I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has observed the report of an action against the Royal Liver Society, tried in Birmingham on the 30th ultimo, when the evidence was so conclusive that the jury agreed on their verdict without leaving the box, and the Judge, in giving judgment, said a fraud of this kind upon persons in such a position of life was a cruel and unpardonable one; whether he is aware that it is reported such acts are by no means unfrequent; whether he can see his way to amend the law so as better to protect thrifty working people against such conduct as the case discloses; and if this Insurance Society is the same as the Royal Liver Society, whose management was the subject of investigation some short time ago?

said: The answer to the first, second, and fourth paragraphs is, I am informed, in the affirmative, but I should add it is stated in a letter received by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies that the Committee of Management of the Liver Society were not parties to the proceedings, and that had the facts been known to them they would never have allowed the action to come on for trial. I am not altogether satisfied with this explanation, and I am making further inquiries. I doubt whether this case by itself has any very important bearing on the question of the necessity of the amendment of the law relating to Friendly Societies. The Bill introduced by the late Government, and based on the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1889, did not pass into law; and I fear that the course of Government business during the present Session precludes any possibility of introducing a Bill this year.

said: I have already told the hon. Member that the information supplied by the Royal Liver Society has not quite satisfied me. I will, of course, further inquire into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been found on investigation that the alleged malicious injury to a heifer at Woodville, County Kildare, was caused by the animal herself scratching off the scab which had formed on her skull after she had been dishorned by her owner?

I understand that there are circumstances which in the opinion of the local police now suggest that the injury to the heifer may have been caused by accident, and was not due to malice. Moreover, the owner of the animal has not yet, I am informed, decided to claim compensation. The matter is receiving careful investigation.

Are we to understand that the answer to the hon. Member for St. Stephen's Green on the 4th of June to the effect that this was an outrage was incorrect?

My answer on the 4th of June was to the effect that there were circumstances pointing to malicious injury, but other circumstances have since come to light which are consistent with the suggestion that the injury was caused by accident, and the matter is now receiving the attention of the police.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, in a case of the erection of a National school at Cam, County Derry, the Board of Education in Ireland have refused to make the usual grant in aid of the cost of building, and have based their refusal upon the circumstance that the erection of the school had been begun before the rule as to sanction by the Board had been formally complied with: (2) whether, before the building was begun, the site had been sanctioned by the Land Commission, and the Inspectors of the Board of Education and the Surveyor of the Board of Works had made approving Reports; (3) whether a year and a-half elapsed from the time of the first application for the grant until the time when the building of the school was started, and during this period there was no place available for the education of the children of the district except a room 15 by 16 feet, which the Commissioners had refused to recognise, as being insanitary and otherwise unsuitable; (4) whether, since their refusal to make any grant in aid of the cost of erecting the new building, that building, the suitability of which as a school is not questioned, has remained unused, and the Commissioners have allowed the education of 72 children to be carried on in the room of 15 by 16 feet which they had recently condemned; and (5) whether, in the interests of education, the circumstances of the case will be further considered, with a view to some reasonable settlement?

(1) The circumstances of this case have, I understand, already been explained to my hon. Friend by a letter of the National Board dated 5th ultimo. Rule No. 21 of the Commissioners' Code strictly prohibits the making of grants towards the cost of works executed or even commenced without the express sanction of the Commissioners. (2) In negotiating for the site, it appears that the Rev. Mr. Loughrey found the consent of the Land Commission necessary for its acquisition; but the Land Commission has no function or power whatever in connection with the administration of the Board's grants. It is not the fact, so I am informed, that before the building was commenced the Inspector of the National Board reported on the site on which the erection has taken place. Nor is it the case that the surveyor of works similarly reported. Even had the Reports been made prior to the building, the applicant, as he was aware, should not have commenced the work without having himself first obtained the prescribed authorization, the import of which had been fully explained to him. (3) It was not until April, 1893, that the applicant announced he had abandoned the site which he had already proposed, and that he had selected another one. He did not, however, furnish proof of his title to the new site until the 19th of May, 1893. When the Inspector visited on the 15th of July, to report on the suitability of the site, he found that the house was in course of erection. The Board state it is not a fact that there was no place available for the education of children of the district except the unsuitable room in which the temporary school was opened. There were other schools in the locality, but, as they were under Protestant management, the rev gentleman preferred having the Roman Catholic children attending them brought under his own management in the room in question. (4) So far as the Board are aware, the school-house which the applicant built has remained unused by him for school purposes notwithstanding the unsuitability of the temporary house. (5) The National Board are unable, in view of the requirements of their Rules, to grant the aid sought, and they point out that the Comptroller and Auditor General would not certify as legitimate a grant made by them in violation of their Rules.

Whatever may be the facts in regard to an infraction of the Rule in question, I have to ask are the Government going to allow 72 children to be crammed into a room 15 feet by 16, while there is a building admitted to be suitable for the purpose going to waste because of the infraction of a Rule as to the sanction of the Board before the work is begun? Is an insanitary building to be used while a suitable building is available? and is not this a case for a reasonable man to intervene between the Board and the applicant?

Arising out of this question, I wish to ask whether it is not the fact that there is a school in the district within a mile of the one in question in the same parish, with ample accommodation and under Roman Catholic management, being managed by the Catholic priest of Dungiven?

I have received a communication informing me of what the hon. Member for North Londonderry has stated, and I presume it is true. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, of course if the facts are as he describes them to be, it would seem to be a case for the intervention of a reasonable man, but reasonable men are not to be found in Ireland. The National Board, I know, perceive some difficulty in overlooking this infraction of their Rule. If a Rule is there it ought to be observed. However, I will inquire further; but I may say the question is really not one for the Irish Executive.

As the Treasury, which is the final authority in the matter, is full of reasonable men, surely one of them could be sent to inquire into the facts of this case?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that during the last week in May a number of bailiff's, protected by a force of 15 police, were engaged in the Castle-island district of County Kerry making seizures for county cess, and that several rescues were made under the eyes of the police; whether the instructions issued for the guidance of the police on the occasion were to the effect that they were only to interfere to protect the bailiffs from assault; whether he is aware that the cattle in several cases were drawn off by large crowds armed with sticks, without assaulting the bailiffs; and, if the facts are as stated, what steps does he propose to take to secure a better administration of the law? In putting the question the hon. Member said he had received a telegram to the effect that the seizures were for poor rate and not county cess.

The District Inspector of Police at Castleisland informs me that on the 23rd, 24th, 25th, and 26th of May protection was afforded to two bailiff's in the execution of warrants for county cess. The strength of the police force varied from four to eight men. In no case was a rescue made or even attempted. No such instructions were issued to the police as those mentioned in the second paragraph of the question: and in no case were cattle drawn off by large crowds armed with sticks, as alleged.

Might I ask whether the fact that I intended to refer to poor rate and not county cess explains the answer; and may I also ask is the right hon. Gentleman able to say whether those seizures took place for poor rate?

I cannot say that, but it is clear that this question, which was sent on to the authorities in Ireland, who were able to give me the particulars on which I founded my answer—it is clear they refer to the same case, whether the warrants were for county cess or poor rate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that notice was issued by District Inspector Pearson to the promoters of a public meeting which was proposed to be held at Dysart on Sunday the 3rd of June last, that the meeting would not be permitted to be held within one mile of the farm at Lisnamucklagh from which Michael Galely was evicted on the 18th of May, 1885, nor within half a mile of the house of John Murray, of Ballytinan; and if he can state the principle upon which the Police Authorities now act in deciding as between a mile and half a mile as the limit within which meetings may lawfully be held?

At the same time, I may ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been directed to the following Order issued by the District Inspector of Constabulary in connection with the Dysart meeting on the 3rd of June, in which he states that the meeting would not be permitted to be held within one mile of the farm in Lisnamucklagh, from which Michael Galely was evicted on the 18th of May, 1885, nor within half a mile of the house of John Murray, of Ballytinan, signed Edward H. Pearson, District Inspector, R. I. C.; and whether these distinctions in distance were adopted by the advice of the Law Officers in Ireland?

The answer to these questions is very simple. The distance between the evicted farm and the house in which Murray, who has taken the farm, lives is one mile and a half. Both farm and house are on the road leading to Carrowreagh village, the house being midway between the farm and village. The local police had reason to believe that a meeting would be held on this road just outside the mile limit from the farm, which would place the meeting in close proximity to Murray's house. In order to avoid this contingency the arrangement referred to in the questions was adopted, and the entire ground between the farm and Murray's house was thus covered. The selection of the distance in such cases is a matter of executive discretion, each case being considered on its own merits, and the Law Officers are not consulted.

Do I understand with regard to this that a meeting which is primâ facie illegal becomes legal when held 1,761 yards away from the place originally chosen?

I do not admit that primâ facie it was illegal.

Then why prohibit it?

The prohibition affects not the meeting, but where it was to be held.

If a meeting is illegal when held at a certain place, how can it be made legal if it is held 1,760 yards away? On what principle does the right hon. Gentleman proceed in deciding that intimidation will be dangerous close to an evicted farm, and that it will lose all its dangerous characteristics if held a mile or half a mile away?

The amount of intimidation depends, of course, upon the degree of pressure brought to bear on the person. The hon. Member cannot really mean that distance has nothing to do with the question we have to decide. Will he contend that the meeting would have been illegal, and should have been suppressed if held in Palace Yard?

May I ask if the Chief Secretary is aware that what happened was this—that the police paced out 1,760 yards at the head of the mob and then stopped—[Interruption from the Nationalist Members]—and the meeting then took place, being held by the mob which had followed the police from the place.

Order, order! The hon. Member is entitled to put a question, but with all this disturbance it is impossible to hear the terms of it.

It is impossible to lay down any cast-iron rule, or any rule, which could be devised to obviate the kind of criticism just made by the hon. Member. What I would point out is this—that this Go- vernment's exercise of executive discretion—and this case is an exercise of it—has done more to reduce intimidation than the measures which used to find favour with the hon. Member.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say if a meeting would be legal—

Order, order! These abstract questions of legality or illegality are not in Order.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to—

Order, order!

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Northern Division of Cork, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether an application has been made to the local postal authorities by the principal residents of the neighbourhood to establish a money order office in the post office of Boherbee, County Cork; is he aware that these local postal authorities approved of the suggestion several months ago; and whether, in view of the size of the district and the large amount of business transacted, he will arrange to have a money order office established without further delay?

A money order office under guarantee will be opened as soon as the necessary arrangements have been completed. I find that no application was received for a money order office at Boherbee (Mallow), but the District Surveyor reported in April last that such accommodation was needed.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Cork, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the sum of £2,249 was charged to the County of Cork for extra constabulary for the half-year ended the 31st of March, 1894, and that a strong protest was made against the imposition of this large sum at the last Presentment Sessions; and if he can explain why this large amount is now levied upon the ratepayers of the county when it is in a peaceful and almost crimeless condition?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. As regards the second paragraph, although it has not been found practicable to make any reduction in the strength of the police establishment of the county at large, I am glad to inform the hon. Gentleman that by an Order in Council dated the 21st of May the free quota of the county was increased by 51 men, resulting in a corresponding reduction in the number of extra men chargeable to the county after that date. This arrangement will cause a reduction, amounting to about £1,500 per annum, in the future charge to the county for extra police.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is true that the latest torpedo boat destroyer building for the Admiralty has in a recent trial developed from the type of boiler adopted a speed per hour of nearly a knot in excess of its predecessor; whether the boilers in this vessel were of the tubulous type; and what is the general character of the boiler specifications in the contracts made for the building of the 36 additional torpedo boats ordered last year?

On her full-speed trial the Hornet attained a speed more than a knot in excess of that of the Havock, built by the same firm. The boilers of the Havock are of the locomotive, those of the Hornet of the tubulous, or water-tube type. Five of the 36 additional torpedo boat destroyers ordered last year are specified to have locomotive boilers, the remainder to have boilers of various forms of the water-tube type.

I think the right hon. Gentleman does not quite appreciate the point of my question. I wish to know, in view of the result of these experiments, what guarantee there is that the best type of boiler will be supplied to the 36 additional torpedo boat destroyers already ordered?

said, the results of trials of the Havock were extremely satisfactory. Only five of the additional torpedo boat destroyers were, however, specified to have locomotive boilers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware that there is a considerable number of British subjects in the Transvaal who are being called out to take part in a war with which they do not sympathise, and on behalf of a Foreign Government, most of them not only disinclined but unfit to take part in such a conflict; whether the subjects of other Powers, e.g., of Portugal, Holland, France, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium, were specially exempted from this compulsory service, inflicted upon British subjects alone; and whether he will communicate with the British Resident in the Transvaal, and empower him to at once give to British subjects the same protection at least as is afforded by the other Powers of Europe to their subjects in the Transvaal?

A considerable number of British subjects have been called out for military service by the authorities in the South African Republic. Whether they detest that Government I am not in a position to say, but I should be surprised to learn that this were so, seeing that these persons have selected the Transvaal in which to reside. Whatever may be their inclination, I cannot admit that most of the Englishmen settled in the South African Republic are unfit to take part in fighting when there is any going on. The exemption of the subjects of the Powers mentioned in the second part of the question is enjoyed by them under Treaties negotiated between those Powers and the South African Republic. We have no such Treaty. The Secretary of State has instructed the Acting High Commissioner to state to President Kriiger that Her Majesty's Government hope that the Government of the South African Republic will agree to similar exemptions in favour of British subjects, and to press this in courteous terms as soon as possible.

Does the hon. Gentleman admit the assumption in this question that there are British subjects disinclined to take part in any conflict?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any Papers or Correspondence relating to the annexation of Pondoland by the Cape?

The matter does not appear to be of sufficient general interest to justify the expense of printing and publishing a special Blue Book. But the material part of the Correspondence affecting the question is contained in a Natal Blue Book, copies of which I will place in the Library. I will also supply a copy to the hon. Member.

I have one.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Memorial from the Corporation of Sligo urging him to sanction the running of passenger carriages with goods trains by the Midland Great Western Railway Company in the interest of the travelling public; whether he is aware that no person on the Sligo line can reach home from Dublin after 4.15 p.m., although a train leaves Broad-stone at 7.30 p.m. carrying passengers and mails as far as Longford, and, also, that no person can travel from Sligo after 4 p.m., although a train leaves that town every evening at 7.30; and whether he can take steps to remedy the public inconvenience and annoyance occasioned by these defective railway arrangements?

I have received the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member. Since the passing of the Regulation of Railways Act, 1889, it would be improper to permit Railway Companies to attach passenger carriages to goods trains; that is, at the end of a goods train. That Act was passed in the interest of public safety, and the Board cannot take the responsibility of so relaxing its requirements. The time table quoted by the hon. Member certainly shows that the train service is inconvenient, arid the Railway Company should be pressed by the Memo- rialists to give proper facilities to the travelling public. This they could do under the Schedule of Mixed Trains sanctioned by the Board of Trade for the Company.

Is there any objection to placing a passenger train or two between the engine and the goods trucks?

If I understand it, there is no objection to that. What is objected to is putting the passenger carriages at the end of the train, because the provisions for safety are thereby rendered very imperfect, and the brake cannot be applied.

Is it not a question of expense, which the Companies say they are unable to bear?

That may be so, but that is a question as between the Company and the Memorialists.

Has the Department any discretion at all in the matter? If it is satisfied that this is the only train running on the line, and that there is nothing with which it could come into collision, could not the Department relax the Regulations?

We certainly have no discretion to prefer the convenience of the Company to the safety of the public. Convenience may be great, but the safety of life is much more important.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War to how many regiments of Militia magazine rifles were issued before this year's training; and whether he can state the reason for not issuing them in certain cases?

The Lee-Metford rifle had been issued to 49 Militia battalions before this year's training. In some instances the battalions to which they have not been issued have requested a postponement of the issue, while in others it has not been made in consequence of suitable range accommodation not being available.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state under what instrument, if any, France has a right of pre-emption over the Congo Free State: and if this right has been approved by the Signatory Powers to the Berlin Conference of the 26th of February, 1885?

France is understood to claim the right of pre-emption over the Congo Free State in virtue of an agreement of the 23rd of April, 1884, published in a French Yellow Book of that year, with the International Association of the Congo, which subsequently developed into the Independent Congo State. The claim has not been submitted to the Signatory Powers.

Was the Despatch of the French Government of the 31st of May, 1884, to their Ambassadors abroad communicated to Her Majesty's Government?

I cannot say anything in regard to a particular Despatch without notice.

As this is a matter which is assuming some importance, would there be any objection to lay before Parliament such documents on the subject as have been communicated to Her Majesty's Government?

There has been no correspondence of our own on the subject, but I will inquire what has been published officially either in France or Belgium, with a view to laying it before Parliament.

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will consider whether, if any Papers are laid before Parliament, he will include those which have passed between Belgium and the Congo State, including the King's will and the alteration in the Belgian Constitution.

That is a question which concerns other Powers. We cannot make public information which they have not made public themselves, but I will inquire what they have made public.

Is it not a fact that although no Despatch was sent the International Association was established in conformity with the concessions of this country?

I cannot say, as all this occurred some years ago, but I will make the inquiries, which I have already promised.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why German is not taught to the cadets on board H.M.S. Britannia, the naval officers of the future being thus deprived of a grounding in the second language of commerce?

Encouragement is given to officers to acquire knowledge of other languages, including German, while serving afloat; but it is not considered desirable to add another subject to the already full course laid down for the cadets in the Britannia.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, seeing by the last special Statute of the Bath, dated the 26th of March, 1892, the number of Companions or Members of the Order was raised from 1,292 to 1,298, of which 366 were assigned to the Civil Division of the said most honourable Order, leaving 932 for the Military Division, he can state how many of this latter number were allocated to Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines; whether the said number bears the same proportion to the total number of 932 as the 700 officers of Her Majesty's Navy and Royal Marines, now eligible by rank under existing Statutes, bear to the 4,000 officers and upwards of Her Majesty's Military Forces stated to be eligible under the same Statutes; will he also inform the House of the number of officers of Her Majesty's Navy of rank equivalent to Major in the Army who are now debarred from being considered eligible for the distinction of the said most honourable Order, whilst Majors in the Army are under no such disability; and will the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty take steps to have the officers of the two Services placed on a precisely similar footing as to eligibility for these highly valued honours and distinctions?

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War informed the House on Thursday that consideration is being given to the qualifications which are held to be necessary in the respective services for the Order of the Bath, in order to see whether there is any substantial inequality, and whether the rules and practice should be brought into closer uniformity. If my hon. and gallant Friend will await the result of this inquiry and consideration, I think that questions such as that which he has placed upon to-day's Paper may prove unnecessary. At all events, pending the inquiry I would suggest that they might be postponed.

What is the present proportion of honours allotted to the Navy as compared with the Army?

I can only repeat the request to my hon. and gallant Friend to await the result of the inquiry.

But surely the right hon. Gentleman can tell me this. He informed the House last week that 700 naval men were eligible by rank for the honour as against 4,000 military officers? What is the proportion of honours allowed to the two Services? Is it in accordance with that?

I can only advise my hon. and gallant Friend not at present to inquire too minutely into those details.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office declines to sanction the purchase of mineral oil with a flash point of less than 103 degrees; and what is the reason for fixing that limit?

Mineral oil is not accepted for barrack supplies with a lower flashing point than 105 degrees Fahr. That standard was adopted with a view to safety on the advice of the War Department chemist.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland how many cases of agrarian crime have been reported by the police in County Clare since the 1st of January, 1894; and how many persons have been made amenable in respect of such crimes, and with what result?

Since January 1, 1894, there were 23 agrarian offences in County Clare—namely, killing or maiming cattle, two; firing into dwellings, three; intimidation (by firing shots), four; injury to property, one; threatening (letters or notices,) 13. In two of these cases persons were proceeded against, In one case (intimidation by firing shots) I two persons were arrested and discharged for want of evidence, and in the other I (injury to property) three boys were dealt with summarily at Petty Sessions j and sentenced to seven days' imprisonment each. In the same period in 1891 there were 37 cases, and in the year 1892 43 cases. There was a murder in each of those two periods, but there was no murder in our period.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what was the result of the proceedings taken in these years?

No.

That is unfortunate.

I have telegraphed for the figures, but have not yet received the reply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can extend the provisions as to the long service decoration to be awarded to noncommissioned officers of the Volunteers so as to include among those entitled to it those who, after a qualifying period of service, retired before January, 1893?

At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether long service medals will only be granted to those Volunteers who were serving in the year 1893; and, if so, will he reconsider the arrangement, and award the medal to all who, since the inauguration of the Volunteer movement, have served the prescribed number of years to entitle them to the distinction?

It has not been considered practicable to include among the Volunteers eligible for the long service medal those who retired before 1893, mainly for this reason-namely, that the early records of Volunteer corps are necessarily of an imperfect character, and in some corps it is doubtful whether any exist. There are, therefore, no certain means of checking the services of possible claimants, and I have in consequence come to the conclusion that the difficulties in the way are too great to allow of retrospective effect being given to the grant of the medal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in how many cases since the 1st of August, 1893, seizures made by the Sheriff in County Kerry have been followed by violent rescues; in how many cases persons concerned in effecting the rescue have been made amenable; and what has been the result of the trial of such persons in each case?

I am informed that rescues occurred in seven cases of seizures made by the Sheriff in the County Kerry since the date mentioned, but that in only one of these cases did the rescue take place under circumstances of violence. Persons have been made amenable in three cases, and one case is pending at the present moment. In the first case prosecuted one accused person was acquitted at Quarter Sessions. In the second case five persons were tried at Quarter Sessions; the jury acquitted four of them and disagreed in the case of the fifth person—a woman—who afterwards pleaded guilty at Spring Assizes and was discharged. In the third case three persons were tried at Quarter Sessions and allowed out on their own recognizances to come up for sentence at next or any future Quarter Sessions.

In how many of these cases were the seizures due to the fact that decrees had been obtained for arrears of a rack rent which had been largely reduced by the Commission?

I will inquire if the hon. Member wishes.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether, in view of the inability of the Local Government Board to take any action in connection with the resolution denouncing an individual unanimously adopted by the Board of Guardians of the Newcastle West Union, at their meeting on the 31st of May, and inserted on the minutes of the Board, it is to be understood that Boards of Guardians in Ireland are at liberty to denounce and hold up to public odium any individuals against whom they may have a grudge, to insert the resolution denouncing such individuals on their minutes, and to publish the same in the local Press, provided only that such resolution be placed at the end of the agenda paper; (2) whether the Local Government Board has power to intervene in such a case for the protection of the victims; and (3) whether, if Justices of the Peace take part in such a vote, the Lord Chancellor will allow such Justices to remain on the Commission of the Peace?

(1) The Local Government Board have no power to prevent Boards of Guardians in Ireland from passing any resolutions they may see fit and inserting them on their minutes of proceedings, provided that they duly discharge the various duties imposed on them by law in connection with the administration of the affairs of the Union. (2) The Board cannot, therefore, intervene in the present case, as they are not aware that there has been default on the part of this Board of Guardians. (3) The Lord Chancellor will consider the action of any Magistrate taking part in such a vote whenever it arises. A Magistrate was present on the occasion of the adoption of the resolution in question by the Newcastle Guardians. He is agent to the Devon Estate, and did not vote for the resolution.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the resolutions in themselves are legal or illegal?

That is not a question for me to answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the statement made by him, in reply to the question put by the hon. Member for Oxford City on the 12th of January last, relative to the portions of the pension erroneously withheld from Colonel Rich, late Bengal Engineers, and Senior Inspector Railway Department of the Board of Trade, to the effect that it had been determined by the Treasury to treat military pay as not coming within the provisions of Section 16 of the Act 4 & 5 Will. 4, c. 24; that all awards of Civil Service superannuations which had been reduced on a different construction of the section would be recalculated; that this alteration of practice would affect all officers in receipt of Army or Navy retired pay who entered the Civil Service of the Crown before the passing of the Superannuation Act of 1887; whether he is aware that this adjustment has not yet been carried out in the case of Colonel Rich, either as regards the rate of pension now being paid to him, or the arrears of pension erroneously deducted from him between the years 1886 and 1891; and whether measures will now be taken to complete that adjustment accordingly, in pursuance of the announcement made as above, and of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown cited in the question referred to?

This question seems to rest on some misapprehension. Colonel Rich's pension was re-assessed last February, and increased from £435 to £500, as from the 1st of January, 1892, the date of his retirement from the Civil Service. The additional sum due under this award was paid to him on the 10th of March, and the pension has been paid to him since that date at the higher rate. Full effect has, therefore, been given to the Treasury decision.

said, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had any suggestions to lay before them he would be happy to consider them.

said, the decision of the Treasury was not in accord with the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the proper and humane treatment of cab horses, alike by proprietors and drivers, and the condition of the stables, will be taken into consideration by the Departmental Committee in the inquiry now making into the cab arrangements of the Metropolis?

A desire was expressed at the preliminary meeting of the Committee held last Monday that this subject might be considered by the Committee, and steps have already been taken to obtain information on the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has given the postage contract for belts, pouches, leggings, &c, to the Home Office, to be supplied by prison labour, to the detriment of free labour and honest workmen?

I would refer the hon. Member to my answers on this subject to the questions of the right hon. Member for East Birmingham on the 27th of April, and of the hon. Member for East Marylebone on the 28th ultimo.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he received a Petition last March from the officers of convict prisons; and whether he will state when they may expect an answer thereto?

I have received a number of such Petitions. They relate for the most part, as the Petitioners are aware, to matters which wore carefully considered as lately as 1890 by a Departmental Committee. The questions raised have received, and will continue to receive, my attention; but I cannot undertake at present to give any more definite answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland whether eight head of cattle were poisoned on Sunday night last at Clonmoher, Bodyke, County Clare; and, if so, whether the police are in possession of any information regarding the occurrence?

On the 4th instant two bullocks belonging to Colonel O'Callaghan died at Clonmoher, where they had been grazing on evicted farms, and a third bullock died two days subsequently. Four other head of cattle also showed symptoms of sickness, but have recovered. The viscera of the dead animals has been forwarded to an analyst in Dublin for analysis, and, pending his opinion, it is not possible to say definitely whether poison had been administered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has any objection to grant a Return showing to what extent effect has been given to the 16 recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee which in 1888, under the presidency of Mr. Justice Wills, inquired into the accommodation provided for prisoners in the police courts of the Metropolis?

I am desirous to give the hon. Member all the information I can; but a mere Return would be of little service, and I think the best course would be for him to communicate with me at the Home Office stating precisely the information he requires.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the observations, on Saturday last, of Mr. Justice Mathew, on the trial of an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution, to the effect that the plaintiff, on his arrest by the police, had been thrown into an abominable dog-hole where vermin abounded, and that he (the learned Judge) knew of many cases in which not only men, but delicate women had gone through similar experiences; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made as to the condition of the cells at Metropolitan police stations, in which persons presumably innocent are liable to be confined?

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that the prisoner was put in a cell at Tottenham Court Road Police Station at 8.30 p.m. on November 15, and remained there until 9.20 a.m. on the 16th. Ho at no time made any complaint to the police as to vermin or anything else; in fact, he wrote a note to his wife, who called at the station while he was in the cells, to the effect that he was all right, and that the police were doing their best to make him comfortable. These cells are cleaned daily; a solution of Sanitas is always used immediately after prisoners leave, and if there were any complaint of vermin immediate steps would at once be taken to have the cell fumigated. An Inspector visits the cells daily, and frequent visits are also made by someone from the Surveyor's Department. The cells are also from time to time inspected by the Superintendent of the Division, the Chief Constable of the district, and by the Assistant-Commissioner, or Commissioners when they visit a station. Every care is taken to keep the cells clean. The observations appear to have been made by the learned Judge on an assertion by Sellman, who made no complaint to the police, and they had no opportunity of refuting his unsupported statement. Some of the cells at Tottenham Court Road, it is true, are not modern, but, in the opinion of the Commissioners, they cannot reasonably be described as "abominable dogholes."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, on Friday last, bailiffs acting under a decree of fi. fa. at the suit of a landlord against one of his tenants near Listowel, County Kerry, blockaded the house in which the tenant's cattle were, and prevented the necessary feeding of the cattle, and whether, on Saturday, they broke into the house, seized the cattle, and removed them; and whether these proceedings were sanctioned and assisted by a force of police?

On the 7th instant four bailiffs seized a quantity of turf belonging to a tenant named Mulvihill, and remained in charge of the seizure. The cattle belonging to the tenant were in his dwelling-house, which was securely fastened up; but one of the bailiffs, as I understand, formally seized the cattle through the window, and subsequently, acting on the advice of a solicitor, broke open the door of the house, took out the cattle, and removed them to the pound at Listowel. The seizure was made under a writ of fi. fa. at the suit of Mulvihill's landlord for rent, and the bailiffs were special bailiffs appointed by the Sheriff pursuant to the writ. A force of police, numbering 14 men, protected the bailiffs on the first night, but owing to the assembling of crowds the force was increased to 30 men on the 8th instant. The police were present in obedience to the requisition of the Sheriff for the purpose of protecting his bailiffs, but not of assisting them in their proceedings, and they were obliged to remain on the scene, as lit was considered unsafe to withdraw them. It is not, however, the fact, as has been stated in the public Press, that the police fixed bayonets and charged the crowd. The police afforded the ordinary protection to the bailiffs, and in no way rendered them assistance in breaking the door of Mulvihill's house.

Are Ave to understand it was the duty of the police to remain there two days and two nights—or as long as the bailiffs chose to keep them there?

They are obliged to remain so long as disturbances are apprehended.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the German protest against the Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Sovereign of the Congo State, instead of being confined to the two points already named in the House, also takes the same ground as the French protest on the point that the Congo State, being the creature of a general European Agreement, cannot extend its frontiers northwards beyond the fourth parallel of latitude without a similar previous general European Agreement; and whether any protest has now been received from Turkey?

A protest has been received from the German Government since the answer given on this subject a few days ago. But the reasons given for this protest by the German Government deal solely with the right of the Congo State to cede the territory defined in Article 3, and do not touch the question of an extension of its frontiers northwards at all. The contention of the German Government is that the stipulations, as they interpret them, of Article 3 of the Agreement of the 12th of May require the sanction of Germany. No protest against the Agreement has been received from Turkey. The only communication has been a verbal one from the Turkish Ambassador with reference to the reported British occupation of Wadelai, to the effect that the Porte consider Wadelai as still forming an integral portion of the Egyptian possessions, and that the occupation by a British force could not in any way modify their views.

Is there any German protest made to the Sovereign of the Congo State communicated to the Government apart from the protest delivered here?

The first correspondence between the German Government and the Congo State was what I promised the other day to lay upon the Table. I cannot say what else has passed since then.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will be able to deal soon with the cases of those men who have served in the Crimean and Indian Campaigns, and who were discharged, at their own request, after completing 10 years' service with a good character, and irrespective of their pecuniary circumstances?

It has been repeatedly stated in this House that there is but a limited grant from which pensions to such men who served in the Crimea and during the Indian Mutiny can be paid. Vacancies for pensions in a fixed sum of £10,000 a year are filled as they arise, and in addition 100 fresh special pensions are granted each year. The object of these pensions, which are purely compassionate, is to relieve old soldiers who are destitute, and men not in that condition are not regarded as entitled to claim them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Representatives of the Mother Country and the Colonies at the approaching Conference at Ottawa are empowered to bind their respective Governments to any decisions at which that Conference may arrive, or whether the Conference is merely for purposes of consultation and discussion; and, if the the latter, whether the Government will make such arrangements as may enable Parliament in the present Session to consider and determine any reference from that Conference which calls for immediate consideration?

Lord Jersey's duties will be to hear and report what passes at the Conference and to give information, but he is not empowered to bind Her Majesty's Government or to express views on their behalf, and we have no information as to the powers conferred on their Representatives by the various Colonial Governments. It is impossible to give any such undertaking as the hon. Member suggests in the last part of his question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can give the House any further information respecting the reported breaking out of the Plague at Hong Kong?

The last telegram was received on the 12th of June, and stated that the total number of deaths from Bubonic Plague was 1,500. There has not yet been time to receive particulars by post. We have telegraphed to the Governor for further particulars, which will be communicated to the Press when received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government will consent to a Return being made of the nature, origin, and extent of Dissenting endowments in England and Wales; and of the amount of rates and taxes from which Dissenting chapels are annually exempted as places of public religious worship under 3 & 4 Will. IV., c. 30; and of the sum total of Parliamentary and Royal Grants made to Dissenters in England and Wales, to Dissenters and Roman Catholics in Ireland, and to Presbyterians in Scotland from the year 1660 to the present time?

As regards the rates and taxes from which Dissenting chapels are annually exempted as places of public religious worship, it is impossible to say what the amount of the exemption is, as, the chapels not being rated, they are not assessed. With regard to the remaining portion of the hon. Member's question, I can only at present say that the practicability of obtaining such information in a trustworthy form and within a reasonable time is receiving consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have given any undertaking not to advance their forces into the Equatorial Province during the proposed discussion of French claims with regard to the Congo Treaty?

The French Government have not given any undertaking on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether Her Majesty's Government intend to despatch British warships to Tangier to protect British interests in Morocco?

H.M.S. Bramble has been ordered to Tangier and placed at the disposal of Her Majesty's Minister. Other ships will be within reach, in case of need, for the protection of the lives and property of British subjects.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, having regard to the heavy losses sustained by the public by the laches of trustees, the increasing difficulty in find- ing competent persons to undertake such onerous and responsible duties, and the failure of the Public Companies formed to discharge the task, he will consent to-the appointment of a small Select Committee to consider and report what the best remedy would be in the general interest?

I have no objection to the appointment of a Committee, but I am informed that there are so many Committees already appointed that there is a difficulty in finding Members to serve. I recommend that the hon. Member should postpone the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consent to a Committee of seven?

I should prefer that the gentlemen who manage these matters should be consulted before I answer that.

On behalf of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a statement recently made by Mr. Lascelles, the Deputy Surveyor of the Now Forest, that the young trees are being utterly destroyed by cattle, and that the provision of any protection is prevented by a well-meant but ill-drawn Act of Parliament; that the glory of the greatest of our national estates is being slowly destroyed; that the woods are gradually disappearing; and that the forest will ere long become entirely denuded of trees; and whether he proposes to take any steps to prevent so lamentable a result?

The statement referred to is not an official statement, and I cannot agree in the description given in the question of an Act of Parliament for which I was myself responsible. At the same time, having gone to the New Forest for peace and repose, I do not wish to put my hand into a hornet's nest; and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have my opinion it is that measures ought to be taken which, consistently with public rights, will do more than is done at present to prevent the denudation of the forest. I certainly desire to see the Forest preserved, but the matter is one surrounded by great difficulties.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the dissatisfaction in a number of the colonies with the proposed new Estate Duty, and the repeatedly expressed willingness of the principal Colonial Governments to contribute their fair proportionate share to the cost of Imperial defence, Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of supplementing the terms of Reference to the Ottawa Conference with a view of eliciting the collective opinion of the Colonial Delegates there assembled, and devising a scheme that will be satisfactory alike to the Colonies and the Mother Country?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him if he is aware that already the great self-governing colonies in Australasia, British North America, and South Africa raise upwards of £3,000,000 a year for the purpose of Imperial defence as part of the British Empire?

I do not know how the items by which this £3,000,000 is made up are constituted. The question on the Paper is founded on a misapprehension. The notion that the Death Duties have any relation whatever to raising money from the colonies for national defence is entirely wrong. My remarks on that subject have been quite misunderstood. All I intended to say was that in the circumstances there was no case for an exemption. As to the other part of the question, which is not connected with the Estate Duty, the hon. Member should address that question to the Colonial Department.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government has now considered the Memorial from the Colonial Governments relative to the new Estate Duty; and whether he can lay upon the Table the text of this Memorial and of any reply thereto which he has sent?

I have read the Memorials referred to. Of course I have no objection to laying it on the Table; but what I really desire is to have a personal conference with the Representatives of the colonies, so as to arrive at a satisfactory solution of the question.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any penalty has been inflicted upon the large firm of distillers in Belfast who within the last three months were discovered to have altered the Excise permits by writing in ink which was easily removed the number of years for which the whisky had been in bond, and by erasing the number and inserting a larger number after the permit had passed the Excise officials; and whether any steps have been taken to prevent for the future such frauds upon the customers of the firm and the public; and, if so, what steps have been taken?

The offence is not correctly described in the question. But an offence has been committed, and a heavy fine has been inflicted. A repetition of the offence has been guarded against for the future.

Was the sum paid to the Excise by Dunville and Company the maximum which would have been imposed on them had the case gone into a Court of Law?

That is a circumstance with which I am not acquainted.

Was the offence a solitary act or part of a system?

I really do not know the particulars of the case.

What was the amount of the fine paid by Dunville and Company?

I have already stated that I do not know.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state by whom District Commissioners are appointed; if they have any legal authority to refuse to hear an agent (other than a solicitor) on behalf of an appellant in respect of excessive assessment; if the Commissioners are justified in refusing relief sought by appellants without the production of books of accounts; and whether the demand for such accounts is compulsory under Act of Parliament?

District Commissioners of Income Tax are appointed by the Commissioners appointed (by Parliament) for the execution of the Land Tax Acts. The Income Tax Commissioners have statutory power to summon appellants to appear before them in person. It appears to follow that they may refuse to hear any representative of an appellant who is not able to "satisfy" them that the charge is excessive, as the law requires that they should be satisfied. The Commissioners may call for what accounts they think proper in support of appellants' claims.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he intends to take to shorten the discussion on the Finance Bill, in view of the urgent need for the passing of the Local Veto Bill?

The best step of which I can think is to induce gentlemen in all parts of the House to refrain from unnecessary discussion. In that object I hope I may have the assistance of the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the great detriment to trade caused by the present glut of silver, which is so great that the Bank of England declines to receive it except at a charge of ¼ per cent.; whether the Mint is now issuing any silver except at the request of the Bank of England and other bankers, or whether they are still paying the dockyards or any other public establishments with silver from the Mint; and, if so, how much silver is thus put into circulation each week; and whether the £1,133,154 coined during the year ending the 31st of March, 1894, was put into circulation, or how much of it, and by what means?

I have ascertained that, owing to the large amount of silver coin which is now being received, the Bank of England are, in accordance with their usual practice, making a charge of 5s. per £100 for large parcels. The answer to the second paragraph is "No." Silver coin is never issued by the Mint for the use of dockyards or other public establishments, except through the usual channels—namely, the Banks of England or Ireland, or the Scotch banks. The value of the silver coin issued by the Mint during the financial year 1893-94 was £1,008,361, of which £208,190 was supplied on the direct application of Colonial Governments, and the balance, £800,171, was supplied to the United Kingdom through the usual channels of distribution. Against this must be set worn silver withdrawn from circulation to the amount of £369,130.

Are the dockyards paid from the Bank or direct from Government Offices?

The money is got in the ordinary way from the local banks.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that recently at Lochmaddy public notices intimating that the Deer Forest Commission would visit the district were torn down by Sir John Orde's (proprietor of North Uist) own hand in order that crofters and others should not be made aware of the approaching inquiry by the Royal Commission; and what steps does he propose to take under the circumstances?

Sir John Order admits that he recently removed a notice of a meeting of Her Majesty's Commission from the face of a building in North Uist, his explanation being that the building was a private property belonging to himself, and that his consent ought to have been asked before it was placed there. It is very unusual for a proprietor to treat a notice of a meeting of a Royal Commission in such a way; but if he does so, I am afraid I cannot interfere.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment in the County of Inverness—

Order, order! I do not think that that arises out of the question on the Paper.

It is about the work of the Royal Commission. I simply wish to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that in the county at this moment there are 900,000 acres—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the statement contained in a Glasgow paper to the effect that in the Island of Coll, in consequence of his having incurred the displeasure of the proprietor of the Island by standing against the factor for the County Council, the Rev. Mr. Ross, Free Church minister there, had been subjected to many annoyances, the last move against him being the barricading of his front and kitchen doors by the factor by the erection of six rows of barbed wire fencing and the filling up of the well, from which the manse got its supply of water, with all sorts of filth and stones; whether it is true that the barricading with barbed wire fencing described was thrice renewed after removal; and whether the Procurator Fiscal has inquired into the case; and, if not, whether he will instruct him to institute inquiries?

I have found it necessary to ask the Procurator Fiscal to furnish me with a special Report in regard to this matter, and I must request my hon. Friend again to postpone the question. Statements of a very serious character have been made, and they will require to be investigated.

No doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer has noticed the considerable number of questions which have appeared on the Paper dealing with the action, or rather inaction, of the Executive Government in Ireland, and I wish to ask him whether he does not think it would be for the convenience of the House and conduce to the rapid conduct of business if, when next putting down Supply, he will arrange that the Chief Secretary's Vote shall be the first Vote taken? These questions can then be discussed in a regular manner, without resorting to any expedient outside ordinary discussion.

lam willing to consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, although I am not sure that the interjection of an Irish discussion would facilitate the progress of the Finance Bill.

Will the Secretary for War state when he proposes to resume the consideration of Vote 10 of the Army Estimates?

It will be resumed on the earliest occasion, but the day will depend on the arrangements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If the Vote was urgent and absolutely necessary yesterday, as the right hon. Gentleman said, why is it not urgent and absolutely necessary now?