said, he had to move the Amendments standing in his name. They were the result of a very careful examination which had been given to the subject by representatives of the conflicting interests concerned, who on Tuesday last met at the Board of Trade. The Joint Committee of the two Houses of Parliament to whom the Bill was referred did not accept the proposals of the Board of Trade, and inserted a table of tolls that continued the toll-taking powers possessed by the Navigation. After a great deal of discussion between the representatives of the opposing interests, a compromise, embodied in the Amendments on the Paper, was arrived at. This compromise represented, he thought, the best that could be done under the circumstances; and as the assent of all parties had been obtained, he trusted the Amendments might be accepted by the House without further question.

said, he had to move the following Proviso:—

"Provided always, that the tolls from time to time actually charged shall not exceed such amount as may, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, be sufficient to provide for the reasonable expenses of adequately maintaining the navigation in the interests of the traders thereon."

He did not intend to press the Amendment provided he could get from the President of the Board of Trade an expression of sympathy with its object. As the House was aware, the land in the valley of the Weaver was subject to subsidences, and the small property owners had suffered great hardships. The trade of the Valley had been taxed to an enormous extent for the benefit of the County of Chester, the county having, in fact, received from the surplus funds of the Navigation no less than £1,000,000. Appeal after appeal had been made to the trustees for some compensation to the small property owners, but those appeals had always been met with a very decided refusal. He now asked that when the Weaver Trustees came to Parliament next year, as they were bound to do under an Instruction of the House of Commons embodied in an Act of last year, the President of the Board of Trade would take into his full consideration the various Reports that had been made by his Department on the constitution and management of the Weaver Navigation. The first Report, he found, was issued in 1872, and signed by Sir Thomas Fairer. The Board of Trade informed Parliament at that time that the constitution of the trustees was very peculiar; that their Acts left them at liberty either to expend their surplus income on new works or not; that they were not bound to have a surplus, but that if they had a surplus it must go to the County of Chester; that the Trust had been from the beginning a Public Trust; and that the tax was one of the same character as local charges on shipping, which had in so many eases been condemned by Parliament. The last sentence of the Report was as follows:—

"Under these circumstances it seems to deserve consideration whether the practice pursued by Parliament in similar cases should not be pursued in this case, and whether an endeavour should not be made to effect some arrangement by which, without too hastiiy depriving Cheshire of an income which it has so long en- joyed, the trade may ultimately be freed from this anomalous arid ever-increasing burden."

He thought that if an arrangement carrying out this suggestion were made next Session it could not be said that Cheshire had been too hastily deprived of its income. The House might know that in 1866 a cattle plague rate was imposed on Cheshire. The Cheshire landowners of that date asked that this rate should be made a national one, but Parliament decided that inasmuch as Cheshire was in receipt of the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, Cheshire should pay the rate itself. The subsiding district of Cheshire had been paying this rate in common with the rest of the county, and in addition this tax had been got out of the very bowels of this unfortunate district. The cattle plague rate came to an end in 1896, and it seemed to him that if the surplus funds of the Weaver Navigation, under authority and command of Parliament, were thereupon used for the benefit of the trade, and not for the benefit of the county, no ratepayer in Cheshire would feel the burden of any result from the change. Parliament would therefore, to his mind, have an additional reason for the action which he hoped would be taken, and be begged that at any rate the President of the Hoard of Trade would give him a sympathetic answer. He moved the Proviso.

said, he opposed the Amendment not only as a trustee of the River Weaver, but as representing all the different parties who assembled at the Conference at the Board of Trade on Tuesday last, and who entered into what he understood was an honourable compromise, which should be faithfully maintained. There were a number of conflicting interests represented there, including the Weaver Trustees, traders on the river, the County Council, and the Board of Trade. They had a very exhaustive discussion, and certain suggestions made by the Permanent Secretary of the Board of Trade were accepted by everyone who was present, including the hon. Member (Mr. Brunner). The hon. Member in moving the Amendment did not speak for the traders of the districts, who were perfectly in accord with him and others in saying that the arrangement come to in an honourable and amicable way on Tuesday ought not to be upset at the present moment. He had a letter from the President of the Salt Union authorising him to say that he was no party to this attempt to upset that arrangement. As to the extracts which the hon. Gentleman had read, and the well-known animus which he bore towards the Trustees of the River Weaver, he might say that this was not an occasion when any notice should be taken of this matter. The whole question would come up next year of the reconstruction of the Trust, and it would then be perfectly competent for the hon. Member to move any Amendment he thought fit. He understood that the hon. Member, if he could get a sympathetic answer from the President of the Board of Trade, would not press his Amendment to a Division. But if the hon. Member got an unsympathetic answer, and if he were assured of a majority in the House, he wondered if the hon. Member would then press his Amendment.

I certainly should not.

thought that in that case they had been brought there under somewhat false pretences. The hon. Gentleman had appealed for a sympathetic answer. He would also make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade, and would urge upon him that the friendly arrangement come to at his Department was quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The hon. Member sought to prejudice the position of one of the parties to this discussion by getting some answer from the President of the Board of Trade which might be used against them when the whole question came on for discussion. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to consider this point: that the whole knotty question was to be considered next year, and it would be rather inexpedient to put one of the parties in an unfavourable position by any statement which he was asked to make.

thought there was some little misunderstanding between the parties in regard to this matter. The parties concerned met at the Board of Trade Office on Tuesday, and after a full discussion, which lasted for three hours, entered into a compromise which was embodied in his Amendments. It was part of that compromise that the question now raised should not be raised. [Mr. BRUNNER: No, no.] He was sure his hon. Friend, who was as anxious to abide by an honourable arrangement as any Member of the House could possibly be, would not seek to elicit any statement from him (Mr. Bryce) if he thought it was inconsistent with that arrangement, but the view of the Board of Trade officials who took part in the conference was that all that should take place in the House was to be embodied in the Amendments he had moved, and that lie should express no opinion on the question raised by his hon. Friend, which was no doubt a question of considerable gravity and importance. Under these circumstances, he was not able to give his hon. Friend either a sympathetic or an unsympathetic answer. He could not enter into the points which he had raised, and which were very fit for discussion in the House or in the Committee to whom the Bill to be brought in next year would be referred. All he could say was that when the Bill was introduced next year it would probably be the duty of the Board of Trade—it would certainly be in accordance with the usual practice—to report on the Bill as regarded the application of the dues and tolls received by the Weaver Navigation, and the surplus of which now went to the county. And although he could not undertake at this stage to say what the nature of that Report would be, he thought he might safely say that it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to include in it references to the Reports made in 1893 and 1872. The House would therefore, when the Bill came before it, be in possession of the views of the Board on Trade on the subject. In these circumstances, he appealed to his hon. Friend not to press his Amendment.

in asking leave to withdraw his Amendment, said the compromise which was come to last Tuesday did not come in the first place from representatives of the Board of Trade, but from him, on behalf of his firm. He was very glad to hear from the hon. Member opposite and the President of the Board of Trade that the question would come up next year. That had not been clear to him before, and he was quite satisfied now that he knew the question of the destination of the surplus would come up.

What I said was that when the question comes up it will be open to the hon. Member to raise any point as to the distribution of the surplus. I am not to be understood as expressing any opinion on the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it has been decided by the Lord Chief Baron, in a decision at the King's County Assizes at Tullamore some years ago, that contracts for the printing of the Parliamentary Registries should be entered into at Presentment Sessions and precisely in the same way as other Grand Jury contracts; whether he is aware that the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Westmeath has ignored the law on this matter and taken tenders privately in his own office for the registry printing for Westmeath; and whether in view of the complaints made in the County for Meath of a partizan printer tampering with the list of voters sent to him to be printed, he will direct the Clerk of the Peace for Westmeath to comply with the law in future contracts for the printing of the Westmeath Registry?

The Clerk of the Peace of Westmeath informs me he is not aware of any such decision of the Lord Chief Baron as is referred to in the first paragraph. At the Spring Assizes of 1886 the Grand Jury passed a resolution to the effect that the printing of the Parliamentary Voters' Lists should be advertised by the Clerk of the Peace, tenders called for, and the lowest tender accepted. In conformity with this resolution the Clerk of the Peace has since advertised for tenders in all the local newspapers of every shade of politics, and has accepted the lowest tender, the result being that he has seldom had the same printer for two successive years. He has not taken tenders privately in his office for the printing for the county.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to the case of St. Edward's National School, Romford; whether, although in the year 1891 the infant school was enlarged to double its former capacity and otherwise improved, in obedience to the request of the Education Department, further structural alterations in the schools are now insisted upon; whether it is intended to insist on the immediate execution of these alterations in an existing school; and whether it is further intended to insist on the extension of the playground, which is situate in a lane off the main road, and is surrounded on all sides but one by house property?

It is the case that the infants' school here was enlarged in 1891. Her Majesty's Inspector had reported in the previous year that the noisiness and general inferiority of the premises of the whole school rendered satisfactory organisation difficult, and involved an excessive strain on the teachers. He again commented strongly on the unsatisfactory character of the premises for the older children, both boys and girls, in 1891, 1892, and 1893; and the managers were warned by the Department last February that certain alterations must be carried out during this year, or the grant might be endangered. I do not find that any requirement whatever has been made as to the playground.

When does the year terminate?

I cannot say, but I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Vice President, of the Committee of Council on Education whether he intends to insist on the immediate construction, at a time of severe depression of the local trade, of a new building for the infant school at the national school at Ulverston, Lancashire, where the school has obtained the highest grant for the last four years?

Her Majesty's Inspector reported last January that the hall used as an infants' school was quite unsuited for its purpose, besides having no proper class-room or cloak-room, and added that the managers were quite prepared to acquiesce in its condemnation. The managers were informed that the annual grant to the infants' school, after that due on 31st December next, would be conditional on satisfactory progress being made towards providing suitable premises. Plans have now been submitted and approved for a new infants' school, and the hon. Baronet will observe that the managers have still nearly a year and a-half before them in which to make satisfactory progress towards the building. I do not think that there is unreasonable pressure in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state how many ranges there are within a reasonable distance of the Metropolis certificated for the compulsory class firing of the 30,000 Volunteer troops in London; and if shooting at an uncertificated range is practically forbidden, as in the case of the Staines range, whereby the expenditure of £32,000 by patriotic individuals, with the encouragement of his predecessor, has been rendered useless and unremunerative?

There are 14 ranges within a reasonable distance of the Metropolis used by London Volunteer corps. Ranges are not certified for class-firing specially, but with reference to their safety for the purposes for which they are required. When a range is declared to be unsafe the use of it is practically forbidden. I have no knowledge of the amount of the expenditure incurred by the private company to which the Staines Range belongs.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Staines Range was established under the direct encouragement of his predecessor?

I believe the War Office would encourage almost any range being established, but that does not relieve us of any responsibility for what may happen hereafter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board of Trade can furnish, if asked for, a Return showing the extent to which the practice of imposing ns a condition upon tickets, issued by Railway Companies at cheap rates to workmen, the term that the Company shall be under no liability if the workmen travelling with such tickets are injured or killed on the journey by the negligence of the Railway Company, exists or has during the last year existed, or furnish any information to that effect or in regard to such practice; and if he has made any inquiries upon that subject?

The Board of Trade some weeks ago communicated with some of the leading Railway Companies on this subject, and as soon as replies have been received from all of these Companies the correspondence shall be presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what has now been the result of the action of the Board of Trade in regard to the hours of labour at certain signal boxes complained of upon the London to Ipswich line of the Great Eastern Railway Company; and whether the Board will be able before Parliament rises to present its Report upon the working of the recent Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Act?

The Railway Company have not further reduced the hours of the signalmen in question, and the Board of Trade have still under their consideration the expediency of taking proceedings against the Company before the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The Board are, however, investigating other complaints against this Company in regard to their signalmen, porters, ticket collectors, shunters, and platelayers on certain sections of the Hue, and, as at present advised, the Board are of opinion that all these cases should finally be dealt with at the same time. A year has only just elapsed since the Act came into force, but a Report is being prepared and will be presented as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can arrange for the supply of postal cards to which halfpenny stamps may be affixed as desired by men of business with a large correspondence?

I am glad to be able to state that I have made arrangements under which private cards with a halfpenny stamp affixed will be accepted as postcards for inland postage. The necessary Regulation on the subject will be issued almost immediately. It is not intended that the Post Office should supply such unstamped cards.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is prepared to recommend that the War Office Authorities should pay to Commanding Officers of Volunteer corps 25 per cent, of the Capitation Grant as soon as possible after the end of each financial year?

No, Sir. I have carefully inquired into the matter, and regret to say I find I cannot adopt the course suggested in the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that 600 acres of land are flooded in the neighbourhood of Lough Key, owing to the high level at which the Knockvicar Lough is kept at the outlet of the lake into the Shannon; whether this flooding could he prevented by constructing a regulating sluice at Knockvicar, as is in use on other portions of the Shannon and its tributaries; and whether he will recommend that the Board of Works take steps to have such a sluice erected at Knockvicar Lough?

Further inquiry since my reply of the 26th ultimo to my hon. Friend's previous question has brought to light no report of flooding round Lough Key, and I am therefore unable to add to what I stated in my previous answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Congested Districts Board has been drawn to the letter published by Mr. George L. Tottenham, D.L., J.P., Glenade, County Leitrim, in the Irish Times and Daily Independent, of Tuesday last, in which he makes a number of charges against their administration of the funds under their control; that on the exposed portion of the Atlantic coast, where tree planting experiments have been generally failures, a sum of £4,023 has been spent on 290 acres of bog, at a cost of £14 per acre, the estimate being £4 10s. per acre; that £6,533 was spent on local inquiries and inspections, which Mr. Tottenham alleges could be done for £300 at the outside; that £400 was granted for a co-operative creamery outside the scheduled congested area; and whether he will order an inquiry into Mr. Tottenham's charges, and state at the same time the reason why the Congested Districts Board, while making these expenditures, neglected to extend their operations to the congested districts in Roscommon, a county specially entitled to the benefit of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, and to the congested districts of Leitrim, which county is specially entitled to the benefits of the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund and the Sea Coast Fisheries Fund?

The letter referred to in my hon. Friend's question will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at their next meeting. Under these circumstances, it is not considered desirable at present to offer any criticisms on some of the statements in the letter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the Report on Cyprus recently issued (page 49) by District Commissioner at Famagusta relative to the Lights on the Island, in which the Commissioner states that an additional light is sorely needed at Cape Andrea, the northernmost point in the island, and he hoped before long ships will be provided with this means of protection from this exposed and dangerous spot; and whether any steps have been taken to supply the deficiency complained of?

My attention has been called to the paragraph. The question is one of expense; but I may state that if and when money is available for building another light, other places would have to be considered as well as Cape Andrea.

Does the hon. Gentleman mean other places in Cyprus or in the British Empire?

Other places in the island. At present, however, no money is available.

The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Report, or he would have known that it only emphasises the necessity of a lighthouse at this particular point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is proposed to remove the present postmaster, Mr. Robert Giltrap, of Stoney-ford, County Kilkenny, who recently purchased the business premises of the late postmaster, where the post-office has been carried on for years; whether he has, during the four months he has held the position of postmaster, given entire satisfaction to the Government officials and to those residing in the district; why no cause has been assigned for the proposed removal of Mr. Giltrap and substitution of Mr. Byrne; whether Mr. Byrne has any knowledge of the business of a postmaster, either in the post or telegraphic departments; and is he aware that Mr. Giltrap is a Protestant and Mr. Byrne a Roman Catholic?

I will answer this question. Mr. Robert Giltrap purchased the premises of the late sub-postmaster of Stoneyford, County Kilkenny, and his wife was permitted to act as sub-postmistress pending the appointment of a successor. During this period—a period of about four months—the duties appear to have been discharged in a satisfactory manner. Mr. Giltrap has not been removed as implied in the question, because he was never appointed. Both he and Mr. Byrne were candidates for the situation, and I appointed Mr. Byrne. Neither of them, so far as is known, possessed any previous knowledge of Post Office duties, either postal or telegraphic. Of the religious opinions of the two candidates I am totally ignorant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that of those officials of the Local Government Board, Ireland, appointed otherwise than by competitive examination, 21 are Protestants and only seven Roman Catholics; and (2) what is the proportion of Protestants to Catholics in the population of Ireland?

(1) The Local Government Board have no official knowledge of the religious denominations to which members of their staff belong; but, as far as they are aware, the statement in the first paragraph is correct. (2) According to the Report of the Census of 1891 Roman Catholics then constituted 75.4 per cent, of the population of Ireland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state the total number of ejectments in Ireland from the passing of The Land Act, 1881, to the passing of The Laud Act, 1887, and the total number since that date, to the present time?

There were 24,400 evictions from October 1, 1881, to September 30, 1887, and 8,975 evictions from October 1, 1887, to June 30, 1894.

Notices of evictions?

No; evictions. The Eviction Returns are prepared quarterly, and it would be a matter of much difficulty to give the exact figures for periods which include broken quarters. The periods mentioned by me, however, approximate closely to those indicated in the question.

Do the figures 8,975 include services by registered letter, or do they only refer to actual dispossession by the Magistrates?

I take it the word "evicted" does not include service by registered letter.

On the Second Reading of the Evicted Tenants Bill the right hon. Gentleman gave the number as 7,000 or 8,000.

Whatever number I gave I have no doubt was correct.

Under the Evicted Tenants Bill 3,900 evictions are to be dealt with. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what has become of the difference between that number and the total of 32,000 evicted between 1887 and 1894? If not, will he give a Return showing what has become of them, and the number still to be dealt with?

It would be impossible to trace the fortunes of every evicted Irish tenant. A great many have been reinstated, and others may be accounted for in different ways. In many instances the evicted tenants have disposed of the interest in their holdings, and some 2,000 have gone into other callings. I will inquire if it is possible to give the Return asked for.

But even if the evictions were formal, the tenancies in all cases were equally broken?

I am afraid that that is so.

Is there anything to prevent this large number claiming under the Evicted Tenants Bill?

That depends on the circumstances of each particular case.

Then there is nothing to prevent 26,000 or 27,000 more tenants claiming compensation under the Bill?

I think not; but each case will have to be determined upon its merits.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the total value of the land sold in Ireland, to date, in the Lauded Estate Court and the Encumbered Estates Court?

The total value of land sold in Ireland in the Landed Estates Court and Encumbered Estates Court from November, 1849, to July 30, 1894, is, I am informed, £56,119,192.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War do the Government intend to establish a range for the new rifle at Kilbride, County Dublin; are they in treaty with Mr. Fletcher Moore, J.P., for the manor of Kilbride; and what is the present state of the negotiations?

It is in contemplation to establish a rifle range at Kilbride. Negotiations were entered into with Mr. Fletcher Moore for the acquisition of laud for the purpose, but no agreement has been arrived at.

As this question is one which affects the owners of surrounding property, and as the late Government were good enough to recede from their intention to establish a rifle range in the neighbourhood of Sutton, will an opportunity be given to the inhabitants—both landlords and tenants—in the surrounding area to make representations before a final determination is arrived at by the War Department?

I do not think anyone having property within the zone of danger would be precluded from entering a protest.

"Protest" is rather a short word. I want them to have an opportunity of making representations to the War Office before a final decision is arrived at.

I will see if it is possible.

Will a public inquiry be held in this case?

I do not think so.

There have been public inquiries in similar cases; why not in this?

There is no use in having an inquiry until we have discovered if the landlord of the property will sell.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Commissioners have power to compel Companies to give a through rate; and whether they will make the North Eastern Company comply with the law in this respect?

If the hon. Member will refer to Section 25 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888, he will find that the Commissioners have power to compel Railway Companies to give through rates if the terms of that section are complied with. I have no doubt that the Commissioners would give due attention to any complaint brought before them in terms of the section and do justice in the premises.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick's Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Railway Commissioners can prevent the Railway Companies issuing consignment notes which contract them out of all liability for delay, damage, or destruction; and whether he will inquire into those points with reference to Irish railways?

I am not aware that the Railway Commissioners have any jurisdiction in this matter. The question of the reasonableness of conditions is one for the ordinary Courts of Law, and they are fully competent to deal with any ease in which this point arises. I do not, therefore, see, as at present advised, that an inquiry by the Board of Trade would serve any useful purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he would cause inquiry to be made as to an alleged unprovoked attack by M. Suberbie, a French holder of a concession from the Government of Madagascar, upon British Indian subjects, the result of which was the seizure of their persons, trading canoe, and property, including 200 ounces of gold dust; and whether M. Suberbie's men fired on the British Indians when in their canoe, with the British flag flying?

The Acting Consul reports that he is in communication with the French Resident General respecting the statement of a British Indian, made in November last, that his canoe had been stopped, and that he had been detained and searched for gold dust by Hova Authorities at M. Suberbie's instigation. The declaration of the British Indian makes no mention of firing upon the canoe, and states that no gold dust was found, and the canoe and property were restored with the exception of one box containing a small sum of money which was missing. We are waiting to receive the explanation from the French Resident General.

That answer refers to an entirely different case. Will the hon. Baronet further inquire?

If the hon. Member can give me any information I will inquire into it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if, of the seven depôt officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary residing in the Phœnix Park—namely, the Commandant, the Adjutant, and five District Inspectors, only one (a District Inspector) is au Irishman and a Catholic, all the others being Englishmen and Protestants; and whether these seven form the disciplinary officers of the depôt?

There are 12 officers permanently stationed at the Constabulary depot; of these, I am told, eight are Protestants and four Roman Catholics, six are Englishmen and six Irishmen. All these officers are disciplinary officers in their several departments.

May I ask whether these interrogatories are likely to advance the cause of Home Rule in Ireland?

They are likely to get fair play for the Catholics, at any rate.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any agreement has been entered into with the Corporation of Dublin for the purchase of the Pigeon House Fort, or whether any negotiations in relation thereto are pending; and whether there is any statutory power authorising the application of the rates for such a purpose?

No agreement has been entered into with the Corporation of Dublin for the purchase of Pigeon House Fort, but negotiations on the subject are being carried on. I am unable to answer the second question, which seems rather to be a question for the Corporation and the ratepayers.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Corporation of Dublin in trying to secure possession of Pigeon House Fort is to enable them to carry out a most extensive scheme of drainage which the residents of Dublin strongly object to?

My information is that the Corporation are promoting an elaborate scheme of drainage, which, so far as I can judge, deserves the support of the inhabitants, if I may be allowed to express an opinion, and I am disposed to give all the assistance in my power.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his Legal Advisers as to whether there is power to apply the rates in this particular way?

That is not my affair; it is the affair of the Corporation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Warrington, I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any communication to this House, before the close of the Session, on the subject of Nile reservoirs; and whether the proposal to make a reservoir dam at Philæ has been approved by Her Majesty's Government?

The question of the Nile reservoirs, which is one of great difficulty, is still under the consideration of the Egyptian Government, and no decision is likely to be arrived at for a considerable time. Her Majesty's Government have forwarded for consideration the various representations which have been made to them upon the subject, but have not themselves expressed any opinion on the several proposals.

I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he is aware that at Hatfield Peverel, Essex, and at Walton-on-the-Naze, Essex, meetings of the inhabitants have been held protesting against proposed sales of charity lands in those places; whether the Charity Commissioners will withhold their consent to such sales, at any rate, until after the new Local Government Act comes into operation; and if the Commissioners will consider the propriety of refusing as a rule their consent to sales of charity lands pending the coming into operation of that Act, and pending the consideration by this House of the Report of the recent Committee upon the Charity Commission and of the suggestions therein?

At Walton-on-the-Naze the sanction of the Charity Commissioners to the proposed sale of charity lands has already been suspended until the Local Government Act, 1894, comes into operation. In the case of Hatfield Peverel, Essex, notice of the proposed sale of charity lands is still running. The Commissioners have resolved that, pending the appointment of new Trustees, by or in pursuance of the Local Government Act, 1894, no sale of land of a charity be authorised by the Board in a rural parish, except in a case of special urgency in the interest of the charity.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what number or amount of debentures or Debenture Stock have been issued by the British South Africa Company, and on what terms and under what powers they have been issued; whether there is any limit to the amount which may be issued by the Company; and whether all or any of the debentures or Debenture Stock would have priority over the charge purported to be given by the Company over the revenues of their territory by the contract with the Bechuanaland Railway Company?

The British South Africa Company has power, under its Charter, to issue debentures to the extent of one-half of its share capital. Under that power it has created £750,000 Six per cent. Debentures, of which about £650,000 have been issued up to date. None of these debentures have priority over the railway subsidy charge given by the Company over certain of the sources of revenue of their territory under the Bechuanaland Railway Contract.

Were the debentures issued at par?

That I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any Treasury Minute has been made approving of the terms of the contract relating to the Bechuanaland Railway which has been laid before the House; and whether the House will have an opportunty of discussing this question before the Minute is made?

The Treasury Minute has been prepared, and I am today laying a copy on the Table. The contract, however, will not be binding until 30 days after the 3rd August, the day on which it was presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain why the lists of Parliamentary voters were not posted outside the police barrack at Carrick, County Donegal, this year, as has been the invariable practice every year since The Franchise Act, 1885, came into operation; is it the duty of the Constabulary to have these lists hung outside the barrack; and, if so, who is responsible for the neglect; and did the Clerk of the Peace give instructions this year to the Constabulary to have the lists posted outside the barracks for 14 days from the 21st of July, between the hours of 10 a.m. and 4 p.m.; and, if so, why were his instructions disregarded?

I am informed by the police that the Clerk of the Peace gave instructions that the lists should be posted at the barrack for the prescribed time and during the prescribed hours, and that the sergeant to whom these instructions were sent did not understand them as meaning that the lists should be posted outside the barrack. He states indeed, that owing to the wind and rain the lists could not be posted outside. I shall make further inquiry in the matter.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury can he state the grounds on which the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland continue to withhold their sanction to a loan for the erection of a dispensary and residence for the medical officer at Killucan, in the County of Westmeath, the Local Government Board for Ireland having already signified their approval of the undertaking; and whether, as this proposed loan has been now over 12 months under the consideration of the Commissioners of Works, a decision will soon be arrived at?

I am informed that the first application from the Guardians was received on the 14th of September, 1893, and the Board of Works replied on the 18th of September asking for the deposit of the lease, plans, &c.; but, though several reminders were sent to the Guardians, the proper documents were not received till the 25th May last. The plans, being found defective, were returned on the 18th of June, and the corrected specification was received on the 3rd instant, and is now being examined. The approval of the Local Government Board will be required for the altered plan before the loan can be sanctioned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in Galway and other towns in the West of Ireland shop assistants are required to know Irish as well as English owing to many of the customers speaking Irish only; and whether, in view of this fact, an arrangement could be made to enable children in these districts to receive instruction through the medium of their native tongue during a certain period of each school day?

In every national school in Ireland the following Regulation of the Commissioners is suspended for the guidance of managers and teachers:—

"If there are Irish-speaking pupils in a school, the teacher, if acquainted with the Irish language, should, whenever practicable, employ the vernacular as an aid to the elucidation and acquisition of the English language."

In order to encourage teachers to instruct their pupils in Irish the result fee allowed by the Commissioners for a pass therein as an extra branch to pupils of the 5th class and above is 10s., or double the fee allowed for French.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether national school teachers in districts in the West of Ireland are required to possess any knowledge themselves of the Irish language?

I do not know that it is required, but I understand that it is considered to be a desirable qualification.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that result fees are not allowed to Irish National School teachers in respect to pupils under the fifth class; and whether he will advise the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to consider the desirability of extending the system of result fees to all classes?

The assertion in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question is not according to the fact, as result fees are paid for pupils in all classes, whether above or below fifth class.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when will the Local Government Board send an arbitrator to value the proposed sites for labourers' cottages in the parish of Emly, County Tipperary?

The Local Government Board inform me that it would be premature to apply to the Commissioners of Public Works to appoint an arbitrator to value the plots of land until after the issue of a Provisional Order confirming the scheme of the Guardians. The Report of the Inspector on the scheme was received by the Board last week, and is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the restrictions on cycling in the Phœnix Park, if the presence of bookmakers is a nuisance at these races, and the cause of their being stopped; why do not the police remove the offenders and put down betting; whether a depution of the Irish Cyclists' Association have assured the Board of Works that their Rules forbid betting, and that they severely punished offenders for such an infraction of their Rules; if so, why are their members to be deprived of a privilege because of the action of lawbreakers whom the police can cope with; and under what Statute are their sports to be curtailed?

As already stated, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend's question of the 24th ultimo, no restrictions have been placed on ordinary cycling. The decision of the Board of Works not to give permission for races after this season was due to representations from the Commissioner of Police not only as regard the betting nuisance, but also as regards the danger to persons using the Park for ordinary purposes. The Irish Cyclists' Association have done their best to cooperate with the Board of Works in discouraging betting, but they appear to have been quite unsuccessful. I understand that the police will deal with any infraction of the law that occurs.

Is it intended to stop all cycling in the Park?

The Board of Works do not intend to stop all cycling, but only racing.

Is there any power to arrest the law breakers?

Yes, I believe there is such a power under the Dublin Police Act.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state under what Statute the Board of Works proposes to exercise these powers?

I am told that if the police should be required to bring a case into Court the Acts under which it might be brought are the Dublin Police Act, the Summary Jurisdiction Act, and the Carriage Act. That is the only information given to me, and I cannot say whether it is correct.

They have no powers except under these Acts?

I believe not.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether John Meara, tenant farmer, of Derrahinny, near Portumna, County Galway, on applying last March to the Board of Works for a loan of £60 for the improvement of his holding, was required by the Board to forward a receipt showing payment of his rent to November last, and thereupon paid the rent to that date and transmitted the receipt to the Board; whether the Board then called upon him to pay the rent up to May last, a date subsequent to the time of his application, and to send them the receipt; whether, notwithstanding au explanation by the tenant that the rent had already been paid up to the latest customory period, and that the half-year owing represented the hanging-gale, the Board have declined to make the loan on the ground that the security of the tenant's interest in the land has been endangered by "dilatory observance" of the condition as to payment of rent; whether the Treasury approve of refusing a loan where the rent had been paid up to the latest customary period; and whether the Board will reconsider the case?

I am informed that Mr. John Meara's Memorial for a loan of £60 was received on the 26th of April, 1894. It appeared therefrom that rent had been paid only to November, 1892, and it was represented that a hanging-gale was allowed on the estate on which he is a tenant. As, however, Mr. Meara is a judicial tenant he was not legally entitled to any concession of this nature. On receipt of the Memorial the applicant was asked to forward a receipt for the November, 1893, gale of rent, that being, at the time, the latest period to which rent should be paid. Before this requirement was complied with the Board of Works learned from the landlord that the rent to 1st November, 1892, had not been paid till Mr. Meara had been served with ejectments, and just before his time as caretaker expired, and also that the May gale should have been paid when due, thus showing that the rent had not been paid to the latest customary period. As the Board of Works' security for a Land Law Loan is the tenant's interest in his holding it is apparent that anything that would weaken that security should enter largely into the consideration of the question whether a loan should be made. Here the tenant's rent is in arrear for 1½ years, and, in consequence, it is open to his landlord to institute proceedings for ejectment and termination of the tenant's interest.

Would an Essex tenant have any chance of borrowing £60 if he did not pay his rent?

I do not suppose he would.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Judge Andrews, when addressing the Grand Jury for the County of Galway, said the bills to go before them were only four of an unimportant character, and that, by the County Inspector's Report, there was no increase in the reported cases for this compared with the corresponding period last year, still there were men under police protection in the eastern division of the county, that most of those were on the Clanricarde Estate, and those under partial police protection were also on the same estate, and were it not for those cases there would be very little to complain of; whether he will state what is the annual cost for police protection on the Clanricarde Estate; and what were Mr. Tener's, agent to Lord Clanricarde, qualifications to be a member of the Grand Jury addressed by Judge Andrews?

The statements in the first paragraph of the question are substantially correct. In regard, however, to the matter of special police protection in the East Riding of the county, the Judge observed that about one-half of the number of persons receiving such protection were on the Clanricarde Estate. The Judge's remarks were as follows:—

"There are 15 persons in the East Hiding under constant police protection; nine of these are on the Clanricarde Estate. There are 27 other persons afforded police protection, of whom It are on the Clanricarde Estate, making 42 altogether, involving the necessity of employing no fewer than 92 members of the Constabulary."

The cost of police protection on the Clanricarde Estate last year was £2,098. With regard to the last part of the question, I presume that Mr. Tener was summoned to represent the property over which he acts as agent. My hon. Friend knows that the Executive Government have no voice or control in the matter of choosing the members of the Grand Jury. The Sheriff is at liberty to choose whomsoever he likes, provided there is one representative from each barony.

Is there any power under the Regulations of the Irish police to charge the expense for special police protection on the person protected in the same way as is done in England?

If my hon. Friend will put that question down I will inquire.

Is the charge of £2,098 a year on this one Irish estate a continuing annual charge on the Imperial Exchequer?

Of course, a moiety of this £2,098 for Police protection last year came out of sums voted by Parliament.

Will Her Majesty's Government in their next Finance Rill consider the possibility of placing a special tax on the persons requiring protection?

Will the Government also consider the expediency of putting a tax on those who cause the disturbance and expenditure?

Having regard to the threats uttered in this House during the past few days, will the Chief Secretary give an assurance that he will not relax this police protection?

I think, Sir, that the hon. and learned Member must know that that is a perfectly superfluous and idle question.

I cannot agree that it is superfluous. May I ask whether the £2,098 represents the ordinary pay of these policemen engaged in special protection, or whether it is extra expenditure?

I understand that the special cost of this special protection last year was £2,098?

Was it the ordinary pay of the police so engaged, or was it in addition to their ordinary pay?

I am not sure. I am informed that this special protection is an element of the charge.

Will the right hon Gentleman ascertain?

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Galway, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary 'to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland whether Colonel Long-bourne, Resident Magistrate, has applied to the Government to allow him to reside at Portumna instead of Loughrea, where his predecessors up to the present have resided: and whether, in view of the feeling in the district and of Colonel Longbourne's association with the agent to Lord Clanricarde, he will be allowed to reside in the immediate vicinity of Portumna Castle?

Colonel Long-bourne, Resident Magistrate, received permission to reside at Portumna instead of Loughrea, because no suitable house was available at the latter place, while there was one to be had at Portumna. Portumna was formerly the headquarters of a Resident Magistrate, and Colonel Longbourne's immediate predecessor resided about six miles from Loughrea.

Is the reason why a house cannot be obtained for a Resident Magistrate to be found in the fact that Lord Clanricarde refuses to put the house in repair?

I have heard something of the kind; I cannot say if it is true.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, in the latest edition of their agricultural class-book, deliberately advertise imported agricultural machinery to the disadvantage of the article made in Ireland; and if this statement is true will he recommend the Commissioners of National Education to give a fair field to Irish manufacturers?

The particular book referred to in the question contains a variety of illustrations of agricultural implements named after their inventors or manufacturers, but with no intention of advertising the implements. In the next edition, should another edition come into use, all this will so far as practicable be corrected. The book referred to obtains little or no circulation in the National Schools, less than 400 copies having been sold last year. The book, which is practically the agricultural text-book of the National' Schools, and prescribed in the Commissioners' pro- gramme for the instruction of the pupils, is that designated "Introduction to Practical Farming," of which about 22,000 were sold last year. This book is in no respect open to the charge conveyed in the first part of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the appointment as a Grand Juror of Wexford of Mr. J. J. Percival, junior, who lives in lodgings and pays no county rates, was valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 31 of the Grand Jury Act of 1836, which provides that the Sheriff shall place first on the panel for each barony or half barony the name of some person having in such barony or half barony freehold lands of the yearly value of £50 and upwards, or leasehold laud of the value of £100 over and above the amount of rent payable thereout?

I am informed that the gentleman named in the question was not on the Grand Jury. This statement, I take it, applies to the last Assizes. When at Wexford he resides with his sisters, who are rated occupiers, and he himself owns freehold property of the value of more than £50 yearly, on which he pays county cess.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the resolutions, passed by the Leeds Central Branch of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants, protesting against the action of the Great Northern Railway Company in altering the hours of signalmen, in the boxes at Beeston Station and other places on their lines, from eight to 10 hours; and whether he has taken, or will take steps, under the Railway Hours Bill, 1893, to check the action of the Company in thus increasing the hours of labour? I wish, further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has not been specially called to the boxes at Barkstone, and to the two boxes at Stevenage; and whether it is not a fact that those boxes and many others on the main line which are now raised to 10 hours have been eight-hour boxes for periods ranging from 21 to seven years, and whether the work at all of them has not enormously increased?

I am afraid I cannot answer that question as to particular boxes without notice. The number of these boxes is very large. My attention has been called to these resolutions, and the Great Northern Railway Company have been asked for a statement of the duties performed by the signalmen. The Board have no authority under the Railway Regulation Act, 1893, to prevent the Company increasing the hours of their men, but if it is represented to them that the hours when increased are unreasonable they will use the powers given them by the Act with a view to a reduction if it is found to be necessary.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to all the boxes on the line, or to this particular box only?

To the particular box, in the first instance. The latter part of the answer is, of course, general. We shall act on any representations which may be made to us.

Have not the Board of Trade power otherwise than by representation to take action in these matters?

The view the Board of Trade have taken is that their duty is, first of all, to call upon the Company to submit revised schedules, and if the schedules submitted are not in accordance with the views of the Board of Trade the matter is referred to the Railway Commissioners.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report of the Committee on the Merchant Shipping Bill will be issued?

I understand that the Report to which the hon. Member refers will be issued very shortly. It is, I believe, not usual to issue Reports on Revision and Consolidation Bills until the Committee is over, when they are issued with the Minutes of Proceedings. But the matter is one rather for the authorities of the House than for me.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the Waltham St. Lawrence, Sherlock Street, School, by which a deduction of £6 8s. 4d., or of one-ninth of the total grant to the school, has been made because one of the teachers was only provisionally recognised under Article 68 of the Code; whether he is aware that the Inspector, in his Report on the infant class taught by this teacher, stated that the reading is pretty good, arithmetic good on the whole, and recitation nicely said; and whether, under these circumstances, he will re-consider the withdrawal of the grant to a small agricultural village school?

The teacher in question was not recognised at all under Article 68, as Her Majesty's Inspector was unable to approve her. A deduction was accordingly made from the grant for insufficiency of staff, according to the universal practice of the Department, under Article 108 of the Code. Her Majesty's Inspector also stated in his Report that the object lessons were very poorly given, and the other occupations of the infants so treated as to have little educational value.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the same teacher was successful in another place, and received the Inspector's approval? Does he know that this is a very small place: that by accident the additional teacher was not returned, and that a heavy loss falls upon the school, which seems to be very hard upon it?

I did not know that the teacher had been employed and approved elsewhere. I did know an additional teacher was missed out. If any facts are laid before me I will consider them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the Transvaal have given up the claim to commandeer British residents in the Transvaal for food and supplies?

As regards the levying of contributions in money or goods, British subjects are now in the same position as all other residents in the Transvaal. Like burghers of the Republic and other foreign subjects they are alike liable to the ordinary war contribution, but to that only.

Is the hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether it is a fact that the British subjects recently commandeered and imprisoned were turned adrift by the Boer authorities in the open trek 200 miles from their homes?

I have no information to that effect.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether there is any law obliging the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland to invest the moneys of the charities they control in Consols, which pay only 2¾per cent. interest, thereby materially limiting the income of the charities concerned; if there be such a law, have the Commissioners invariably acted upon it; if there be no such law, why do they keep these moneys locked up in Consols, and to the detriment of the charities prevent investments in approved securities bearing a larger interest; and is there any means by which the Commissioners may be induced to allow sale of Consols and investments in other securities which are legally open to investment by Trustees, and which bear greater interest?

I am informed by the Secretary to the Commissioners that in all cases where application has been made to them to change the investment of charity funds in the hands of the Board, standing in Government Stock, they have been of opinion that the interests of the charities concerned have been best served by retaining the corpus of the funds in Government Stock, save in one instance, where under special circumstances the Commissioners were authorised by a scheme of the Court of Chancery to alter the investment. As the Commissioners have adjourned their sittings during the legal recess, I regret it has not been found practicable to ob- tain a more detailed reply to my hon. Friend's inquiries.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to representing to the Commissioners the wisdom in the interests of the charities of investing in Consols and other specified securities?

I think that is a very proper matter to call their attention to, and I will do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it has come to the knowledge of the War Department that much of the ground acquired by the Government at Barry Links for the encampment of military forces (Regular and Reserve) is rendered practically inaccessible from the nearest railway stations, owing to the fact that the Government, while owning the land bounded on the north by the railway and on the south by the sea, have not acquired any right of access to that land from the north side of the railway; whether early steps will be taken to remedy the very great inconvenience caused by this state of matters; and whether it is the intention of the War Department to make roads suitable for the passage of wheeled traffic, to connect the various camping grounds on the Links; and, if so, when this will be done?

The War Department has no information that Barry Links are inaccessible as described, and no inconvenience has been reported. Roads for communication on the War Department land have been made to meet military requirements, and further roads would, no doubt, be made should they be found necessary.

If I give the right hon. Gentleman information as to the considerable inconvenience caused, will he make inquiries? As a fact, one brigade, although only a mile from the railway station, had to send its baggage four miles round in order to get it on the rails.

I shall be happy to receive such information. There may be accidental circumstances of that kind which possibly the Military Authorities did not think it worth while to communicate to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the new issue of the Directory of the Science and Art Department was distributed through the post to the local secretaries of science and art classes throughout the country on Saturday last, thus entailing the delivery by postmen on Sunday of a large number of parcels each weighing over two pounds; and whether, seeing the desirability of preventing as much as possible all unnecessary Sunday labour, he will give instructions which will prevent Departmental Papers having to be delivered in future on that day?

Much the larger portion of these Reports were sent out on Friday. Owing to an insufficiency of the supply from the Queen's Printers, some were not sent out till Saturday. An endeavour is always made to avoid sending heavy posts on Saturdays.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Deptford, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether it is within the discretion of the Postmaster General to register newspapers for the receipt of telegrams at specially cheap rates, such telegrams being for publication; does the Post Office accept at such rates telegrams concerning the starting prices of racehorses, in order that bets may be made; is a list of newspapers, registered for that purpose, kept at the General Post Office; and is The Birmingham Racing News and Sporting Item amongst the publications so favoured?

It is within the discretion of the Postmaster General to register newspapers for the receipt of telegrams at the Press rates. Such telegrams must consist exclusively of news for immediate publication in the newspapers to which they are addressed, and telegrams containing particulars respecting the starting prices of racehorses would be accepted at the Press rates if intended for publication in a registered newspaper. The answer to the two last paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is in the affirmative.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the paper mentioned in the question, the information telegraphed relates entirely to the starting prices of horses; has the Postmaster General any discretion in granting these special rates for telegrams; and, seeing that in the case of the newspaper referred to some time elapsed between the application being made and granted, is it right to assume inquiry was made into the matter?

I am not aware of the facts, but will make inquiry. The special rate is granted under an Act of Parliament.

Is it not a fact that the Post Office put a construction of their own on the Act of Parliament?

No. They must be guided by the Act of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the allegations of cruelty to apprentices said to be committed on some of the Grimsby fishing smacks, and to the fact that some of the lads are reported to prefer seven to 14 days' imprisonment, with hard labour, to going to sea in the smack in which they are apprenticed; whether, if there is reason to fear the charges of cruelty well founded, he could suggest any means of preventing the same, or enabling lads to avoid such apprenticeship when unfit for sea service or ill-treated; and whether it would be possible to have some system of licensing masters to have apprentices, and some local supervision over the master and apprentices?

My attention has been called to the statements which have been made with respect to the working of the fishing apprentice system at Grimsby. The Board of Trade and the Local Government Board, jointly, have instituted an inquiry into the whole system, and I expect to receive in a day or two the Report of the two Inspectors who have conducted the inquiry. Until I have considered it I shall not be in a position to make any statement on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman cause the inquiry to be extended so as to include the case of pauper apprentices who ought under the law to be looked after by the relieving officers? Also, will it include children on coast-wise colliers?

The present inquiry has been completed, and I think it will be found that the Report deals with the case of pauper apprentices sent on fishing smacks. It does not go beyond that.

Will the Report be laid on the Table?

I presume so. I have not yet received it, and cannot say whether any part of it is confidential.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General will he explain why a smaller allowance is given for special duty to telegraphists during the present Naval Manœuvres than was given some years ago; whether he is aware that 12 Post Office clerks received an allowance at the rate of 12s. a day for a fortnight several summers ago; whether a telegraphist sent from a country station in Ireland is given an even smaller allowance than is given to a Dublin telegraphist for similar work; whether a smaller allowance is given in Ireland than in England; and, if so, on what grounds; whether telegraphists after five years' service are only paid 22s. a week, and whether a reduction of allowance for special duty has the same effect as the reduction of the year's salary; whether it is the practice of the Post Office to pay as low wages and to give as small an extra allowance for special duty as competition will enable it, or to pay a living wage; and whether he will give orders that during the present Naval Manœuvres the same allowance for extra duty shall be given telegraph clerks as is given during Military Manœuvres and race meetings?

No alteration has been made in the allowance given to telegraphists for special duty. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there has been no case in which 12 Post Office clerks have received an allowance of 12s. a day for a fortnight when specially em- ployed on work in connection with the Naval Manœuvres. No distinction is made in the matter of allowances between telegraphists drawn from a country office and those drawn from the Metropolitan Office in Ireland. The subsistence allowances in Ireland are on the same scale as in England. These subsistence allowances have no bearing upon the amount of their wages. The hon. Member must form his own conclusions as to Post Office wages. Full details are given in the Estimates. The allowances arranged for the present Naval Manœuvres appear to be adequate, and I do not propose that they should be increased. The circumstances at Naval Manœuvres differ from those which obtain at race meetings, where the cost of living and sleeping accommodation was abnormally high. At Military Manœuvres the allowances vary according to the circumstances. Every case is carefully considered, and if any case is brought to my notice in which it is considered the allowance is insufficient it will be fully inquired into.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state what means are taken, and at what intervals of time, for ascertaining that captains of guns and captains of turrets in the Navy retain their efficiency as marksmen; whether captains of guns and captains of turrets are paid 2d. a day extra each, and whether they are all paid alike, or whether any extra pay is given for greater efficiency in marksmanship; whether, considering the cost of each round fired, varying from £12 in the 6-inch quick-firing gun to £164 in the 16.25-inch gun, and the vital importance to the fighting power of the ship of taking every possible means of increasing the average proportion of hits from one in ten to one in three or one in five, consideration will be given to the adoption of some method whereby increased pay may be given to captains of guns and captains of turrets for increased efficiency in marksmanship; and whether, especially, some increase of pay (coupled with increased tests of the maintenance of efficiency) will be given to captains of turrets on whose marksmanship the safety and fighting power of the ship in action so largely depend?

Captains of guns and turrets fire a certain, number of rounds at intervals during each quarter. In addition, every opportunity is taken of practising these men at aiming drills. Their efficiency or otherwise is ascertained from these practices. The extra pay which a captain of turret, a captain of turret gun, and a captain of gun receive in addition to other gunnery or torpedo allowances is specified at pp. 916–7 of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions (1893), and prizes are given for good shooting. The accuracy of the statements of fact in paragraph 3 of the hon. Member's question is not admitted. The arrangements already in force are considered to sufficiently secure the maintenance of efficiency.

Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me accurately the cost of each shot? Is it accurate to say that it varies from £12 in the 6in. quick-firing gun to £164 in the 16.25in.gun? Does he deny that? I would also ask whether all the men are paid alike, and whether increased pay might not be given for increased efficiency?

No, Sir; a difference is not made according to efficiency of the men. I cannot admit the accuracy of the hon. Gentleman's statement as to the cost of each shot. He is not very far wrong, but there would be a great deal more to be said on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the practice of laying down private moorings in public roadsteads and anchorages and of leaving them there; and if the fact that in many instances the buoys marking these moorings are so large as to be a danger to small craft; whether he is aware of the great inconvenience and danger thereby caused to vessels anchoring in such roadsteads in consequence of the risk thereby created of their anchors becoming foul of the moorings laid and left there; and whether the Board of Trade have any power or authority to interfere to prevent such a monopoly of portions of public roadsteads by private individuals; and, if so, how and under what conditions that power is exercised; and, if not, whether they will consider the propriety of issuing notices to mariners, or of taking such other steps as may be necessary to put an end to a practice dangerous to shipping?

The Board of Trade have received no complaints regarding private moorings in public roadsteads; but if the hon. Member will let me know to what harbour or roadstead he refers, and will send me particulars, I will communicate with the Harbour Authority having jurisdiction. The circumstances of roadsteads, and the legal powers of the Board of Trade as respects roadsteads, vary in different places, and it is therefore impossible for me to give an answer which shall be at once general and correct to the third paragraph of the question.

My question refers to places where there is no Local Authority. Is not the Board of Trade competent to deal with these cases?

I do not find any reference to those cases in the question. If the hon. Member can call our attention to any particular cases, we will do what we can.

Is the right lion. Gentleman aware that a dozen new moorings have been laid down this year in the roadstead of Cowes? Will he pay attention to that matter? There is no Local Authority there.

I am sorry to say I have not been to Cowes this summer; but I am quite willing to take it from the hon. Gentleman that that is so, and I will make inquiries.

In the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he is yet in a position to lay upon the Table the Report of the Special Commission which was appointed to inquire into the landing from Canada of animals affected with disease; how many weeks have elapsed since the conclusion of that inquiry; and will he afford to hon. Members the opportunity of seeing the Report before proceeding with the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill?

The inquiry to which my right hon. Friend refers did not take the form of an inquiry by a Special Commission, and consequently there will be no Report in the ordinary acceptation of the term. I propose, however, to lay on the Table, as I have already stated, a reasoned Minute analysing the evidence which I have received and setting forth the conclusions at which I have arrived. The viva voce examination of witnesses was concluded on the 10th ultimo; but since that date it has been necessary to scrutinise very carefully the various references cited by some of the experts examined, and the subject is so full of technical and scientific detail that some delay in the presentation of the further Papers promised has been unavoidable, but I hope it may not be long before they are available. The Bill to which my right hon. Friend refers is a Consolidation Bill pure and simple, and has been critically examined from that point of view by the Joint Committee of the two Houses. It does not appear to me that the Papers promised as to the Canadian question would be of any assistance to the House in determining whether or not the business of consolidation has been accurately performed, and I should hope that the right hon. Gentleman would, as in other cases, be willing to accept the assurance of the Joint Committee on that point.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade by what authority and under what conditions the Clyde Lighthouse Trustees deposit river dredgings in Loch Long; when such authority, if it exists, expires; and whether and when the Board of Trade will take the necessary steps to prevent the continuance of this practice?

I have been advised that the Clyde Lighthouses Act, 1880, empowers the Trustees to deposit in Loch Long or other contiguous lochs, without the consent of the Board of Trade, the dredgings from the works authorised by that Act. By the Clyde Lighthouses Act, 1890, the time for the completion of the works authorised by the Act of 1880 was extended to the 6th of August, 1895; when that time arrives the Board of Trade will have considered what course can be best adopted to prevent further deposit in Loch Long. I may add that many complaints have been received on the subject, and it engages my anxious attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Local Government Board have yet received written explanations from the masters of the following workhouses—namely, Car-rickmacross, Castleblaney, Larne, Bally-mena, and Newtownards relative to the abuses and discrepancies which existed in them; and, if so, what precautions have been adopted to prevent a repetition of them; and whether the Local Government Board will in future instruct all their Inspectors, when they visit the Unions in their districts, to see that the number of paupers in the house corresponds with the number in the books?

(1) The masters of the workhouses named in this question have submitted their explanations to the Local Government Board. They allege that the discrepancies were entirely the result of an oversight. The Board have reprimanded these officers, and have called their auditor's attention to the matter, in order that the cost of maintenance entered in the workhouse books in respect of the paupers who have left the house may be surcharged to the workhouse masters. (2) The Board believe that it is the practice on the part of some of the Inspectors to count the paupers in the workhouses, and they have intimated to all of them, in view of what has transpired in the district in question, that it is desirable that this should periodically be done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Sheriffs were appointed in Irish counties before Circuits or Assizes were established in Ireland, and that the late Sir John Perrot (Lord Deputy of Queen Elizabeth) and his successors appointed Sheriffs for the Ulster counties, though the first Assize in Ulster was held in the reign of King James I.; whether it is the fact that Sheriffs for the Irish counties were so appointed by the Lord Lieutenant without nomination of the Judges till about the year 1826; also that it was found by the Report of the Commissions to inquire into the office of Sheriffs (for Ireland), published in 1826, that the nomination of persons by the Judges for the office of Sheriff in Ireland is a mere practice of the Judges of Assize; whether he is aware that in 1837 the then Lord Lieutenant, Lord Mulgrave (during the Under Secretaryship of Thomas Drummond) each year appointed Sheriffs who were not nominated by the Judges or the acting Sheriffs, and that the legality of such appointments was judicially decided and upheld by Mr. Justice Burton, at the Assizes for the County of Monaghan, in the mouth of March, 1837; and whether he will consider the advisability of reverting to this practice?