I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what are the districts of Behar in which the Cadastral Survey has been actually commenced, and whether these are identical with or adjacent to the districts in which the tree smearing has occurred; how many Europeans and how many natives have been appointed to the Behar Survey parties; what is the average salary of the native subordinates in these parties; whether his attention has been drawn to the statement of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, at Bhagalpur, or elsewhere, that there was some reason to fear corruption and extortion among the native subordinates, and promised that special precautions should be taken to check the extortion; and whether any, and what, special precautions, in pursuance of this promise, have been taken in Behar?

I must respectfully protest against the suggestion which this question implies that the recent smearing of mango trees is the result of, or is connected with, any administrative action of the Indian Government with regard to the Cadastral Survey in a portion of Behar. Questions which make these or similar suggestions are immediately telegraphed to and are published in India, and are not calculated to assist the cause of order and good government in that country. I cannot state the numbers of Europeans and natives respectively appointed to the Behar Survey, but I believe the very great majority are natives; I am unable to give their average salaries. The Regulations issued for the guidance of the Survey Officials in Behar are very stringent; and the landholders have been invited to bring to the notice of Government any instance of misconduct or extortion on the part of the surveying staff, in order that wrong-doers may be punished.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the number of publicans who are being appointed to the Magisterial Bench in Ireland, he will consider the propriety of asking the Lord Chancellor to issue a Circular pointing out the statutory prohibitions against Magistrates engaged in the drink trade sitting at Licensing Sessions or on cases connected with the administration of the Licensing Acts?

This question seems based on the assumption that a considerable number of publicans have recently been, and are being, appointed to the Magistracy. In replying to a question of the hon. Member for York on the 17th of November last, I stated that the number of licensed victuallers placed by the present Government in the Commission of the Peace in Ireland down to that date was 16, and since that date three additional appointments have been made, 19 in all. The 60th section of the Licensing Act, 1872, expressly prohibits Magistrates who are in any way pecuniarily interested in the sale of liquor from adjudicating or taking part in licensing cases, and imposes a penalty of £100 on Magistrates who violate the section, and, as the hon. Member knows, this affects not only licensed victuallers but shareholders in breweries, distilleries, &c. The Lord Chancellor does not at present consider it necessary to issue any Circular for the instruction of Magistrates in this more than in any other department of their duties. If cases are brought under his notice he will deal with them promptly.

Is the right ton. Gentleman aware that at the last Annual Licensing Sessions for the County of Dublin, at Kilmainham, from 12 to 15 Magistrates were forced to leave the Bench on account of their connection with Companies interested in the liquor traffic? May not that happen in other places?

I have heard that a clean sweep was made of the Dublin Bench on that occasion, but I do not see why in consequence the same thing should occur in other parts of the country. But if any hon. Member can inform me of cases in which it does occur I will bring them to the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

Is it not the fact that those who had to leave the Dublin Bench were not publicans but shareholders in breweries and distilleries?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in the Listowel Union the outdoor relief has increased from £7 18s. 3d. in 1879ߝ80 to £2,992 in 1893ߝ4, whilst the expenditure on indoor relief has increased in the same period from £1,206 16s. 8d. to £2,214 9s.; whether he can give any explanation of this state of facts; and if he will grant a Return as to the financial conditions of the several Irish Unions?

I understand that the statements in the first paragraph are correct. The Local Government Board are informed by the clerk of the Union that some portion of the increase is attributable to the enlargement of the Union in 1891 by the transfer to it of part of the former Glin Union, though I observe that the expenditure appears to have grown steadily for the past 15 years. Notwithstanding these facts, however, I learn from the Local Government Board that the Union is in a fairly sound financial condition. The Board are now preparing from the audited accounts a Return which will show the precise position of the various Poor Law Unions at the end of the last financial year. This Return will be published in the Board's Annual Report, which will shortly be presented to Parliament.

But is it not the case that this enormous increase of outdoor relief has been contemporaneous with a tremendous increase in indoor relief?

That does appear to he the case from the figures quoted by the hon. Member, which I have stated to be correct.

Is not this Board, like all other Boards in Ireland, composed to the extent of one-half of persons representing the landed classes?

No doubt it has its full share of ex officio members.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Cairo that he did not at all regret the delay which has taken place in dealing with the subject of Nile reservoirs, and that he had persistently urged the neces- sity of dealing with this question with the utmost prudence and circumspection (Egypt, No. 1, 1894, p. 8); and to an article, in the May number of The Nineteenth Century, by Sir B. Baker, who is stated to have been a member of a Technical Commission for the consideration of this subject, in which it is said that, as regards the absolute necessity for the construction of a reservoir with the least possible delay, no shadow of doubt was expressed by any Member of the Commission; and whether Her Majesty's Government would consult independent experts in this country in regard to this subject, and place their opinion at the disposal of Pier Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Cairo for his information and guidance?

The statement is correctly quoted. The subject of Nile reservoirs has occupied the attention of the Egyptian Government for four years. After considering the various schemes submitted to them by their experts and others, they appointed an International Technical Commission, consisting of an English, a French and an Italian engineer, to advise them as to the one most suitable for adoption. I have seen the article written by Sir Benjamin Baker, the English member. It gives a clear account of the object and labours of the Commission and the extent to which Egypt will benefit by the construction of a reservoir. It is sufficiently clear from the context that in using the expression "absolute necessity" Sir B. Baker meant to indicate that the advantages of a reservoir were undoubted and convincing now that the barrage of the Nile had been completed. Her Majesty's Government have not been asked to recommend a scheme, and they see no reason for consulting independent experts in this country with regard to a matter which the Egyptian Government very wisely decided to refer to an International Commission of experts on the spot.

Can the hon. Member say whether the Egyptian Government have arrived at any decision on the matter?

No, Sir; I think the Report is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a meeting of the Shanagolden Branch of the Irish National Federation, reported in The Limerick Leader of the 30th of May, denouncing the Shanagolden shopkeepers who supply the people living on Mr. O'Brien's farm, and calling upon all true Nationalists to assist in crushing out such a cringing spirit; and whether it is proposed to take any action in regard to this branch?

The resolution was published in the newspaper referred to, but the police inform me that the meeting at which it is alleged to have been adopted was not in point of fact held at all, nor has any result followed from the resolution. It is not proposed, therefore, to take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tenants on the Godley Estate, near Carrigallen, South Leitrim, agreed, some of them in April, 1890, and the remainder in August of the same year, to buy their holdings at 15 years' purchase under the Ashbourne Act; whether he has been informed that those who agreed to purchase in August, 1890, were not recognised as purchasers owing to the insertion of a clause about turbary, and were processed to the Ballinamore Quarter Sessions last June, and decrees issued against them; that they then agreed to purchase under the Land Purchase Act of 1891, getting the same advantages as those who had previously bought under the Ashbourne Act; that some of this batch have been noticed that they are recognised as purchasers, and that others have not; and that one widow, who sold her cow to meet the demands of the agent of the Trustees, was processed to the Carrick-on-Shannon Quarter Sessions, and had her money returned because it did not include 5s. costs; and whether he will recommend the Land Commission to take immediate steps to rescue the affairs of this estate from a state of confusion, and have the purchases in all the cases properly completed?

The facts, I believe, are accurately set forth in the question. In the case, however, of the widow referred to, lam informed that the matter has since been settled by the payment of 2s. costs instead of 5s. With regard to the sales on this estate, the Land Commission inform me that in October, 1890, 59 agreements were lodged with them under the Purchase Acts of 1885–1888, and that advances have been made in 41 of these cases. In the remaining cases, one application was refused; in two cases the tenants died subsequently to the application; in two cases questions are still unsettled regarding the accuracy of the areas of the holdings; and in 13 cases the applications are still pending in consequence of the solicitor having charge of the estate not having taken steps to complete the same. In addition, 28 agreements have been recently lodged under the Act of 1891, and advances have been made in 21 of these cases. The Commissioners endeavour to prevent delay occurring in completing sales under the Purchase Acts, but they explain that delay is sometimes occasioned by the difficulties which arise owing to the nature of the vendor's title, the inability or want of activity of the vendor's solicitor, and sometimes to the failure of the tenant purchasers to comply with the requisitions of the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the report of the meeting of the Athea Branch of the Irish National Federation on the 27th of May, as reported in The Limerick Leader of the 30th of May, in which it is stated that it was proposed to deal openly with those persons who had been written to regarding their dealings with the "grabber." The village blacksmith not having replied, it is now intended to—

"isolate him and call upon the farmers to leave him alone in his glory with the obnoxious grabber and his aiders";

and whether he proposes to take any steps to vindicate the law?

I have seen a newspaper report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to in the question. There is no evidence, however, of what took place at the meeting, which was held indoors, and I am informed by the local police that the paragraph has had no effect whatever, nor is it believed it will have any.

But there was a meeting held.

Unlike the other case, in which there was no meeting, there was a meeting in this case, but indoors.

The practical publication of incitements to intimidation have the same effect as if the meeting were held.

asked whether it was not an infraction of the law to incite to intimidation?

Cerfainly. If the police find that any injurious effect follows from the adoption of a resolution of this kind at a meeting and its publication in a newspaper, action is taken upon it. But if the effect of taking action would be likely to produce harm, we consider that we are acting prudently in taking no notice.

Do the Government, then, only take action in such cases when mischief has resulted?

No; that is not at all the position I have taken up. What I said was that if the police consider that no injurious effect is likely to follow such resolutions, the Executive Government think it as well to take no notice of them.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that the National Federation is entirely powerless in Ireland?

Will the Government treat these meetings as they treat meetings held in Ulster, at which threats to declare war against the Queen are made although nothing happens afterwards?

Is it not the case that, since the 14th of April, 36 cases of denunciation of individuals and 23 cases of outrage and assault have occurred, the persons outraged having all been denounced previously?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster Genera] whether, until the 1st of June, 1892, there was free re-direction of all halfpenny matter, postcards, book packets, circulars, sample packets, and newspapers, provided that the old and the new address lay within the same delivery district, and whether the whole of London counted as one district; whether the matter on which a charge for re-direction is made amounts to more than half the total of the re-directed matter to be delivered in London; whether he has observed signs of dissatisfaction among the public at the inconvenience caused by the abolition of the old privilege of free re-direction and the general refusal of addressees to receive matter involving payment of fines; and whether he will recommend the Treasury to assent to a restoration of the privilege in question? At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there has been, since June, 1892, when the new Rule imposing fines for the re-direction of postal matter other than letters and parcels was enforced, a very large increase (approaching 15 or 20 per cent.) in the number of bookpost packets, postcards, and newspapers refused by the addressees, and consigned to the Returned Letter Office; and whether there has, since the same date, been any, and if so what, increase in the amount of revenue derived from fines?

The hon. Member has correctly described the Regulation in force prior to June, 1892. The correspondence upon which a charge for re-direction is made is somewhat less than one-third of the whole of there-directed correspondence delivered in London. The number of packets other than letters refused in consequence of the charge for re-direction has no doubt increased since June, 1892; but the records of the Department do not enable me to say how the amount of re-direction charges now collected compares with the amount formerly collected. I am aware that the present system of charging for re-direction of circulars, book packets, &c, gives rise to some dissatisfaction, but the advantage which, on the other hand, the public have derived from the free re-direction of letters must not be overlooked. I am not at the present moment prepared to recommend a restoration of the privilege which local correspondence formerly had over other correspondence.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that large quantities of small sample packages are exchanged between this country and Japan; and that, there being no parcel post with that country, much inconvenience is caused to-merchants and others; and whether he can see his way to establish a sample and a parcel post to Japan via the Canadian-Pacific route?

There is already a sample post to Japan by the Canadian-Pacific route. Proposals have repeatedly been made to the Japanese Post Office for the establishment of a parcel post between the United Kingdom and Japan; but up to the present time that office has not seen its way to fall in with them. A promise has been made that the question shall be taken up after an inland parcel post in Japan has been established, and its working has been tested.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the medal for long service which Her Majesty has recently decided to bestow upon Volunteer non-commissioned officers and privates will be granted upon conditions similar to those governing the case of commissioned officers?

The conditions for the grant of the Volunteer Long Service Medal are laid down in the Special Army Order of the 26th of May. They necessarily differ in certain respects from those applicable to the officers' decoration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether there are at present two administrative medical officers of Surgeon-Colonels rank serving in the Home District; and, if so, what duties are assigned to the second officer; if a Surgeon-Major-General is now, and has been for some months, filling a Surgeon-Colonel's post; if so, what are the circumstances that have called for such unusual administration; and whether there is any precedent for it?

There are not at present two medical officers of Surgeon-Colonel's rank serving in the Home District, though there recently were; but a Surgeon-Major-General now occupies a Surgeon-Colonel's position at Colchester. The reasons for this inconvenient arrangement are: First, that Surgeons-Major-Greneral necessarily servo but a few years in that rank; and second, that the Indian Government will not receive an Administrative Medical Officer who has not two years to serve. The result has been that for some months past there has been an excess of one Surgeon-Major-General at home and a deficiency of one in India. The arrangement is not without precedent; but it is obviously inconvenient, and I have it under consideration in what way a remedy can be applied.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the Fleet will visit the Irish coast this summer, and if it will visit and make any stay at Galway?

Some of the ships engaged in the Manœuvres will visit parts of the Irish coast. I fear that Galway will probably not be included in these visits.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can now state to the House the result of his communications with the Treasury as to the possibility of exteuding to Members of this House, who desire to distribute the publications of the Board of Agriculture, the privileges now confined to Agricultural Societies, Village Institutions, and similar bodies?

Yes; I am glad to say that the Treasury have found themselves able to extend to Members of Parliament the same privileges with regard to the publications of my Department as those which are allowed to Agricultural Societies and other Institutions. We shall now be in a position to supply copies of those publications to Members of Parliament at half the published price, provided that not less than 20 copies are taken, and that they are intended for gratuitous distribution.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, owing to the absence of a suitable steam crane at Haulbowline Basin, a gun had recently to be lauded there by means of a temporary shear-legs, involving much expense and risk, and also that no appliance exists for raisiug a damaged armour plate or any other article from the bed of the dry dock; and will these two requirements be supplied during the current year?

From inquiries made at Haulbowline, it appears that no gun has been landed there for the last two years. It was not considered necessary to provide money in the current year's Estimates for supplying more powerful lifting appliances. In case of necessity, temporary shear-legs or other appliances could be arranged, as is constantly done at other establishments.

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, in the event of Her Majesty's ships receiving damage to their armour plates during the coming Autumn Manœuvres, the necessary repairs can be carried out with the present machinery there.

I believe so.

asked when the alteration at the yard would be completed?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the announcement that on Sunday the 3rd instant the hon. Member for Battersea, who has recently heen nominated to serve on a Committee to inquire into the relations between cab-owners and cab-drivers in the Metropolis, attended an open air meeting in Battersea Park held for the purpose of expressing sympathy with the cab-drivers on strike, at which the hon. Member incited the drivers to continue the strike and maintain the pickets; and whether he will consider the propriety of retaining on a Committee, which is about to commence an inquiry of a judicial character, a Member who continues to take an active part on either side upon the question to be considered?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the Committee appointed by the late Government to inquire into the hours of railway servants Members of this House were retained who had previously on platforms in the country publicly pronounced a definite opinion upon the question to be inquired into?

I think it is only right to say that I am to some extent tarred with the same brush as the hon. Member for Battersea, and if any blame attaches to him I ought to share it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the terms of Reference to the Committee have been settled, whether the Members have been nominated, and when the Committee will be able to begin work?

Yes, Sir. The terms of Reference have been settled and the Members nominated, and as far as I know there is nothing to prevent the Committee from beginning its work at once. My attention has not been called otherwise than by the hon. Member's question to the speech referred to, and I am unable to say whether the hon. Member for Battersea did or did not use the language attributed to him. However this may be, I fail to see that my hon. Friend has in any way disqualified him- self for serving on the proposed Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that Police Inspector Gaitri Prosonno, who was the chief police witness in the Bassantpore riot case, has been promoted from the fourth to the third grade of Inspectors, with retrospective effect; that the seven men charged by him with having attempted to loot the Bassantpore Police Station were proved innocent before the Sessions Court at Sarun and the Calcutta High Court, and finally acquitted; that the Sessions Judge of Sarun declared that Prosonno had wilfully concealed facts which, if divulged, would have supported the case for the defence, and that his evidence was open to the greatest suspicion; and that the High Court in their judgment declared that the whole of the police evidence was open to suspicion, and entirely failed to prove that the prisoners took any active part in the riot; and, if so, why has Gaitri Prosonno been promoted, instead of placed on his trial for perjury?

I have no information whether or not the Inspector has been promoted; but I am aware that a special Report was called for after the Session Trial, and that after considering the matters elicited in the further inquiry then made the Local Government came to the conclusion, subject to the clearing up of certain points still under investigation, that his conduct was praiseworthy. The facts are not quite as supposed by my hon. Friend. Of the seven men charged two were convicted, and the Judge held that "on the whole" the police had "given a substantially true version" of the actual riot. He found, however, in regard to three of the accused, that the police evidence, to the effect that they took part in the riot, was not of so satisfactory a character as to justify their conviction. He based this conclusion partly on the disappearance of certain papers which were afterwards accounted for and partly on the fact that on certain points the evidence of the Inspector and a constable had given him the impression that they were trying to conceal facts which, if admitted, might be favourable to the defence. These points were also subsequently explained to the satisfaction of the Local Government. The Inspector's evidence did not affect the two other accused, who were acquitted. I have not seen the High Court's judgment in the case.

Has there been a specific inquiry into the matter?

Yes.

Will it be possible to have the Report laid on the Table?

I must wait till I see it before I answer that question. But I shall be able to answer questions on minor points if hon. Members put them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state what portion of the total sum expended upon the fabric of the four Welsh Cathedrals since the year 1703 has been derived from any Welsh National Fund, or from any public moneys raised exclusively within the Principality of Wales?

At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in The Times, of the 4th of May, from the Chancellor of the Diocese of Llandaff, in which it is stated that over £30,000 has been raised by subscriptions and offertories for the restoration of Llandaff Cathedral since 1843; whether he is prepared to qualify his statement that £3,425 was the amount so raised; and whether he is now in a position to give full particulars as to the amounts spent on the four Welsh Cathedrals in the present century, showing what portion had come (a) from national funds, (b) from subscriptions and offertories?

The sum of £3,425, to which I referred in my answer to the hon. Member for the Tunbridge Division of Kent on the 30th of April as having been raised for the restoration of Llaudaflf Cathedral, is the sum mentioned in the House of Lords Churches and Cathedrals Return of the 27th of June, 1892; but I find that the House of Commons Church Building and Restoration Return, on the 23rd of March, 1876, states that £30,000 was spent on this cathedral between 1840 and 1870. The sources of that sum are not indicated, and I have no means of verifying these figures or those given by the Chancellor of Llandaff. On the 23rd ultimo I received from the Dean of St. David's a letter stating that between the years 1704 and 1863, both inclusive, the sum of £11,245 was expended in restoring St. David's Cathedral, the whole of which was contributed by members of the Cathedral Body or other individuals, and that the whole expenditure from 1704 to 1892 was £54,697 (£11,245, plus £43,452), of which £ 10,000 was granted by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Here, again, I can only state the figures as they are given to me, and I cannot make myself responsible for them. I am informed that no grant has been made by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in the cases of St. Asaph and Bangor, but it would seem upon reference to the two Returns already referred to that £9,969 has been spent out of subscriptions upon St. Asaph between 1840 and 1890, and in the case of Bangor about £21,000. There appear to be no trustworthy materials for any further or more detailed statement of this expenditure.

What amount of public funds has been expended on these buildings?

I can supply no figures except those which I have already given.

Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a Return showing the amount of money spent on these buildings, and distinguishing public from private funds?

There is no trustworthy information on that point.

Are we to understand that the Government has made their proposal to make over these cathedrals to a secular body without having taken steps to obtain information as to the sources of expenditure upon these cathedral fabrics?

No, Sir. It is not a fact.

Then it is possible that public money has been spent on these cathedrals, and the Home Secretary either will not or cannot give us any information in regard to it?

I have stated precisely what public funds has been so expended. It is impossible for the Government with the material at their disposal to state how much private money has been spent.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Government of India proposes, in spite of objection by the Local Authority, to fill up a vacancy in the first grade of Assistant Commissioners in Burma, resulting from the retirement on the 1st of April of Mr. Macree, a first grade Deputy Commissioner, by importing a gentleman from India who is entirely new to the Burma Commission, with the effect of superseding the entire staff of the second grade Assistant Commissioners, of which the senior shows 10 years' service and the junior over eight; and whether, having regard to the injury likely to result from the proposed arrangement to the Public Service and the inconvenience likely to arise from a block in promotion, he will ask the Government of India to reconsider its intentions?

On the 12th of last month the services of Mr. A. H. Collins, an Indian Civil Servant of 13 years' standing, were transferred from Bengal to Burma. I am informed that the arrangement was made with the concurrence of the Chief Commissioner; but, in any case, I should not be disposed to interfere in such a matter except upon a complaint by some aggrieved person submitted in the prescribed course.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the effect which the adoption by the British Government in their present shape of the proposed Washington Regulations, respecting the Rule of the road at sea, will have on the steam trawlers' trade, owing to the fact that it is impossible for a steam trawler with her fishing gear down to get out of the way of a sailing vessel; whether any representations have been made by the German Government with regard to the expediency of giving to steam trawlers when their gear is down the right of the road in face of sailing vessels; and whether the French Government has expressed its willingness to abide by the decision of the British Government; and whether he will make an early announcement of the Government's intentions in regard to the matter?

I believe that it has been stated that the proposed Regulations for preventing collisions at sea will adversely affect steam trawlers at work; but, as a matter of fact, the proposed Regulations make no alteration in the existing Rule of the road at sea so far as steam trawlers are concerned. Representations have been received from the German and French Governments on the subject of the right, of way of trawlers, and it is proposed to deal with the Rules affecting fishing vessels as soon as the negotiations regarding the rest of the Regulations are completed, the Regulations regarding fishing vessels constituting a separate branch of the subject. An announcement of the intentions of the Government will be duly made when a decision has been arrived at.

Does the right hon. Gentleman suggest that a steam trawler with her trawl down, and unable to move unless she slips her trawl-warp, is bound to observe the Rule of the road at sea?

I cannot say that.

But the right hon. Gentleman said she would be subject to the Rule of the road at sea? Is that so?

Questions of this extreme delicacy had better be given notice of.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the Law Officers of the Crown have given an opinion that the Commissioners of Customs had no power under the 16th section of "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," to admit foreign goods bearing the name and trade mark of any manufacturer, dealer, or trader in the United Kingdom; and if lie will take care that for the future no such importation of goods bearing English names shall be imported, as was recently the case when several tons of glass bottles were allowed to be discharged in the Thames bearing the name and trade directions of R. White, an employer of foreign labour?

I am not aware that any such opinion has been given by the Law Officers of the Crown as is mentioned in the question. I believe that my hon. Friend the Attorney General a few days ago said something bearing on this subject; but as he is unfortunately absent from the House I have not been able since seeing the question to ascertain what his precise view is. As regards the latter part of the question, the Commissioners of Customs are not under the direction of the Board of Trade.

But did not the Solicitor General for the Attorney General give such an opinion?

As I did not hear the answer, I do not think I ought to say anything on the matter.

I shall take the earliest opportunity of drawing attention to this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the trawling that is now being carried on off the Island of Foula by a boat with number obliterated, and so near the coast that the features of the crew can be identified from the shore; whether it is true that the gunboats Niger and Active, now in the North on Revenue service, refuse to interfere, and thus it is fouud impossible to obtain the name of the boat or of its master in order that a prosecution may be instituted; and whether it is the case that he is powerless to maintain the law against trawling in inland waters, and has no right to call on the Admiralty to assist in procuring the identification and arrest of those who break the law?

I have obtained Reports from the Fishery Board which corroborate the statement of the hon. Member regarding the illegal trawling near Foula. It is not the case, however, that the gunboats refused to interfere. On the coutrary, H.M.S. Niger, in obedience to special orders from the Admiralty, steamed from Lerwick to Foula on Thursday last, and remained for a day in the neighbourhood of the island. As no trawler was discovered, the Niger returned on Saturday to her ordinary duties at Lerwick. H.M.S. Watchful is now in the Moray Firth, with a view to the enforcement of the law on that fishing ground.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state if any arrangement has been arrived at with the French Government on the question of compensation to the relatives of those English soldiers who were accidentally killed in the unfortunate collision between British and French troops at Warina, Sierra Leone, in December last?

The inquiries necessary to verify the geographical position of Warina are not concluded.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can state on what grounds a notice was sent on the 25th of July, 1893, by the Education Department to the managers of Sedgwick Elementary School, Westmoreland, which was passed in 1883 as sufficient to accommodate 63 pupils, and which had an average school attendance last school year of 463, stating that the class-room could not be recognised beyond the current year owing to its being below the minimum size, and desiring the managers to consider at once the practicability of enlargement: whether he is aware that the class-room in question exceeds the requirements of the Code of Regulations of the Education Department (1893) as regards both internal space and internal area for each unit of average attendance; that the school in question is situated in an agricultural district, and that any enlargement would cost at least £50; and whether, under the circumstances, the Department will insist on the enlargement?

Notice was given to this school in July, 1893, as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question. The class-room, while it provides sufficient space for each unit of the infants in attendance, is much below the size which would be considered indispensable in a new class-room. It is difficult in a room of this size to secure proper ventilation and freedom from draughts, and infants also require a reasonable space for drill and marching. I do not, of course, know what the cost of an enlargement would be; but I will communicate with Her Majesty's Inspector, and ascertain how far the arrangement of the room and the provision for the instruction of the infants will enable me to meet the views of the hon. Member. In any case, the grant shall not be withdrawn for the year now current.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in cases where, under Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, a School Board is entitled to the extra grant, such grant is forfeited by reason of the said Board having in the previous year levied a higher rate than was required for the purposes of that year, in order to provide and carry forward a working balance; and, if not, on what ground payment of the extra grant has been refused to the Stanton and New-hall School Board, whose expenditure for the year 1893 was £1,708 17s. 5d., and receipts, other than those derived from a rate of 8d. in the £1, were £1,380 8s. 4d. only?

The figures given in the hon. Member's question as regards the case of the Stanton and Newhall School Board are correct, except that he has omitted to mention that at the beginning of the year ended the 29th of September, 1893, the Board had in hand a balance of £252 16s. 11d. This gave the Board a total sum of £1,633 5s. 3d. available towards meeting the expenditure of £1,708 17s. 5d., leaving a deficit of £75 12s. 2d. only, to be met out of the rates. The grant under Section 97 of the Elementary Education Act of 1870 is not payable unless the School Board satisfy the Education Department that the sum required for the purposes of their annual expenses amounted to a sum which would have been raised by a rate of 3d. in the £1 on the rateable value of the Board's district. The sum required for the year ended the 29th of September, 1893, by the Stanton School Board was, as has been said, £75 12s. 2d., which is less by £89 7s. 10d. than the £165 which would have been the product of a 3d. rate. In these circumstances, my Lords were advised that no grant under Section 97 was payable. The Board can avoid a similar loss of the Section 97 grant in future by so issuing their precept to the Rating Authority as to obtain payment of the amount required from the rates at the beginning of the financial year. This will make it unnecessary for them to retain a large balance in hand.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to his statement that the cost of the Cadastral Survey in Behar will be defrayed partly by the Government, partly by the zemindars, and partly by the ryots, what proportion of the cost is to be defrayed by the Government; what proportion of such cost has hitherto been defrayed by the Government in Bombay and other provinces of India; whether the ryots have ever been burdened with any portion of the costs; and whether any consideration is to be shown to those zemindars whose estates have already been compulsorily surveyed at an immense cost by the Government or the Court of Wards during their minorities, and are now to be re-surveyed?

The proportion of the cost of the Cadastral Survey to be borne by Government is still under consideration. In Bombay and other temporarily settled provinces, where the survey is made primarily for the security of the Public Revenues, the whole of such survey is paid by Government. The ryots have not borne any of the costs in the Provinces to which I have just referred. As was stated in an answer given in this House on the 17th of November last, and as is explained at length at paragraph 44, page 78, of Behar Cadastral Survey Papers presented on the 22nd of November, 1893, surveys previously effected will be utilised as far as practicable.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, in relation to the new mail service between London and Kingstown, whether separate tenders will be invited for the railway and steamboat services; if Railway Companies will be excluded from competition for the steamboat service; and whether the conditions on which tenders are sought will specify the minimum dimensions, power, and speed of the steamers to be employed?

Separate tenders will be invited, and Railway Companies will not be excluded from competition for the sea service. The conditions of tender are now being considered, but it would not be convenient to state them till they have actually been decided on.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon the advertisements for tenders will be issued?

I cannot say exactly, but it will not be long delayed.

Will the conditions for accelerating the service be specified?

Yes.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he can explain why the decision of the Crofters' Commission has not been communicated to certain crofters on the Torresdale estate, in Cantyre, although their holdings were examined in September, 1893; and whether he is aware that great inconvenience is caused by uncertainty as to the amount of rent payable?

The decision of the Crofters' Commission in this case was communicated both to the proprietor and to the crofters' agent by the Sheriff Clerk on the 6th of January. It is also published in the last Report of the Commission, page 29, as presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can now say when the next meeting of the Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland) will be held; and whether he can state approximately when the Committee will be able to report to the House?

I propose to ascertain the sense of the Members of the Select Committee as to when the next meeting should be held. If the Committee decide to receive further evidence, I do not think that it will occupy more than one day, and it will then be for the Committee to consider as to the Report which they should make to the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the epidemic of small-pox at present prevalent at Leith, and to the statement of the Medical Officer of Health of that burgh that the large increase of cases reported a fortnight ago was attributable to the fact that a large number of people mildly infected with the disease had been going about the streets, and that the sanitary department had recovered infected clothes from pawnbrokers; whether he is aware that the Medical Officers of Health of Glasgow have thought it necessary to warn inhabitants of the city, so far as possible, to avoid Leith, and have stigmatised the measures adopted by the authorities of that town to check the disease as devoid of intelligence and efficiency, and that the collector of Customs has notified the-Leith authorities that if the disease is-allowed to spread he will be compelled to-declare Leith a foul port; and whether the Board of Supervision have taken any steps, and if so what, to assist or guide-the Local Authorities in dealing with the epidemic?

I have made-inquiry as to the outbreak of small-pox at Leith, and understand that it is the-case, as stated by the hon. Member, that strong criticisms have been passed by-competent authorities upon the action of the Local Authority of that burgh. The Board of Supervision have for some time brought all the pressure they can to bear upon the Local Authority. They have had a conference at which the deficiencies of the burgh sanitation were pointed out, and they took the strongest step in their power by issuing a special Order requiring the Local Authority to deal forthwith with insanitary houses, and by calling upon them to re-organise their sanitary staff. Some improvement followed these measures; but the Board have continued to press the Local Authority to follow the example of the great majority of Sanitary Authorities both in England and in Scotland by adopting the Notification of Diseases Act; and I am glad to say that the Act was at last adopted the day before yesterday. I am informed that in nearly all the cases reported to the Local Authority the patients have been removed to hospital, and that joint action will now be taken along with Edinburgh in combating the epidemic.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Annual Report of the Board of Trade, under Section 29 of "The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890," for the year ending the 31st of December, 1893, will be presented to Parliament; and whether the Board of Trade will include in such Report, in addition to the information contained in previous Reports, the names of the Companies ordered to be wound up from the date when "The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890," came into operation to the 31st day of December, 1893, distinguishing the cases in which an Official Receiver was continued as permanent liquidator from those in which he was not so continued, giving the date of the winding-up order in each case, and the dates when the statement of affairs was filed and when the first statutory meetings were held; the amounts received by the Official Receiver by the realisation of the assets of each such Company, distinguishing those in which the Official Receiver was not continued as permanent liquidator, and showing how much was in each case received during the provisional liquidatorship; the fees which were respectively claimed and received by the Board of Trade in respect of the Official Receiver's provisional or other liquidatorship of each such Company or otherwise in connection therewith, showing how the amount of such fees was iii each case calculated, and distinguishing the part of the Official Receiver's charge which would have been incurred had the Official Receiver not been continued; a list of the cases in which a special manager was appointed under Section 5 of the Act, the nature of the duties performed in each case, and the remuneration paid to the special manager; the amount of cash and securities standing to the credit of the Companies' liquidation account at the end of each period of six months from the coming into operation of the said Act, and of the total income credited to the said account as having been received from investments up to 15th of January, 1894; and of the amount of the interest on investments which, during each such period of six months, has, under Section 17 of the Act, been placed to the credit of Companies wound up under the said Act for the benefit of such Companies, and of the total amount of the dividends or income paid or placed to the credit of such Companies, under Sections 17 and 18 respectively?

Progress is being made with the preparation of the Annual Report under the Companies (Winding-up) Act, but it is at present impossible to say when it will be ready for presentation. The Report requires so much time and trouble that it was not found possible to present the Report for 1892 until February last. Much of the information asked for by my hon. Friend is at present included in the Reports, and the Board of Trade will carefully consider how far additional information can usefully be given on the lines suggested by him. It would be inexpedient to include in the Return the full particulars asked for in the case of Companies whose liquidation has not yet been completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office intend to publish, and if so when, Sir West Ridgway's Report on his Special Mission to Morocco?

The Report in question is of a very confidential nature, and it is not intended to publish it.

In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University, I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what is the reason for the delay in putting the 48 hours system into operation in Her Majesty's Dockyards; and when it is expected that the system will be established?

Some necessary delay has been caused by arranging with the War Office in regard to certain details which it was considered desirable should be identical for the two Departments. These will very shortly be settled and the scheme promulgated, but I cannot give an exact date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Reports of the Royal Commission on Labour have been yet made; how many there are; and when they will be laid upon the Table?

The fifth and final Report of the Royal Commission on Labour will be presented to Parliament to-day.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if ho is aware that summonses have been granted in the Belfast Police Courts against four directors of the Discount Corporation of Belfast; and whether, in view of the magnitude of the interest involved, the wide-spread losses caused by the failure of this and other fradulent Companies now in liquidation, and the gravity of the charges made, the Crown intend to intervene in these cases and see that justice is not frustrated?

It is a fact that summonses have been granted against four directors of the National Discount Corporation of Ireland for issuing fraudulent balance sheets and conspiring to defraud. These summonses, I understand, were to have been heard at the Belfast Police Court to-day, though with what result I am not yet aware. The present proceedings have been instituted by a private prosecutor, a shareholder in the concern, and I am clearly of opinion, in which the Irish Law Officers concur, that at the present stage the Executive should not interfere in the case. Of course, if the defendants be sent for trial the case will then in the ordinary way come into the hands of the Crown, when the necessary action will be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the gunboats Bustard, Trent, and Landrail have been firing into deep water off the Nore Light; whether it would be possible to fire N.E. from the Black Tail Buoy on to the edge of the Maplins, which would find employment for men holding passes for the recovery of shot and shell, and save Government ammunition?

These vessels fire some distance to the southward and eastward of the Nore Light, according to the direction in which the range is clear for the time being, in order to avoid accidents to boats or shipping. The Black Tail Buoy is too distant; and the value of the extra coal burnt would exceed that of the recovered projectiles.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Statutes which govern the distribution by the Sovereign of the several degrees of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath from 1815 inclusive, so far as the same are applicable to officers of Her Majesty's Naval and Military Forces? I may, at the same time, ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Her Majesty's Government will advise Her Majesty to revise the Statutes of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, so that the same may be brought more into harmony with general sentiment so far as eligibility by rank of officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines is concerned, when compared with officers of equivalent rank in Her Majesty's Army, for admission to the Order of the Bath; and that the present proportion of honours and distinctions of the said Most Honourable Order awarded to officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Army may be reconsidered and readjusted; and further, that recommendations of officers of Her Majesty's Naval Service for honours and distinctions may be submitted to Her Majesty by the First Lord of the Admiralty, instead of through Her Majesty's Secretary of State for War?

Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me at the same time to reply to both questions. If by the words "the distribution of the several degrees of the Order of the Bath," the hon. and gallant Gentleman means the allocation of the numbers available for each of the two Services, this is a matter not regulated by the Statutes, but determined by a permanent arrangement between the Departments. If, however, he means the qualifications which are held necessary in the respective Services, these, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty stated the other day, are not precisely identical in the case of Army and Navy officers, and consideration is now being given to the matter, with the view of seeing whether there is any substantial inequality, and whether the rules and practice in regard to the recommendation of officers for the Bath should be brought into closer uniformity. As regards the mode of submitting recommendations for Her Majesty's approval, I should say that those made by the First Lord of the Admiralty are not subject to any criticism of the Secretary of State for War. The Order of the Bath is necessarily placed, for the purposes of formal submission and of record, under some one responsible Minister, as regards both its Military and its Civil division. That Minister is the Secretary of State for War; but his action in respect of Naval and Civil recommendations is entirely Ministerial. I should not presume to question the propriety of any recommendation made either by the First Lord of the Treasury or by the First Lord of the Admiralty.

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated whether he will lay a copy of the Statutes on the Table of the House. I have a copy by private favour, but there is no copy in the Library.

The Statutes do not affect the question in which the hon. and gallant Member is interested. They are very voluminous and have been altered from time to time. There is, however, no reason why the Statutes should not be made public if it is desired.

What I want is that the House may be in possession of the Statutes. That is the material point. There is no copy in the Library.

The only objection to laying them on the Table is that it will involve a lot of formality in regard to printing and circulating them, and to get the information the hon. Member wants for them would be like looking for a needle in a bundle of straw. I will put a copy in the Library.

Has anyone been appointed to the distinguished post of Grand Master since the death of the Prince Consort?

was understood to ask for notice of that.

Would not the difficulty be overcome by doing away with these Orders, which are only a relic of the barbarous ages?

No, the demand seems to be in the opposite direction.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether in his recent statement of the proportion of naval officers eligible by rank on the Active List for the Most Honourable Order of the Bath—namely, "700 to upwards of 4,000 officers of the Army," he included officers of the Royal Marine Corps and of the various Civil branches of the Naval Service; and whether the-said proportion is in accordance with the proportion of officers of equivalent rank now subsisting between the two Services, in view of the fact that Senior Lieutenants of Her Majesty's Navy of eight years' standing now rank with Majors of of Her Majesty's Army?

The numbers which I gave in the answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim comprised all officers of the Navy eligible by rank for the Military Division of the Order of the Bath, and included Marine officers, Engineer officers and Medical officers. These numbers are necessarily based upon the qualifications prescribed in the Statutes of the Bath, and not upon the relative rank of officers of the two Services as now existing.

Out of the total number of 932, how many are allocated to the Naval Service?

I think I must ask for notice of that question.

Then I will give it.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner who are the present Trustees of Cowley's Charity, and of the other parochial charities of Swineshead, Lincolnshire; and how many of them are popularly elected, and how elected; when last accounts were furnished to the Commission of Cowley's, and of the other charities, and what was the amount of the income shown on such accounts; and under what will or scheme those charities are now administered; and when last accounts were furnished to the Commissioners of the charities of Norton, Worcestershire?

Cowley's Charity is regulated by an Act of Parliament (21 & 22 Vic. c. 81) confirming a scheme of the Charity Commissioners. Rules thereunder were approved by the Board on the loth of May, 1860. The trustees appointed under the scheme are—the Vicar of Swineshead and the Incumbent of Chapel Hill for the time being respectively and six persons named therein, any vacancies occurring to be filled by co-optation subject to the approval of the Commissioners. According to the accounts for the year 1893 the present trustees are—the Vicar of Swineshead, Mr. John Cooper, Mr. Charles H. Sharpe, Mr. William R. Sharpe, Mr. George Bett, Mr. Robert D. C. Shaw, and Mr. Ebenezer Wilson. The last accounts are those for the year 1893, and the income shown therein is about £268. Butler's (or the Causeway) Charity is apparently administered under two deeds made in the reign of Charles I. Trustees were appointed on the 17th of December, 1880, by an Order of the Board. The present trustees are—the Rev. Joseph Holmes, Mr. John Cooper, Mr. John Harrison Brown, Mr. Robert D. C. Shaw, and William Sparrow, who are apparently the surviving trustees under the above-mentioned Order. The last accounts are those for the year 1893, the income mentioned therein being about £57. The Poor Charities are regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commissioners of 29th of March, 1888. The body of trustees is constituted as follows:—Three ex officio trustees, i.e., the Vicar and two elected Guardians of the Poor of the parish of Swineshead. Four representative trustees to be appointed as follows:—Two by ratepayers of Swineshead to the exclusion of the Hamlet of Chapel Hill, one by ratepayers of Hamlet of Chapel Hill, and one by School Board of Swineshead, and four eo-optative trustees. The present trustees, according to last accounts, are—The Rev. Joseph Holmes, Mr. John Cooper, Mr. John H. Brown, Mr. William Sparrow, Mr. Robert D. C. Shaw, Mr. George Bell, Mr. George Smith, Mr. Ebenezer Wilson, Mr. William Cheetham, Mr. William R. Sharpe, and Mr. Joel Goodwin. The last accounts are those for the year ended the 21st of March, 1893, the income shown therein is about £213. In answer to the concluding paragraph of the question, there appear to be three parishes in Worcestershire bearing the name of Norton—namely, (1) Norton-by-Bredou; (2) Norton-by-Evesham; and (3) Norton-juxta-Kemp-sey. If the hon. Member will specify the parish to which the question refers, the information shall be afforded.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state to the House the names and nature of previous occupations of the recently-appointed Factory and Workshop Assistant Inspectors?

The names and previous occupations of the recently-appointed Factory Inspectors' Assistants are as follows:— R. J. Foot, engineer and smith; J. Dean, textile (cotton) operative; H. Miller, steel-maker; F. J. Beaumont, textile (woollen) operative; D. Timothy, colliery clerk (a Welshman); F. W. Sedgwick, operative, afterwards clerk in boot and shoe factory; C. H. Morris, shipwright; J. Clark, joiner, employed in a factory, and afterwards engaged in Customs Service (has a certificate of competency as Sanitary Inspector).

Are there no female Inspectors appointed?

Not in this batch.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the number of cases reported by the Assistant Factory Inspectors in which a breach of the Factory and Workshops Act is alleged to have taken place; whether any prosecutions have followed upon those Reports; and, if so, how many; and whether he is aware of the fact that these Inspectors are not allowed the free use of materials necessary for the effective and immediate discharge of their duties; and, if so, whether he will undertake that such materials shall be furnished them in accordance with his promise to the deputation which waited upon him in February last?

Many prosecutions have followed upon Reports made by the Assistants, but it would be difficult and would, in my opinion, serve no useful purpose to give the precise numbers. All representations from the Assistant Inspectors receive careful attention. No complaint has been made officially by the Assistants that any representations of theirs have been improperly disregarded. If there had been any inconvenience from want of necessary materials, the ordinary course would have been to make an application to the Chief Inspector, and lam informed that no such application has been made. On inquiry I find that it is desirable that Assistant Inspectors should be furnished with satchels and measuring tapes, and steps have already been taken by the Chief Inspector for carrying this out.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. W. Jeffcott, who was formerly extensively employed as a landlords' valuer in County Derry, has been recently engaged as a Sub-Commissioner in fixing judicial rents in the county; whether he has been selected to act as a Sub-Commissioner in the Counties of Fermanagh and Monaghan, where he will have to fix rents upon estates which he formerly valued for the landlord; and if he will give the date of his appointment as Sub-Commissioner?

Mr. Jeffcott states that prior to his appointment as an Assistant Commissioner he was engaged as a valuer, both by tenants as well as landlords, in the County of Londonderry, but that since his appointment he has not joined in fixing the judicial rent in any case in this county, where he had been previously so employed by either party. He never acted as valuer for either landlords or tenants in any of the Unions in the Counties of Monaghan or Fermanagh, from which cases have been listed for hearing on the 5th instant by the Sub-Commission, of which he is a member. Mr. Jeffcott was appointed an Assistant Commissioner in February, 1891. He had previously been a valuer in cases of appeal and rehearing before the Land Commission.

Have there been any changes lately, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Commissioners to furnish a Return giving the names of the County Court valuers?

Did I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say Mr. Jeffcott has not been engaged in any case in Fermanagh and Monaghan?

So he informs me. He has not acted there as valuer either for landlord or tenant in any of the Unions from which cases have been listed for hearing at the recent Sitting of the Sub-Commission of which he is a member. In answer to the hon. Member for North Kerry, I will get the date of the last Return and make the inquiry he suggests.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, having regard to the announcement that the Queen has been pleased to institute a Volunteer Long-Service Medal to be granted to Volunteers duly recommended by their Commanding Officers, on completion of 20 years' service, the phrase—

"Service, whether as officer, non-commissioned officer, or private, must have been consecutive,"

is to be taken as disqualifying a Volunteer who, having served a given number of years in one corps, has, on migration, or under other circumstances of civil life, been forced to quit one regiment, but who, as soon as practicable, has rejoined another corps; and, in such case, if he will be pleased to submit for Her Majesty's gracious consideration the hardship such exclusion will entail on many especially deserving non-commissioned officers and men?

I appreciate the force of the claim of a Volunteer to have his service regarded as practically continuous when the interruption of it has been brief, and has been genuinely due to such a cause as is indicated, and I am, therefore, prepared to regard service in those circumstances as coming within the conditions, subject to a reasonable limitation in the length of the break.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the concession obtained by Messrs. Nichol and Hicks in N'gamiland in 1889 was recognised by the High Commissioner, and used by the Foreign Office in negotiations with the German Government in 1890 as a reason for making N'Gamiland British territory; that the validity and due ratification of the concession was proved before Mr. Justice Mathew and a jury in an action brought in 1893 by Messrs. Nichol and Hicks against the African and General Exploration Company, in which the jury decided in favour of the plaintiffs, who have been unable to recover their judgment debt by reason of the financial condition of the defendant Company; that the validity of the concession is affirmed by Mr. Buckle, who made a special journey to N'Gamiland to test it, as the representative of interests hostile to Messrs. Nichol and Hicks, i.e., of Mr. Maund and the African and General Exploration Company; and that before the recent Bechuanaland Commission the legal representative of the Chartered Company admitted that ho could not dispute the genuineness of the concession; and whether, under the circumstances, the Secretary of State will refuse to ratify the concession; if so, for what reason?

The Bechuanaland Concessions Commission appointed to inquire into this and into other concession claims were, on the evidence before them, unable to come to any decision on the concession referred to in the question, and recommended that further inquiry should be made. Before coming to any decision, therefore, further inquiry will be necessary.

Does the hon. Gentleman dispute the accuracy of the facts stated in the question? Will he make further inquiry?

I am not able wholly to admit the accuracy of the facts, and I do not understand that the legal representative of the Company could not dispute the genuineness of the concession. We are sending up a small force, and the officer in charge will be instructed to make further inquiry.

Who is the officer?

Lieutenant Hoare.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Mr. Vintcent, one of three members of the recent Bechuanaland Commission, was legal adviser to the Chartered Company in Bechuanaland, and has since been appointed to a judicial position in the Company's territory; and when the Report of the Commission will be published?

As regards the first part of the question, Mr. Vintcent has not acted as legal adviser to the Chartered Company since 1891. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. Vintcent will, we understand, be nominated as Judge under the Matabeleland and Mashonaland Settlement. As regards the last part of the question, the Report of the Concessions Commission is not suitable for publication; but the effect of the Secretary of State's decision on the various claims (which he hopes to complete shortly) will, of course, be made known to the various claimants.

Was Mr. Vintceut appointed a member of the Commission in 1891, the year in which he was also acting as legal adviser to the Chartered Company?

I think the Commission was appointed in 1892.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the constabulary at Beragh and Ballygawley, County Tyrone, are employed in watching an evicted farm in the townland of Foremass, on the estate of Mr. Henry Vernon; whether he is aware that the new tenant of the farm resides four miles away, and receives no personal protection, and that there are no cattle or houses on the farm; what, under the circumstances, the police are watching; whether, in consequence of the protection of this farm in the constituency of South Tyrone, the police forces have been augmented; and whether the increase will be paid for by the county?

The police make frequent patrols to the farm referred to. The present occupier of the farm resides a few miles away, though I am informed he is building a house on the farm, and that he has two head of cattle grazing it. The police force at the nearest station has been temporarily augmented in order to make the patrolling as effective as possible, but the augmentation has been supplied from the county establishment, so that no additional cost to the county is involved.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the Army Order 110, dated 12th May, 1893, which increased to 32 the number of paid lance-corporals allowed to a battalion of Infantry, if he will explain why, though this Order was received in India in August last, it has not yet been acted upon, so that lance-corporals who left England with drafts subsequent to 12th May, 1893, and who were receiving pay under it, have, in consequence, been deprived of such extra pay on coming on the Indian Establishment; why an Order, which is acknowledged by all military men to be a most necessary one and which involves a very insignificant expenditure, should require special consideration after it has been promulgated in India; and whether, considering the well-known difficulty in getting good men to accept the lance stripe, he will endeavour to bring the consideration of the question to an early and satisfactory conclusion?

It is an old and well-established rule that Royal Warrants or Army Orders which involve an increase of charge are not applicable to India, unless and until they are promulgated in an Indian Army Circular by the Indian Government. The Order to which the hon, and gallant Member refers has not been so promulgated; but since it was issued in England it has been under consideration by the Government of India, and by myself in communication with the Secretary of State for War, and I have every reason to think that the matter will very soon be settled.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a letter was sent to Dublin Castle by Mr. William O'Sullivan, of Newcastle West, County Limerick, complaining of the conduct of Mr. Dawson, clerk of Petty Sessions there, for having used to him, at Newcastle West on the 11th instant, threatening language calculated to provoke a breach of the peace, and of which letter an acknowledgment was received on the 21st instant; whether Mr. Dawson, after having received from Dublin Castle notice of the complaint, did on the 24th instant (a fortnight after the alleged offence) issue a summons for assault against Mr. O'Sullivan, notwithstanding that a Petty Sessions Court had been held on the 18th instant; whether he is aware of the strong feeling existing in the district by reason of the conduct of Mr. Dawson in connection with this case, and his manner of discharging the duties in connection with his office; and whether he will call the attention of the proper authority to the matter, and inquire as to the very serious charges preferred against this officer under the late administration?

In replying to a similar question put by the hon. Member on Thursday last, I stated that the facts were correctly set forth in the first paragraph, and that the Petty Sessions clerk had summoned O'Sullivan for assault on the occasion referred to. I am now informed that O'Sullivan has been bound to the peace and required to enter into recognisances, or in default to be imprisoned for a month. A cross-summons brought by him against the Petty Sessions clerk was dismissed. It is the fact that this clerk was suspended from his office in 1890 and again in 1891, but on both occasions he was re-instated by the Lord Lieutenant. I have no knowledge of any complaint as to the manner in which he now discharges his duties, and am informed that at the recent official inspection of the clerk nothing came to the notice of the Inspector that would lead to the belief that such is the case.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Lord Muskerry, who presided in this case, had not put in an appearance at Petty Sessions for two years previously? Is he also aware that one of the Magistrates on the Bench strongly dissented from the decision? For what offence was this clerk suspended in 1890?

I am afraid I cannot say for what offence he was suspended. I know nothing about Lord Muskerry's attendance, and I have no right to inquire how he voted. It is quite true Mr. O'Grady, one of the Magistrates, did strongly dissent from the decision.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire what offence it was led to the suspension?

I will see if I can inquire into it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is any objection to a Return being prepared and" presented to this House showing the proportions of Government Stocks held respectively by persons domiciled within and outside the United Kingdom?

I am informed by the authorities of the Bank of England that a Return on the subject would involve an immense amount of labour, and it would be very misleading for two reasons: (1) because many foreigners conceal their identity by causing their investments to be made in English names; and (2) the ownership of Stock Certificates to Bearer cannot be ascertained. Under these circumstances, it seems doubtful whether such a Return would serve any useful purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he has seen a Reuter's telegram, dated Simla, 5th June, published in the London papers of yesterday, to the effect that in the opinion of the Government of India the microscopic tests which have been applied to the mud daubed on the mango trees in North Behar prove that in 90 per cent, of the cases the smearing is due to pigs rubbing themselves against the trees; and has the India Office received any information confirming this statement?

I have seen the telegram to which my hon. Friend refers. I have also received from the Government of India information to the effect that the larger part of the marks are due to animals, though some are certainly done by human agency. The intentional marking appears to have originated early this year in Nepal, and to have spread thence into Behar, being probably intended as advertisement to draw pilgrims to a shrine in Nepal. It is thought that when attention had been called to the matter, some mischievously-disposed persons, finding marks taken seriously, have continued work in certain districts. But it is considered that there is not sufficient evidence to connect the marking with any movement among the natives, nor any substantial reason to suppose that it has any political significance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if any Despatch has been received from the Viceroy recommending the stoppage of the use of special trains to convey the Viceroy, Commander-in-Chief, and other members of the Government between Simla and Calcutta, on the ground of needless expense?

No communication has been received from the Government of India on this subject. I am informed that Members of Council other than the Viceroy and the Commander-in-Chief are not entitled to special trains.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will be good enough to state why all the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electrical Communication with Lighthouses, &c, contained in the First Report, dated 8th December, 1892, have not been carried out, especially with regard to the Scarweather Light-vessel, in the Bristol Channel, and the Fastnet Rock Lighthouse; whether his attention has been called to the paragraph in the Second Report of the Royal Commission, dated March, 1894, in which they state that it is with regret that they have decided to confine their recommendations in this Report to shore lighthouses, but, until more has been done towards effecting the connection of those light vessels and lighthouses which were selected in the First Report as having the strongest claims to immediate attention, they hesitate to add to the list of light-vessels and island rock lighthouses with which electrical communication should be established; and whether, in the interest of saving of life and property round the coasts of the United Kingdom, he will, without further delay, take the necessary steps to carry out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in their entirety in order that they may complete the list of light-vessels and rock lighthouses with which they consider that electrical communication should be established?

In the last financial year £10,000 was placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purpose of effecting electrical communication with light-vessels, &c. That money was expended in connecting the "Kentish Knock" and "Goodwin (N. Sand Head)" Light-vessels and the "Gunflcet" Pile Lighthouse with the shore. In the present financial year £11,000 has been similarly placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade, and it is intended to expend this amount in connecting the "Haisborough" and the "Shipwash" Light-vessels with the shore and in laying a cable to the "Tuskar" Rock Lighthouse. I am afraid that the other works recommended by the Royal Commission must wait until the Treasury can place more money at my disposal.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, as the clerks to the Commissioners of Laud Tax are unable to state what are the boundaries of the various Land Tax parishes in the Poor Law parishes of Lenham and Harrietsham, in the County of Kent, he can state where this information can be obtained?

I am unable to state where this information can be obtained. No one would appear to be in a better position to give it than the Local Land Tax Commissioners.

But as that authority is ignorant on the subject, to whom else can I apply?

I am afraid I cannot refer the hon. and gallant Member to any other authority. That is the responsible body. We have nothing to do with it.

I will refer to the subject on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that Section 13 of the Finance Bill, as at present drawn, would include all estates no matter what the amount of the assets if the debts of deceased are within £1,000 of the assets; whether it is intended that in the case, for ex ample, of an estate of £50,000, the section shall apply if the debts amount to £49,000 or upwards; whether, under the section, it is the duty of the Inland Revenue officials not merely to receive affidavits, but also to prepare affidavits, the schedules of assets, the bonds, notices, and other documents required by the Court of Probate; and on what grounds it is considered that, in the case of insolvent estates, where no Probate Duty is paid and the State gains nothing, State officials should undertake free of charge the duties of solicitors?

It is most improbable that eases of this kind would be brought to the Inland Revenue officials, and not to the District Registrar. The former have now power under the Regulations to decline to deal with cases involving complicated questions of law under £300 gross, and they will have the same power under the new system with regard to cases under £1,000 net. With regard to insolvent estates, there were not more than 58 cases in Ireland last year where an estate was insolvent, though the gross value exceeded £1,000.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has beeu drawn to the position of the District Registrar in Ireland as belug paid by fees? Does the right hon. Gentileman realise the position they will hold should they come under the law?

No, Sir. I wish it to be understood that the object of this clause is to relieve persons of small property from any legal expenses, even though it may be that the fees of the District Registrar will be less in consequence.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have received representations from the Australian Governments with reference to the proposal to levy Death Duties on colonial property left by persons who have died in Great Britain; whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the statement of Sir George Dibbs, Premier of New South Wales, that the persistence in this proposal with reference to Death Duties on Colonial property would create an unpleasant feeling between the Colonies and Great Britain; and whether the Government will endeavour to agree to the views of the colonies on this matter?

I am informed that a representation has been made by some of the colonies on this subject. As far as I understand it, this is an objection founded on a misapprehension. We have no intention of imposing any tax what- ever on the colonies. The only question is whether personal property abroad or in the colonies which is held by persons domiciled here, and which is now subject to Legacy and Succession Duty, shall be subject to the Estate Duty which it is proposed to levy on such property when held in England. I need hardly say that any representation on this subject by the colonies will be most carefully and re-pectfully considered by Her Majesty's Government.

Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer draw no distinction between property held in the colonies and in other places abroad?

The great difficulty in this matter is that if a distinction is made between the United Kingdom and places abroad the duty therefrom becomes really a preferential duty—a preference to those who do not pay and a disadvantage to those who do. I can only repeat that any representation that may be made to the Government by the representatives of the colonies will be most carefully and respectfully considered.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Inland Revenue Department appears to be ignorant of the fact that a County of Loudon was formed by the Local Government Act of 1888, and that forms issued by that department are filled up with the names of the Counties of Middlesex, Surrey, and Kent, although the places to which such forms refer are in the County of London; and whether he will take steps to secure a correct official description in future?

The hon. Member probably refers to Inland Revenue Establishment Licences, issued by postmasters and sub-postmasters in localities on the confines of the County of London. The forms are issued in blank by the Inland Revenue to the postmasters, who sometimes insert the wrong local taxation description of the locality. These errors cannot always be avoided; but the matter is adjusted at Somerset House by the allocation of the proceeds of the licences to the credit of the county in which they are issued.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether any steps have as yet been taken under the special provisions of the Local Government Acts of 1888 and 1894, relating to the Scilly Islands, to provide for the election of Parish Councils in those islands?

The Local Government Board have received no application from the Council of the Isle of Scilly on the subject referred to, and the Board have therefore taken no steps with a view to the issue of a Provisional Order under Section 74 of the Local Government Act, 1894.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a printed circular issued to Members of this House by the Women's Trade Union League, headed Laundries and the Factory Bill; whether that circular refers to a document recently received, which it describes as the Laundries Report of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; has any such Report been made by Her Majesty's Inspectors; and, if so, when; and has it been communicated to others besides the Women's Trade Union League?

I had not seen the circular until my attention was called to it by this question. In October last I received Reports on the condition of laundries by the Factory Inspectors. A summary of these, with two Reports from lady Inspectors, was printed, and a copy seems to have come into the hands of the Women's Trade Union League, though it was not officially communicated to them. The Paper in question has been laid before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, when recently at the War- wickshire Standing Joint Committee an amendment was carried rescinding the previous action of the Committee in refusing a pension to Mr. Kinchant, the late Chief Constable, the motion as amended was not put as a substantive motion in accordance with the 23rd Standing Order of the committee; whether he is aware that about one-half of the members of the committee were absent in consequence of no special notice having been given that the question would come on for decision; whether he is aware that in the steps which the committee took as to refusing the pension they acted upon the advice given to them by the Secretary of State last year, and that the opinion of Mr. Dickens, Q.C., confirmed the legality of such steps, and advised that the pension should be paid, not upon legal, but upon general grounds, which it was the province of the committee, and not of counsel, to decide; and whether, if the committee should ask for his opinion, he would again advise them as to the course which, under the circumstances, should now be taken, before any further payment is made to Mr. Kinchant?

I understand that the proceedings of the Warwickshire Standing Joint Committee (rescinding the previous action of the committee in refusing a pension to Mr. Kinchant, the late Chief Constable) were in camera. I am, therefore, not in a position to say what the proceedings were, or whether they were in any respect informal. If there was informality, it is, of course, open to those dissatisfied to take steps to rectify it. Out of a total of 40 constituting the committee 28 attended. The summons to the meeting, sent out several days beforehand, stated that the Police Committee would make a report, and was, in fact, accompanied by a print of such report, and in the report was contained a distinct intimation that the subject of the late Chief Constable's pension would come before the meeting. The opinion of Mr. Dickens that the pension should be paid seems to have been founded upon his view that this was both the just and the legal course. My own view on the matter would not be binding on the committee, but if they desire to have it I shall not be unwilling to express it at their request.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the inquest on Arthur Thomas Payne, who died on Wednesday, 31st May, in King's College Hospital during an operation under chloroform, when it was proved that the deceased was a minor; that his mother had given her consent to the operation, with the proviso that the Hospital Authorities should notify her of the date of the operation; and that no such notice was given to the mother; and whether he will take steps, by legislation or otherwise, to require the authorities of King's College and other hospitals to give notice to parents of patients who are minors, when operations, involving risk of a fatal result, are decided upon?

I am informed by the Secretary to the Governing Body of King's College Hospital that the young man referred to was 20 years of age; that soon after his admission, on the 14th of March, his mother was informed that an operation would be requisite, and that she gave her consent without qualification and without any such proviso as is alleged. There does not, so far as I know, appear to be any sufficient ground for legislation of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Christ Church National School, Hampstead, was permitted by the Department to charge a fee of 1d. a week for infants and 2d. a week for older children on condition that the fee grant should be reduced by the excess of the fee income over £20; whether he is aware that in the accounts for the year ending the 31st of March, 1894, £101 9s. 2d. was received as fees and only £12 18s. 3d. deducted; and how it is that this charge on the scholars has been permitted?

In this case permission was given to the school in 1891, under Section 4, Sub-section 3, of the Act of 1891, to charge increased fees on the scale stated in the question, subject to the condition that the excess above £20, received in respect of increased fees, should be deducted from the fee grant. In the year ending the 31st of March, 1894, this excess amounted to £12 18s 3d., which was deducted accordingly.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Department employ auditors to inspect the accounts of voluntary schools under Article 18 of the Code?

The Department is empowered under Article 18 of the Code to employ auditors of accounts to visit schools and inspect their accounts. The usual practice, where there is any reason to suppose that the accounts are unsatisfactory, is to cause the managers to forward their account books and vouchers for inspection in the Department. This is frequently done. I am only aware of one case in which officers have been specially sent to a school to inspect the accounts, but it is part of the ordinary duty of Her Majesty's Inspectors to examine and report upon the accounts.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the Report of Major Marindin as to the collision at Tain, on the Highland Railway, and the reference in that Report to the excessive hours worked by the signalman at Tain in alternate weeks, and to the excessive hours worked by the guard and brakesman of the up mixed train on alternate days, and to the alternate intervals of rest; whether he has issued any special Order to the Company under "The Railway Hours Act, 1893;" and whether he will in any such Order direct the Company to so re-arrange the work as to avoid the undesirable practice of alternating short days of work with excessively long days of work?

I have considered the Report referred to by my hon. Friend. As a preliminary step under the Act of 1893, the Highland Railway Company have been asked for a Return of the booked and actual hours of all the guards and brakesmen working between Helmsdale and Inverness. When the Board of Trade deal with this Return considera- tion shall be given to the important point very properly raised in the concluding paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the disappearance from the Order Book of the Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) Bill is to be taken as an indication that the Government do not intend to proceed further with the measure this Session?

No, Sir; the disappearance of the Bill from the Order Book is due to one of those accidents which will happen even in the best regulated families. I have just been informed by the Patronage Secretary to the Treasury, and the hon. Member as an ardent supporter of the Bill will be consoled to know, that the Bill will reappear on the Orders to-morrow.

Will the right hon. Gentleman console me a little further by telling me when he intends to proceed with it?

I have tendered to the hon. Member for the present all the consolation I am able to offer.

said, that whatever difference of opinion might exist on other points, all would agree that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset was of great importance and raised questions which profoundly affected the social life of the country. And yet how had it been met by the Government? The learned Solicitor General objected on purely technical grounds, but if the principle was right it was for the able draftsman of the Bill to deal with the point. The Chancellor of the Exchequer brushed aside all the equities of the case, and the social considerations urged by his hon. Friend, and resisted the Amendment on purely pecuniary grounds. He told them that if the Amendment were carried "there would be a loss of millions to the Exchequer." But the whole additional amount which the Chancellor of the Exchequer expected to realise from the Death Duties was £3,500,000, and the sum affected by the Amendment could be but a small part of the whole, and he altogether failed to understand how the loss would be so large. In his Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—

"On the best calculations we can get, I estimate we shall not in the long run fall short of an annual increase of £3.500,000. But only a small part will accrue to the benefit of the Exchequer in the present financial year. …We shall only have, say, seven months of the present year under the new system. During the first five months we shall be taking the existing duties. But even during those seven months we shall only be receiving the new duty on personalty. Realty being allowed to pay by instalments, the full increase under that head will take several years to realise. Taking all this into consideration, I cannot count for 1894–95 upon more than a net gain of £1,000,000, from the substitution of the new Estate Duty for the duties which it replaces. The yield may be somewhat greater, but it would not be safe to reckon on it."

Surely, then, when it was looked into, there was no force in the second objection of his right hon. Friend. However, on this question the considerations of primary importance were not those of money, but were those of equity, and of the effect on our social life. In other cases the Estate Duty would be payable on any given property once in a generation; he did not say in all, because there were the cases of brother succeeding brother, but as a general rule. And if, from one man living to a great age, two successions should follow quickly, the chances were that they would be followed by a long interval. Of course, there would be many exceptions, and cases of great hardship. But, as between husband and wife, there would always be two deaths in each generation. Such property, therefore, would pay a double duty; it would pay twice over. Was not that very unjust? How was such a proposal to be defended? Again, was it not contrary to all our feelings, to the universal practice and policy of the civilised world, in so heavy a duty as this, to treat husbands and wives not only as other relations, but even as if they were no relations at all? The policy of a wise Government should be to legislate so as to strengthen as far as possible the ties which bind husband and wife together. But the proposal in the Bill would tend to weaken them, to discourage joint property, and to encourage separate estates. If a husband and wife chose to keep their property entirely apart, there would only be a payment on the death of the husband or wife respectively on his or her property. But if they united their property it would not only pay twice over, but as the two would be aggregated together it would pay on a higher scale. The tendency, then, would be to create separate interests, which would certainly have an unfortunate influence on our social condition and on home life. He submitted, therefore, that the financial arguments used by the Government would not stand the test of examination, and that the loss to the Revenue would not be so large as supposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but they based their support of the Amendment on higher considerations, and maintained that Great Britain was not so poor, that our financial position was not so unsatisfactory, that we need consider ourselves compelled to insist on a tax financially so unjust, and on a policy the tendency of which on family life would be so unfortunate.

who was very imperfectly heard, was understood to say that he quite admitted, with the right hon. Baronet, that this was a very important subject, and that the Committee should understand very clearly its bearing. They had before them the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset and the Amendment moved upon that Amendment by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway opposite (Mr. Bousfield). It was important to distinguish between the two questions raised by the two Amendments. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset proposed that property passing between husband and wife should be exempted from the new Estate Duty proposed in the Bill, but the Amendment upon that Amendment would extend that exemption to the existing Probate Duty. These two questions were very important and pregnant with financial result. He must clearly discriminate between the two, and point out the result of each separate proposal. His right hon. Friend had said that it was surely wrong to treat as other inheritances property passing between husband and wife'; but this had been always done. It was done now. All property which passed under will or under administration in intestacy was subject to Probate Duty, to whomsoever it passed. The authorities of the Inland Revenue estimated that from the present yield of £6,000,000 of Probate and Estate Duty one-sixth might be deducted as the amount that was levied upon property passing between husband and wife. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Somerset was confined solely to the new Estate Duty. It would leave Probate and the existing Estate Duty unchanged. Thus it was fatal to graduation, for personalty worth £1,000,000, if left to a widow, would pay at exactly the same rate as personalty worth £11,000. The proposal was equally fatal to the principle of equalisation, because personalty passing from husband to wife would be chargeable with Probate Duty, but settled or real property would pay nothing. None of this difficulty was ever raised until there was a question of taxing real and settled property. The moment there was a proposal for the levying of a tax upon settled property, this objection was raised for the first time.

We cannot hear a single word of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He has been speaking some time, but we have not heard a word.