I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when the Report long since received by the Foreign Office from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Berlin upon the importation of German prison-made goods to compete with free British labour is to be published, and brought to the knowledge of the operatives in the brush trade, the whip trade, and other industries suffering, in their opinion, from the illicit competition of foreign convicts; and if he has personally communicated with the commissioner of The Hardwareman journal despatched to inquire into this traffic, whose sworn testimony has been submitted to him, or done anything whatever in the matter?

As I informed my hon. Friend in answer to a question of his towards the end of last month, the Report received from Her Majesty's Representative at Berlin regarding goods made in German prisons will be published as soon as the other Reports relating to the same subject, including that expected from France, have been received, and I hope that these further Reports will very soon arrive. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the inquiries made upon this subject have been made, as is always the case, through the Diplomatic Service of Her Majesty, that being the authorised channel for obtaining information from foreign countries, and no communications have been made to the Press or private agencies in the matter.

Has the right hon. Gentleman made any inquiry into this matter personally, or have the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, seeing the great interest taken in it in all parts of the world, where British trade is found?

I do not think it proper that I should make any inquiry of that nature.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether 6,000 cast steel Firmer chisels coming from Germany were recently seized by the Customs House at Leith, by reason of the word Sheffield being engraved thereon, and were subsequently sold by public auction under the Royal Arms and Cypher, thereby supplying the Leith and Edinburgh market with chisels for some time to come, and, in such a case, if he can state who were the exporters and the importers of these contraband goods, and what steps have been taken in respect of them; and what was the sum realised by this Government auction, and if it can be sent to the Mayor of Sheffield for distribution among the Societies succouring the unemployed in the edge tool and cutlery trade?

The Commissioners of Customs inform the Board of Trade that the chisels referred to—valued at £30—were imported from Hamburg to Leith in September last year. They were contained in packages bearing two labels with English wording, one qualified as to the foreign origin of the goods and the other not, but the chisels themselves were stamped "warranted east steel" without qualification, and were accordingly retained as a seizure, as is usual in the case of the importation of foreign-made hardware so marked. The goods were sold at the recent Customs sale at Leith, the illegal marks being first removed therefrom, and realised £25 4s. This account has been carried to the account of the Crown, and cannot be dealt with in any other manner. It is not the practice of the Commissioners of Customs to divulge the names of either the consignors or consignees, or to take any action beyond seizure.

Has any notice been taken of it with regard to the importers?

I am not aware of any action being taken. As I have informed the hon. Member, this is a matter for the Commissioners of Customs and not for the Board of Trade.

But is not the administration of the Merchandise Marks Act under the Board of Trade, and was not the seizure effected under a clause of that Act?

No, Sir; the seizure was made by the Commissioners of Customs. It is for them to carry out this particular Act.

I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to initiate a prosecution under the Merchandise Marks Act?

Who is responsible for answering questions on this subject?

I am responsible. But these seizures were made by the Commissioners of Customs, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury has to answer questions for that body.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question.

I should think the hon. Member never expected an answer to it.

Yes, I did. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, as he is responsible, he will see that a prosecution is instituted?

I have said that this matter does not relate entirely to the Board of Trade: it also affects the Commissioners of Customs, and I cannot answer questions in regard to it without consulting them.

Was any communication sent by the Commissioners of the seizure of falsely-marked chisels, and, if so, what action was taken upon it?

If my hon. and gallant I Friend likes to put down any further I question with regard to the different steps taken in this matter I will endeavour to obtain the information. But I must remind him that he is asking as to something which is not in the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention, has been called to the voluntary and gallant services of the 1st Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry Regiment during the plague at Hong Kong; if no less than 400 soldiers were employed in the cleaning work in the plague-stricken parts of that town, and the removal of the refuse and filth from the dwellings owing to the natives refusing to work; if one of the officers of that regiment, Captain Vesey, and many of the soldiers were attacked by the plague, and the former succumbed to that terrible disease, sacrificing his life to save the rest of the inhabitants from the plague; and whether any steps have been taken, or are practical, to recognise the gallant services of the 1st Battalion Shropshire Light Infantry (late 58th Regiment) performed during the continuance of the plague in Hong Kong?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State explained to the House on July 3 the circumstances which rendered necessary the use of troops in the manner referred to by the hon. Member. Eight officers and over 300 men of the Shropshire Light Infantry and detachments of the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers volunteered to assist the Civil Authorities at Hong Kong in cleansing and disinfecting houses in which cases of plague had occurred. Of these volunteers one officer (Captain Vesey) and five men were attacked by the plague, and I regret to say that Captain Vesey and one of the men died. The Commander-in-Chief's appreciation of the gallant services of these men who volunteered for this duty has already been conveyed to the General Officer commanding. A copy of a Despatch has been received through the Colonial Office from the Governor of Hong Kong expressing his appreciation of the valuable assistance he has received in this crisis from the naval and military forces. I am sure that the House and the country generally will join in admiration of this fresh instance of the gallantry and devotion which always characterise Her Majesty's soldiers and sailors.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department if, having regard to the fact, that although 10,393 persons have been saved from prison under the provisions of the probation of the First Offenders Act between 1888 and 1893, in the six districts of the Metropolis, the West Riding, Lancashire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Durham, and that only 938, or less than 10 per cent., of these have been called upon to appear and receive judgment, or are known to have been subsequently convicted of a fresh offence, two Metropolitan Police Courts and several places have failed altogether to put the Act into operation, or to avail themselves of the powers conferred by the Summary Jurisdiction Act in a similar direction, IK; will consider the advisability of re-issuing the Circular of his predecessor, reminding Criminal Courts of the Statute, in the hope that they may utilise it, still further, and thereby save the country from the maintenance of many persons in prison, and at the same time reclaim considerable numbers to honest society?

I am anxious, with a view to mitigate the treatment of those who commit trifling offences, that Justices should fully avail themselves of both the Probation of First Offenders Act and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, s. 16; and I am considering whether any further action should be taken by the Home Office for that purpose.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can state what steps, if any, the Guardians of the Edenderry Union have taken to carry out the order for the erection of 22 labourers' cottages in their Union published by the Local Government Board on the 17th of February last, and confirmed by an Order in the Privy Council on the 22nd of June; and will he cause the Local Government Board to urge the Guardians to make contracts for the erection of those cottages before the winter sets in?

I am informed that Unnecessary plans and schedules are now being prepared by the Guardians for deposit with the Board of Works, Clerk of Union, and Clerk of Peace. An Arbitrator will then be nominated by the Board of Works, and his appointment has to be advertised for three weeks, and a further period of not less than three weeks allowed to parties interested to make statements of claim. The Guardians have no power to enter on lauds until after the deposit of the Arbitrator's draft, award, and the Local Government Board could not, therefore, urge them to make contracts for the erection of cottages before that date. The Board add, they see no reason to anticipate any unnecessary delay on the part of the Guardians in their proceedings under the Order.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the sad fatal accident at Tipton, to a child of Mr. Henn, who was killed by a stray bullet from the Dudley Rifle Range while standing at the door of his father's house; if he will state what measures will be adopted to prevent such accidents in the future at this range and other similar ranges in the country; and if the War Department will grant help to Mr. Henn to relieve him from the expense that has been inflicted upon him by this accident, amounting to £60, which is far beyond his power to pay?

(who replied) said: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the very sad accident at Tipton to a child of a Mr. Henn, who was killed by a stray bullet from the Dudley Rifle Range while standing at the door of his father's house. To prevent such accidents in future, firing on this Volunteer range has been prohibited, a course which is always adopted when a range is found to be unsafe. With regard to the loss that has been inflicted on Mr. Henn, I can only repeat the answer given by the Secretary of State on the 18th of June on this subject—namely, that there does not seem to be any claim against the Government in this matter, whatever other claim there may be.

Arising out of that answer, is it not a fact that this range was complained of in the year 1892 by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood; that an inspection was made by order of the War Department and that it was pronounced safe? Have not the War Office thus made themselves liable to give some gratuity to this poor man to meet the expense he has incurred and which he cannot afford?

I am afraid I am not able to answer as to the particular facts alleged. We are satisfied that the man has no remedy as against the War Office. If the hon. Member cares to put a further question down I will look into it.

The hon. Gentleman has not answered the second paragraph of my question.

Whenever there is reason to suppose that a range is insecure, an investigation will be made and firing prohibited if necessary.

In the absence of the hon. Member for West Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will give the date of the last Catholic appointment to the Bench in the Dingle district; and whether there is any likelihood of any Catholic appointments to the Magistracy being made there?

Since the present Government came into Office 29 County Magistrates have been appointed in Kerry, of whom 19 are believed to be Roman Catholics. Two gentlemen were appointed for duty at the Dingle Petty Sessions; one of them, appointed in March, 1893, is a Roman Catholic, and the other, appointed lately, is a Protestant. The Lord Chancellor will be glad to consider the names of any suitable Roman Catholic gentlemen that may be recommended to him for the Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, on Monday, 13th August, the clerk of Strabane Union, North Tyrone, refused to allow John Torish, the Nationalist registration agent, who is a ratepayer, access to the Rate Collector's Returns, to ascertain if the Franchise Laws had been complied with by certain voters; whether he is aware that the majority in this division in 1892 was only 51; will he inquire why the following Conservatives, whose rates were not paid in time in 1893, were not officially objected to, and appear on the 1894 Register: Nos. 1,323, William Mackey; 1,678, J. Thompson; 217, J. Bill (in succession, rates unpaid on house in Castle Street); 232, John Jack (in succession, rates unpaid on Castle Street house); why two Nationalists, D. Gallagher and George Knox, Nos. 156 and 265 on the supplemental and inhabitant occupiers' lists, living in houses under £4, received no notice that the landlord had not paid the rates; whether the landlord also got no notice; and whether these men were, in consequence, officially objected to, and struck off the lists; and whether, as the Local Government Board declare it is not the duty of the Strabane Poor Law officials to know or act on the decision of the Court of Appeal on the Registration Law, they will ascertain on what ground the following Nationalists have been officially objected to by the clerk in the preparation of the Register for 1895: Nos. 146, Samuel Brown; 155, Thomas Brown; 280, Hugh Coyle; 991, J. M'Bride?

I am informed that permission to inspect, the documents mentioned was refused to Mr. Torish on the 15th instant, and to Mr. Miller, the Unionist registration agent, on the 14th instant. The clerk of the Union reports that he so refused because the period of 14 days prescribed for inspection by Section 18 of the Registration Act of 1885 had expired before the first of those dates; that he did not think he had any right to allow the inspection asked for; and that the Guardians approved of his conduct in refusing. The majority in this division in 1892 was 49. I am informed that all rates, for which the first three persons mentioned in the second paragraph were liable, were duly paid, and that there was no person named John Jack, of Castle Street, on the lists. I am informed that Daniel Gallagher was not officially objected to for unpaid rates, but that he was so objected to and struck off the list for having received outdoor relief, and that there was no official objection to George Knox. The Local Government Board state that they are not aware that they made such a statement as that referred to in the last paragraph. The statement to which my hon. and learned Friend personally refers is that made in reply to a question addressed to me on the 3rd instant, that I had been informed it does not devolve upon the Local Government Board to make clerks of Unions acquainted with the Registration Law, or to see that it is carried out, and that the Board had no jurisdiction over Boards of Guardians and clerks of Unions in their capacity of "Overseers" under the Franchise Acts. I am informed that Samuel Brown was objected to for subletting, and the other persons for not being sole occupiers under the decision of the Court of Appeal in Simpson's case.

Do I understand the clerk is justified in refusing access when Nationalists are concerned, and with allowing it to Tories?

Is it not an objectionable course for the Government to inquire into the political opinions of voters?

The Local Government Board did not enter into the question as to whether these voters were Conservatives or Nationalists. The question was as to certain numbers on the Registers.

Is there any foundation for the charge against the clerk of this Union?

I cannot say I see any foundation for a charge of improper conduct.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the clerk's action was approved by the Guardians, the majority of whom are Nationalists?

The majority of them are Tories.

I have no information as to that.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the fact that last Thursday, near Draperstown, County Deny, two men were shot by gamekeepers; one was Bernard M'Eldowney, whose leg is shattered by a bullet from a Martini-Henry; the other, Patrick M'Guiggan, whose foot was smashed so that it will probably have to be amputated; and that the two gamekeepers, Deane, and Lees, were arrested, but released on £100 bail by Mr. C. W. Dysart, J.P.; whether lie is aware that the Magistrate shook hands with the prisoner, Deane, before the inquiry; whether it is usual to release prisoners, especially on such small bail, when serious injury has been inflicted; if not, will the Lord Chancellor's attention be called to the circumstance; did the police resist bail; was the Crown professionally represented; and what is the present condition of the wounded men?

My attention has been drawn to a report of the occurrence referred to in the first paragraph. Each of the wounded men, who were poachers, was armed with a double-barrelled gun, and both of them fired the first shot at one of the gamekeepers, who, however, was not struck. They were shortly afterwards fired upon by Deane. One was seriously injured in the left leg, and the other in the left foot. The gamekeepers were arrested and charged with shooting at the poachers, and at the hearing of the case the Magistrate named took bail for their appearance at the next Petty Sessions. The Crown was not professionally represented at the hearing, but the District Inspector of Police conducted the proceedings and opposed bail being taken. I understand it is not usual to release prisoners on bail when serious injury has been inflicted, but it does not appear that the action of the Magistrate was illegal in the present case. I am making further inquiry into the matter, however. The police are unable to say whether the Magistrate shook hands with one of the prisoners before the inquiry, as alleged. The wounded men are improving, and no amputation, so I am told, will be necessary.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division of Nottingham, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury who is responsible for making up the indices to the Evidence given before the Select Committees of this House; and whether witnesses before such Committees are permitted to have any share in making up or correction of proofs of such indices after they are set up by the printers?

I am informed that the index to the Evidence given before a Select Committee is prepared by the printers, Messrs. Eyre and Spottiswoode, who are responsible for the same. Witnesses have no share in making up or correcting proofs of such index.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General is he aware that the people of Ardfinnan and of Bansha, County Tipperary, want to have postal telegraph offices established at both those places, and that they have applied to the Post Office authorities to facilitate them; if he is aware that the telegraph wires are already fixed up in Bansha, but that there is no telegraphic communication between those wires and the local post office adjoining; is he aware that the telegraph wires of the Waterford and Limerick Railway are about five miles off Ardfinnan Post Office; and will he give postal telegraphic offices at Ardfinnan and at Bansha?

It is the fact that applications have been received for the establishment of telegraph offices at Ardfinnan and Bansha Post Offices. I regret to find that in neither case is the extension likely to prove remunerative; and I am therefore precluded by Treasury Regulations from affording the desired facilities except under guarantee, the amount of which in each case I will communicate to the hon. Member. The wires to which the hon. Member refers in the case of Bansha are through wires, which are not available for serving that office. It would be necessary to erect a new wire from Bansha Post Office to Tipperary. The hon. Member is probably aware that the guarantee might be given by the Local Authority.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, in reference to the contemplated abolition of certain police barracks in the County Tipperary, the ratepayers, who pay for them, are of opinion the least useful police barracks are those that should be abolished; and that great discontent exists there because Ballydavid Police Barrack has not been abolished instead of Kilmoyler Police Barrack; has he seen on the Ordnance Map of that county the relative positions of both places; will he inquire further into the reasons why Kilmoyler Barrack was selected for abolition, instead of the less useful one at Ballydavid; and will he see that the ratepayers' views of this important matter are represented to the Constabulary Authorities in Dublin Castle?

The breaking up of one or more police stations in the county became necessary in consequence of a recent reduction in the police establishment of the county. It became a question whether the station at Ballydavid or Kilmoyler should be broken up, and the Divisional Commissioner and local officers agreed that Kilmoyler station was the least useful of the two and could better be dispensed with. Certain of the ratepayers of the locality, who objected to the abolition of Kilmoyler, did lay their views before the Constabulary Authorities, and their representations were carefully considered before the surrender of the barrack was recommended. All the correspondence in the matter was before Govenment, who expressed concurrence in the recommendation of the Local Authorities.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that District Inspector Cosgrave, Kanturk, had two colts grazing on an evicted farm at Toureen, Knocknagree, from which a tenant named Mahony was evicted; and that the same police officer removed the colts to another evicted farm at Ardnaguta, from which a tenant named O'Connell was evicted; is he aware that the colts were attended to by the caretakers, who are under police protection; and whether the Constabulary Authorities sanctioned the action of this officer in thus intervening in a matter of dispute between landlord and tenant?

The facts, I am informed, are substantially as stated in the question. The sending of the horses to graze on the evicted farms is stated to have been an ordinary business transaction, and Mr. Cosgrave had no intention of intervening in the matter in the sense imputed in the question. At the same time, I consider that this action was imprudent, and open to this latter construction, having regard to his position as a police officer, and shall so inform the Inspector General.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to lay it down that the Constabulary should take part in the boycotting of farms?

The hon. and learned Gentleman must know that I mean to lay down nothing of the kind. I consider that in this case the officer did what was not his duty, and his superior officer has been so informed.

In what has this officer done wrong? How has he transgressed the law?

Has he violated any regulation of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

There are many things an officer may do which are indiscreet, but are not mentioned in the Queen's Regulations, and when such cases are brought to the notice of the Irish Government, it is their duty to investigate them and, if necessary, reprimand the officer.

Does not the Constabulary Code prohibit a policeman taking a farm in the neighbourhood of his own station?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the existing Regulations which enable persons serving in the Civil Service and other specified situations to compete at the examinations for outdoor officers of Customs will continue in force as at present until the contemplated change of age takes place?

Clause 4 of the General Regulations for open competitive examinations for the Civil Service, by which persons who have served for two full consecutive years in any civil situation to which they were admitted with the certificate of the Civil Service Commissioners may, in reckoning age for competition, deduct from their actual age any time not exceeding five years which they may have spent in such service, continues in force, and will so continue under the new Regulations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in addition to the allegations already made affecting the South Meath Register of Voters, he will inquire whether the following persons were struck off the 1893 Register by having their names scored through by the Revising Barrister, yet that they appear in the 1894 list—namely, Polling District of Dunboyne: Nos. 53, Carlin, John, Bodies, labourer's house (not living there for several years); 217, Larkin, Michael, Dunboyne, labourer's house (dead several years); 245, Martin, Michael, Clouee (dead many years); 15, Blackburn, John, Dunboyne (dead several years); Polling District of Athboy; Nos. 44, Byrne, Henry, Athboy; 90, Clarke, Michael, Jamestown; 446, Masterson, Michael, Baskinagh Upper (struck off last year as Thomas); 459, Miggin, John, Kildalkey; 488, Mulvey, Bartle, Kildalkey; 511, Murtagh, John, Castletown; 514, Murtagh, Patrick, Castletown; 393, Lawless, Peter, Martins-town (not on last year's list nor premises for many years); if he will ask the Revising Barrister whether he authorised the insertion of these names in the 1894 list; and, if not, what authority the Clerk of the Peace had to re-insert them; and if, having regard to the very many serious allegations affecting this list, the Lord Chancellor will inquire into the conduct of the Clerk of the Peace?

I have received a long and elaborate answer, and I would rather in the first place make it a matter of private communication to the hon. and learned Member, who, when he has seen it, can, if he is not satisfied, put a further question down.

I have put to the right hon. Gentleman a whole series of questions regarding these lists. Serious allegations have been made affecting this gentleman. The majority in the Division was only 50, and many more than 50 names are concerned. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider if he should allow these allegations to pass without an investigation by some competent authority?

Before answering that question I should be glad if the hon. Member, for mine as well as his own information, will go through the list of names submitted to me by the Clerk of the Peace, and will make upon them any observations he may deem necessary.

I beg to ask Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the case of the late Katie Walsh, of Clash, near Ballyduff, whose mental faculties have been shattered owing to an attack made upon her, and who has been conveyed to the Killarney Lunatic Asylum; and, if so, whether any of her assailants are known, and whether any steps have been taken to make them amenable?

The alleged attack on Hannah (not Kate) Walsh is being investigated by the police, who inform me that so far as their inquiries have proceeded there are no grounds whatever for believing that the girl received any ill-treatment prior to her becoming insane.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Land Tax Commissioners, appointed by an Act of Parliament of last Session, are entitled to be summoned, together with the Land Tax Commissioners previously appointed in each borough, for the purpose of choosing from their number Income Tax Commissioners?

I am informed that it is legally obligatory on the Land Tax Commissioners to meet once a year before April 30, and notice of such meeting has to be posted on church doors, &c. Any person named in the Land Tax Commissioners' Names Act is entitled to attend, and, when qualified, to act as Land Tax Commissioner. Additional Income Tax Commissioners are only appointed when, in the opinion of the Board of Inland Revenue, the existing number is insufficient, and when the statutory notice has been given by the Board in The London Gazette that a meeting will be held for that purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the training ship Northampton may be expected to visit Lough Foyle; and, if so, when?

May I respectfully point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Member for Derry has merely copied a question which appeared in my name on the Order Paper last Monday—and which at the request of the Secretary to the Admiralty, I postponed until to-day, and which, in fact, appears later in the Paper—simply substituting "Lough Foyle" for "Cork Harbour"? May I ask you, Sir, whether the offspring should be permitted to take precedence? I am aware, Sir, that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I think in this ease it has been carried a little too far.

The answer of the Minister may possibly satisfy both hon. Gentlemen.

Perhaps I may answer the two questions together. My answer to the hon. Member for East Cork is, the Northampton arrived at Queenstown on the evening of the 12th instant. In answer to the hon. Member for Derry, I have to say that Lough Foyle is not included among the places to be visited by the Northampton during her present cruise.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that it was 10 years since the Channel Fleet visited Lough Foyle? Why did the Admiralty treat Lough Foyle in that manner? They even refused this year to send the ordinary gunboat to Londonderry Regatta.

Every port has its turn. The Channel Fleet has lately been to Lough Swilly, which is in the immediate vicinity. It is impossible to visit all the places which pay the Fleet the compliment of wishing for a visit. As to the sending of a gunboat to a regatta, there is a general rule regulating that.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a promise was made a fortnight ago that the Northampton should be sent to Stornoway?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is understood that all Civil servants may stand as candidates for and be members of Parish and District Councils without any consent being asked of superiors, provided that such candidature and the performance of the duties of Councillor do not interfere with the proper discharge of the Civil servants' duties to the State?

Yes, Sir; subject to the condition that if in any par- ticular case the duties of the two services are found to conflict, power must be retained to the head of the Department to require the Civil servant to retire from the Council.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it has been brought to his notice that James Craig, rate collector, Strabane Union, is in arrear with his collection £342, in consequence of which some voters must be disqualified for nonpayment of rates at forthcoming revision for North Tyrone; whether Craig furnished the Clerk of Union with any list of defaulters so that official objections might be entered on the Voters' List for non-payment of rates; whether the private objector for the North Tyrone Nationalists, John Torish, applied for and was refused permission to inspect the list of defaulters if such exists; whether, last year, a number of persons in Craig's collection, who had not paid rates, were allowed without objection to remain on the Register; and whether the Government will secure that private objectors for political Parties in North Tyrone and elsewhere shall be allowed free access to all Poor Law records and documents on which the right to the franchise depends, so that if whether by mistake, neglect, or any other cause the Union officials fail in their duty, an opportunity may be given to correct errors in time to affect the Register?

I am informed that the first paragraph is correct, but that a large portion of this sum is due on waste premises and ratings divided since last year. I am informed that the necessary information with regard to non-payment of rates was furnished by Craig to the Clerk of the Union. The reply to the third paragraph was given in my answer to the question No. 8 for to-day of my hon. and learned Friend. I am informed that the facts are as stated in the fourth paragraph as regards one or two weekly tenants who had been in occupation, for a very short period, of certain premises for which the rates had not been paid and had then changed to other premises. I am informed that the provisions of the Registration Acts with reference to inspection are strictly complied with in this division.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the new Treaty, which has been negotiated with Japan, abandons on the part of Great Britain the system of extraterritorial jurisdiction which has been considered hitherto necessary to protect the interests of British subjects in their relations with Oriental countries; and whether the tariff attached to the new Treaty authorities an increase in the amount of duties; and, if so, if adequate notice will be given of the same to enable merchants to govern their operations accordingly?

Under the new Treaty the extra-territorial jurisdiction will eventually cease, but not for at least five years, and then only in return for certain advantages to be obtained for British interests. The tariff attached to the new Treaty authorises an increase in duties. Under the Treaty the tariff may come into force within one month after the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty, but it practically cannot be applied to British subjects unless the nationals of other countries are subjected to it, and this they will not be until Japan has concluded similar Treaties with those countries. The Treaty will be published as soon as the ratifications have been exchanged.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Mr. Williams, the recently appointed Assistant Inspector, who is said to have worked at an open quarry, never worked at the rock, but simply, when a young man, used to pick up slabs cast aside by the regular quarrymen and split them into slates; and that, ever since, he has been engaged as a pupil teacher and a schoolmaster; whether, inasmuch as he has appointed, in addition to Mr. Williams, another Assistant Inspector, also from Merionethshire, who has thorough practical experience of work in quarry slate mines, he will re-consider his decision, and appoint another assistant equally experienced in open slate quarrying; and whether he is aware that only about 4,200 workmen are employed in the slate mines of Merionethshire, from which district both the Assistant Inspectors recently appointed are drawn, whereas over 8,000 quarrymen are employed in the open slate quarries of Carnarvonshire?

It is the fact that Mr. Williams when a young man began work at the quarries as described in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's question, but he subsequently became for a time a workman in the slate mill. He did not work as a rockman, but he received the slate that he had to dress from a part of the quarry which was then worked as an open quarry, and which he had to visit almost daily. After leaving the quarry he was employed in school work. The fact, however, that Mr. Williams did not work as a rockman appears to me to be immaterial, having regard to the wide knowledge of quarrying in all its branches which ho has since obtained, and which, as I have already stated, fully qualified him in my opinion for the appointment. The numbers of quarrymen employed in the open quarries of Carnarvonshire is 8,436; the number employed in the Merionethshire slate mines is 4,321, of whom more than one-half work above ground. There are also in Merionethshire open slate quarries employing from 300 to 400 men, and it must be borne in mind that nearly all the slate mines in Merionethshire were originally worked as open quarries. The Inspectors are appointed not for particular counties, but for the whole of North Wales, and I believe no one is more fitted for the work in all its branches than Mr. Williams. I cannot make any additional appointments at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with regard to the fact that the last Return of the Irish Magistracy showed that there were, on the County Wicklow Bench, 103 Protestant and 13 Catholic Magistrates, and that the Catholics are nearly four-fifths of the population, what steps has the Lord Chancellor of Ireland taken to reduce the disproportion between Protestants and Catholics on the Wicklow Bench; and how many Nationalists has the Lord Chancellor appointed since August 1892, and how many Tories and Unionists?

Since the present Government came into Office 23 Magistrates have been appointed for the County Wicklow, of whom 15 are believed to be Roman Catholics, seven to be Protestants, and one a member of the Society of Friends. The Lord Chancellor has no knowledge of the political tendencies of any of these gentlemen, but he observes that the appointments of 17 of them were recommended to him by supporters of the present Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War if he has received a resolution from the Committee of the Dublin Ratepayers' Association, protesting against the Corporation scheme of main drainage as most expensive and inefficient; and whether the War Department has any power to sell the Pigeon House Fort, being an armed fortress, to the Corporation for the purposes of this scheme?

(who replied) said: No such resolution as that referred to can be traced as having been received at the War Office. The Government has power to sell Pigeon House Fort.

Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to state whether the Report received from the Royal Engineers on the subject is favourable or unfavourable to the scheme?

I have not seen the Report, but I imagine it would only deal with the scheme so far as it affected the interests of the War Office. The responsibility for the general character of the scheme rests not with the War Office, but with the citizens of Dublin.

I will call attention to the matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the medium trucks of the Highland Railway Company are undersized and only capable of carrying seven full-sized cattle as compared with eight by the trucks of other Companies; and that in consequence the rate per truck from some parts of Ross-shire to London is £10, or 25s. more than if the capacity of the truck were equal to that of other Companies; and whether the Highland Railway Company will be required by the Board of Trade to use a medium truck of larger size, or make a proportionate reduction in their charges?

I have communicated with the Highland Railway Company, and the General Manager informs me that all Highland trucks are capable of carrying eight cattle, are of medium size, and do not materially differ from those of other Companies in Scotland. The Highland Company have some trucks six inches less in length, but these are being gradually converted to the medium or full size—namely, 15 feet 6 inches, and 18 feet in length respectively. The Board of Trade have no power to interfere as to the size of the trucks; any specific complaints of unreasonable treatment will, however, be dealt with by the Board under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888.

I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the tribesmen in Tokar are still prevented by the Egyptian Government from cultivating and occupying their lands, and whether there is any prospect of their reinstatement; whether legitimate trade between Suakin and the interior of the Soudan, viâ Kassala and Berber, is still interdicted by Her Majesty's Representatives in Cairo; and whether that interdict may be removed?

The tribesmen of Tokar are not, and have not been, prevented from cultivating and occupying their lands; but owing to the failure of the Baraka flood, there has been more distress in the district, and there is less land under cultivation than there was last year, as the hon. Member will see by referring to the second paragraph on page 13 of Lord Cromer's Report presented to the House in Egypt No. 1, 1894. The third paragraph on the same page states that a limited trade is carried on between Suakin and Berber. This has continued for the last six months, metals or warlike materials being alone interdicted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a letter published by His Eminence Cardinal Logue respecting the Irish Land and Migration Company and the dealings of the Government therewith, especially as to the free gift of £50,000 by the State; and will any explanation be called for from any person concerned, or is it intended to take any notice of or call for any reply to the statements of His Eminence?

My attention was called some time ago to this letter, and I at once applied for information on the subject. Communications are proceeding, and I should be glad if the hon. and learned Member will postpone the question for a day or two.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the report in The Surrey Advertiser of 4th August, relative to the proceedings of the Cranleigh Habitation of the Primrose League, at which the band of the West Surrey Regiment is stated to have attended and played; whether he is aware that the report shows that the gathering was a purely Party one; that Sir Richard Webster, M.P., spoke on political subjects, and apologised for the absence of another Conservative Member; whether the War Office has several times declared that military bands must not attend Party meetings; and who is responsible for inviting the band to be present on this occasion, and who sanctioned its attendance on behalf of the regiment?

(who replied) said: The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the report referred to. In reply to inquiries since made, it appears that permission for the band to play at Cranleigh was given by the officer commanding the 2nd Regimental District at the request of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, who is a resident in the locality. The officer commanding was, however, unaware that it was intended to be employed at a Primrose League meeting. Had he anticipated that it would have been so employed he would have refused permission on the ground that it was contrary to the Queen's Regulations.

Am I to understand that the band of any regiment will be granted to anyone who applies for it without any statement as to the object for which it is required?

It was undoubtedly the duty of the Commanding Officer before granting permission to satisfy himself that the band was intended to be used in a way consistent with the Queen's Regulations. He appears to have failed in that particular.

Did the letter addressed to the officer commanding by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight withhold from him the information as to the kind of gathering the band was to play at?

It did not say what the nature and purpose of the particular gathering was.

Are we to understand that an ex-Attorney General of this House has broken the law?

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a class-room built at Hartshill, in the County of Worcester, in the year 1891, and recognised by the Department in the years 1892 and 1893, has now been condemned; and whether he will re-consider the matter?

There does not appear to be any school of this name in Worcestershire. I do not know whether the question refers to Hartshill National School, in the County of Warwick; but no class-room has been condemned there. If the hon. Member will let me have details, I shall be glad to consider the case.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will inquire into the requirement made upon the managers of Butley School, Suffolk, with regard to alterations; whether it is necessary to make it a condition of approval of such requirements that they must be in exact accordance with the technical requirements of Schedule VII. of the Code; and whether he will save expense and trouble to the managers by giving or withholding approval of the proposed alterations before they are made?

It has been laid down in the Code since 1890 that all new school premises and enlargements must conform generally to the Rules contained in Schedule VII. The plans sent up by the managers appear not to have been drawn in accordance with the requirements of Schedule VII., and, moreover, seem, so far as can be judged from the correspondence, to have been not very intelligible. But if the plans are again forwarded to the Department, I will see what further information can be given to the managers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a quotation from The Journal des Débats in The Times of the 11th instant, in which it is stated that of the countries in which Anarchist centres are known to exist Great Britain is the only one which has refused to take any steps, continuing to think, as Lord Rosebery has said, that all is quiet; and whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all which the law allows to keep such dangerous liberty within bounds? In putting the question, the hon. Member said that the quotation he included in it when he handed it in at the Table had—no doubt for a good reason—been struck out; but he feared that without it the question did not convey his meaning.

The question was revised, and even now the expression "dangerous" is left in, and ought not to have been. "Dangerous" is the expression of an opinion.

I am sorry anything has been left in which ought not to have appeared, but as the question now stands, it does not convey the impression I wish it to convey. The last words are,

"Whether he can assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will do all which the law allows to keep such dangerous liberty within bounds."

There is no previous reference to dangerous liberty.

Words were purposely omitted.

May I be permitted to read the quotation?

The hon. Gentleman may give its purport.

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question. The attention of the Government has not been called otherwise than by the question to the passage referred to. It appears to be an irresponsible statement by a foreign journalist. No complaint or representation of any kind in the sense of the quotation has been made to Her Majesty's Government by any foreign Government; and the statements in the foreign newspaper, so far as they purpose to be statements of fact, are without any foundation. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this question was fully explained by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords on July 17, and I must refer the hon. Member to his speech. We think the measures taken in this country for dealing with Anarchists to be at least as well-considered and effective for the purpose as those adopted elsewhere; and we believe the existing law, if administered with energy and discretion, to be adequate both for our own protection and for the performance of our International engagements.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the serious and damaging effect on the harvest in Ireland owing to the heavy continuous rains, and to the fact that the potato blight in a virulent form has appeared in many districts; and, if so, will the Local Government Board set inquiry on foot as to the effect of the potato disease in the poorer and more distressed districts of the country, and take steps to cope with any distress which may arise?

The Reports received from the Inspectors of the Local Government Board show that down to the middle of July the crops everywhere promised well, but the recent and continued heavy rains have been very unfavourable to the hay and potato crop, and the latest Reports show that blight has made its appearance in some parts of the West and South of Ireland. Up to the present the disease has not gone far, though a further continuance of the wet weather would cause it to spread. I am glad to learn that there has been a marked improvement in the price of sheep and cattle at recent fairs in the west, especially in the smaller class of cattle. The Inspectors of the Local Government Board have been instructed to keep the Board informed as to the state of the crops and the condition of the poorer classes, but it will not be possible to form an accurate estimate of the potato harvest until the main crop is dug in October.

At one time experiments were made with a view of dealing with the disease and stopping it in its early stages. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the Government has turned their attention to the practicability of continuing those experiments on an extensive scale.

The Land Commission conducted a series of experiments, and the Government are doing what they can to have those experiments extended and the results of them made available.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now prepared to state if any provision will be made for the widow of Bulwant Rao Bute, who was murdered under circumstances of great brutality within British jurisdiction in the Gwalior State by Asad Jar Khan, the Superintendent of Police of the Indore State, and two of his subordinates, with the assistance of other persons?

The Government of India were asked in a letter by the last mail to state whether any steps have been taken to obtain compensation for the widow of Bulwant Rao. As soon as an answer is received, I will let the hon. Member know.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the limit of age to which persons are eligible for appointment to the office of Assistant Inspectors of Mines is 35 years, and by what authority such limit exists; whether, if such be the case, the operation of the Rule has been to exclude from eligibility for such office a very large number of working miners who have sent in applications to be appointed; and whether he will consider the expediency of procuring a modification of such Rule in the interests of working miners?

The limits of age for candidates for the appointment of Inspector of Coal Mines were fixed at 23 to 35 in October, 1873, by Mr. Lowe, who was then Home Secretary; and in 1887, after the passing of the Coal Mines Regulation Act of that year in which the appointment of Assistant Inspector is recognised, the same limits of age were fixed for their appointment by my predecessor, with the concurrence of the Treasury and the Civil Service Commissioners under the power of the Order in Council of June 4, 1870. No doubt a good many working miners, and other candidates as well, have been ineligible for nomination to compete for this appointment in consequence of being over 35. The number of candidates, working miners and others, within that limit is, however, very large, and as at present advised I do not see any sufficient ground for modifying the conditions. I shall be glad to consider any representations from miners and other persons interested in the question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the statement in the Treasury Minute of the 23rd of May, 1892, upon the proposal of the development of the telephone system in the United Kingdom, that the intention is to meet, as far as possible, the views of the Municipal Authorities, and having regard to the fact that the proposals are embodied in certain Draft Agreements which have only, at this late period of the Session, just been circulated, he will postpone until next Session the completion of the said Agreements, so as to give the Municipal Authorities, who have now adjourned, an opportunity, which they will not otherwise have, of considering and expressing their views on the Draft Agreements?

At the same time I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, having regard to the statement in the Treasury Minute of the 23rd of May, 1892, upon the proposals for the development of the telephone system in the United Kingdom that the intention is to meet, as far as possible, the views of the Municipal Authorities; and having regard to the fact that the proposals are embodied in certain Draft Agreements which have only just been laid upon the Table of the House, he will postpone until next Session the confirmation of the said Agreements, so as to give the London County Council and other Municipal Authorities, who have now adjourned for the vacation, the opportunity which they will not otherwise have of considering and expressing their views on the said Draft Agreements?

And I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will defer the final confirmation of the proposed Agreements with the Telephone Companies until next Session; in order to afford the Municipal Authorities of the country an opportunity of considering them and expressing their views upon them?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers these questions, may I ask whether the Draft Agreement was not based on a Treasury Minute submitted to and approved by Parliament; and is it not also within the Regulations formulated by Parliament? Would not the public interests suffer by further delay?

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider as to the desirability of referring this Draft Agreement to a committee of business men before next Session commences? Is he aware that the heads of the Draft Agreement were never submitted to the House of Commons?

A Committee in 1892 recommended that the details of the arrangement should be carried out by the Department, and I should not feel justified in referring the matter to a Committee. I have pointed out, in reply to previous questions, that the Agreement does not require the confirmation of Parliament. I may again point out that it merely carries out the policy which has already received Parliamentary sanction, and in connection with which large sums have already been expended, out of the amount authorised to be raised by the Telegraph Act of 1892, in the erection of main trunk lines. As I have before stated, the Telegraph Estimates will afford an opportunity for any discussion that it may be desired to raise, and, in view of the inconvenience and prejudice of the public interests which the further delay desired by the hon. Members would involve, I am not prepared to assent to the postponement of the matter until next Session.

Does the right hon. Gentleman think it reasonable and fair to the Municipal Authorities who were promised the Agreement before it was signed that it should only have been sent to them when everybody must have known they were away on their holidays?

I regret that I was not able to lay it on the Table earlier. If I thought that it in any sense interfered with the rights, privileges, and powers of the Municipality or in any way restricted their rights with regard to licences I should have agreed with the hon. Member, but I am satisfied such circumstances do not exist, and that no one will be prejudiced.

Will not this Agreement, now practically concluded, prevent the granting of any licences to Municipal Authorities for a period of 18 years?

No; it will not have any such effect. An endeavour was no doubt made to interfere with the rights of the Postmaster General in that respect, but I steadily refused to sanction it, and as the Agreement now stands my discretion in the matter remains absolutely unfettered.

Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer consent to devote two or three days to the discussion of this Agreement on the Estimates?

No, Sir; not if I can help it.

My right hon. Friend will be unable to help it.

Then why ask me?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board when the Report of the Royal Commission for the Unification of London will be circulated?

The Report is in course of preparation, and, as I am informed, will he issued shortly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will forthwith lay before Parliament those portions of the Agreement between France and the Congo State, signed on Tuesday, which affect the Anglo-Congo-lese Convention; whether, in the Agreement with France, the Sovereign of the Congo State binds himself not to exercise any political control whatsoever westward of the 30th degree of longitude, or northward of the latitude 5 degrees 30 minutes, and to limit his action south and east of such lines; and what, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, will be the future situation on the territory of the Nile, near Lado, lying immediately to the north of latitude 5 degrees 30 minutes?

Will the hon. Baronet say whether the Agreement between France and the Congo Free State is or is not made subject to the approval of Great Britain?

May I ask whether, under the Convention just concluded between France and the Congo Free State, the King of the Belgians has renounced most of the territory leased to the Congo Free State under the Anglo-Congo Treaty of 12th of May; whether under the Franco-Congo Convention, the French boundary is moved eastward as far as the 30th meridian, so as to come within 50 miles of the Nile, and to include Darfur and a large portion of the Equatorial Provinces; whether Her Majesty's Government were consulted before this Treaty was concluded; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to recognise its validity?

And will the hon. Baronet state what is the effect of the new Franco-Congolese Agreement upon the Anglo-Belgian Agreement of the 12th of May, 1894; and whether he will lay a copy of the former document upon the Table of House?

We have not yet received the text as signed. When it is received it will be laid before Parliament. By this Agreement the Congo State renounces all influence and occupation west and north of a line thus determined: Longitude 30° E. starting from its intersection with the watershed of the Congo and Nile basins up to the point where it meets the parallel 5° 30 N., and then along that parallel to the Nile. No limitation south and east of this line is made by the Agreement. Her Majesty's Government were informed of the arrangement between France and the King of the Belgians, and did not oppose His Majesty's desire to sign it; but they are in no sense parties to it, and the territory north of Lado and in the western watershed of the Nile basin remains in the British sphere of influence, subject to the rights of Turkey and Egypt, as it was before the Agreement with the King of the Belgians was signed. Lord Dufferin has returned to Paris to continue with M. Hanotaux the discussion which we hope will lead to a settlement of pending difficulties between the two countries.

The hon. Baronet has not answered the second paragraph. Can he say whether the French Government have given an undertaking not to occupy Darfur or any portion of the Equatorial Province?

And the hon. Baronet has not answered my question, in which, however, I should like to substitute the word "concurrence" for "approval."

I said we were informed of the arrangement between France and the King of the Belgians. France has not given any undertaking under this Agreement, which does not move the French boundary into the Nile basin.

What is the degree of latitude at which the Franco-Congo frontier intersects the 30th degree of longitude? Much depends on that.

It is defined in the first Article of the Treaty.

My point is this: How far will the French be from the Nile waterway? Will they come within 40 miles of the Nile itself? Has France given any undertaking not to occupy any of the region which we know as the Equatorial Province?

I cannot make any statement as to the French undertakings while the negotiations are proceeding. The Agreement, I repeat, does not alter the French boundary at all in a way to affect the Nile basin.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the case of Edward Thomas, rural postman in the Eglwyseg district, Denbighshire, who, after 20 years' service, has recently met with an accident whilst on duty which totally disabled him for further work; whether he is aware that owing to a technical difficulty the usual pension has been refused to him by the Lords of the Treasury; and whether, under the special circumstances of the case, he will use his influence to obtain a relaxation of the strict terms of the Superannuation Act with the view to securing a pension or an adequate provision for the person referred to?

The case of Edward Thomas has been brought under my notice, and all the facts have been reported to the Lords of the Treasury, who, while regretting that Thomas's service did not entitle him to the benefits of the Superannuation Acts, have been pleased to sanction the payment to him of a special gratuity of £15 from the Compassionate Fund at their disposal. Under these circumstances, I am sorry to say, in reply to the hon. Member's question, that I can hold out no hope of obtaining more favourable treatment for Thomas.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when the Report of the Committee which was appointed during this Session to inquire into Chelsea Hospital may be expected to be published?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has not yet received the Report of the Committee on Chelsea Hospital: but it is understood that it will lie submitted to him in a few days, and it will be published in due course.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board have issued a notice prohibiting the removal of sand, gravel, or other materials from a portion of the beach at Criccieth, South Carnarvonshire; whether it has been brought to his notice that stones, sand, and gravel for building purposes at Criccieth have hitherto been obtained from the beach, and that this prohibition will seriously affect the development of the town; and will he explain the reason why the notice is issued?

Complaints were received by the Board of Trade from the Local Board of Criccieth and also from the owners of properties fronting the sea near Criccieth that the removal of materials from the foreshore below high-water mark in front of their properties was endangering the safety of the sea wall erected by the Local Board and was causing damage to their lands lying behind the beach. Having been advised that these complaints were well founded the Board decided to adopt the course usually followed by them in similar instances, where it is apprehended that the practice complained of might facilitate encroachment by the sea, and issued notices in the usual form prohibiting the removal of materials from the foreshore referred to.

In the absence of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, with the view of encouraging voluntary settlements pending the introduction of another Evicted Tenants Bill, he would be able to promise to favourably consider a provision in the measure under which such pecuniary grant can be made in the case of such settlements as the tribunal to be appointed would find the parties would have been entitled to if the Bill which recently passed this House had become law, notwithstanding that the evicted tenant may have been reinstated before a new Act shall have been passed?

I am not sure, after carefully reading the question, what my hon. Friend wishes. At all events, it is a hypothetical and problematical question, which could scarcely be answered across the floor of the House.

The question is this: If in the coming winter an arrangement is made by any of the evicted tenants with their landlords on the same terms as those included in the rejected tenants Bill, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that in any future Bill those cases of arrangement shall be allowed to share the benefits?

Before giving an undertaking of that kind I should want to know what were the terms of the arrangement?

If the landlord accepts one year's rent from the tenant, will the hon. Gentleman undertake that the Government will allow him another year's rent?

It is obvious that I cannot give an undertaking of that kind. That would be a matter for the Arbitration Tribunal to deal with.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Dr. Dillon, medical officer of Strokestown Dispensary and a Magistrate for the County of Roscommon, in a charge of assault brought by the Queen, at the prosecution of Patrick M'Loughlin against Francis M'Loughlin and Michael M'Loughlin, was called in and professionally employed to attend Patrick M'Loughlin, the prosecutor; that the defendants were obliged to pay Dr. Dillon £2 for a certificate that the life of the prosecutor was not in danger, before they got out on bail; that Dr. Dillon afterwards, on the 1st of August, attended as a Magistrate at Rooskey Petty Sessions, in the County Roscommon, on the hearing of the said complaint, and adjudicated in the case, notwithstanding the protest of the solicitor for the defence that he should not do so, being an interested party who had been in professional attendance for reward on the prosecutor; and that Dr. Dillon refused to leave the Bench, and took an active part in the proceedings, saying that he did not care for the protests of the solicitor, and adjudicated with the other Magistrates in the case, when the defendants were fined £4 and costs; and if he will bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor with the view of preventing Justices of the Peace adjudicating under similar circumstances in the future?

It would be improper for a Magistrates to adjudicate in a ease in which he had been professionally employed. If the facts are as stated in the question, I shall bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture has the employment of excessive juvenile labour been discontinued in the Ordnance Survey Office, Phoenix Park, Dublin, and has the Fair Wage Resolution been adopted in the Department?

I am sorry I cannot add anything to what I have already stated to my hon. Friend in reply to the previous questions he has addressed to me on this subject. The information before me goes to show that the proportion of boy or "juvenile" labour is not greater than is consistent with the nature of the work to be done, and that a comparison of the position of the Ordnance Survey Staff in Dublin with that of persons doing similar work in private employ would be favourable to the former, and I may refer my hon. Friend to the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee of 1891, a copy of whose Report was laid on the Table.

I wish, Sir, to draw your attention to the fact that The Times newspaper of to-day under the heading "Political Notes'" contains a series of paragraphs purporting to give detailed particulars of the deliberations of the Select Committee on the Working of the Irish Land Acts yesterday, the Committee being now engaged in the consideration of their Report. The same newspaper on a previous day contained what purported to be the particulars of the proposals contained in the Draft Report of the Chairman of the Committee which was confidentially circulated among the Members of the Committee. I am informed also that one of the News Agencies has circulated a paragraph containing similar information. I wish to know, Sir, whether communications such as must have been made to the Press in this case are permissible?

It is often very difficult in cases of the kind to prevent transactions in Committee from being made public. I should say that it was for the Chairman of a Committee to consult with his colleagues as to the best means of preventing any part of their Report from being made public before it is officially presented to the House. Perhaps something might lie done in that way to prevent those occurrences.

This question was raised at a meeting of the Committee to-day, and, I think, very properly. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings of the Select Committee, and to the details of their elaborate Report, I am surprised that any Member of that Committee should have felt himself at liberty to communicate to the Press any account of what has occurred. The feeling expressed this morning in the Committee was very strong and decisive that whoever had made this communication to the Press had been guilty of an impropriety, and to some extent of an act of disloyalty to his colleagues in the Committee.

I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is not possible to withhold from newspapers that disregard the ordinary practices of this House the privileges which they enjoy of admission to the House and to the Lobby.

We should consider rather the source from which the communication originally came. The newspaper may not be as guilty as the person who communicates the news.

I wish to move—

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Government business be mot interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House; and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed, and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without Question pat."

I do not think it is necessary I should make any statement as to precedent. The Leader of the Opposition, I understand, assents to this Motion, which it is customary to make at some date before the expected close of a Session, when, practically speaking, the legislative work of the Session is finished. The Government do not contemplate late Sittings after this Motion has been passed. The question of the exclusion from consideration of all but Government business has been raised, and in my opinion it is desirable that Government business should be alone dealt with. I adhere to the words which I used when a similar Motion was made in 1891 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square. I said then—

"I know the difficulty there is sometimes in distinguishing between opposed and unopposed Bills, and I think the best course to take at this late period of the Session is to lay down that no Business shall be taken except Government business. It would not be a kindness to private Members to keep this Bill in a state of suspended animation. It would be kinder both to the promoters and the opponents of the Bill that exceptional Rules should extend only to Bills brought forward by the Government, and not to private Members' Bills."

I entirely demur to that view, and object to that exceptional proceeding for the closing of the Session. I think that Members should know what they have to expect and what they have not to expect, and that Members should not be kept unnecessarily waiting for Bills which may or may not come on. If this proposal be carried, there will be hardly any Government legislative business on the Paper at all, and it will be known that the business of the House is Supply. Members will then know that they can cease their attendance here for the purpose either of promoting or opposing private Members' Bills. I think that if this course he followed it will be for the convenience of all sections of the House, and that it will conduce to the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I hope, therefore, that this Resolution may be passed in the form in which it is upon the Paper.

remarked that the Church Patronage Bill was read a second time unanimously by the House, that it had passed through the Grand Committee, and only had now to get through the Report stage and the Third Reading. If the Government had not taken the whole time of the House the Bill would now have been disposed of. The Government had selected the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill, and had devoted two days to it at this late period of the Session. It seemed to him to be a matter of considerable hardship that the Government should forward one private Member's Bill, and refuse to do anything for a measure which had reached the position now occupied by the Church Patronage Bill. No doubt the Government had to pay a debt for the support they had received from some of their followers, and he supposed that under these circumstances they had been bound to give time for the Miners (Eight Hours) Bill. He did not wish to divide against the Motion, but he thought that some protest ought to be made against the system of favouritism the Government had adopted. The prece- dent which had been established was a very dangerous one, and might lead to a good deal of confusion hereafter.

said, he had been very badly treated indeed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in regard to the Crofters Acts (Inclusion of Leaseholders) Bill, and he wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take this Bill under his wing and pass it this Session. In 1886, when the Crofters Act passed, the Liberal Party had not sufficient backbone to assent to a clause including in its provisions small tenants who held under lease. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues knew now that this was a mistake, and he asked them why they did not rectify that mistake. The right hon. Gentleman was in the position of one who owed a 3, 6, or 12 months' bill to the Highland Members. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman pay the bill so as to make things square? He (Mr. Weir) did not think the right hon. Gentleman was taking a straight or an honourable course in regard to the crofters, and he hoped he would avail himself of this opportunity of doing so. Everybody was anxious to get away for his holiday; but the right hon. Gentleman's holiday might be delayed if he did not promise to pass the Bill, unless he was going to flee from the House and the post of duty.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed great kindness towards all private Members' Bills, but there was such a thing as killing a Bill with kindness. The Bill to repeal the Crimes Act passed its Second Reading by a majority of 60, but the Government afterwards took away from private Members 10 or 12 Wednesdays, on any one of which the Bill might have been discussed in Committee. The Government had given facilities for the discussion of the Eight Hours Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) had supported the Bill, but he must say that the next time the Government favoured one Bill to the exclusion of another, they ought to know whether Members had made up their minds to support that Bill. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to favour any Bill, he ought to have favoured the Repeal of the Crimes Act Bill. He (Colonel Nolan) hoped the Government would grant an Autumn Session in order to pass this Bill, and perhaps to pass a second time the Bill which the House of Lords threw out the other day. This year three or four private Members' Bills had passed their Second Reading, but the only one of them that had got through Committee was the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill. If the Government would promise that the Bill for the repeal of the Crimes Act should be included in the Queen's Speech next year lie would be satisfied.

said, he should feel bound to divide upon the Motion. There was a coalition between the two Front Benches, and whenever he saw that he thought it was the duty of private Members to vote against it. During the last two Sessions almost every hour of the time usually given to private Members had been appropriated for Government Business, and now the Government absolutely proposed to take away the last chance private Members had of passing their Bills. He quite admitted that where a Bill was seriously opposed, as the Church Patronage Bill and the Criminal Law Repeal Hill were, there was a great deal to be said for the Government proposal, but there were Bills and Hills. Ho had a Bill which had passed its Second Reading not by a, majority of 60, but without a Division at all. Its object was to enable women to become Poor Law Guardians in Ireland as they could in England and Scotland. The Government were destroying all chance of passing this Bill, and he felt bound to protest against the attack which was being made upon the rights of private Members.

My hon. Friend who has just sat down has stated with perfect truth that in this matter there is an agreement between the two Front Benches. He says that when he sees the two Front Benches form such an unholy alliance he and other non-official or ex-official Members ought to band together to resist our oppressive proceedings. I would ask hint whether there is any agreement among the non-official Members with regard to any single proposal that is made? My hon. Friend desires to sec passed a Hill which I think is a very excellent measure, but one upon which there is not a universal agreement.

Only one Member objects to it.

If we were to propose to allow the hon. Member's Bill to be discussed and were to put aside the Bills of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley), the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Nolan), and the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), all those gentlemen would go into the Lobby against him. The truth is, that on these occasions every Member who has a Bill which he believes in is anxious to get it passed, but the House at large is not at all prepared to give any Member exceptional privileges. That being so, it is evident that we must cither give everybody equal privileges or deprive everybody of all privileges. There is one good reason for not giving everybody equal privileges, and that is, that if we did so we should never get a holiday at all. I think the two Front Benches are quite as ready to do their work as any other Member, and even the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whose holidays are, I understand, to be curtailed, has given us the advantage of his advice and guidance through a very long and laborious Session. The question is not whether the Government have managed their business well in the past, but whether we can manage it in the future so as to secure the most convenience to the general body. It surely must be obvious to private Members that you cannot give special privileges to one class or one county, or one Member, which you are not prepared to extend to all Members.

All the Highland counties want the Crofters Bill.

It is not possible to give to one district, or to one county, or to one Member the privileges which you will not extend to every other district, and county, and Member. If yon give such privileges this Session would not only be not drawing to a close, but would hardly have begun its infant career. I do not wish to turn my eyes to the past, but to look simply to the future, and to see how the few remaining days of the Session can be best spent for the general convenience of the House. I shall most cordially support the Leader of the House when he follows the invariable practice of all his predecessors at this stage of the Session, and moves a Resolution which has been on every similar occasion found to embody principles which are intended to further the general convenience of all Members, to whatever Party they belong or whatever interest they may represent.

With the indulgence of the House I should like to say a few words in reply. It is said that owing to the Government having taken a very large portion of the time of the House private Members have not had the opportunity of passing their Bills into law. Well, I hold in my hand a list of nearly 20 Bills that have been passed this Session by private Members, and I would draw attention to the number of Scotch measures that there are amongst them. The list comprises the Burgh Police (Scotland) Bill, the Charitable Trusts Amendment Bill, the Chimney Sweepers' Bill, the County Councils Association (Scotland) Bill, the Fishery Boards (Scotland) Bill, the Heritable Securities (Scotland) Bill, the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill, the Industrial Schools Bill, the Injured Animals Bill, the Locomotive Threshing Engines Bill, the Music and Dancing Licences Bill, the Outdoor Relief (Friendly Societies) Bill, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Bill, the Public Libraries (Scotland) Bill, the Solicitors (Examination) Bill, the Uniforms Bill, the Wild Birds' Protection Bill, and the Public Libraries (Ireland) Bill. It will be seen, therefore, that private Members have not been entirely excluded from successful legislation this Session.

said, the Bills mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman were those which had been passed after 12 o'clock, and they were unopposed Bills of very little importance. He should vote against the Motion. He had noticed that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was the only gentleman present who had cheered the Chancellor of the Exchequer during his statement. He had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) when again he had a seat on the Treasury Bench would go one better than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and would move a similar Motion to this a month or two earlier. By-and-bye Members would meet at Westminster to witness a game at chess played by a few gentlemen on the Front Benches, the non-official Members acting as the living pawns, whose duty would be merely to move through the Lobbies. He objected strongly to the course pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he intended to move a reduction of his salary in Committee of Supply. The Crofters (Leaseholders) Bill, of which he (Dr. Clark) had charge, was merely the first clause of the Government Bill that was withdrawn a few days ago. Its object was sanctioned last Session, and had been sanctioned again this Session. The object was to admit 300 or 400 poor farmers to the benefits of the Crofters Act, from which they had hitherto been excluded because they were leaseholders. He had been very hard upon landlords; but he must say that, as far as the Crofters Act were concerned, the great bulk of the Tory landlords in the Highlands had acted most generously in bringing these poor leaseholders under the Acts. There were, however, Liberal landlords who had not done so. In his county the Liberal landlord was a rack-renter, and yet the Government would not give oven five minutes to pass a Bill for the relief of these poor people. They made promises, but never carried them out. The result would be that if the Government did bring in a Rill the men who would have been benefited by it would be bankrupt, and would be away to America. He objected to the Motion on another ground—namely, the humbugging—if he might use the phrase—of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, having promised at the beginning of the Session that he would appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the financial relations between Scotland and England, had failed to redeem that promise. Not a single Scotch Estimate had been taken this year. Never had the Scotch Votes been in this position before. He was not astonished at the Leader of the Opposition agreeing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the present occasion, because he had always noticed that when any bad work was to be done the Tories in Opposition got it done by a Liberal or Whig Minister, and then subsequently, when the Tories were in power, the wedge was driven home. Upon this and every similar occasion he would vote against such a Motion.

said, there had been a good deal of censure applied to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, some of which he thought the right hon. Gentleman heartily deserved. There was one point upon which he would press the right hon. Gentleman, and that was as to the qualification concerning the Twelve o'Clock Rule. He hoped they would not greatly exceed that hour. He believed the House was disposed to agree to the general principle of not doing much contentious business after 12 o'clock. His own experience led him to believe that when business of that character was dealt with it was seldom done well, and that time would be saved by adjourning to the following day. The time had come when an unofficial Member could not possibly pass a Bill through the House if it met with any opposition whatever. After 12 o'clock something might be done; but at the end of the Session the whole time of the House was taken, and Bills which bad been in progress were destroyed. That was, in his opinion, simply a great waste of public time. He should, therefore, oppose the Motion on principle. It was urged by the two Front Benches that this course had always been adopted at a certain period, and private Members were now making a protest, because they wished to prevent it, if possible, in the future. But he might remind the right hon. Gentleman that some qualification of that had been allowed, because the practice had been—at any rate in some cases where non-contentious Bills existed on the Order Taper which promised advantage to the State—to allow them to be "starred," and he himself hail to acknowledge considerable courtesy in that direction. But the chief purpose for which he rose was to say that he believed the reason why this time was wasted, and why these measures were prevented from becoming law was the faulty procedure of the House, and he also believed that there was a rising current of opinion to that effect. There were two sources of waste of time—the destruction of a great deal of legislation that had been carried almost to maturity, and the constant Motions to take further time. When they had nearly done their work it should be carried over to the following Session. A strong current of opinion was rising in that direction, and he hoped that when the matter was brought before the House next Session, which it would be from both sides, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would think that it was time to reconsider the procedure of the House, with a view to adapting it to modern requirements and to avoiding the further endangering of our Parliamentary institutions.

said, the Motion resolved itself into two branches, one of which was of use to the Government and the other of no use, and being of no use it made private Members "poor indeed." The Leader of the Opposition bad said that this was a course which had been invariably taken by the Leader of the House and his predecessors. He ventured to say that they were now asked to agree to a course never taken before—namely, that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put immediately after Government business had been disposed of. This kind of Resolution began with the new Rules of 1887. Then the practice was towards the end of the Session, for Mr. Smith, after the Government business was disposed of, to move the adjournment of the House. Now, however, an important departure had been made under the advice of the authorities of the House, who were always watching for an opportunity to restrict the rights of private Members, and the Government now proposed to take away from them even the right of making a few observations on the Motion for the Adjournment. Their rights as private Members were to be further curtailed. That was a course that had never been taken before, and he believed if any precedent could be shown for it it was not three years old. With what object was this course being taken? All the Government wanted was to go on after 12 o'clock with their business, and when they had got that right, why should they seek to deprive the Irish Members of the right of going on after 12 o'clock; and again, if any emergency arose, why should they not be afforded the opportunity of making a few observations on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which sometimes was an important matter? If any precedent could be found for this Motion he would be glad to see it, and he respectfully submitted to the Government that they ought to be satisfied to have the Motion passed down to the word "opposed," and allow the remainder to be omitted. That would concede to the Government everything they desired. Of course, it would be very unfair to proceed with Bills that were sprung on the House because of Government business collapsing suddenly; but he thought a Motion to deprive private Members of the right of proceeding with Unopposed Business after 12 o'clock was a very strong order, and that it was still more stringent to say that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put. He thought this proposed invasion of the rights of private Members, that the Speaker should leave the Chair without Question put, was one which should be opposed by all sections of the House. He regarded this Motion as another blow struck at the privileges of private Members by the authorities of the House.

said, he heartily agreed with the remarks made by his hon. and learned Friend opposite. The Government ought to be allowed to go on with their business after 12 o'clock, but they ought not to take away all the opportunities of private Members. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the Opposition seemed to make a great point with reference to absent Members. Why should they do so? Surely Members who were away on holiday were neglecting their duties here and ought not to be considered; Members staying here doing the work of the country were those who ought to be considered. If a Division was taken, he should go into the Lobby against the Motion, because he always objected to an agreement between the two Front Benches. He rose more particularly to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to force through the Draft Agreement with the National Telephone Company. So long ago as last November the Postmaster General promised that a copy of the Draft should be circulated before the Government agreed to it, not only amongst Members but amongst the Municipalities of the country, so that there might be ample opportunity of considering it. If the Agreement had been concluded, it would be a distinct breach of faith. Sir J. Hutton, Chairman of the London County Council, attended at the House of Commons yesterday, and told him that it would be utterly impossible for him to get the Council together to consider that Agreement. The Council was one of the parties to whom the promise was made. The latter part of the Resolution would still further restrict their rights in regard to the bringing on of this Agreement, and therefore he had additional ground for complaint. He was bound to say candidly to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, unless he would agree to put off the consideration of this Agreement until next Session, his wheels would drag heavily through the Estimates. This House ought to jealously watch Company promoters, and therefore he had a right to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give them the reasonable time they required, and that he would not allow it to be said of the Government that they distinctly broke a pledge given to the municipal institutions of the country.

With reference to the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth, will he allow me to read to him the Resolution which was agreed to without a Division about the same period before the end of the Session of 1892? It was as follows:—

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House each day at the conclusion of Government business without Question put."

With regard to what has been said by the Members for Peterborough, Ross, and Caithness, all I have to say is that if they disapprove so entirely of my conduct in the regulation and the furthering of the business of this House, it is perfectly within their power to dismiss me from the situation which I hold and put somebody in my place who will conduct the business of the House in a manner more to their satisfaction.

said, he would like to be allowed to explain that he had said nothing about the right hon. Gentleman's conduct of the Business of the House. All he asked about was the Agreement with the National Telephone Company.

We will consider that matter, and we will not attempt to press the agreement at present if we find that there is a well-founded opposition to it.

said, he thought it was only right that a protest should be made against the manner in which Supply had been treated. They found that almost every Vote that had to be taken would have to be discussed under the pressure of the Rule they were about to have, and in this attenuated House. He hoped the precedent of the Government would not be followed. The House had just reason to complain that they had not had earlier in the Session a fair and reasonable opportunity of dealing with the important questions that arose on the Estimates.

said, he wished to point out, in answer to the protest made by the promoters of the Church Patronage Bill, that the loss of that Bill was due in a great measure to the conduct of those hon. Gentlemen in connection with the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill, which, having been read a second time without a Division in this House, was subsequently massacred by them.

asked whether, if the Motion was carried, it would prevent any discussion on the last day of the Session on questions which hon. Members might wish to raise with reference to the conduct of business during the Session?

No, Sir; it did not last Session, for that was the only occasion on which I ever made a speech in this House before breakfast at 10 o'clock in the morning, in answer to a question raised by a colleague of the hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for Sheffield.

said, that the Appropriation Bill would afford hon. Members ample opportunity to raise any questions they might desire to raise. He agreed entirely with the remarks of his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for South Islington; but on this occasion he thought the Motion of the Government was reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

said, he desired to associate himself with the protest made by his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough with reference to the National Telephone Company agreement. He was glad to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that if he found a feeling adverse to that agreement he would defer the consideration of it. That was a very different statement to that made by the Postmaster General earlier in the evening. The feeling in the London County Council was very strong upon this question. They strongly objected to the absence of opportunity for examining its provisions.

said, he would undertake to see the Chairman of the London County Council, and if he understood that there was a serious objection to the agreement taken he would reconsider the matter.

said, the Chairman of the London County Council had gone for his holidays, and he and his hon. Friend the Member for Shorediteh and others represented the feeling of the Council.

said, that, so far as he knew, there had been no expression of opinion by the County Council, nor was he aware that the Chairman possessed any authority to delegate the expression of the opinion of the Council to any Member or Members of the House of Commons who happened to be members of the Council.

said, that if any Members of the House who were also members of the Loudon County Council would see him afterwards they might discuss the matter.

said, that many large Municipalities would be affected by this agreement, and past experience had taught them that they should not accept what the Government and the Company had agreed to. They desired ample time to examine the agreement which had been made, and he himself would regard it as an evasion if the Government attempted to get consent to this agreement without giving to all the Municipalities of the country ample time to examine it.