bring in a Bill which I understand is necessary to-remedy some defects in the Act of 1892 in order that the School Attendance Committees may be appointed, and the-Compulsory Clauses enforced throughout the districts to which the Act applies?

I stated to the House on a previous occasion that it was the-wish and the desire of the Government to introduce a Bill to remedy the flaw in. the Act, which has the effect of providing in some cases no means by which the expenses of the School Attendance Committees can be defrayed. That Bill is ready, and would be introduced at once if there was a prospect of passing it this Session as a non-contentious measure. At present there does not seem to be any prospect of that.

Is it due to the notice given by the hon. Member for North Kerry that the Government are-unable to give effect to the Act of 1892?

May I ask whether it is not entirely due to the-failure of the right hon. Gentleman who asks this question to use his influence to-carry out the undertaking that was arrived at? I should like to ask, as the-right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bryce) has stated that, out of 118 cases, 93 are prepared to appoint Committees, whether, with reference to the remaining 25, have they refused to act, and, if so, are there-any means of compelling them to do so?

Of those that have not complied, I have to say that they are not all in the same position. Some of them have refused to act; some have delayed' in answering, and with regard to others it is not possible at present to see how, owing to the flaw in the Act of 1892, the expenses of the School Committees are to he defrayed. If any further information is desired, questions had better he put on the Paper. As regards the questions raised by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Sexton) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite, they appear to belong to matters of controversy which cannot suitably be answered in reply to questions.

I wish to know whether the Government accept responsibility for giving effect to the Education Act of 1892, and therefore remedying the defect they have discovered in it?

Is it not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds who is responsible for the blunder in the Act of 1892?

The defect belongs to the Act, and has not arisen out of anything subsequently.

When was it discovered?

Some little time ago. With regard to the questions just put, I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made, except that the Government are ready and willing to introduce a Bill, but that at present they do not see any prospect of passing it as a non-contentious measure.

I wish to give notice that until the condition is observed under which we allowed the Act to pass, and until certain public elementary schools not in connection with the National Board, willing to accept the Conscience Clause, and to satisfy the requirements of the Education Department as to their efficiency in teaching—until these schools are permitted to obtain a fair share of the public grant, we shall regard any further legislation intended to make compulsion effectual as acutely contentious.

I think I am entitled to ask, after that notice, whether the Government will delay bringing in a I Bill until the notice is withdrawn?

I think the House is fully in possession of the facts, and that no further answer is necessary from me.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will kindly consider the possibility of granting to cyclists the use of Constitution Hill for thorough- fare under the same or similar conditions as those imposed upon hackney carriages?

His Royal Highness the Ranger has agreed to my recommendation that cyclists should be allowed to pass along Constitution Hill when open for carriage traffic; and revised Rules will shortly be issued for giving effect to this concession.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he could now state what steps the Admiralty propose taking in order to relieve the distress at Passage West by giving employment at Haulbowline Docks?

Referring to my answer on the 4th of December, I hope that the Admiral in command at Queenstown will he in a position on Saturday next to call for tenders for the work connected with the additional ventilation of the Warspite. It has also been decided to dock the Albacore and the Hind at Haulbowline. Difficulties have been encountered in arranging for any other work at Haul-bowline or Passage at the present time. Rut the matter will not be lost sight of, as there is every desire to take into consideration the want of employment there and the consequent distress.

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many Queenstown shipwrights are at present idle? Will be kindly give instructions that their interests shall not be allowed to suffer through any provision made for Passage West?

I hope that any arrangements made will relieve the pressure both at Haulbowline and Passage West.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Lord Lieutenant proposes to appoint as High Sheriffs of Irish counties any gentlemen holding Nationalist opinions in politics, with a view to the reform of the Irish Grand Jury system by the summoning of some Grand Jurors at least in sympathy with the majority of the people of the country, during the coming year?

The appointments of High Sheriffs for counties in Ireland are made by the Lord Lieutenant from lists consisting of three names for each county, submitted by Her Majesty's Judges in pursuance of the practice created by the Statutes regulating the office. The Irish Government have, therefore, no power of choice except as between the three names submitted.

If Lord Lieutenants can dismiss High Sheriffs why cannot they appoint them?

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of Statutes regulating the office. Is it not a fact that the practice of appointment in Ireland is regulated not by Statute, but by usage?

That is a legal question of which notice had better be given.

Is it the practice of the Judges, before submitting the names, to inquire into the political opinions of the gentlemen who bear those names?

I have no knowledge of the practice of the Judges.

Do I gather that these appointments rest by Statute?

If it is desired to know whether it is Statute modified by usage I will make further inquiry.

Can the right hon. Gentleman refer us to any Statute governing these matters?

No; I have no references here.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the vital importance of developing Irish land purchase by occupying tenants on the most appropriate lines, the Government will agree to include in the Reference to the Select Committee on Irish Land Acts a direction to inquire and report as to the working of the several purchase systems up to the present time?

Yes, it is proposed to include among the I subjects of inquiry by the Committee the principle and practice of the administration of the various purchase systems.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee next Session to inquire into the Report of Sir John Rennie, in 1837, as to the better drainage of the Wash, with a view to ascertaining whether any advantage can now be taken of the recommendations then made involving the very considerable improvements in the four ports on the Wash—namely, Boston, Spalding, Sutton Bridge, and Lynn, and the reclamation of land estimated at 150,000 acres?

This is a very large scheme, upon which no action has been taken for more than half a century, and I could not undertake to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee without a good deal more information on the subject than I at present possess.

Is there any objection to having a copy of Sir John Rennie's Report printed and distributed among Members?

I must ask for notice of that.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is under a misconception as to nothing having been done. In fact, the Norfolk Estuary Company has done a great deal of reclamation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, since the agitation of the Royal Irish Constabulary pensioners about the force fund, different and less convenient arrangements as to paying these pensions have been made; and was the former plan that of making payment at the nearest barrack, whereas in some instances old men have now to travel to the county town, often a long distance from their homes?

It appears to be the fact that the facilities heretofore given to pensioners in the matter of the payment of pensions have recently to some extent been curtailed, but this, lam informed, has been brought about by a provision of the Annual Appropriation Act, under which the Treasury have required that each Constabulary pensioner shall make a declaration of identity and of his title to receive the pension, and in many cases officers have considered themselves obliged to require the personal attendance of pensioners in order to take their declarations. The subject has already been brought under notice, and the Government are now considering the desirability of reverting to the former arrangement. It would still be necessary, however, for pensioners to make the required declarations before either Magistrates or clergymen.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the present condition of the railway that is being constructed between Westport, County Mayo, and Achill Sound; is he aware that the works have been stopped for some months, and can he state from what cause; what were the terms of the original agreement on which the line was to be made; and has this agreement been adhered to; and, if not, will he explain way?

That part of the line which lies between Westport and Mallaranny is being constructed under an agreement with the Midland Great Western Railway Company, which company has loyally carried out all the agreements made with it under the Light Railways Act. The company has given notice of its intention to apply forthwith to the Board of Trade for authority to open the section between Westport and Newport. The portion between Mallaranny and Achill was commenced as a relief work, and, as I have previously stated, the heads of an agreement hive been lately arrived at with the Midland Great Western Railway Company for its future working and maintenance, which will be reduced to formal shape as soon as certain details of plans, &c., are finally settled, and the works will then be completed as quickly as possible.

When may the work on the Mallaranny branch be expected to be commenced? I am informed that no work is proceeding on that portion of the line, although this is a time of year when wages are badly needed in that part of Ireland. I am informed, too, that more work is required on the other branch before it can be opened.

was understood to reply that matters were being pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Birmingham, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Charles, in charging the Warwickshire Grand Jury on the 11th instant, to the effect that he found several Sessions cases had been included in the Calendar, and that the Assizes, therefore, did not get the relief which the Legislature intended to give them when the Assizes Relief Act was passed; and whether he has taken steps, since the date of previous questions to him relating to the Assizes Relief Act, by communication with Her Majesty's Judges or otherwise, to see that the intention of that Act is not frustrated hereafter; and, if so, with what result?

The whole question is under consideration. It is desirable, on the one hand, that the Assizes should be relieved of Sessions cases, and, on the other, that untried persons, charged with Sessions offences, should not be detained for au undue time in custody. In order to mitigate, and, where possible, to prevent, the latter form of hardship, I am issuing a Circular to the Justices of the Kingdom, urging upon them the importance of more freely exercising their power of releasing, on bail, persons committed for trial, and of fixing the amount of bail with a careful regard to the means, character, and circumstances of the accused.

Have not Judges repeatedly expressed au opinion that prisoners should not remain too long in prison untried, and that the Assizes should have the effect of a gaol delivery?

In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to say I am quite aware that great hardship is caused by the long detention in gaol of prisoners awaiting trial, and I am issuing a Circular in order to get rid of that hardship. Judges have often made observations of the nature indicated by the hon. Baronet.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps the Scotch Education Department will take in order to carry out the recommendations in the Report of Professor Strong on the methods of teaching modern languages in schools on the Continent?

The Report by Professor Strong has been published for the information of managers of schools and of others interested in this subject, to which my Lords have frequently called attention in their Annual Reports. The matter is one which must rest primarily with the Local Authorities; and in connection with the inspection of higher class schools and the Leaving Certificate examination, my Lords will study carefully the means by which, for their own part, they may encourage the teaching of modern languages.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in respect of the engagements recently entered into with His Highness the Ameer of Afghanistan, the territory which has come under British control considerably exceeds in extent that which is given over to Afghanistan; and can Papers with maps be laid before Parliament at an early date describing those territories respectively, also explaining the nature and method of control proposed to be exercised over the territory thus newly brought under the Indian Government?

The Secretary of State, as I mentioned last week (in reply to the hon. Member for Central Hackney), is as yet in possession only of telegraphic summaries of the points of agreement arrived at, and is not in a position consequently to give an answer to these questions.

Does the agreement arrived at include the question of the Afghan frontier on the Pamirs?

I would rather not answer any question until I have received full particulars.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution unanimously adopted by the Listowel Board of Guardians on the 14th instant, declaring that owing to want of specific notice of the time at which evictions are to be executed, hardship is suffered invariably when any of the people evicted are aged or infirm, and unable to travel to the residence of the relieving officer; and whether, with a view to prevent the infliction of avoidable hardship, the Government will use their influence to secure that the notices of evictions given to the officers of the Guardians are sufficiently specific to enable those officers to arrange for the timely relief of the evicted?

My attention has been drawn to the resolution adopted by the Listowel Board of Guardians on the 14th instant, and I quite feel that hardship may occasionally result from the indefiniteness of a notice. Under Section 2 of the Act 11 & 12 Vict., c. 47, notice must be served on the relieving officer of the intended eviction "not less than 48 hours" before the execution of any writ of possession. The Statute does not appear to impose any obligation of stating the precise time when the eviction will take place, and the Executive have no power to compel the landowner to give more specific information than the Act provides, and no efficient means of exerting any influence for that purpose.

The statutory provision being manifestly inadequate, may I ask whether it is not the duty of the Sheriff, when he applies to the Government for police protection, to state when the evictions are to take place? Could not the information be transmitted then to the relieving officer in order that he might make provision for the aged and infirm?

I can hardly say without consideration whether such an arrangement is possible, I have, however, already expressed my opinion that the present state of things may work harshly in some instances.

Have the Local Government Board any information as to cases in which hardship has been inflicted?

That is obviously a question which can only be answered after communication with the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a large hospital for fever patients (500 in number) is going to be erected within 150 yards of the present National Military Hospital at Woolwich (for 700 patients); whether there is not a better site further west distant from all habitations, and far more suitable owing to the natural formation of the, land; and whether he will take such steps as may be necessary for bringing about an alteration of the site of the proposed new hospital?

I have made representations that the War Department objects to the proposed site for the fever hospital, but without success.

To whom can appeal be made?

The Local Government Board. I must not be understood as implying doubts as to the wisdom of the decision arrived at by that, Department. I only say that the representations I made on the part of the War Office were of no avail.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the report of a meeting of the Cork Incorporated Chamber of Commerce and Shipping on the 4th instant, at which reference was made to the numerous errors in telegrams dealt with in the Cork Post Office, and the losses sustained by the public thereby; whether he is aware that over 20 temporary hands are at present employed, a large number of whom are most inexperienced operators, and who are dealing with most important, public telegrams every day; whether he is also aware that complaints have been made by the Cork newspapers of delay which Press telegrams have sustained owing to the insufficiency of the staff of this office; and whether, considering these facts, he will take immediate steps to increase the permanent staff of the Cork office?

I cannot find that any communication has reached the Department from the Chamber of Commerce, but, immediately after the meeting to which the hon. Member refers, the Postmaster of Cork took steps to obtain particulars of the errors to which attention had been called. Four cases were described to him, one of which occurred in 1889, and the other three in September and November of this year. All these had been inquired into, and the necessity for carefulness had been impressed on the officers concerned, but it, was by no means proved that the responsibility for the errors rested with the telegraphists at Cork. As to Press telegrams, no recent, complaint appears to have been made of delay except in the case of those transmitted from race meetings. The question whether the transmission of such telegrams can be expedited in any way is at present under consideration. It is true that a considerable number of temporary hands are at present employed in the Telegraph Office at Cork, and I am informed that the reason why a proposal has not been made to permanently increase the force is that the telegraph business there has for some time been subject to extreme fluctuations which render it necessary to proceed with caution in making any permanent addition. On this point, however, I am having further inquiry made.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state whether the attendants at the National Gallery in Dublin are paid at the same rate as those at the National Galleries in London and Edinburgh; and, if not, whether the Treasury will consider the advisability of placing the Irish attendants upon the same footing as the English and Scotch?

(who replied): I cannot admit that any fair comparison can be drawn between the pay of porters in the Dublin National Gallery, the attendants in Edinburgh, and the porters in London: but I may say that, in view of comparisons which I have seen between the wages of the porters in the Dublin National Gallery and those paid to similar persons by important private firms in Dublin, I am disposed to think that some moderate improvement in the former would be justifiable, and the matter is receiving attention.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will place upon the Notice Paper the terms of the clause by which he proposes to save the Incorporation of Oxford from the loss of the large number of its members which it would appear to be in danger of sustaining under the provisions of the Local Government Bill?

I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the clause directly it has been drafted.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the £20 rating qualification of the Portumna Union renders it impossible for the ratepayers of the Electorial Division of Coose to elect as Guardian a person resident within their own Division; that, Coose is the only division in the said Union which is scheduled as a congested district; and that the ratepayers have to search through the Union for many miles for a person to represent their Division, in which he is not rated, and therefore can have no interest; and whether an Order will be issued reducing the qualification to £5, which has been adopted as the uniform qualification of a Guardian in all the Poor Law Unions of England?

At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Tubbercurry Board of Guardians, at their meeting on the 11th instant, adopted a resolution calling on the Local Government Board for Ireland to reduce the rating qualification for Guardians in the Union to £5; will the request of the Guardians be complied with; and, if so, I how soon; and will he see that the reform asked for will be brought into operation before the next annual election of Guardians?

The facts are substantially as stated, and, as I have already observed, the general question of the reduction of the qualification for the office of Poor Law Guardian is now under the consideration of the Chief Secretary, and it is expected that a decision, which will deal with the two cases now referred to, will be arrived at in full time to admit of its taking effect at the next annual election of Guardians.

Is it the general opinion of the Government that a person could have no interest in the administration of the rates if he is not directly rated, or is it only applicable to Ireland?

I am not aware that the Government have expressed any such opinion.

But the question contains that statement, and the right hon. Gentleman said the statements in the question were true?

If the hon. Gentleman had caught the terms of my answer, he would have noticed that I did not express any opinion on the point he raises. I said, "the facts are substantially as stated."

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the rating qualification for a member of the Dispensary Committee in the Portumna Union is £30 per annum; that in the Division of Coose there is nobody qualified; in Drummin only three; and in the Union in general extremely few; and, as it is most important that all classes should be represented on the committee, whether an order will be issued reducing the qualification to £5, which has been adopted as the uniform qualification of a Guardian in all the Poor Law Unions of England?

Under Section 7 of the Medical Charities Act of 1851 the qualification of a resident ratepayer to act as a member of the Dispensary Committee is fixed at a minimum valuation of £30, and the Local Government Board have no power to vary the qualification for this office as suggested. The Local Government Board are empowered, however, to fix the qualification for the office of Poor Law Guardian; different qualifications may be provided for different Electoral Divisions, and no higher qualification than a valuation of £30 may be required. The hon. Member will observe, therefore, that the two cases are not parallel.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Postmaster is eligible for a seat as a Commissioner of a Police Burgh in Scotland; and how far a Postmaster is allowed to take an active part in political matters?

I have no knowledge of what the special duties and functions of a Commissioner of a Police Burgh in Scotland are, but there is no Regulation prohibiting a Postmaster from taking part in parochial or municipal matters so long as his official duties are not interfered with thereby. But as to political matters the case is different. In these a Postmaster is prohibited from taking an active part.

May I ask whether Postmasters in England are not prohibited from serving on County Councils?

Yes, Sir: there is a Rule to that effect.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider a County Councillor a political officer?

The Regulation in question was enforced before I was appointed Postmaster General, and I see no reason to interfere with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the date of the Treasury authority governing the conditions of employment of assistant clerks and abstractors in the Civil Service, particularly with reference to sick leave; whether the limit of sick leave allowed to assistant clerks and abstractors is a continuous period of six weeks; and whether, in the case of any permanent Civil Service clerk, the amount of annual leave taken in any one year is deducted from the period for which full payment is allowed on account of absence through sickness?

The Treasury letter of July 17, 1891, to the Commissioners of Customs laid down that the maximum period on full pay to be allowed to abstractors in respect of ordinary and sick leave together should not exceed six weeks in the year. The leave may or may not be continuous. A circular issued to the Departments on May 2, 1892, directed that the maximum sick leave allowable on full pay under the Orders in Council of March 21 and August 15, 1890, should include all ordinary leave.

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have yet nominated persons to act on the Committee to be appointed for carrying out the Compulsory Education Act in Belfast; and whether the gentlemen so appointed have consented to act; and, if not, what is the ground of their refusal?

Five persons have been nominated by the National Board to act as the committee to be appointed for carrying out the compulsory clauses of the Education Act in Belfast. I understand that a statement was made in the public Press that some of these gentlemen had refused to act, but, so far as the Commissioners are aware, this statement is without foundation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, among the appointments made by the Corporation for the City, one-fourth of the population of which is Roman Catholic, any Catholic gentleman was included?

I have no information on the subject.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman say how many Catholics were nominated?

I have already said I have no information.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. Boucher, one of the crew that manned the Dunmore lifeboat when she went last week to the rescue of a ship in distress off the Waterford coast, lost his life by the capsizing of the lifeboat; how long has this boat been at Dunmore; has she ever been at any other station; has she ever capsized before; and are lifeboats of a much superior class being built at present; and, if so, could one of the most improved plan be provided for Dunmore, which is at the mouth of the Waterford Harbour?

I have ascertained that the facts are as stated in the hon. Member's question. The coxswain of the lifeboat, who is also a chief boatman in the Coastguard, states that the station boat was away under repair, and that the boat in use had not previously been out on service at Dunmore. I am informed, however, that she is a good boat, of the same dimensions as the station boat, has done good service elsewhere, and has not been connected with any previous accident. I am further informed that the regular station boat is being fitted with the latest improvements, and will he sent back to Dunmore in March next.

Are we to understand that there is no one responsible for the proper administration of this most important service?

No one is responsible in this House for the National Lifeboat Association or any other voluntary Association.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it is time that someone should be responsible?

No, Sir; I think not.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the prosecution at Dingwall, on the 12th instant, of John M'Lean, crofter fisherman of Letter, Roderick Maclennan, of the same place, and Alexander Mackenzie, for alleged salmon poaching, on the 10th July last, in au arm of the sea a mile distant from the mouth of the River Broom; and that, in their absence, the defendants were sentenced to pay a fine of £2 10s. each, inclusive of costs, or in default seven days' imprisonment; whether he will state the reason why proceedings were delayed until 12th December; whether he is aware thst John M'Lean is 80 years of age, bent almost double, that Roderick Maclennan is 60 years of age, and that Alexander Mackenzie is a cripple, 25 years of age; is he aware that, the men were fishing for herrings for bait, and that no trout were found in the boat; that, although M'Lean gave orders to throw back into the sea any trout found in the net, the estate officials seized the net and threw the trout on shore, and cut a square of 16 loops out of the net; and that the net was meshed for herring and not for salmon; is he aware that Sheriff Hill refused the application of the solicitor of Dingwall for the defendants for a postponement of the trial, regardless of the fact that, owing to the shortness of the notice given, he (Mr. McRitchie) had neither received his instructions nor a copy of the citation; can he explain why, seeing that the defendants live nearly 50 miles from the Dingwall Court House and over 30 miles from the nearest railway station, the summonses were issued only two days before the date of trial; why, and by what authority, did the estate officials injure the men's net by cutting a square of 16 loops from it; and will he say whether he will cause immediate inquiry to be made into the case; and whether, pending inquiry, further proceedings will be stayed?

I have referred the matter to the Crown Agent for inquiry, but there has not been sufficient time for him to obtain the necessary information. I will answer the hon. Member if he will repeat his question next week.

I should like to point out that the question as originally drawn gave the name of the prosecutor, Mr. —

Order, order! It is not according to the Rule to allow such names to be mentioned in the question, and therefore it was cut out.

Will all action against these poor people be stayed?

That cannot be done unless on well ascertained grounds.

Under what Standing Order of the House is it permissible to insert defendants' names in a question and not permissible to give the prosecutor's name?

Do the Government contemplate an early amendment of the Game and Fishery Laws, so as to remedy the injustice now going on in the country?

We have not had such good fortune with our Fishery Bills as to induce us to promise any further legislation.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given any opinion as to whether reception into a Poor Law infirmary causes loss of electoral franchise; whether such loss can by any means be obviated by the Guardians making a charge for maintenance; and if the Law Officers have not given any opinion, whether, having regard to the conflicting decisions of Revising Barristers, the Local Government Board will take their opinion?

The Law Officers have not, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, advised on the question whether the provisions of the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act, 1885, extend to reception into a Poor Law infirmary. The question raised is a legal one, and if there are conflicting decisions of Revising Barristers it can only be settled by the High Court.

Would it not be possible for the Local Government Board to issue a direction to Guardians—assuming the law is in this uncertain state—whereby practically the result objected to might be obviated?

I do not think that would be in the province of the Local Government Board. This being a pure question of law the Law Courts must settle it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that many captains of the Peninsular and Oriental and other steamers have to pay Income Tax, and yet through the exi- gencies of their service are not allowed votes at Parliamentary elections; and whether he will consider if an alteration of the law or regulations can be made to enable captains of steamers who are entitled to make declarations that they are Englishmen, and have no other home but England, and pay Income Tax, to have votes at Parliamentary elections?

The inconvenience suffered in this case is not peculiar to the persons referred to in the question, but affects all persons whose occupation prevents them from establishing such residence as is required to confer the franchise. It is clear that this matter could only be dealt with in a measure embracing the whole question of residential qualification.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken, if any, in remedying the evils complained of in connection with Government printing work in Ireland?

I have seen no evidence that the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons of February 13, 1891, have been infringed by the contractors for Government printing in Ireland; but the same precautious are taken in Ireland as in England for enforcing that Resolution and for ensuring that no preference shall be given as between Unionists and non-Unionists.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Admiralty Department in Ireland have acted upon the terms of the Resolution? Why cannot the same course be taken by the Treasury Department?

I can only repeat that if the hon. Member can indicate any cases in which the terms of the Resolution of the House of Commons are not complied with notice will be taken of them.

But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the early part of this Session the matter was brought under his notice, and he promised to make inquiry then? Yet the wages paid are still under the current rates, and an excessive number of boys are employed, the number being far in excess of that allowed by any Trades Union in the United Kingdom.

If the hon. Member will give me particulars I will promise to consider them.

I have already supplied the right hon. Gentleman with the information.

Have the Admiralty laid down any special rule as to contracts?

I cannot say what the Admiralty have done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can make any announcement as to the results of the promised consideration of measures for the relief of the intense distress at Passage West?

The Chief Secretary for Ireland has been in communication with the Admiralty on the subject of the want of employment and the consequent distress among persons connected with the Passage West Docks. The Admiralty have entered sympathetically into the case, and will, as stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty in answer to Question No. 2, provide such work as may be found feasible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a speech made on Tuesday last by Sir Horace Farquhar, a Director of the South Africa Chartered Company, when presiding over a meeting of the Exploration Company, in which, speaking of the properties apparently held by the latter Company in Mashonaland, he said, that there is every hope that Lobougula will be taken or killed; and whether, in view of the fact that Imperial Forces are acting in conjunction with the forces of the Chartered Company, Her Majesty's Government propose to take any steps to prevent the killing of that Monarch?

Her Majesty's Government are in no way responsible for anything Sir H. Farquhar may say. But, as he has addressed a letter to me on the subject of the question, I will read it to the House—

"I notice Mr. Labouchere has a question in the House to-day referring to my speech at the Exploration Company's meeting. This Company has interests in Mashonaland, and in dealing with these I alluded to the military operations in Matabeleland. I stated that the war was practically over, and that I hoped the next news would be that Lobengula had been taken prisoner or killed in war. My remark referred to the resistance to Captain Wilson, of which there has been cable news. From this it seemed apparent that Lobengula, much to my regret, did not intend to surrender."

As regards the last question, I am quite confident that it is the anxious desire of the Commanders of both the Bechuanaland Police and of the Chartered Company Forces that Lobengula should not be killed or injured; and I repeat that Her Majesty's Government, so far as lies in their power, intend that Lobengula, if captured, shall be treated with every consideration: a consideration which he fully deserves by his conduct to the whites during the war.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Colonial Office has received any further communications from Sir Henry Loch with reference to the seizure of cattle in Matabeleland?

We have received the following further telegram from Sir H. Loch in regard to this subject:—

"I have been in communication with British South Africa Company respecting cattle, and they assure me that in every case where natives give in their submission they are allowed sufficient cattle to take back with them to their kraals for domestic requirements. I am making every effort to secure a speedy peaceful settlement of the country, and I am receiving every support from British South Africa Company to attain this result."

Who are the judges of what are sufficient cattle?

The judges, I presume, are the persons on the spot, of whom one is Colonel Goold-Adams, representing the Government.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Secretary of State for India, in refusing to take less than a minimum price for Indian Council bills, has been acting upon the advice of the Indian Government or upon his own responsibility?

The responsibility for this and for any action that may be taken in respect of Council bills necessarily rests with the Secretary of State in Council, but his action in not selling bills below a minimum was in accordance with the opinion of the Government of India.

May I ask whether there has been any correspondence with the Government of India on the subject, and whether it can be laid on the Table?

There has been correspondence, but I cannot say whether it can be laid without consulting the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was aware, when he referred to private enterprise in connection with the reclamation of slob lands, that the Crown by Act of Parliament in 1866 had taken possession of all the foreshores in the United Kingdom, and that since that time private enterprise could not be made much use of; and whether he will consent to a Select Committee being appointed to consider the question of these reclamations; and, if not, whether the Royal Commission on Agriculture could consider the matter?

With regard to the appointment of a Select Committee, I must refer the hon. Member to the answer already given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member is under a misapprehension when he says there was an Act passed in 1866 by which the Government took over these lands. The Act of 1866 effected a change in the management from one Department of the Government to another, but did not establish any new proprietary rights or affect in any manner those proprietary rights which already existed. I may mention that the Commissioners are themselves about to undertake a reclamation of 500 acres of laud on the Humber. This may be taken to show, if it succeeds, that there is no indisposition to give effect to this principle of reclamation when it can be done with the certainty of public advantage. Every reasonable facility and encouragement is being given to private persons who are disposed to undertake enterprises of this description. But, so far as the Government know, there is no great disposition in this country to embark capital in such enterprises; and, for my part, I should be very much gratified indeed if there were more.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the Question.

It would not be within the province of the Royal Commission on Agriculture to consider the matter, nor would it be convenient for them to do so.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whatsteps the Government are prepared to take towards expediting the progress of the Local Government Bill, in order to allow sufficient time for the promised legislation of next year?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question I beg to ask him whether he has considered the representations which have been largely made by his supporters on this side of the House, that Her Majesty's Government will have their hearty support if they make use of the powers given under Standing Order 25 for bringing the Debate upon a clause or part of a clause to a termination?

I should like to ask whether it has been brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman that the President of the Local Government Board has given an assurance that Clause 58 of the Local Government Bill will be fully considered when we come to it?

This is a question of principle and not intended to deal with separate clauses. I have no doubt that that clause as well as others will receive a full and fair consideration. Undoubtedly, a situation has been created for consideration by the Government with reference to the convenience of the House and perhaps with reference to the fair expectation of the country; but I am not prepared to make any announcement on the part of the Government at the present moment. But we shall carefully watch the course of future discussion, with regard to which I cannot but attach importance to the declaration of my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board, who believes that contentious matter will not be found to a large extent in the latter part of the Bill. We shall give our closest attention to the subject from day to day, and we shall take the best counsel which the circumstances of the case may suggest.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the fact that of 56 Questions on the Paper to-day 45 are asked by his own supporters? And does not that protract the length of the Session by at least an hour?

I do not see that the casual occurrence of a large majority of questions from this side of the House on a particular occasion tends to protract the Session; especially as these questions are on the average disposed of in less than a minute each.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Closure would be very popular in this part of the House?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the great difficulties experienced by the Metropolitan Asylums Board in obtaining a suitable site for an additional convalescent fever hospital; and whether, having regard to the great pressure upon the accommodation for the fever patients of London, he will state the considerations which guide the Local Government Board in deciding on the sites submitted by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, so as to avoid the delays which of late have resulted through the selection by the Metropolitan Board of sites not subsequently sanctioned by the Local Government Board?

I am aware of the difficulties with which the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum district have to contend in connection with the provision of sites for infectious hospitals for the Metropolis. As regards the action of the Local Government Board, I way state that during my tenure of office the managers have submitted proposals to use permanently as a site for a fever hospital certain land at Tottenham, and to acquire adjoining land for the purpose of extending their hospital at that place, and that both these proposals were assented to. They have also applied for sanction to the acquisition of land for fever hospitals at Lewisham and at Kidbrooke, and the necessary sanction was given in both cases. I was unable to assent to a proposal to acquire laud adjoining Tooting Common for a hospital, but the managers subsequently submitted a proposal to purchase other land for the purpose at no great distance from the site originally suggested, and this was sanctioned. The last proposal had reference to certain land at Norwood, and with regard to this, after full consideration of all the circumstances, the Local Government Board deemed it necessary to withhold their consent. The considerations which govern the Local Government Board in their decision on applications of this character must necessarily depend very much on the local circumstances. Each case is dealt with on its own merits and with due regard to the circumstances generally connected with it as brought before the Board by the managers, by those locally interested, and in the Report of the Board's Inspectors made after a public local inquiry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great difficulty experienced by the Managers in providing hospital accommodation?

Yes. But that would not justify the Local Government Board in sanctioning an injustice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state the legal position of the Magistrates of the West Powder Bench, who, in the cases brought before them on the 26th November last, unlawfully confiscated the gun licences of the defendants Richard Varcoe, Richard Hore, and Frank Willoughby: whether such illegality invalidates the rest of the sentences imposed by them; what remedy or redress have the defendants against the Magisterial injustice of which they have been the victims; whether he can suggest any means by which the Cornwall County Magistrates may receive instruction in the law they are appointed to administer.; whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to these cases with a view to his adding to the Bench gentlemen with a, due knowledge of the law: and whether, as there is reason to believe that similar miscarriages of justice have been committed on numerous other occasion, he will make further inquiry into the operation of the Poaching Prevention Act, with a view to introducing an amending Bill next year?

(1.) The Justices in passing sentence made no mention of forfeiture, but left that to the operation of the law. Consequently the gun was forfeited, but not the licence. But it would appear that in the words of the conviction it was stated that both were forfeited. The mistake will be corrected. (2.) The sentence is not invalidated. (3.) Under these circumstances, the other questions do not appear to arise.

On this question of licences I want to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the statement of the Chairman—[cries of"Order!"]—who told the defendants that on the next occasion they had better carry their licences with them and show them to the policeman who might ask for it. That statement could only have been made with a view to the forfeiture of the licence. In the second place, I want to know whether the licence has yet been given up: and, if so, have any steps been taken to see that they are delivered?

I am not: aware that the Chairman made the statement in question. As to the licence, it has probably been given up—at least, I hope it has been. I am sure there will be no unavoidable delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that on the 25th November, at the West Powder Petty Sessions, the Magistrates, Messrs. Polwhele, Cants-Wilson, G. J. Smith, and Hitchins, fined Richard Varcoe, of St. Agnes, 10s. and 18s. 6d. costs, and in addition forfeited his gun licence and gun; whether he is aware that Varcoe was charged with coming from land where it was suspected that he had been in search of game, and that no evidence was produced in support of this charge except the bare suspicion of one policeman; that Varcoe, being challenged to produce his gun licence, offered to do so if the policeman would accompany him to his house; that on the way thither the policeman insisted on searching Varcoe; that on the evidence of two witnesses he beat Varcoe with his staff, and, seizing him by the throat, tore open his collar and shirt and threw him to the ground; that the gun when seized by the constable was still loaded, and had not been fired for the day; and that Varcoe turned out his pockets in the presence of the constable and several other witnesses, who can testify that they were all empty of game; whether a policeman has any right to use such violence upon mere suspicion against a person whom he merely meets on the public highway; whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the remission of the penalties imposed, and the return to Varcoe of his licence and gun; whether, in connection with the same case, a weak old man of 70, named Francis Harris, of St. Agnes, without a blot on his character, was charged with wilfully obstructing the policeman by stepping between him and Varcoe in order to save the boy from the constable's blows, and that he was fined 10s. and 9s. costs, although the chairman, Mr. Carus-Wilson, stated in imposing that penalty,

"You did it in ignorance. Had you known you were doing wrong, you would not have done it;"

and whether he will direct that the penalty shall be, under these circumstances, remitted?

(1.) The amount of the penalty is correctly stated in the question. (2.) I am informed that the police constable in question heard a gun fired and saw Varcoe get over a hedge into a lane find proceed in the direction of a plantation; that on the police constable following Varcoe first walked and then ran away; that the police constable, overtaking him, asked him for his gun licence, and that Varcoe replied by saying, "If you want to see my licence you must take a walk along with me;" that the constable sus- pected Varcoe of coming from land where he had been in pursuit of game, and took him by the coat for the purpose of searching him; that Varcoe then caught him by the throat, and in the scuffle that ensued both fell to the ground; in the course of the struggle the policeman did strike Varcoe with his truncheon on the arm; it is a fact that the gun was loaded when taken from the prisoner, but there was no evidence to show it had not been fired that day. (3.) The Statute 25 & 26 Vict. c. 114 gives a constable the right of searching on the highway any person whom he may have good cause to suspect, and to seize and detain any gun found upon him, and therefore he is justified in using such force as may be necessary for the purpose. (4.) Except as to the forfeiture of the licence, there appears to be no sufficient ground for reversing the decision of the Magistrates. The defendant might have appealed if he had thought fit. (5.) The Justices' report that it was not to save Varcoe from blows, but to prevent the constable from overtaking him and recovering his helmet that Harris intervened. The chairman pointed out that the Justices could inflict a fine of £5, but in consideration of Harris not knowing he was doing wrong a fine of 10s. and costs only was imposed. (6.) On the subject of the forfeiture of the licence I am in communication with the Justices.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it appears from the evidence that the man walked along for half a mile quite peaceably with the constable, and that the latter suddenly seized Varcoe by the neck and threw him to the ground in order to search him for game. As I have in my possession the signed statement of two witnesses, one of whom was working on the land in question—[Cries of "Order!"]—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the case?

The hon. Gentleman is hardly so much putting a question as making a statement.

I only want the right hon. Gentleman to assist in this matter. I do not wish to transgress your ruling. I have two witnesses—[Cries of "Order!"]—and I want to know—[Renewed cries of"Order!"]—hon. Gentlemen have had their turn during the past hour—I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether he will take into consideration the further evidence I have obtained on this subject; and whether, in spite of the fact that these men, not knowing the law, have allowed the time for appeal to go by, he will allow me to bring the matter before him?

I cannot undertake to alter the decision which the Justices arrived at on a question of fact; but, of course, if any facts come to light which have only been disclosed since the trial, I will consider them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that every one of the Magistrates who tried this case is a Tory and a game preserver? [Cries of "Order!"]

I rise to ask if such a question is in Order?

I think that question is not in Order.

What I desire to know is whether the right hon. Gentleman will bring these cases before the Lord Chancellor, with a view to seeing whether the Lord Chancellor will not put at least one or two Liberal Magistrates on the Board?

Arising out of that question I wish to ask whether, if similar cases from every part of the country are put before him, he will not be inclined to make some change in the law under which a policeman can, as it seems, stop any civilian on the highway and search him violently at his own sweet will?

With regard to this particular case I do not see that justice has not substantially been done, but I think the question which the hon. Member for Sunderland raises is worthy of consideration.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make further inquiries as to the working of the Poaching Prevention Act and oblige me with a Return as to the convictions under it?

If the hon. Gentleman will give notice I shall have no objection to the presentation of such a Return.

I will give notice; and I will also bring in a Bill to amend the present Act.

May I ask whether the same rights of seizure and search are not exercised under the Fishery Districts Act, and whether that Act ought not to be amended as much as the other?

said I wish to ask what course will be taken in regard to Question 47, which was not put to-night. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Member for West Belfast put a question on the same subject, but withdrew it at the request of the right hon. Gentleman. That course having been taken in regard to the question of my hon. Friend, I wish to know whether the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman is again to appear on the Paper?

The reasons which induced the hon. and gallant Member for Cork and the hon. Member for West Belfast not to put their questions are those which induce me not to make any statement on the subject.

But am I to understand that no further question on this subject will appear on the Paper?

I have no control over the Question Paper.