I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the Declaration between the Governments of England and France respecting Telegraphic Communication between the two countries, ratified on 30th March, 1889, was made subject to revision at the end of five years, that is, at the end of March next; whether the cost of the cable taken over from the late Submarine Cable Company, and of the new cable, has been covered by the profits derived from the service; whether he can state the gross earnings of the cables for each year since 1889; and whether he will open negotiations with the French Government for a reduction of the existing rate of 2d. per word to 1d., 1d. being the sum of the English and French inland rates together?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is in the negative. As to the remaining paragraphs, I think it will, perhaps, be sufficient for me to say that, in the present condition of the telegraph revenue, I am not prepared to propose any reduction in the charge for telegrams between this country and France.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can give the total number of cablegrams despatched to and received from the European Continent by the submarine cables in the course of last year, with the total sum paid in the United Kingdom for transmission; and whether he can distinguish between the traffic and receipts for each Continental country separately, as was done by the Submarine Cable Company, which was the owner of the cables before they were purchased by the Governments concerned?

No, Sir. Some of the submarine cables between this country and the Continent of Europe are worked by private companies, and I have no knowledge of the total number of messages sent over those cables. With regard to the cables belonging to the Government, I think it would be contrary to the public interest to furnish the information desired by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has observed the comparison, in a leading article of The Times, of the rate of one halfpenny per word from London to Jersey, and 2d. per word from London to Boulogne or Calais; and whether he will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the cost and feasibility of establishing a common rate of 1d. per word over the entire territory of the United Kingdom and the French Republic and Belgium?

I am not aware of any recent article in The Times on the subject; but it is, of course, within my knowledge that whilst the charge for a telegram from London to Boulogne or Calais is 2d. a word, the charge to Jersey is a halfpenny a word, the Channel Islands having, by the Act 33 & 34 Vict., c. 88, been constituted part of the United Kingdom for telegraph purposes. My answer to the latter part of the hon. Member's question must be in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Registry Appeal from the borough of Galway, of "McDonagh v. Barnacle," the Judges of the Court of Appeal, in November last, returned a "case stated" to the Recorder of Galway to enable his Honour to find, whether as a matter of fact there was a "Freeman's Roll," in the Borough of Galway, and that his Honour in a supplementary case found that there was such Roll, although it was notorious at the Revision Court no such Roll existed and evidence of its non-existence was given by the Town Clerk; and that the Court of Appeal, despite the finding of the Recorder, unanimously decided that there was no Roll and grounded their judgment, upon this fact; whether the Recorder of Galway has since offered any explanation of the circumstance; and whether his attention has been called to the precedent of a Judge laying an explanation of his conduct in a judicial matter before Parliament, in the case of Mr. Justice Harrison, who upon inquiry being made in reference to an address of his to the Galway Grand Jury, at the Galway Summer Assizes of 1890, sent two letters to the Chief Secretary for Ireland to be read in the House? (Hansard, vol. 347, folios 375, 737, 914, and 1066.)

I find that on the 19th December my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in replying, in my absence, to a question put to him regarding this case by the hon. Gentleman, pointed out that the action of the Recorder in the matter was wholly judicial, and that the Executive have no power of interfering or calling upon him for an explanation; and, further, that the Executive have no control over the documents filed in the Court of Appeal in the course of judicial proceedings. To this reply I fear I can now only add that the Recorder has not, so far as I am aware, communicated with the Government on the subject. The matter referred to in the last paragraph of the question is within my knowledge and confirms me in the opinion which has been expressed, that the Executive Government have no [tower or right to call upon the Recorder for an explanation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland what steps are being taken to secure to prison warders in Scotland a limitation of the hours of labour similar to that which is being granted in other Government establishments?

The prison warders in Scotland have received a substantial reduction in hours of day and night duty consequent on the recommendation of a Departmental Commission which reported in February, 1892. I do not at present contemplate any further change; and, in any case, I would not make it without consultation with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that, on 11th September, the Assistant Registrar of Friendly Societies for Scotland received a copy of District Rules of the Independent Order of Rechabites for registration; that he objected to five of the proposed Rules, which were in every respect the same as the general registered Rules of the Society; and that these Rules had to be deleted to meet the objections of the Registrar; and whether he will inquire into all the circumstances of the case?

The Registrar of Friendly Societies reports to me as follows:—

"It is the fact that the Assistant Registrar for Scotland has objected to certain provisions in the Rules of a district of the Independent Order of Rechabites. The Order has appealed on the matter to the Chief Registrar of friendly Societies, who has not seen sufficient ground for interference with the discretion of the Assistant Registrar in Scotland. If the Assistant Registrar is wrong in law, an appeal to the Court of Session is provided for by the Friendly Societies Acts."

On behalf of the hon. Member for South West Ham, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Registrar of Friendly Societies has returned 36 copies of Branch Rules sent to him for registration by the Independent Order of Rechabites, which had been before him for periods ranging from two to four months, and are an exact copy of Branch Rules which have already been registered; whether he can explain the cause of delay; and what are the objections which have been taken to these duplicate copies of Rules already registered?

The Registrar of Friendly Societies reports to me as follows:—

"It is the fact that my attention has been drawn to provisions in the model Rules circulated by the Independent Order of Rechabites among its Tents, which appear to me to go beyond what the Friendly Societies Acts authorise, and that a long correspondence has taken place with the Secretary of the Order on the matter. The correspondence is, indeed, still going on, and while that is so the registry of the Rules in question is necessarily suspended."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he would have any objection to lay upon the Table a Return giving an account of the experiments or trials made by the Admiralty since the Oberon boiler trial in 1868, in order to test the suitability of liquid oil fuel for use in Her Majesty's Navy; and whether he is able to state the general conclusions which have so far been arrived at by the Admiralty with respect to the use of this fuel?

I have little to add to the answer which I gave to somewhat similar questions of the hon. Member on December 11. It is not thought desirable to publish the Return which he suggests. The conclusions of the Admiralty were indicated in my previous answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether urgent representations have been made by the Local Authorities of the Counties of Essex and Kent, complaining of the deposit of mud refuse upon the fishing grounds within their jurisdiction, and whether it is intended to continue to ignore their remonstrances; whether such deposit would be an illegal act if committed by any body other than a Government Department; and whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Commission which sat upon the question?

(who replied) said: As I have already several times stated, the present method of depositing off the Nore will cease on 31st March next, from which date other arrangements will be made for getting rid of the dredged soil. I am unable to answer the second paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I presume the third paragraph refers to the Report of the two officers appointed to inquire into the matter. I have repeatedly stated that the Report is confidential, and it is not proposed to lay it upon the Table of the House.

I shall move for the Return.

I beg, to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Indian military expenditure of all classes has largely increased in recent years; and whether any Members of the Council of the Governor General have objected to the provision made for military expenditure in the Estimates for the current year; and, if so, whether the Secretary of State for India will lay these dissents upon the Table of the House?

Yes, speaking generally; the principal causes have been explained in the several Indian Financial Statements and Explanatory Memorandums laid before Parliament. Minutes were recorded by Members of the Government of India both for and against the provision for military expenditure in the Budget for the current year; but they are of a confidential nature.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the scale of prices annexed to the particulars of contract for vellum and account book binding for Her Majesty's Stationery Office is based upon the recognised prices of men's labour; and whether he, and the Controller with him, are responsible for seeing that any firm receiving a contract does pay such wages for labour as are recognised by the trade concerned?

No, Sir; the scale of prices is not based upon the recognised prices for men's labour as distinguished from other labour, but represents only what past experience has led the Stationery Office to believe to be fair proportional prices for different classes of work on which bids could be taken. Certainly, I hold myself bound to take every step I can, in concert with the Stationery Office, to secure strict compliance with the Resolution of the House of Commons.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has recently received a Petition from the Chambers of Commerce of Cardiff, Bristol, Swansea, Newport, Llanelly, Falmouth, Plymouth, and other towns, asking for a later mail train between Cardiff and Bristol; if he is aware that, in order to catch the first morning delivery in London, letters have to be posted earlier at some of the leading commercial centres in South Wales than in English towns double the distance from the Metropolis; whether he is aware that the Postmaster General in office three years ago undertook to consider this matter "on the first favourable opportunity which presents itself;" and whether no opportunity of placing Welsh towns in the same position as English has since presented itself in respect of postal facilities?

I have received no recent Petitions from the Chambers of Commerce referred to, but I am aware of the facts stated in the question. The matter has been before me more than once during the past year, and com- munications with the Railway Company have taken place; but the change would involve not merely an alteration of hours, but additional train service, which would be attended by a large increase of expenditure such as I have not seen my way to recommend.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a telegram was received by the Resident Medical Officer of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum from the Inspectors of Lunatics, dated 30th December, 1893, directing him not to convene the usual monthly meeting of the Boards of Governors for Monday, 1st January, on the ground that the Board of 1893 was not competent to act after the 31st; if he is aware than in consequence the contractors for supplies to the asylum have not received their usual monthly cheques, and have, therefore, suffered much inconvenience; if he will state why last year's Board was not allowed to continue in office until the appointment of the new Board, as is the practice under the Poor Law system; if he will take immediate steps to have overdue accounts dealt with; and if he will stale in whose control the establishment is vested pending the nomination of the new Board?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Boards of Governors of the District Lunatic Asylums are, under Order in Council, appointed for the calendar year. The Board of the Cork Asylum for 1894 was, with others, appointed on the 6th instant, and directions have been issued for convening a meeting of that Board not later than Monday next, when doubtless any monthly accounts will be at once dealt with.

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 80,000 Rs. a day, while a still smaller State is pouring out 500,000 Rs. a day; and that the present issue of these States in a single day ex- ceeds 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 he 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?

We have telegraphed to the Government of India for information on this subject, but have not yet received a reply.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, having regard to the fact that one-half the Londonderry School Attendance Committee as at present appointed does not, consist of managers of patrons of schools in the place, though such persons are available, the said committee is legally constituted under the third section of "The Irish Education Act, 1892;" whether the Commissioners of National Education were bound to appoint the requisite number of managers or patrons and thereby secure compliance with the section; whether any regulations, and if so what, were made in accordance with the section; and whether the Law Officers have been consulted as to the requirements of the third section?

I beg, at the same time, to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education acted in conformity with the Act of Parliament in ignoring and leaving out the name of a manager and patron of a school when appointing their portion of the Committee; and whether the District Inspector had any authority to ask any manager if he would be willing to act upon the committee; and, if so, by whom such authority was given?

I have been in communication with the Commissioners of National Education in reference to the principles upon which the appointments of some of these School Attendance Committees under the Act of 1892 have been made. The matter is undoubtedly an important one, and whilst I do not, upon the information at present before mo, question the legality of the action of the Commissioners in the lines pursued by them in the appointments of the Committees, or some of these Bodies, yet there is an element of doubt in my mind which I should be glad to have removed before replying to the question of the hon. Gentleman. The difficulty turns on the construction of the words "wherever available" in the third section. I shall take an early opportunity during the Recess of going into the matter, and would ask the hon. Members, therefore, to be so good as to defer their inquiries until after the reassembling of the House.

I will put another question after the Adjournment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps have been taken by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in the cases of Mr. Butterly, J.P., and the Mayor of Drogheda, who respectively moved a resolution and presided over the meeting that passed it, naming and holding up to execration a Mr. Chambers because he was the purchaser of certain agricultural produce?

The Lord Chancellor has communicated with the Mayor of Drogheda, and Mr. Butterly. The Mayor states that he merely presided on the occasion by virtue of his office, and expressed no view in the matter. The Lord Chancellor has not yet received an explanation from Mr. Butterly, but he has promised to send a full one, and then the view of the Lord Chancellor will be announced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that persistent attempts are being made to interfere with the sale in Drogheda of farm produce from certain farms on the Massercene estate; whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed by the Drogheda Branch of the Irish National Federation on Tuesday, January 2, declaring the presence of the tenants of these farms in the fairs and markets to be an intolerable public nuisance, and calling upon the Committee of the branch to take steps to put an end to the evil; and whether any steps are being taken to enable the tenants of these farms to make free use of the fairs and markets in their neighbourhood?

I am aware that attempts have been made in the direction referred to in the question, though it does not appear from the Reports which have been received by mo that these attempts have yet been successful. The resolution mentioned in the question, which was passed at an indoor meeting, has been brought under my notice, and I am advised that there is not sufficient legal evidence forthcoming to identify the parties with the resolution. The police have taken every step possible to watch the movements of persons suspected as likely to be engaged in these proceedings, and they will continue to do what is necessary to prevent illegal action and to protect the tenants in the exercise of their legal rights.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Dome Department whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. James M'Grigor, J.P., one of the recently-appointed Borough Justices for West Hartlepool, who was fined 5s. and costs for allowing his refreshment house to be open for the sale of fried fish during prohibited hours on Christmas morning; and what steps the Lord Chancellor proposes to take?

also had the following Question on the Paper: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that on Monday last, the 8th inst., at West Hartlepool, Mr. James M'Grigor, one of the recently-appointed Borough Justices for West Hartlepool, was fined 5s. and costs for allowing his refreshment house to be open for the sale of fried fish during prohibited hours on Christmas morning; and what stops do the Government propose taking in this case?

May I ask what is the statute which prohibits the sale of goods in Hartlepool, and whether it applies to other parts of the country?

There is a Statute which prohibits the opening of refreshment, houses during certain hours on Sunday and Christmas Day, but without notice I cannot give my hon. Friend the reference. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe has a question on the Paper on the same subject as the hon. Member for Antrim. Perhaps he will allow me to answer him at the same time. It is true that Mr. M'Grigor was fined for keeping his refreshment house open during prohibited hours; but, after considering the evidence, I see no reason for taking any further action in the matter.

Was not the Magistrate in question himself engaged in serving out fish at 3 o'clock in the morning; and is it not the case that on the occasion referred to he was sitting on the Bench and retired from the Bench while his case was being heard, bill returned after the case had been adjudicated upon.

If he did, I see no objection whatever.

May I ask whether occasional appointments have not been made to the Judicial Bench—not recently made—which have turned out to be equally fishy with this one?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is now in a position to state the proposed terms of Reference to the Select Committee to be appointed to inquire into the working of the Irish Land and Purchase Acts?

It is impossible on this occasion to give the precise words of Reference, but I may state generally the objects the Government have in view. The first, object is to inquire into the principles upon which the Land Commission has proceeded, especially in regard to the question of tenants' improvements, in the administration of the fair-rent clauses of the Acts of 1881 and 1887, and of the Redemption of Rent Act of 1891. The second object is to inquire into the administration and practice in respect of the various Acts affecting the purchase of land by advances of public money, and I think, in connection with this branch of the matter, the Committee might well inquire into the operation of the Registration of Title Act, as it greatly affects the status of tenant purchasers. The third object is to inquire into the distribution of the business of their department by the Land Commission; and the fourth object is to make such suggestions as they may deem expedient as to any improvements in the law or practice which their inquiry may show to be desirable.

Then the Committee will report as to any amendments required in the law and in practice.

That is what I intended to indicate in the last sentence of my answer.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General what is the cost incurred by keeping the Telegraph Office at Moorgate Street Buildings open from midnight Saturday lo midnight Sunday for the quarter ending 31st December, 1893; what proportion of this cost would be saved if the messages were sent out from the Central Telegraph Office, at which Office only can the public hand in messages; whether complaints have reached him that the majority of the messages delivered are retained for hours, so that no question of delay arises; and whether, having regard to the falling Telegraph Revenue, and the desirability of relieving Sunday labour, he will close the Telegraph Street Office on that, day?

The cost was about £70. It has been under consideration whether the Office might, be closed both all day on Sundays and at night on week days; and this course will be adopted if it appear that the public convenience will not suffer by the proposed change. I am not yet able to say what saving in expenditure can be effected. As to the retention of telegrams, firms in the City, as a rule, prefer that their telegrams should be retained by the Department, seeing that their offices are practically inaccessible during the night and on Sundays. In those cases where it is desired that telegrams should be delivered during the night and on Sundays care is taken to deliver the telegrams immediately on their arrival.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for what reason an application for a cottage and plot of land for Thomas Connor, of Coolaclaiy, Listowel Union, has been rejected by the Local Government Board?

It appears that some confusion has arisen in reference to the case alluded to in the question owing to the numbers of this and another site in the same Electoral Division of the Union having been accidentally transposed in the Guardians' scheme, and the Local Government Board are at present in communication with the Guardians on the subject. The cottage proposed to be built for the man named in the question is, however, that which has been authorised by Provisional Order, the other case referred to having been rejected.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the further correspondence which has taken place since that comprised in the Paper presented to the House in 1890 (H.C. 242), relating to the repeal or Enactment of Contagious Diseases Ordinances and Regulations in the Colonies?

The correspondence will be given, if my hon. Friend moves for it, when the part of it relating to Hong Kong, the Straits, and Fiji is completed. As I informed him the other day, we are still in communication with those Colonies on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Ex- chequer what, according to the Returns and Accounts made to the Woods and Forests Department, has been the yield of gold per ton on, say, the last 50,000 tons of ore worked in North Wales; how does the gold yield per ton in North Wales compare with the gold yield at the Rand, in South Africa; what is the acreage of the Crown Lands in Merionethshire where the North Wales gold fields are situated; what was the quantity of gold obtained in the Wicklow gold fields, and during what period, and why was the working of such fields abandoned; and will the Government consider the advisability of allowing, under due regulation, these Crown Lands and gold fields, both in Wales and Ireland, to be prospected and opened up by parties of working minors and others, as is the case in Australia, America, South Africa, Brazil, and elsewhere?

(who replied) said: The quantity of quartz crushed in the last seven years has been 43,600 tons, yielding 23,718oz. of gold, or nearly 11dwts. to the ton. In the year 1893 the quantity crushed was only 4,300 tons. I have no official information as to the yield of gold at the Rand, in South Africa. The information asked for in paragraphs 3 and 4 will be found on page 310 of the Appendix to the Report of the Select Committee of 1889 on the Woods, and on page 211 of the Appendix to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Royalties, 1891. It is impossible to give a general answer to the last question. When any definite proposal is made to work the goldfields on Crown Lands they will be carefully considered, with a desire to facilitate the development of that, industry.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the yield from North Wales was rather better than that from South Africa—namely, 10dwts. in South Africa and over 10dwts. in North Wales?

I am not aware of the fact.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he will inquire into the accuracy of the statement that, of the sum of £44 16s. paid by the underwriters for the services rendered by the Coastguard of the Stornoway station in protecting the cargo of the wreck of the Inflexible, £24 16s., paid for subsistence and travelling expenses, was equally divided among the four men employed on the duty, while the remaining £20, granted as an honorarium, was divided among the officer and crew of the station; and whether the four boatmen employed on the duty, instead of receiving the whole of the £24 16s., in addition to a, share of the £20, did, in fact, only receive £19 8s. altogether; if not, whether he can state the actual sum received by the four boatmen in respect of subsistence money and of the houorarium paid over by the underwriters?

I regret that I was misinformed as to the distribution of the money in question, and consequently my reply to the hon. Gentleman on the 21st December was not correct. The facts are correctly stated in the hon. Gentleman's question, but the Admiralty will reconsider the distribution of the £24 16s. granted for travelling and subsistence expenses.

Who was responsible for this very serious blunder? Will official notice be taken of it?

I shall certainly take notice of the negligence involved in giving the wrong information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Land Sub-Commissioners sat and heard applications for the fixing of judicial rents for the Galway Union on 28th October last, and that up to the present the applicants have had no intimation from the Sub-Commissioners as to the result of such applications; and will he state the cause of the delay?

The Land Commission inform me that they have found it necessary to communicate in this matter with the Sub-Commission, which is engaged on Circuit, and that they cannot supply a, Report on the question before a couple of days. I regret, therefore, I am not in a position to reply to the question to-day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the speech made by the hon. Cecil Rhodes at a banquet at Cape Town on the 6th instant, in which he is reported to have said that the achievement now brought to a successful issue was the realisation of an early project formerly discussed by him with Sir Hercules Robinson, and approved by that statesman, of securing the Capo Hinterland, and at the same time subjecting one of the most savage portions of Africa to civilised occupation; whether the Government were aware of this previously arranged subjugation and occupation of Matabeleland; and, if so, why Parliament was not so informed; whether his attention has been called to the further remarks in the same speech, in which, referring to the question of Imperial control and Republican sentiment, Mr. Rhodes said that he had no objection to the Crown if the Crown would recognise its duties in the Colonies; if not, the Colonies might deal elsewhere; and what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

I read the telegram referred to, purporting to give a summary of Mr. Rhodes' speech the other day; and for an answer to my hon. Friend's second question I would refer him to Blue book No. 5,918, and especially to pages 138, 140, 171, 172, 189 and 191. I may add, as I have already more than once pointed out, that under the Charter grained by the late Government to the British South Africa Company Matabeleland as well as Mashonaland is included in the principal field of the operations of the Company; the object, as stated in the Charter, being the promotion of trade, commerce, civilisation and good government throughout that area. As regards the last two questions, I have already stated that I am unable to say how far the telegraphic summary substantially represented what Mr. Rhodes actually did say; but we see no reason to take any action in the matter.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his references to those documents. Will he be good enough to say whether there was any agreement between Sir Hercules Robinson and Mr. Rhodes with regard to this territory?

I do not understand from the telegraphic summary that Mr. Rhodes spoke of an agreement when he was discussing the subject with Sir Hercules Robinson, and probably that would be correct.

But did Sir Hercules Robinson distinctly approve the suggestion?

If my hon. Friend will refer to the Blue Book mentioned, I think he will see that Sir Hercules Robinson was of somewhat the same opinion as Mr. Rhodes in regard to the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that very many of the boys in the training ship Caledonia at Leith have been ill with pneumonia; and that it is considered the ship is very unhealthy, from the long continuance of infectious disease; and whether the Government will consider the advisability of removing the boys to another ship?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. There have been several cases of pneumonia among the boys borne in the Caledonia, but not more than might be expected at this season in Scotland. The general health of the ship is good, and there are no grounds for supposing the ship to be unhealthy. The Admiralty see no necessity for transferring the boys to another ship.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the Circular Letter of the 8th instant, issued by the Homo Office respecting the Assizes Relief Act, whether the Justices under that Act, unless they for "special reasons" think fit otherwise to direct, are bound to commit to Quarter Sessions all Quarter Sessions cases which they send for trial, whether they admit the prisoners to bail or not, even though Assizes will be held before the date of the next ensuing Quarter Sessions; whether he will state, for the guidance of Justices, what would constitute the "special reasons" referred to; and whether, looking at the uncertainty which now exists as to the proper course of Justices to pursue, he will bring in a Bill either to repeal the Act 52 & 53 Vic. c. 12, and thus leave the matter in question again to the discretion of the Justices, or will introduce an amending Act making clear the law in relation to the commitment of prisoners to Assizes and Quarter Sessions respectively? May I point out that in this question I proposed to ask whether—

That portion of the question was ruled out of Order.

Then I will put the question on the Paper.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. With regard to the second paragraph, I have no authority to state what would constitute "special reasons;" it is a matter which the Justices must decide with reference to the facts of each case. With regard to the third paragraph, the matter is under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor and myself.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the fact that Assizes are held before Quarter Sessions would constitute a special reason for commitment to the Assizes instead of to Quarter Sessions by the Justices?

I cannot speak with authority as to that, but my own personal opinion is that it is a fact to be taken into account.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division take very different views, and give expression to them at the Assizes? Was the Circular from the Home Office on this subject sent to the Judges as well as to the Magistrates?

was understood to reply in the negative, but to add that the Rules Committee of the Judges would, no doubt, be willing to receive representations on the subject.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin University, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the eel weirs at Castleconnell in which there is no queen's gap are held under lease from the Board of Works in Ireland; whether, under the provisions of the lease, the Board have power to alter the weir as they may think proper; whether, under a similar provision, the Board compelled the construction of a queen's gap at the weirs at Athlone; and whether the Board, under the agreement, will compel a queen's gap to be constructed in the weirs at Castleconnell?

(who replied) said: The eel weirs in question are held from the Board of Works. With regard to the rest of the question, I think the hon. and learned Gentleman may be aware that the present stale of things is based on a Rule of Court. I am, therefore, not prepared, in view of the possibility of further litigation, to make any further statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury have reduced the pension to which Colonel Rich is entitled, on retiring from the appointment of Senior Railway Inspector to the Board of Trade, by deducting a part of the retired pay received by him for service in the Royal Engineers, in computing the Civil Service pension to which he is entitled by Act of Parliament on retiring from the service of the Board of Trade; whether the making such deduction is at variance with the decision of the Lords of the Treasury as to retired naval or military pay, conveyed to the late Admiral Kerr in a letter dated 9th July, 1873; with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, taken by the Treasury (see Treasury Letter, 1873, Sp. 562), which is printed in the Memorandum on the business of the Army and Navy branches issued to the Paymaster General; with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown (signed by Sir C. Russell, Sir J. Rigby, and H. Sutton), as contained in the Official Letter of the Board of Trade, No. 8,288, dated 28th December, 1892; and also with the written opinion of Sir H. Davey, dated 21st August, 1892; and whether the claim of Colonel Rich to the whole of his civil pension, as of all officers similarly situated, is secured to him by the provisions of Clause 10 of the Act of 1887 dealing with such cases?

The matter referred to is one of great difficulty, and has been considered by successive Boards of Treasury since 1859. It has now been determined to treat military and naval retired pay its not coming within the provisions of Section 16 of the Act 4–5 Will. IV., c. 24, and all awards of Civil Service superannuations which have been reduced on a different construction of the section will be recalculated. This alteration of practice will affect all officers in receipt of Army or Navy retired pay who entered the permanent Civil Service of the Crown before the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1887, which gave the Treasury power to frame Rules as to the conditions under which officers on retired pay may accept civil employment. As regards the reference to Opinions of Law Officers of the Crown upon questions referred to them by Departments of State, I draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that such Opinions are necessarily confidential, and I much regret their publication.

Does that affect the pensions of old soldiers generally?

No.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any, and if so what, steps have been taken to investigate the grievances set forth in a recent Petition from certain British and Chinese inhabitants of Penang; and what answer has been returned to their demand that a Royal Commission should be appointed to inquire into those grievances?

The Petition in question was carefully considered, and an answer was sent to the Governor. The Secretary of State cannot admit that a case has been made out for a Royal Commission. In his opinion, if any inquiry were to be held it should be by a Committee of the Legislative Council. It does not appear, on a careful examination of the facts, that Penang is labouring under any substantial grievance in matters of finance as compared with the other Straits Settlements; but the Secretary of State has expressed a hope that every opportunity will be taken of consulting the wishes of the Penang community in such matters as local public works and others, and has asked the new Governor, who is now on his way to the Colony, to consider whether the Legislative Council might not occasionally' meet at Penang.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to bring in a Bill in the next Session dealing with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Habitual Drunkards?

I hope to be able to introduce such a Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the India Office has yet received a copy of the recent Instructions issued by the Government of India, ordering that in future the police, in dealing with a riot, shall not use blank cartridge, but use only ball cartridge; if these Instructions have been sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India; and if he will lay copies of the Instructions, and any Correspondence thereon, upon the Table of the House?

(1 and 3.) No copy of any such Instructions has been received by the Secretary of State, nor has he had any correspondence with the Government of India on the subject. (2.) No.

May I ask whether the India Office receives any information of any kind or description from India at all?

It is not the practice of the India Office to attach credence to mere newspaper reports.

Was it not published in The Gazette of India?

I do not know if it is so. We have received no intimation from India of any kind on the subject.

Does my hon. Friend include The Gazette of India among the newspapers?

No, Sir; but we do not take cognisance of grievances unless they are confirmed on official authority.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to allegations in The British Medical Journal, to the effect of the diphtheria patients in the South Eastern Hospital 56·6 per cent, died, whereas of cases in the same district treated at home only 25 per cent, died; how this disproportionate mortality is accounted for; and what measures he is prepared to recommend by way of remedy? The hon. Member added: I have been requested to postpone the question, as it is now the subject of official communication; but I must ask, as the House will not be sitting for the next few weeks, if the result of the communications will be made public as promptly as possible?

(who replied) said: The hon. Member may rest perfectly assured that the Local Government Board will in this matter take all necessary steps in the interests of the public health.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a representation was made to the Ennistimon Board of Guardians last January respecting the insanitary condition of labourers' cottages in the Miltown Malbay District, and that up to now no notice has been taken of the representation; and whether, having reference to the deplorable conditions of those dwellings, the Government is powerless to alleviate in some measure this pressing evil?

It appears that in January, 1893, a number of labourers went before the Ennistimon Board of Guardians to apply for cottages, and staled that some of the existing dwellings were in a bad condition. The matter was considered at a special meeting of the Guardians held on January 24, and a resolution passed to the effect that the Guardians were of opinion that there was no necessity for erecting labourers' cottages in the Miltown Malbay Electoral Division. The Guardians added that, even if cottages were required, the financial state of the Division would not admit of their erection. No formal "representation," as defined by the Labourers Acts, has been made to the Guardians for the erection of cottages in this Division, and in the absence of such a representation the Local Government Board have, I am informed, no power to direct an inquiry to be held into the action of the Guardians in declining lo proceed with the erection of cottages. If it is brought to the notice of the Sanitary Authority that any of the houses are unfit for habitation it is their duty, under the Public Health Act, to require the owners to put them into proper repair.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, before finally deciding on a new Naval Shipbuilding Programme, Her Majesty's Government propose to consider, by submitting them either to a Departmental Committee or to a Select Committee of this House, or otherwise, the questions that have arisen as to the suitability for their purposes of the present types of battleships, in respect, of size and seaworthiness?

No, Sir; there is no such intention.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the statement that after H.M.S. Resolution had been surveyed and reported uninjured in structure and was about to sail, it was discovered that two of her torpedo lubes were injured, and whether he can explain how it was that these injuries were not discovered during the survey; and whether there is any, and if so what, foundation for the statement that since the return of the vessel numerous desertions from her have taken place, and whether he can state how many such desertions, if any, have occurred?

No information respecting injury to torpedo tubes in the Resolution has been received at the Admiralty. It is therefore presumed that the defects (if any) are of a trivial nature. The ship has been reported ready for sea, and sailed for Gibraltar to-day. The statement alluded to in the second paragraph of the question rests on no better foundation than the absence without leave of one seaman and tyro stokers.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of the cost of the repairs to this ship. Did it exceed £350?

They took less time than was anticipated. I have no information as to the cost.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the statement that the vessel in which two alleged French spies were arrested in n German port was a British yacht, wearing at the time the British blue ensign; whether any steps will be taken to secure the observance of the Queen's Regulations and of the statute, by ascertaining from time to time whether vessels wearing the white or blue ensign are entitled to do so by Admiralty warrant, and by prosecuting offenders; and whether the Admiralty will consider the propriety of absolutely restricting the use of the white and blue ensigns to vessels in the Public Service, and the propriety of refusing in future to purely private vessels, whether yachts or traders, any warrants authorising them to wear any other than the red ensign?

The answer to the first paragraph is, "No." The Regulations provide for the procedure under which officers may act in case of suspicion attaching to vessels improperly using the white or blue ensign. There is no intention of altering the Regulation under which yachts and other authorised vessels fly it.

Is there any intention of carrying out the Regulations? Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the third paragraph of the question?

The answer is that they are carried out.

How is it yachts are allowed to bear improper colours without the question being raised by the Admiralty?

I am unable to confirm the information given to the House by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the soldiers injured during the Featherstone Riots will receive any compensation?

Soldiers injured on duty are treated in hospital under the ordinary Rules of the Service. They are not entitled to compensation unless permanently incapacitated for military duty.

Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the paragraph in the Report, which lays it down that the soldier employed for the purposes of establishing civil order is only a citizen armed in a particular manner, and does not this fact place him in the same category with regard to compensation as the private citizen?

I am afraid that that fact does not place the soldier in the same position as the private citizen.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whet her the Irish Constabulary are instructed to ascertain, before attending at an eviction of any class, that it is legally authorised by an order of a competent Court; upon what instructions the Constabulary are to act when the landlord or his representative, on the completion of an eviction, proceeds to burn or level a dwelling-house; whether it is intended to employ the Constabulary in occupying evicted farms when trespass is said to be apprehended; and whether the Irish Government, in cases where application is made to them for police to attend evictions, will require such specific notice to be given at the time of the eviction as will enable the relieving officer to attend, and to make due provision in cases of urgent need for sick, aged, and infirm persons?

No instructions of the nature indicated are issued to the Constabulary. Sheriffs have a right to require protection for themselves and their bailiffs when executing the processes of a Court of Law. In their requisitions for protection they must state the nature of the execution and the Court or Division out of which issued, and it is the duty of the officer in charge of the protecting party to ascertain the nature of the authority under which the Sheriff acts; whether it be writ of Superior Court or a civil bill decree, &c., as the time for legally executing such processes differs. It is also the duty of the Constabulary, when protecting bailiffs in the execution by them of a Sheriff's warrant, &c. (the Sheriff not being present), to ascertain (a) that the bailiff about to execute the warrant has in his custody the warrant authorising him to execute the warrant or decree; (b) that the signature of the Sheriff is attached to the warrant; and (c) that the bailiff to whom the warrant is addressed is there in person to execute it. When the land-lord or his representative, on the completion of an eviction, proceeds to burn or level a dwelling-house the Constabulary are instructed to withdraw from the scene and to refuse protection to persons engaged in such demolition or burning. But if a serious breach of the peace be anticipated, it is the duty of the Constabulary to have patrols in the vicinity to prevent any violence or outrage, but not for any other purpose. It is not intended to employ the Constabulary in occupying evicted farms when trespass is said to be apprehended except in cases where it is anticipated that such trespass will be accompanied by such a show of force as would reasonably be calculated to inspire terror and constitute an illegal assembly. As regards the fourth paragraph, 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 landowners to give more specific information than the Act provides, and has no efficient means of exerting any influence for the purpose.

Is there any ground for supposing that cases of hardship have arisen from the evictions that have been carried out?

I have no cases in my mind, but I am well aware that considerable inconvenience has arisen from the uncertainty due to the present arrangement.

But the Local Government Board have not informed the right hon. Gentleman of any cases of hardship.

I cannot recall any for the moment.

Are we to understand from the answer that the police are sent for the protection and not for the assistance of the bailiffs in their work?

I have given a good many answers in this House which all point to that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state on whose recommendation Mr. Mahon, who is Lord Clonbrock's agent, was appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the Betty Sessional District of Ahascragh, County Galway; and whether, in view of the fact that the Ahascragh Bench is now constituted of Lord Clonbrook, his two agents, and the Resident Magistrate, the Lord Chancellor will appoint some gentlemen holding Nationalist opinions to this Bench?

Mr. Mahon was appointed on the recommendation of Lord Clonbrook, the Lieutenant of the county. It is the Rule that a principal and his agent shall not sit on the same Bench at the same time, and this Rule will be acted on in the present case. The Lord Chancellor is at present making some appointments of additional Magistrates in the County Galway, and will bear in mind the requirements of the Ahascragh Bench.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the Government intend to pay for the burial charges of Edward Larman and William Rudkin, who died from the effects of the explosion which lately took place at Waltham Abbey? At the same time, I will ask whether a remission of part of the fees charged for the interment of Edward Larman and William Rudkin, who died from the effects of the late explosion at the Waltham Abbey Royal Gunpowder Factory, was asked for from the Burial Board at Waltham Holy Cross; and if this request was made on the part of the Government?

The burial charges of all the men whose death was caused by the accident at the Royal Gunpowder Factory at Waltham Abbey have been paid by the Government. As to the second question, no such request was made on the part of the Government. All the fees have been paid.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Peace for Durham charges newly-appointed Justices a fee of £5 5s. on being sworn; whether there is any legal charge whatever; and whether he will inquire into the matter? At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the fees charged upon newly-appointed Justices by the Clerk of the Peace for Shropshire on their taking the oaths of office; whether it is correct that a, fee of £5 5s. is charged; whether any legal charge whatever can be made; and, if so, how much; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

I cannot answer either of these questions without further information. I am having inquiry made of till the Clerks of the Peace in the Comities of England and Wales as to the fees charged by them to newly-appointed Magistrates.

I will put another question on this subject on February 13.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether his attention has been called to the fees charged in Lancashire by Clerks of the Peace upon the newly appointed Justices; whether the fees vary from £6 6s. to £10 10s., in the latter case including luncheon and entrance fees; whether there is any legal charge whatever; and whether he will inquire into the matter?

I am informed that the charges on the appointment of a County Magistrate are £5 5s. for the writ, including payments, and £2 2s., fee to the Clerk of the Peace. There is a Preston Sessions Lunch Club, with an entrance fee of £2 2s. and an annual subscription of £1 1s., but membership of the club is optional. As regards the legality of the charges, there has not been time since the question appeared on the Paper this morning for me to obtain materials for forming an opinion, but I will consider the point.

Will the right on. Gentleman make further inquiry?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State for India still adheres to the policy of maintaining the minimum price for Council Bills heretofore affxed; and whether he is advised that he will be able at an early date to sell at that price; and whether, before the adjournment of the House, he can state whether the Secretary of State intends to take steps for making use in the near future of the borrowing powers conferred upon him by the Act recently passed?

The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India on the subject of the sale of Council Bills. To a small extent temporary borrowing under the recent Act will be necessary in the near future.

May I ask whether it is true that Council Bills have been offered twice for sale during the present month, and that no Bills have been sold?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is the case that chain cables used by the Admiralty are subjected to a test or proof of efficiency before being used; and whether, in view of the number of accidents in mining shafts by the breakage of winding ropes and the consequent frequent loss of life, he will consider the advisability of placing in every colliery district means by which winding ropes may be tested for torsion and tension before being used for raising and lowering men from and to the mines?

The question of testing winding ropes used by the Admiralty has at various times been the subject of expert discussion, and considerable difference of opinion exists in regard to it. I may point out that relatively to the number of ropes in continuous use the number of accidents from breakages is small. The subject, however, is of great importance, and it will be further considered by the light of any fresh experience at the annual meeting of Her Majesty's Inspectors next month.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will exercise the necessary pressure on the Midland Great Western Railway Company to carry out the construction of the Galway and Clifden Railway within the time guaranteed by that Company for its completion; whether he is aware that at the Ballinaford and Clifden or western section of the line, during the winter months, nearly the whole of the men in that section have been dismissed, causing a very great amount of destitution; whether he is aware that the few men who have been retained are principally men who have been imported into the district, and who give a great deal of trouble to the peaceable inhabitants in consequence of their intemperate and quarrelsome conduct; and if he is aware that, notwithstanding the repeated promises given by the Congested Districts Board, no employment has been given to the unemployed and destitute people of the district?

(who replied said: I am informed that the progress of) the Galway and Clifden line in the hands of the present contractor is satisfactory, and that no cause for complaint exists on this score. I must point out that the Government has no power to interfere with the menus taken by the Company and the contractor to fulfil their obligations, or with the relations between the contractor and the workmen employed by him, nor has the Congested Districts Board any authority to interfere or to make any promise in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, before reducing the hours of labour in the War Office factories, an estimate was made as to the loss to the country involved in allowing the large amount of machinery in the arsenals to be idle for so much additional time?

Yes, Sir; all circumstances of this nature were carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will instruct the chief clerks to the various Metropolitan Police Courts to pay over any fees or charges due to the Local, Sanitary, or other Authorities in London to the treasurers of these authorities on each quarter day, and to forward a statement to the clerks of these authorities, showing the respective items so paid?

The present system is to pay over the fees piecemeal as they are received. I understand that the proposed change would probably involve extra work, but I will give the matter careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can name any English vessels subsidised by any foreign Power which are commanded and officered by officers of the Navy, and properly armed for service with their guns on Board ready for mounting, as are the foreign mail steamers subsidised by the Mauritius Government; if so, what is the amount of the subsidy; and what other Colonies subsidise foreign steamers so officered and armed?

Without admitting the correctness of the hon. Member's assumption in regard to the mail steamers subsidised by the Mauritius Government, the answer, as far as I am aware, is in the negative. In regard to the second part of the hon. Member's question, I am unaware of any subsidy paid by any Colonial Government to foreign steamers officered and armed as assumed in the first question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Russian Government have ordered three new battleships to be commenced in 1894, thus bringing the number of Russian battleships built and building up to 17 (10 first-class and 7 second-class).

The newspaper statement to this effect has been seen at the Admiralty. The facts of the case have necessarily been observed. But it is not desirable to make any official statement upon them, at all events, until the announcements are made as to our own Estimates for the coming year.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is not the fact that in the course of the year 1894 France and Russia will have in course of construction 16 new battleships, while we have only three just commenced?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the announcement is made as to what we ourselves propose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the report is true that Lobengula is reforming his Army; and whether the Imperial forces are to remain at Imyati, and who is in command there?

As regards the first question, we have no confirmation of the report. As regards the second question, there have been just lately changes in the disposition of the forces, and I cannot for the moment state how they are distributed. The hon. Baronet must recollect that the chief responsibility for military operations rests with the Company.

Is there a force at Imyati, and is it to be detained there?

I believe there is a police force there. I cannot answer the remainder of the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether at the present time the Admiralty have given orders for, and there are now being built, 12 war-ships, as follows—namely, three at Barrow, two at Liverpool, three at Glasgow, and four at Newcastle; whether no order has been given to the shipbuilders of Ireland since 1887; and if the Admiralty will now distribute its future orders so as to include Ireland to the extent at least of its taxpaying proportion?

Small vessels of between 200 or 300 tons each are being built as stated. Tenders have been invited on several, including the most recent, occasions from Irish firms. In some instances they have declined to tender, and in others their tenders have not been so favourable as tenders from English or Scotch firms. It would be undesirable either to depart from the customary practice of accepting the lowest favourable tender, or to distribute orders according to districts.

Is it not a fact that the last contract given to Ireland was in 1887?

Yes; I very much regret that the tenders from Ireland have not been lower.

I suppose it is open for Belfast firms to tender?

They have been invited to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can now state the terms of Reference to the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Ireland and Great Britain; and when the Commission will be appointed?

The terms of the Reference are as follows:—To inquire into the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland and their relative taxable capacity; and to report—(1) Upon what principles of comparison, and by the application of what specific standards, the relative capacity of Great Britain and Ireland to bear taxation may be most equitably determined; (2) what, so far as can be ascertained, is the true proportion, so determined, between the taxable capacity of Great Britain and of Ireland; (3) the nature and course of the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland at and after the legislative Union, the charge for Irish purposes on the Imperial Exchequer under the existing system, and the interests of Ireland in any particular item or class of Imperial expenditure.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he would state on what date the keel-plates of H.M.S. Majestic were laid down, and in what dock?

The keel-plates of the Majestic have not yet been laid in the dock. Had that been done, say, a month or six weeks ago the work would have been retarded owing to inclement weather; whereas by the arrangements made by the yard officers to lay the keel temporarily under a covered shed, thus permitting the other component parts of the hull to be lifted to it, the progress of the work is really being expedited, though technically the keel is not laid. Up to the 30th of December the expenditure on the Majestic was, for labour £1,591, and materials £3,868—total £5,459. This tolal will be probably increased to nearly £60,000 by the 31st of March next.

May I ask whether this was the ship alluded to by the First Lord of the Admiralty on November 2 as having been laid down on that day, and which dock was available for the vessel?

I have no doubt my noble Friend alluded to the Majestic and the Magnificent as ships the building of which was to be commenced during the present year, but I have not a report of the speech by me.

Had the Dockyard Authorities private information as to the inclement weather coining on, and was that why they adopted this course?

Is the House to understand that the statement of the First Lord was incorrect?

I have already answered that question. Measures have been taken fur the commencement of the vessel, but in the technical sense the keel has not been laid down.

Was the keel laid down in any sense on November 2?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present state of progress of the 42 torpedo boat destroyers which are to be delivered by the end of the present financial year; and in what part of the Navy Estimates presented to Parliament in 1893 the authority to build these vessels is asked for?

The torpedo boat destroyers mentioned in the first paragraph of the question are most of them in early stages, having been recently commenced. What I stated in the Debate on December 19 was that they would be in hand by the close of the present financial year. One has been finished and five others are approaching completion. The second paragraph I have already answered in a reply given on January 2, to the following effect:—The fact that the amount provided in the Estimates for torpedo boat destroyers would be exceeded was made known to Parliament in August last in connection with the decision to postpone the commencement of the Terrible, and thus make it possible to hasten the construction of torpedo boat destroyers.

May I inquire whether the Admiralty is at liberty to divert any sums voted for one vessel to any other vessel, and, if so, what is the value of the estimates presented to Parliament?

There is no doubt on that subject. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that that was done in the case of the torpedo boat destroyers commenced by the late Administration.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if he will grant the Return asked for as to overtime in Government Dockyards?

I think there are considerable objections to the form of the Return asked for by my hon. Friend. I shall be very happy to consider with him and, if possible, adjust an amended form which will avoid the objections referred to, and supply him with the information which he desires.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if he can now state the effect of the changes introduced by the present Government upon the total remuneration at the public cost of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General respectively; and what was the total amount payable out of public funds to each of those Law Officers in the 12 months preceding, and the 12 months succeeding, the change of system?

As to the first part of the question, I am informed by the Solicitor to the Treasury that it is impossible to judge of the effect of the change referred to by the experience of a less period than some five years. For instance, it appears that the fees for contentious business paid to the Solicitor General in the year 1888–9 was £5,056, whereas in the year 1891–2 the sum paid was £1,275 only. On the other hand, during the year 1892–3 the contentious business of the Crown was very heavy and important. As to the second part of the question, the figures asked for are as follows:—For ordinary contentious work from August, 1891, to August, 1892, the Solicitor General was paid £1,275 6s. 6d. and the Attorney General £3,674 3s. 8d. For the like work from August, 1892, to August, 1893, the Solicitor General was paid £4,285 12s. and the Attorney General £4,594. The payment to the Solicitor General included £707 paid in relation to the Behring Sea Arbitration. Further, in relation to that arbitration, each of the two leading Counsel for Great Britain (of whom the Attorney General was one) was paid £7,900.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the Hydrographic Office of America reports on 9th January instant that in 1893 there were nine collisions with derelict vessels in the Atlantic, in consequence of which one vessel was sunk off Nova Scotia and three seriously damaged, and that the Hydrographic Department reports that these derelicts are responsible for many disasters, and that it is probable that the new White Star steamship Naronic was lost on her last voyage from England to America by a collision with one of them; and whether he will take immediate steps to lessen the danger by urging on masters of vessels to report to the Government the positions in the Atlantic in which they have seen these derelicts floating about, so that the Government may he enabled to forward the information to the Meteorological Society, with the request that the position of these derelicts may be indicated upon the charts published by the Meteorological Society, and so be of use to sailors and passengers between here and America?

Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the United States Government on the question of the destruction of derelict ships, and we await their reply. Being in that condition, the matter will not be lost sight of either by the Foreign Office or by the Board of Trade. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington has been instructed by telegraph to obtain the pending reply as early as may be.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact of the war in South Africa having been brought to a quick conclusion through the administration of the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, Dr. Jameson, and other Englishmen and Colonists, in a very short time, with comparatively small loss of life and little cost, and that during that short campaign many deeds of bravery have been performed, he will take into consideration the advisability of recommending the names of these successful men for such honours and distinctions as have been generally conferred by a grateful country at the conclusion of our wars?

I do not consider that the time has yet arrived, nor have Her Majesty's Government proper materials for considering this question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, to suit the convenience of Scotch Members, he can arrange to resume the adjourned Debate on the Scotch Fisheries Bill on Tuesday 13th of February, instead of Monday 12th February?

I am afraid it is not possible to comply with the wish of my hon. Friend. As I understand the matter, the position now stands thus:—We are about, as we hope, according to a widespread understanding in the House, to dispose of the Local Government Bill. We have disposed of another very important Bill, which is now before the House of Lords awaiting treatment there, relating to the liability of employers. We have remaining, as an important item of our Business, the Amendments of the Lords to the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill. I think my hon. Friend will see that we could not very well displace that Business, which is our own Business, and leave that period a blank upon speculation as to what may be done by the House of Lords. I am afraid that we must keep this Bill where it is, and if inconvenience is felt, which we regret, I hope it will be possible that the Sea Fisheries Bill may not take much of the time of the House. I suppose it will be possible that Amendments may come from the House of Lords to the Employers' Liability Bill of such a character that they may be disposed of at once, but it is impossible to speak positively on that subject until we know what Amendments are made.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Scotch Members are exposed to great inconvenience from the fact that on the local railways in Scotland the trains do not run on Sundays?

I am under the impression that the communication from the main points of traffic in Scotland late on Sunday night is pretty good.

I do not wish to pursue the subject of Sunday travelling by Scotch Members, but I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if it should appear to him probable between this and February 12 that no other business is likely to come before the House other than the Sea Fisheries Bill on the latter date, he will consent to make the Sitting a formal Sitting, in order to take the Order to which reference has been made upon the following day, and when the House will have notice of the Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Trevelyan) proposes to move to his own clause as an alternative to the one under discussion when the Debate on the Bill was adjourned?

That Amendment will be printed in the Paper to-morrow morning.

Is it proposed to take the Sea Fisheries and also the Employers' Liability Bill?

The Sea Fisheries Bill will stand first on the Order Paper when we meet in February. In the contingency hinted at by the hon. Member it might be possible to have a formal Sitting on the first day, but I fancy that contingency is founded much more upon hope than upon expectation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say precisely what Bills will be taken on Monday, February 12?

The Sea Fisheries Bill certainly; and, with regard to the Employers' Liability Bill, if the business to be done upon it should be of a character with respect to which we feel certain that there would be a general concurrence of opinion in the House as to the desirableness of at once going forward, we should go forward with that Bill, but in other circumstances it would have to stand over until the next day.

I desire, in accordance with private notice, to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a speech delivered on Tower Hill by a man named Williams, calling himself "the unemployed organiser," in the course of which he is reported to have said—

"Will yon put terror into the hearts of the capitalists? (Loud cries of 'Yes.') Then on the occasion of our demonstration in Trafalgar Square on the first Saturday of February, watch the divisions from which the police are drawn, and go into the unprotected quarters and take those things you want. I will get up a skirmish and create a diversion, and after the first skirmish something will be done."

The first notice which I received of this alleged speech having been made was since I came into the House this afternoon. Therefore, I have not had much opportunity of con- sidering it, but I shall obtain a Report in due course from the police. I may say, with reference to this person, that from the Reports received by me I understand his remarks are not taken seriously by the persons to whom they are addressed, and that the police do not anticipate there is the least chance of his being able to give effect to his threats. I will go further, and take this opportunity of deprecating very strongly questions of this kind being put, at any rate without due notice. I am quite sure I am speaking in the interests of public order when I say that, so far as my experience goes, the motive of persons who make these speeches is vanity and their object notoriety; and there is nothing more calculated to gratify the one and to increase the other than the practice of putting such questions.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that in a case tried at the Cork Assizes yesterday, out of 43 jurors the Crown ordered 25 to stand aside? How soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect the amended Rules to come into force?

I have received no information as to what took place at Cork Assizes, and cannot, therefore, offer any explanation. The amended Rules will be ready in the course of two or three days, and will be presented to the House when it re-assembles.

; On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I bog to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) are charging for the carriage of dead pigs exceptional rates higher than their class rate, and that they are charging collected and delivered rates between certain stations where they have no cartage staffs to perform the services charged for; and whether he will make any representation to the Company on the matter?

I have communicated with the Company on the subject of the hon. Member's question, and the General Manager informs mo that the rates for dead pigs are strictly within the Parliamentary classification, and instead of being higher are actually lower than formerly. He adds that the rates for this traffic were reduced from fourth to first class under the Provisional Order of 1892, and that the Company instead of receiving any increase of revenue from this traffic has been subjected to considerable loss. As to cartage, it is stated that the arrangements are precisely those in force on the English railways—namely, where the Company does not perform cartage an allowance is made to the person doing so.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that a very large number of British merchant ships are lying at Rio unable to discharge their cargoes, to the serious loss of their owners; what instructions have been given to the Diplomatic Representatives of Great Britain, in regard to the protection of these vessels, and to facilitating the discharge of their cargoes; and whether Her Majesty's Government will confer upon the Diplomatic Representatives of this country at Rio, and upon the officer in command of the British Squadron there, powers to protect British merchant ships as effectively as foreign, and especially German ships, are protected by their ships of war, or will in any other manner take action to enable the British ships at Rio to safely discharge their cargoes and depart?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Naval Representatives have instructions to give such assistance as can properly be given under the present extraordinary conditions in which the town and harbour of Rio are placed. We are assured that British vessels receive the same protection that is given to other foreign ships, but, in consequence of a statement to the contrary recently received from a British firm, a fresh telegraphic inquiry has been made with special reference to the amount of protection given by German Naval Authorities.

Are Her Majesty's Government aware of the great and, in the main, successful exertions made by Mr. Wyndham, Her Majesty's Minister at Rio de Janeiro, and Captain Lang, the senior British naval officer, in protecting the city from bombardment and merchant vessels under a neutral flag from avoidable damage or hindrance by the opposing forces?

I am very glad to have the testimony of the hon. Member to the merits of the conduct of the British Representatives at Rio. The service which they have had to perform has been of a peculiarly trying and anxious character, and we believe them to have done all that was possible under the circumstances.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether Mr. C. N. Dalton, one of the Assistant Secretaries to the Local Government Board, is also editor of The Local Government Chronicle; and, if so, whether that newspaper is an official publication or a private commercial enterprise?

The Local Government Chronicle is not an official publication, and the Local Government Board are in no way responsible for it. I have no definite knowledge as to how far Mr. Dalton may have been connected with the editorial management of the publication referred to, but no official Rule has been, so far as I am aware, infringed by him in the matter.

said* he had no intention of intervening between the House and the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, but, as a Scotch Member, he desired to enter a protest in the strongest possible manner that could find Parliamentary expression against the way in which Scotch Members had been treated during the present unprecedented Session. They had been told by the Prime Minister, as far as they could hear him, that they were to be brought back there on February 12 solely for the purpose of considering the Sea Fisheries Regulation (Scotland) Bill. That Bill was brought forward in April last, and dangled before the eyes of Scotch Members as the one boon, the one reward, to which they had to look in return for their support to the Government during the six months' Debate on the Irish Home Rule, and the two months' Debate on the Parish Councils Bills. Toward the close of the Debates on the Parish Councils Bill the Scottish Members were promised a Wednesday for the discussion of the Sea Fisheries Bill, in which the Members on both sides of the House took a deep and practical interest. What was the result? They were permitted, by the kind consideration of Her Majesty's Government, to talk about their own affairs for three hours last Wednesday, and then they were ordered to desist, in order that a discussion might take place on the Featherstone riots. He thought that, after consenting to adjourn the Debate for this purpose, after having been promised an entire Wednesday Sitting—

No, never.

said, that words were sometimes capable of ambiguous construction, but he himself never heard words which conveyed a clearer impression that they were to have a whole Sitting on a Wednesday. Nor was a Wednesday Sitting too much for this most important measure, because it was largely amended in another place, not by Members of the Opposition, but by supporters of Her Majesty's Government.

No.

said, he could I only say that a very large addition was made to the Bill.

No, no.