I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the decision of Justices Prinsep and Amir Ali on the Balladhum murder case in the Criminal Appellate Court of Calcutta on 11th December; and if he is aware that on the 7th of August last four Manipuri were sentenced to death and three others to penal servitude for life for the murder of one Cockburn, his paramour, and his servant at Balladhum, in Assam, upon the sole evidence of two approvers who were arrested at the same time; that the case was referred to the High Court by the Sessions Judge for confirmation of the sentence of death, and that an appeal was also lodged before the same Court by the prisoners; and in giving judgment the High Court Judges stated that the difficulties of the case had been increased by serious irregularities in the proceedings at every stage, before the police, before two Magistrates, who at various times interposed during the police investigation, before the committing Magistrate, and at the trial in the Sessions Court; that the Sessions Judge refused to admit as evidence the dying deposition of the murdered woman, who swore that the men who committed the murder were not Manipuris at all, but Mussulmans and a Cabuli, and that it was the distinct duty of the prosecutor to submit, and of the Sessions Judge to admit, so important a piece of evidence; that the Sessions Magistrate refused to allow prisoners' counsel to cross-examine, the High Court Judges declaring that such a practice has never come under the notice of either of them, and the unfairness of such a course is so obvious that they could not understand how it could be adopted or defended; that the evidence of the approvers, on which the convictions entirely depend, has been obtained under circumstances of much irregularity, tending to throw great suspicion on it; that it was clear that the approvers had been tutored, and had been obtained under pressure by the police; that the statements had been got from them in consequence of inducements and promises without the terms of Section 24 of the Evidence Act; that these prisoners were detained in police custody for very long terms under authority of various orders of the District Magistrate improperly given; that the District Magistrate refused to allow the prisoners when brought before him to communicate with their pleader, which wits most arbitrary and improper; and that, in consequence of such numerous and serious irregularities in the course of the proceeding before and during the trial, all of which must have seriously prejudiced the prisoners, all the prisoners were acquitted; and, if so, will the Secretary of State take some prompt action with regard to the Magistrates and police officers involved in this trial who have been censured by the High Court Judges pending a searching public inquiry into their conduct?

The Secretary of State will inquire from the Government of India as to the circumstances of this case, and ask whether they consider it necessary that any special examination should take place of the conduct of the officers referred to in my hon. Friend's question.

Has the India Office received a full statement of the decision of the High Court of Calcutta on this matter?

No; we have at present only the newspaper accounts, but further Reports have been sent for.

Will a full inquiry be made into this case?

The Government of India will be asked to send a full account.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the total number of sea casualties which have occurred in 1893 on or near the coasts of the United Kingdom; the number of lives lost; and, approximately, the value of the property lost in vessels and cargoes; and the number of lives saved by coastguardsmen by means of rocket apparatus, &c.; by luggers, coastguard boats, and small craft; ships and steam boats; ships' own boats; Government life boats; and other means (not life boats)?

The Abstract of Shipping Casualties is made up annually from 1st July to 30th June. The Return for the year ending 30th June, 1893, is being prepared, and will in due course be presented to Parliament. No Returns are made of the value of property lost at sea, and I am unable to give any approximate estimate. It would involve enormous labour and cost to make a special Return such as my hon. Friend asks for, and would delay the ordinary Annual Abstract.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the case of Colour Sergeant Crawford, of the permanent staff of the Third Battalion Yorkshire Light Infantry, who was tried before Court Martial at Pontefract, on 23rd December, 1892, on a charge of being absent from barracks without leave, and of allowing the Order Book of the company to be sent to the Horse Guards without proper authority; whether he is aware that for the alleged offence Crawford was sentenced to be, reduced to the ranks and further to lose a good-conduct badge; and whether, having regard to the grave consequences following upon such a punishment and to the circumstances attending the trial, he is prepared to make inquiry into the case with a view to the mitigation of the sentence?

The soldier referred to was tried on the 23rd of last mouth on charges of being absent without leave and of conduct to the prejudice of good order and military discipline in allowing the Company Order Book to be sent to the Horse Guards without lawful authority. He was convicted on both charges and sentenced to be reduced to the ranks. I am advised that there is nothing in the case to call for the intervention of the Commander-in-Chief.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he has received and will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Government of Bengal upon the alleged neglect and mortality among Hindu pilgrims at Cuttack while going to and from the Juggernaut festival in July, 1893; and what steps have been, or will be, taken to prevent the recurrence of any such calamity?

The Secretary of State has received no information on the subject of this question, but he will make inquiry, and will cause the result to be communicated to the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the answer of the Indian Government has been received to the Despatch of the Secretary of State on the Resolution passed by this House with reference to simultaneous examinations for the Civil Service in India and England; and, if so, whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?

The Despatch referred to has been received, and is under the consideration of the Secretary of State. The Papers will be presented to the House as soon as the correspondence is complete.

Will the correspondence be laid before the end of the Session?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, if the Treaty of 1873 with the Sultan of Zanzibar and the Edict of 1st August, 1890, were enforced, it would practically abolish the legal status of slavery now existing in our Protectorates of Zanzibar and Witu; and what steps do the Government propose to take for the suppression of the legal status of slavery in the Island of Zanzibar?

The Treaty of 1873 is in force. The Decree of the 1st of August was subsequently modified, but neither the Treaty nor the Decree affect the legal status of slavery under Mahommedan law. Her Majesty's Government do not propose; to take any further steps at present, for reasons which I have already stated in the House.

I bog to ask the Postmaster General whether the Post Office Savings Bank purchase Consols for their investors in the ordinary manner inscribed in the books of the Bank of England; and whether it is necessary to continue the present practice, whereby a depositor who purchases Consols through the Post Office Savings Bank receives a special certificate, which is an unnegotiable instrument, undertaking to inscribe the Consols in the name of the depositor only after certain tedious formalities have been complied with?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, the formalities prescribed are as simple as they can be made. So far as the investor is concerned, he has only to fill up a form and send it to London with the deposit in an official envelope provided for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the public appeal recently issued by the Lord Mayor of London, on behalf (amongst others) of the funds administered by the Jewish Board of Guardians, to special collections having been ordered throughout the synagogues in England in aid of destitute aliens, for whose relief large sums have been otherwise contributed by charitable persons in this country; and whether, as such facts are widely circulated in an exaggerated form throughout Europe, thereby tending to attract still larger numbers to swell the ranks of the unemployed in this country, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any practical steps to avert such result?

We are in consultation with the Board of Trade with a view to issuing a warning through our Consuls abroad, such as has been issued on previous occasions. The object of such a warning would be to discourage alien immigration by pointing out that the labour market is overstocked, and that expectations on the part of poor immigrants, that their condition would be bettered in England, are likely to be disappointed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, in November last, an Indian was convicted by Mr. N. S. Brodie, Acting Joint Magistrate of Chingleput, of the technical offence of being in possession of a revolver, when his licence under the Anus Act only specified a gun, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.400; that, on appeal, the Session Judge quashed the sentence as regards the imprisonment, and reduced the fine to Rs.10; that, in the same month, one Dharmaraja Nadan, a youth of 16, was convicted by the same Magistrate of causing the death of a woman by riding rashly on the road, and sentenced to six months' rigorous imprisonment, and a fine of Rs.400; and that the Session Judge, on appeal, quashed the sentence as regards the imprisonment, and reduced the fine to Rs. 200; whether he will state what powers of punishment as a Magistrate Mr. Brodie now exercises, and what previous judicial experience he has enjoyed; and whether the Secretary of State will cause inquiry to be made regarding Mr. Brodie's fitness for his present position, and, if necessary, consider the propriety of reducing his Magisterial powers?

Up to the 1st of October last Mr. Brodie had the powers of a first-class Magistrate, and he has exercised Magisterial authority for more than five years. The Secretary of State is not aware what powers Mr. Brodie now exercises, but be considers that this is a matter which may be safely left to the Local Government Board, in which discretion to determine the powers of individual officers is vested by law. The Secretary of State knows nothing of the first case referred to, but he has seen a newspaper report of the second. The report is brief, and does not set out the reasons which induced the Magistrate to pass a severe sentence.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the work of the Marine Postal Service, in sorting letters on board the mail steamers between Aden and Bombay, has been doubled within the last three years, while the salaries have been reduced; whether the men, in order to deal with some 700 mail bags, had to work from 14 to 16 hours a day, however hot or rough the weather might be; whether the profit to Government this year has been one lakh in excess of the profit for last year; and whether the Secretary of State will consider the propriety of directing the hours of labour to be reduced and the salaries to be increased?

The last Report of the Director General of the Post Office of India, that for 1892–93, which has just been received from India, does not contain any information on these points; but the Secretary of State will inquire into them.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has considered the suggestion that the opinion of the more important Parochial Boards should be obtained with reference to the Local Government Bill for Scotland, so far as it will affect Poor Law administration, in the same way as the County Councils have been consulted?

The County Councils, which of course are comparatively few in number, were invited by Circular to name any special practical points in which their experience bad taught them that the recent Local Government Act required amendment. The operation of the Poor Law, which is of much older standing, is well known to the Government. I am, at the same time, to consider, as I have already done, suggestions from Local Bodies in Scotland; and on Wednesday next I am going to receive a deputation on this very matter from the Glasgow and Barony Parochial Boards, and the Board of the Govan Combination.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the guns for the vessels now building for the Royal Navy will be ready in time to put on board the ships when they are completed; and whether the Admiralty will arrange that the armaments for the vessels which are to be built shall be ready when vessels are in a. position to receive them?

The Board of Admiralty have given special attention, as I have more than once explained, to the importance of having the armaments of all new ships ready before the completion of the ships. It is our intention that no ship that is now in process either of being built or projected shall be delayed by waiting for her guns.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in order to lessen legal expenses which may occur in the purchase and hire of land or buildings, under the provisions of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, he will consider the desirability of adding a form of transfer by gift or purchase, and of a lease, and of an agreement for allotment tenants, in Schedules to the Bill, thereby following the precedent of "The Municipal Corporations Act, 1882"?

(who replied) said: It is not in accordance with the recent practice to schedule forms of this kind to public Acts. They were appended to the Municipal Corporations Act because that was a consolidation Act. The Local Government Board will consider, in connection with any general Circular which they may issue as regards the provisions of the Act, whether they should suggest forms of transfer and lease.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the report in The Irish News of the 6th instant of the proceedings at the last meeting of the Lurgan Board of Guardians; whether lie will make inquiry into the previous complaints made in the letter of Dr. Darling to the Board of Guardians as to the insufficient number of nurses employed in the workhouse, where there are only two for 132 patients; and whether he will see that the orderlies or helpers for nursing the sick are not selected from men suffering from loathsome diseases or women afflicted with skin disease, as mentioned in the doctor's Report?

The question of the sufficiency of the nursing arrangements in this workhouse has for some time engaged the special attention of the Local Government Board, who, on several occasions, have remonstrated strongly with the Guardians, and urged them to adopt the suggestions of their medical officer. The number of patients in the workhouse hospital on the 4th instant was 135, and the staff will in future consist of two nurses, two probationers, and one night nurse. I am in communica- tion with the Local Government Board regarding the last paragraph.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will grant a Return showing what was the total amount in value of the orders given by the Admiralty to firms in foreign countries during the year 1893?

On communicating with the Treasury, I find that, there will be no objection to a Return, provided that it is in continuation of previous similar Returns (172 of 1892, and 206 of 1893), and, therefore, in the same form.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if any, and what, action has been taken on the part of the Post Office to carry out the recommendations of the Congested Districts Board for Ireland, to extend telegraphic communication with the important fishery station connected with the Island of Inishboffin, County Galway; whether that Board has intimated that a fish curing station has been established on the island with success; and whether the development of the fishing' industry will not be placed in a position detrimental to its success, unless a liberal extension of telegraphic communication is carried out in the manner in which it has been extended to the Islands of Scotland?

A representation has been made to me by the Congested Districts Board for Ireland on the subject of the establishment of a telegraph office in the Island of Inishboffin, and I am having inquiry made into the matter. As soon as the inquiry has been completed I shall be glad to communicate the result to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether pressure has been put on the Executive to establish a police station at Moyrus, Connemara, by persons who have founded a mission there; whether he is aware that an individual belonging to the same mission was pre- viously caught by the police in the act of firing into his own house, to secure the establishment of the barracks now pressed for; and whether he will make full inquiry into the matter before consenting to the establishment of a police station?

It is true that application has been made to the Irish Government for the establishment of a Police Station at Moyrus, and that so recently as the 24th November I stated, in reply to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that the matter was receiving the attention of the local responsible authorities. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the terms of that answer, and to the reply which I previously gave on the 25th August to a somewhat similar question on the same subject. The Police report that there are no grounds for the allegation in the second paragraph of the question. I may add that there has been no repetition of the occurrences which took place in this locality in July and August last, and that there are signs of an abatement in feeling as I anticipated.

I bog-to ask the Postmaster General what has caused the delay in proceeding with the erection of anew Post Office at Banbridge, County Down, the urgent necessity for which has been recognised by the Post Office authorities, and plans for which were prepared, a site having been selected, a considerable time ago; and whether he will give instructions for the building of the new Post Office to be proceeded with forthwith?

As I have previously explained to the noble Lord, the delay in providing better Post Office accommodation at Banbridge has been caused—(1) by the failure of an arrangement under which the local Postmaster was to provide an office; and (2) by the necessity for considering the question of providing a Crown Office. Plans have been prepared by the Board of Public Works for a building to be erected on the site mentioned, but it is found that the cost involved would be much greater than the amount of business would warrant. It is not unlikely, therefore, that the scheme for a Crown Office may have to be abandoned, in which case it will be necessary to call upon the Postmaster to make further efforts to obtain suitable accommodation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the horse-shoe nails recently referred to were rejected without the boxes being opened, on the ground that the Company, which had been invited to-tender and whose tender was accepted, was precluded from supplying nails of its own manufacture; and will the nails be accepted provided they are of the sizes-specified, and satisfactory in every respect, as to quality?

(who replied) said: The nails were rejected because they were not in accordance with the specification under which the supply was ordered. They were nails of the "Globe" pattern, which though suitable for certain horseshoes are not considered suitable for the particular shoes for which nails were required in the contract. Those nails cannot be accepted, however good their quality, because they are not of the pattern required. It was quite open to the Company to supply nails of the Woolwich pattern of the required sizes and quality.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India has lately given instructions for a large order for steel railway tyres which were required for an Indian railway to be sent to Belgium, because the price quoted by the Belgian maker was lower than had been quoted by the best English firms, and whether he has also given instructions for an order for 9,000 tons of steel sleepers to be sent to Belgium, though the difference in price in the latter case was only 10s. per ton; whether any stipulations as regards rate of wages or sweating are imposed upon foreign contractors by the English Government; whether lie is aware that the President of the Local Government Board has lately, by Circular, called the attention of the Local Authorities to the scarcity of employment which now exists in many parts of the country, and to the great probability of its becoming more general and being intensified during the winter months; and whether he will endeavour to induce his Department to give employment to British workmen as much as possible by giving their orders at Home even if the cost is a little greater?

The hon. Member's question presumably refers to the Guaranteed Railway Companies, and not to the State Railways, which are under the direct control of the Secretary of State in Council. As regards the State Railways, no such orders as those referred to by the hon. Member have been placed. One of the Guaranteed Companies has recently given an order for 9,000 tons of steel sleepers, but to an English, not a foreign, firm. The same Company is at present engaged in purchasing steel tyres.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House of the date of the last grant of subsidy of 80,000 rupees to the "Messageries Maritimes Company" by the Colonial Authorities at Mauritius, and the duration of such subsidy; whether lie is aware that the vessels in question are armed cruisers in disguise, with their guns on board in the hold, ready for mounting in case of war; that they are commanded and officered by naval officers and properly manned for service; whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to prevent the granting of such subsidies in future to Foreign Shipping Companies, unless English firms decline to undertake the required service; and whether he can give an instance of an English Shipping Company receiving a subsidy from a Foreign Government under similar circumstances?

As regards the first question, the subsidy is voted annually, and the agreement between the Colonial Government and the Company is terminable by six months' notice being given on either side. The grant for 1893 was Rs.60,000, instead of Rs.80,000. The grant for 1894 was, no doubt, voted in December last, but the Estimates for 1894 have not yet reached the Secretary of State. As regards the second question, I have already stated that Her Majesty's Government can hardly compel the Legislature of Mauritius, in which the non-official members are under the present Constitution in a majority, to subsidise any particular line. The, subsidy in question has been in existence for close on 30 years, and to veto it now would be seriously to diminish and to disorganise the communications of the Colony with Europe. As regards the third question, I am informed by the Post Office that the London, Chatham, and Dover Company is subsidised by the French Government for a daily packet service between England and France. The Peninsular and Oriental Company formerly received a subsidy from the Italian Government for a service between Italy and Egypt; and several British Steamship Companies have from time to time made, and still maintain, arrangements with Foreign Governments, whereby for services rendered they obtain monetary advantage if not an actual subsidy.

Has the Under Secretary any objection to saying whether the official members of the Legislature of Mauritius have been instructed to vote against the subsidy; and, if not, whether they will be instructed to vote against it, and to use their influence with the unofficial members to induce them to do the same?

May I ask whether the ships are officered in the manner described in the hon. and gallant Member's question; and whether they are not practically cruisers in disguise?

I am afraid I cannot answer the last question. As regards the question of the right hon. Gentleman, so far as I am aware, the official members of the Legislature were not instructed on the last occasion to vote against the proposed subsidy. I have already pointed out that this subsidy has been in existence for many years, and that to suddenly end it would disorganise the mail service.

Is the hon. Member aware that it is to the interest of the Company to call at Mauritius, whether they have a subsidy or not? The subsidy is entirely unnecessary, and I protest against it.

I will inquire into the matter.

I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the next Colonial Vote, when I will give the hon. Member a warm half-hour.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the remarks said to have been made to the new Justices, on presenting themselves to be sworn, at Leeds, on the 1st January, by the Clerk of the Peace, in which he stated that, whatever their politics, they would remember that directly they had taken the oath they were Magistrates for the West Riding, and they would never allow politics to influence them in anyway when on the Bench; whether it is customary that Clerks of the Peace should make such remarks to new Justices; whether similar remarks were made to Magistrates appointed by the late Lord Chancellor; whether he is aware that this same Clerk of the Peace demanded £4 4s. from each of the new Justices; and whether the Clerk of the Peace can legally demand such an amount?

My attention has been called by several of the newly-appointed Magistrates to those remarks, and the Clerk of the Peace, in answer to my inquiries, admits that he spoke in substance as he is reported to have done, though he says that his observations were informal. He also informs me that, as all previous appointments to the Bench for the last 10 years had gone through his hands to the Lord Lieutenant, there was no necessity for him to make a similar address on previous occasions. I can only express my opinion that the Clerk of the Peace strangely misconceived the duties and privileges of his office when he presumed to address an admonition of this kind to gentlemen appointed under Her Majesty's Commission to administer justice. It appears, further, that the clerk demanded £4 4s. as a fee from each of the new Justices. The fee in question has never been authorised in the manner prescribed by statute. No Justice, in my opinion, was bound to pay it. I have no power to order that it should be refunded; but it is open to any of the Justices who think fit to raise the question to take such proceedings as they may be advised.

Who appoints the Clerks of the Peace, and how can they be removed in case of improper conduct?

The Clerk of the Peace is appointed by the Lord Lieutenant of the county. I cannot say what is the procedure as to removal without further inquiry.

Are these fees which are charged illegal all over the country?

That depends upon whether they have been authorised in the manner prescribed by the statute.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform all Clerks of the Peace that only the legal fees (if any) shall in future be demanded from Justices on being sworn in?

After the clear expression of opinion I have just given I do not think any further observations are needed.

Will the right hon. Gentleman do as my question suggests?

I think that that would be a very improper proceeding on my part, because I have no reason to suppose that the majority of the Clerks of the Peace charge any other than the proper fees.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have sanctioned a contract with Messrs. J. and G. Thomson, on the Clyde, for the building of the new large cruiser Terrible; whether other shipbuilding firms of standing and eminence were invited to tender for this vessel; and, if not, why was the ordinary rule in such cases departed from by their Lordships; and what are the terms of the contract as to amount and time for completion?

(1) The contracts for building the Powerful and Terrible have been placed with the Naval Construction and Armaments Company at Barrow, and Messrs. J. and G. Thomson, at Glasgow, respectively. (2) Ten shipbuilding firms (eight being engineering also) and 12 engineering firms (including eight, also shipbuilders) were invited to tender for a cruiser of the Powerful class. When the tenders came in the Board of Admiralty decided to order two ships, and the two contracts were placed with the firms whose terms were most satisfactory. (3) The cost of each ship will appear in the coming Estimates. The time for completion is three years.

May I ask whether the estimates tendered by the respective firms were equal in amount?

The amounts were all low and were very near each other. The two tenders which gave the most favourable terms to the Admiralty were accepted.

Will hon. Members have an opportunity of seeing the whole of the tenders?

No, Sir; that is quite unusual. It is not always fair to competing firms to take that course.

Did the lowest tenderers get the two ships?

I have stated that the two firms which offered the most favourable terms to the Admiralty were accepted.

Why were not the tenders advertised for in some public newspapers in the same way as other tenders for public contracts?

The reason is that in certain kinds of Admiralty work, not restricted to the building of ships, it is thought that the best course is to invite tenders from selected firms known to be capable of doing the work. This principle was held to be applicable to exceptional cruisers like these. For other purposes tenders are advertised for in the usual way.

May I ask whether the conditions under which the different firms contracted were the same?

The conditions communicated to all the firms were exactly the same.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether satisfactory arrangements have been made between the Home Office and the Admiralty to admit of the reformatory and industrial school ships being properly inspected every year by some naval officers of captain's rank, in accordance with the official assurance; whether any of the ships in question have been since so inspected; and will the Reports of such inspection, with the officer's name attached, be inserted in the usual Annual Report laid upon the Table?

The Admiralty and the Home Office have agreed to the general arrangements for the inspection of reformatory and industrial school ships; but certain details have yet to be settled, though this is not expected to take long. It is intended to hold an actual inspection, in accordance with the arrangements come to, in the course of the next financial year.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty has been directed to the Resolution of this House of 6th March, 1893, in which it expressed its opinion that the conditions of labour in Her Majesty's dockyards should, as regards hours, be such as to afford an example to private employers throughout the country; whether it has been brought to the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty that, in pursuance of the pledge given on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State for War has recently announced the intention of the Government to reduce the hours of labour in the War Office establishments to 48 hours per week; whether, in consequence of the Resolution aforesaid, the First Lord of the Admiralty has taken into consideration the hours worked in Her Majesty's dockyards; and what is the conclusion at which he has arrived?

I would refer my right hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his question on this subject on Monday last.

Do I rightly understand that from the time when the Resolution was passed in March down to November or December Petitions were received from the dockyards, and that during the whole of that interval the First Lord of the Admiralty never considered the matter?

No, certainly not; the right hon. Gentleman is to understand nothing of the kind.

Then what was the result of the consideration which was given?

The matter is now under consideration on the Petitions which were presented to the Admiralty. The First Lord is well aware of the terms of the Resolution of the House.

Will the Government, in considering the men's Petitions, give full weight to the Resolution of the House?

Undoubtedly, Sir.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether there is any substantial reason for longer delaying to invite new tenders for the mail service between Holyhead and Kingstown; whether accelerated speed is to be a condition of the new contract; and, if so, what speed will be required; and in case the accelerated speed necessitates the building of new ships, what time the Department judge will be requisite for that purpose?

My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that the contract for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown terminates on the 30th September, 1895. The contract was made for a period of 12 years certain up to that date, and is then terminable only if 12 months' previous notice is given. The Government have at present come to no decision in the matter, but it will receive their fullest and most anxious consideration. In regard to the last paragraph, I have made careful inquiries, and I am informed that a period of 12 months is ample for the construction of vessels for such a service.

As this matter deeply interests Ireland, may I press for a more definite answer? Is there anything to be gained by the delay? Can any material object be served by not at once inviting the tenders?

As I have already stated, the Government have not yet come to a determination as to whether the contract shall be terminated. There will be ample time for the construction of new vessels if it should be determined to terminate it.

Seeing that at present three hours and three-quarters are taken to cover a distance of 60 miles, can there be any doubt that the service wants accelerating?

The Government are very anxious to have the service accelerated if possible to do so on reasonable terms, but that does not mean that the contract must be terminated. There is ample time for consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in what cases, and to what extent after the issue of the new Order, the qualification of a Poor Law Guardian in Ireland will be lower than a £12 rating?

The value of the qualification for Poor Law Guardians in Ireland after the issue of the new Order will be under £12 in the following cases: (1) In 10 entire Unions, and in 61 Electoral Divisions, forming part of 14 Unions, it will be £10; (2) in two Divisions of Ballinrobe Union it will be £8; (3) in two Divisions of Ballinrobe Union and in nine of Westport Union it will be £6. The average rating qualification for Guardians throughout Ireland is at present something over £20, and in reducing the qualification to £12 for all Unions or Electoral Divisions in which the qualification now exceeds that amount the proposed reduction is at least a considerable experiment.

Considering that the qualification all over England at present is £5, and that the House has practically adopted a Bill in which there is no qualification at all for a Poor Law Guardian in any part of England or Wales, I ask whether it is really finally determined that the minimum qualification in Ireland shall be £6, and higher, therefore, than the uniform qualification in England and Wales? Will the right hon. Gentleman point out to the Local Government Board that they should take care in apportioning these qualifications between the different Divisions that there shall be at least a substantial number of qualified persons in each Division, in order to give the electors something like freedom of choice?

Considering that in Ireland the occupier pays only half the rates, whereas in England he is supposed to pay the whole, I conceive that I have gone as far as I am justified in proceeding by way of experiment; and it is not my intention in connection with the present elections to alter the figures I have given. As to the other matter, it shall receive careful consideration.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that, although in Ireland the landlord pays half the rates, he has half the Board composed of ex officio Guardians?

That makes a difference, but I do not conceive that it makes difference enough.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can state the nature or composition of the Committee that in 1889 recommended the abolition of the Office of Director of Chancery for Scotland as a separate office; and to what Department of the Register House it is proposed that the establishment should be transferred?

The Committee was a Departmental one, appointed by the Secretary for Scotland to inquire in regard to the Sasine Office and the Office of Director of Chancery, and it was composed of the late Lord Lee, Mr. James Auldjo Jamieson, then Crown Agent, and the late Mr. J. J. Reid, then Queen's Remembrancer. The proposal of the Committee was to transfer certain statutory duties, which still appertain to the Office of Director of Chancery, to other officials, but I do not find that it was suggested that they should be transferred to any particular Department of the Register House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an application has been received by him from the Clerk of the Devon County Council, that his present clear salary of £1,400 a year should be increased to £1,900 a year; and whether he has authority, in the absence of any recommendation, to vary such salary; if so, having regard to the fact that the Standing Joint Committee of Devonshire, after special consideration, has decided that the present emoluments of the Clerk of the County Council are ample, and the ratepayers of the county generally consider them more than ample, it is his intention to increase such emoluments?

Yes; I have received the application to which my hon. Friend refers. The Secretary of State has no power to vary the salary of his own accord, but in this case I have received a recommendation from the Standing Joint Committee to vary the mode of paying the clerk, which would enable me to direct such variation of the salary as I thought proper. I have considered the clerk's application, and I see no ground for supposing that he will be inadequately remunerated under the new arrangement, nor for interfering with the unanimous decision of the Standing Joint Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with regard to his undertaking in connection with Government contracts to take into consideration the enforcement of an eight-hours day, in addition to the payment of wages accepted as current in the trades concerned, it is the intention of the Government to enforce these conditions upon home contractors only, while leaving their foreign competitors free from such restraints?

I gave no undertaking to the effect stated in the question, but I merely said that the Controller of the Stationery Office would give fair consideration to the conditions under which contractors employ their labour. I am not aware that any of the contracts made by Departments under the control of the Treasury are with foreign firms, but if such were the case I see no reason why foreign contractors should be placed at an advantage over contractors in this country.

The question of the eight-hours day will not enter into the consideration of the Government at all, then?

It will not be made a special condition, but it will be a consideration in giving out the contracts.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state on or about what date, before the House adjourns, he will be able to state the intentions of the Government with regard to the Christian Brothers' Schools?

I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer I gave my hon. and gallant Friend to a similar question put last Tuesday.

Are we to have a statement before the adjournment next Saturday, or before the new Session commences?

I said clearly enough on Tuesday that I hoped to be able to announce a decision on the subject before the rising of the House, and that the date of that rising was not, unfortunately, fixed yet.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the decision of Justices Trevelyan and Rampini in the Criminal Appeal Court at Calcutta last November, in the case known as the Noakhali murder case, in which two men were sentenced to be hanged and two others to transportation for life; and if he is aware that the Sessions Judge of Noakhali convicted on the un-corroborated evidence of an approver, and that the High Court Judges in their decision stated that they thought it exceedingly dangerous to act upon evidence of this description, discharging two of the prisoners altogether, and commuting the sentence of death on the other two to transportation; and, if so, will he order a public inquiry into the conduct of this case by the Noakhali Sessions Judge?

The Secretary of State knows nothing of the case in question, but he will ask the Government of India about it.

In consequence of the extremely insufficient and unsatisfactory replies I have received to these questions, I wish to give notice that as early as possible in the next Session I shall move a Resolution declaring that, in the opinion of the House, the administration of criminal justice in the remoter parts of India by District Magistrates and the Sessional Judges is such as to bring the law into contempt and make it a terror to the law-abiding, and that the subject should be promptly inquired into by a committee of experts in Indian Criminal Law, of which one-half should consist of natives of India.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Thames and Severn Canal is now almost entirely owned by the South Western Railway Company; and whether he can state under what Act of Parliament that Railway Company purchased it?

I am informed that the Railway Company purchased, prior to the Act of 1888, 2,140 shares in the Canal out of a total capital of 2,450 shares. The correspondence on the subject will be found in the Parliamentary Paper "Thames and Severn Canal;" 1886 [C. 4897]. Clause 42 of the Act of 1888 was passed in order to prevent such an application of the funds of a Railway Company in future.

Am I to understand there was no authority to enable the Great Western Company to purchase this canal?

No direct authority. The whole question is under the consideration of the Board of Trade, in consequence of representations which have been made, and under the circumstances I would rather not say anything more at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered a resolution of the Belfast United Trades Council, in which it is represented that about 50,000 females are engaged in the textile industries of Belfast, and that the appointment of a female Inspector for that city is absolutely essential; and whether it is intended to appoint any female Inspectors of Factories for Ireland?

Yes. No female Inspector is appointed for any particular place—they are all peripatetic. Miss Abraham has already visited Belfast, and I understand will do so again before long. An assistant male Inspector has been appointed to the Belfast district. A special inquiry has recently been conducted under my instructions into the linen factories of Belfast, with the result that Rules have been framed which will, I hope, largely mitigate the mortality and disease which have hitherto prevailed.

Is it intended to appoint a resident female Inspector in Ireland, or are they all to be peripatetic?

They are appointed in the latter sense.

May I ask whether, considering the large number of women and girls employed in Belfast, it would not, be an advantage from a sanitary point of view to have a resident female Inspector in the city?

The Home Department are obliged to economise in these matters, and I do not see the prospect of having more than four female Inspectors for the whole of Great Britain and Ireland. In these circumstances, I cannot undertake that any one of them should be permanently resident in any one centre of industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the general opinion among persons interested in this question that in consequence of the large number of women and girls engaged in this trade one female Inspector should be resident at Belfast?

I am not aware that such is the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before reducing the weekly hours of labour in the War Office Factories, an estimate was formed of the number of additional workmen who would be re- quired to turn out the same total amount of work, and of the additional cost of the change to the public purse; and, if so, what is that estimate; or whether it has been assumed that no more workmen would be required and no greater charge be incurred for the same amount of work done?

It is not anticipated that any additional workmen will be required as a result of reducing the working hours to 48 per week, save in exceptional cases. A careful comparison has been made of the results attained in certain private factories; and the conclusion, confirmed by our own experience, has been formed that any increased expenditure in wages will be compensated by savings in fuel, light, lubricants, and wear and tear, by the increased energy of the workmen, and, lastly, by the prevention of lost time owing to the suppression of the breakfast hour.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any application has yet been made to the Court to fix a day for the trial of the case of "Nobel v. Anderson" (Director General of Ordnance Factories); and, if so, what day has been fixed?

The trial appears in the cause list for January 29.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether it is true, as reported in The Times of 8th January, that the Native State of Partabghar, with 80,000 inhabitants, is minting silver at the rate of Rs.800,000 a day, while a still smaller State is pouring out Rs.500,000 a day; and that the present issue of these States in a single day exceeds the whole coinage during the past 30 years; whether this action of the Native States accounts for the large importation of silver into India, since the coinage of the rupee in the Mints of the Government of India has been stopped; whether the whole purpose of this stoppage will be frustrated if the free coinage of silver in all the Native Mints in India is carried on at the same rate as in Partabghar; and what steps the Secretary of State proposes to take in order to counteract the proceedings of the Native States?

I have received no information upon the subject.

I will put another question to-morrow.

Are these rupees legal tender in British India?

The rupees in question form a part of the currency of India, but they are not a legal tender.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why, in violation of the Irish Education Act, 1892, Section 3, the Commissioners of National Education, in making the appointment to the Banbridge School Attendance Committee, passed over two local managers of schools, who are willing to act, and appointed other gentlemen who are not managers or patrons, and who have never taken any interest in national school education in Banbridge?

The Commissioners of National Education are not aware of any violation of the Act in the making of their appointments of half the School Attendance Committee. Of the five members appointed by the Commissioners three are managers of National schools. The Commissioners are not bound to appoint more managers than one-half of the members appointed by them. The Commissioners took into account, when making their appointments, that 39·5 per cent. of the population of the locality are members of the late Established Church. Of the two Irish Church managers of schools of the locality, one consented to act and was appointed; the other declined. Two lay Church members were in addition appointed by the Commissioners, making, together with the one Church member appointed by the Local Authority, a total of four Church members on the committee, as the equitable representation of that denomination. The entire committee is now constituted as follows:— Two Roman Catholics, four members of the Irish Church, three Presbyterians, and one Unitarian.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, after the passing of the Employers' Liability Bill, it is the intention of the Government in any way to alter the present arrangements for "injury pay" in Woolwich Arsenal, to which all workmen are now entitled in case of injury from any cause; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Rules under which that pay is granted?

(who replied) said: There is no intention of altering the present arrangements for injury pay, to which all workmen in the Ordnance Factories are now entitled, although the Employers' Liability Bill now before Parliament is made to apply to any such workman as if the employer were a private person. There will no objection to lay upon the Table the Rules of the Ordnance Factories under which injury pay is granted.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Peace for the County of London has demanded a fee of five guineas each from the Justices who have recently been appointed by the Lord Chancellor; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

I am informed that the fee in the case has been duly authorised and goes to the County Fund, the clerk being paid by salary. But the matter seems to me to be one which calls for further inquiry.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the Charitable Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855, it will be open to the trustees of any parochial charity to transfer the funds of that charity into the names of the official Charity Trustees, and thus obviate the necessity of altering the names in the securities of the trust every time new trustees are appointed?

(who replied) said: It will he open to the trustees of any parochial charity to transfer the funds referred to into the names of the official trustees. The case of parochial charities differs in no respect as regards the agency of the official trustees of charitable funds and of charity lands, which is available for the benefit of all endowed charities within the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a correspondence has taken place between the Governor of Malta and the Secretary of State for the Colonies respecting the Marriage Legacy question in Malta; and, if so, whether the correspondence can be presented to Parliament?

The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second question, the correspondence is not yet concluded, but when it is we shall consider whether it would be desirable to present any Papers to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the National Board of Education in Ireland have received from the Town Commissioners of Wicklow a resolution unanimously passed by that Board protesting against the manner in which the Commissioners of National Education had nominated their half of the local School Attendance Committee, and expressing the opinion that the exclusion of Canon Rooke, the Rector of Wicklow and the manager of a national school, was likely to have an injurious effect on the cause of education in Wicklow; and whether, in compliance with a request contained in the resolution, the Board of National Education will reconsider their nominations?

At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Wicklow Township Commissioners, consisting of both Protestants and Catholics, unanimously condemning and protesting against the unfair manner in which the Commissioners of National Education nominated their half of the local School Attendance Committee, and their refusal to appoint the Rev. Canon Rooke, Protestant Rector, and manager of No. 2 Wicklow National School; whether he is aware that the Town Commissioners unanimously appointed two Catholics and two Protestants, and the Education Commissioners appointed three Catholics and one Protestant (a Methodist), three of whom had no connection with the educational work of the district; could he explain on what grounds the Commissioners of Education refused to appoint the Rev. Mr. Rooke, and how many of the Attendance Committee as appointed are school patrons or managers; and whether the Committee as appointed is in compliance with the Act of Parliament?

My attention has been drawn to the resolution passed by the Wicklow Town Council with regard to the manner in which the Commissioners of National Education had nominated their half of the local School Attendance Committee. The Board when making their appointments took into account the populations of the various Religious Denominations in Wicklow, and inasmuch as the Local Authority had already appointed two lay members of the Irish Church the Board considered that the representation of that denomination on the committee was equitable, and thereupon appointed a Methodist clergyman to represent the Methodist minority. The Committee now consists of five Roman Catholics, of whom one is a patron of three schools, two lay members of the Irish Church, and a Methodist clergyman. The Commissioners do not consider that they have any warranty for making any alteration in the appointments made by them, and I must presume that the Committee as appointed is in compliance with the Act of Parliament.

Am I right in saying that the only elergymen omitted from these appointments in connection with the education of the district is this Protestant clergyman?

I understand that is so, but it was supposed that it would answer the purpose to put on the Methodist clergyman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state approximately the number of cottages for labourers that have been built or acquired in Ireland under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, 1883 to 1892, by Rural Sanitary Authorities; whether he has any information of the average cost of them, or of the average cost of building them; whether he proposes to ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the propriety of bringing in a Bill to amend those Acts, so as to render the exercise of the compulsory powers cheaper and subject to less delay by the adoption of some mode of compulsory purchase similar to that in the Local Government Bill; and whether the rents for cottages under those Acts have been paid to the Rural Authorities with regularity?

The total number of cottages provided for labourers in Ireland under the Acts referred to, up to the end of August last, is 10,142, at a cost in round numbers of £1,206,000, or an average of about £119 for each cottage. A Return presented to the House in December on the Motion of the hon. Member for West Kerry, and now in the hands of the printers, contains detailed information ill regard to this matter. I have carefully considered, in consultation with the Local Government Board, the question of simplifying and cheapening the procedure under the Labourers Acts, and have come to the conclusion that no administrative improvements with this object, in the existing arrangements, can be brought about, and that without fresh legislation no changes in this direction can be effected. As to the payment of rents, I am informed that, speaking generally, they are fairly well paid, but that in some Unions there are considerable arrears outstanding.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if any complaints have been addressed to the Privy Council as to the remuneration for pigs killed under the Swine Fever Act; who values the pigs killed; if it has been pointed out that the scale of value in Galway and Mayo is 10 per cent, too low considering the present price of pigs; if, unless the constabulary tell a man not to meddle with a sick pig, the owner of the pig gets no compensation if the Dublin authorities, in examining the viscera, declare that the pig has subsequently died of some disease other than swine fever; is he aware that the owners of such pigs have complained that they might have realised half their value by killing the pigs if not forbidden to do so by the police; and whether he will endeavour to popularise the working of a useful now Act by seeing that it is at first somewhat liberally interpreted and administered?

A communication as to compensation for pigs killed under the Swine Fever Act was received from the Claremorris Board of Guardians. The Veterinary Department has, however, ascertained through its Inspectors that objections have been raised to the amount of the proposed compensation in comparatively few cases. The animals slaughtered are valued either by the Inspectors of the Local Authorities or by independent local valuers of practical experience employed by the Veterinary Department. It has not been pointed out to the Department that the scale of value in Galway and Mayo is 10 per cent, too low, as stated. There is no statutory power to give compensation for a pig that dies even though the postmortem examination by the Dublin authorities shows that it was affected with swine fever. Compensation can only be paid for pigs slaughtered, half value for animals affected with swine fever, and full value in all other cases. The Veterinary Department is not aware that complaints have been made, as alleged in the fifth paragraph. The object of the Government is to work the Act liberally within its powers, and as evidence that it has been regarded popularly it may be stated that the number of outbreaks of swine fever reported since November I last, when the Act came into force, is greatly in excess of the number reported during the two preceding mouths of the year, as appears from the following figures:— The outbreaks from January 1 to No- vember 1, 1893, were 194; the outbreaks since. November 1, 1893, were 360.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether lie is aware that in boroughs where the police are under the control of the Watch Committee, it is the usual practice not to issue warrants for offences such as misdemeanours in the first instance but to grant summonses to the police, as in the case of the 19 men and pit lads charged for being concerned in the Rockingham and Elsecar riots, and who were committed to take their trial at Leeds Assizes, 10 of them were acquitted after being taken out of their beds in the middle of the night by warrants granted by the Barnsley Magistrates; and whether he will represent to those Magistrates the desirability of granting only summonses in such cases, and that it is their duty to bind over witnesses for the defence to appear, as well as for the prosecution?

The law is the same in boroughs and in counties, and I believe the practice is also. Whether the process should be by summons or by warrant is a matter for the discretion of the Magistrates. There should be some special ground to justify the issue of a warrant in the first instance. I am not prepared to say that in determining in this case to proceed by warrant the Justices exercised their discretion wrongly. With regard to the second paragraph, I think that the answers which I have given on this and previous occasions to my hon. Friend are a sufficient expression of my opinion, and that it is not necessary to issue any instructions to the Justices on either point. It ought to be clearly understood that it is the duty of Magistrates to bind over witnesses for the accused, unless they are plainly of opinion that the evidence is immaterial or false.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Home Office in the case of a private firm require that in a group of buildings the compartments of which are divided by brick walls, three feet thick, with an intervening machinery (non-danger) compartment, the limit of explosive in each press house is 75 to 60 lbs. and of two producing workmen, exclusive of foreman and servers, of which not more than two may be at any one time in any one compartment; whether he is aware that these Regulations are enforced in private cam press houses where the same work is being carried on as that in operation at the time of the recent explosion at Waltham Abbey; whether the Home Office Inspector had called the attention of the War Office to these requirements; whether, if so, any steps were taken to secure similar protection for life at the Waltham factory; whether it is the fact that at Waltham Abbey the two cam press houses were of timber, separated only by a waterwheel, there being no intervening protecting wall or space; and whether, under such circumstances, they counted as separate houses, and how many workmen were in these at the time of the explosion, and how many men and how many pounds of explosive were allowed to be in each of them at any one time by the Regulations of the factory? At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the custom to work day and night at the Waltham Government Factory; what is the necessity for this in time of peace; what reserve of machinery and buildings exists in case of an emergency requiring extra production; and whether night work is in all respects as safe for the manufacture of explosives at this factory as day work?

I have appointed a competent Committee, which will include a representative of the Home Office, to investigate the causes and circumstances of the recent accident at Waltham Abbey, and until that Committee reports I would rather make no further statement upon the subject.

I hope my right hon. Friend will arrange that the Committee shall report before the Estimates come on for consideration.

I should imagine that it would not be a very long inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Representative in Rio de Janeiro to forward the unloading of British vessels in that port; and if any further measures can be taken in this direction so as to mitigate the serious loss which shipowners are sustaining owing to the prolonged detention of their vessels?

I can add nothing to statements which have previously been made to the effect that Her Majesty's Minister and the senior naval officer have been doing their utmost to give all the assistance to British commerce that is possible in the midst of a civil conflict such as exists at Rio. Captain Bang, however, reports that the firing of the Government and insurgent forces at each other takes place at uncertain periods and at various portions of the shore, and that this constitutes a danger against which it is often impossible to protect those who attempt to land cargoes. It would not be possible for the British Representatives at Rio to take any further measures without infringing the principle of strict neutrality, from winch it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to depart.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Homo Department, the Member for Leeds, what the objection of Her Majesty's Government or the Home Office is to granting the Return as to County Justices appointed since the Resolution of this House; and if any approximate statement can be given of the number of those appointed by the Lord Chancellor without the nomination of any Lord Lieutenant?

(who replied) said: The objection to granting the Return is that the Lord Chancellor is of opinion that it would be very difficult to make, and that when made it would be exceedingly misleading. I have sent my hon. Friend a form of Return we are ready to give.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, before embarking on new and costly naval expenditure, the Government could see its way to open up communication with other European. Powers with a view to a policy of mutual disarmament?

This is a question of great importance. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that it was raised by Lord Clarendon, when Foreign Secretary, shortly before the close of his valued life, when he made with my full concurrence an attempt at progress in this direction. I do not know that it was strictly official, and so it could not be made the subject of documentary information to Parliament. Lord Clarendon, when he made that attempt, certainly did receive a very satisfactory answer from the Government of one great European Power; but he failed to carry the matter further. While holding the view I have expressed on the general subject, I am bound to say I am not of opinion that the present moment is one at which any such representations could be advantageously made.

I beg to ask a question of which I have given the Lord Advocate private notice — namely, whether the Rule Committee of the English Judges have this day rescinded Order 11 of the new Rules of Court, which deals with the service of writs out of the jurisdiction and affects the rights of persons domiciled in Scotland?

Yes, Sir. The Rule Committee have to-day rescinded that particular Order with a view to the matter being reconsidered on the lines raised in regard to Scotland.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the "forest robbers," pursued by the recent Expedition from Witu, were chiefly runaway slaves; whether the object of the Expedition was to force them to come into Witu; and whether, if a runaway slave did come into the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, his former owner would be entitled, by the law of Zanzibar, to resume possession?

Full information as to the character of these people, and as to the objects of the Expedition in Witu, is given in the Papers, Africa No. 9, 1893, and Africa No. 1, 1894, which have been laid before Parliament. A lawful owner in the Zanzibar dominions would by the law of Zanzibar be entitled to resume possession of a runaway slave. I may add that the Expedition in question never left the territory of Witu; its object was to destroy certain fortified posts, which were a centre of disturbance, and it had nothing to do either with the capture of runaway slaves or with the restoration of them to owners if they had any.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility of drawing up Regulations as a safeguard against these runaway slaves being re-sold?

I am not aware that any one of these men has been claimed by any owner.