I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Report of the Board of Trade and Admiralty Commission on Floating Derelicts will be published during the Recess and distributed to Members?

Yes, Sir; this Report will be presented either to-day or to-morrow in dummy form in order that it may be distributed during the Recess.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to a letter by the hon. Member for Canterbury in The Times of yesterday; and whether it is the fact, as alleged in that letter, that the late Mr. Fawcett, as Postmaster General, was opposed to the proposal to allow the public to use private cards of their own as post-cards by putting halfpenny stamps on them?

My attention has been called to the letter referred to. I stated in the House during the discussion of the Post Office Estimates that Mr. Fawcett and every subsequent Postmaster General had been favourable to the proposal that the public should be allowed to use their own cards, with halfpenny stamps attached, as postcards. Mr. Fawcett stated in the House of Commons on the 17th of July, 1882, that he was glad to say that he thought the difficulties in the way of allowing cards to be sent as post-cards with adhesive stamps could be got over, and, from documents I have seen in the Department, I am able to state that he was personally favourable to the proposal. No doubt he and other Postmasters General, in consequence of difficulties and objections for which neither they nor their Department were responsible, have stated, when speaking of the Governments of which they were Members, that they were unable to carry out the change.

I think that I have some reason to complain of the hon. Member putting the question down in the way he has, because it is not strictly accurate. I have not alleged anything of the kind. With the permission of the House I will read a letter sent to me by the late Mr. Raikes.

I beg to withdraw any imputation that I may have made upon the hon. Gentleman.

Yes; but I must explain it now. The letter I received from Mr. Raikes was as follows:—

Order, order! I think the hon. Gentleman is travelling rather outside a personal explanation. I do not understand that the allegation of the hon. Member for Woodstock is a very serious one, and the hon. Member is not entitled to go into the whole circumstances.

Then I will ask the Postmaster General whether his predecessor stated that it was impossible to introduce the new Regulation without serious loss?

I believe that it is correct that Mr. Raikes, in the letter of August 10, refers to a statement that he made on July 18, stating that he could not hold out any hope that it would be possible to adopt the proposed alteration. All I have to say is that I am very glad that the present Government have been able to do what Mr. Raikes—not because he was disinclined to do it himself, but on account of the views of the Treasury—said was impossible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will endeavour to assure that when ordinary work is resumed after harvest on the Crown Farm, at Shimpling, Suffolk, wages shall be raised to 12s. a week in the case of all able-bodied men, and this without waiting for them to ask it? I beg, further, to inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the wages of the labourers on this farm—the men not being herdsmen or stockmen—is only 10s. a week, and that they have applied to the bailiff for an increase, but been unable to obtain it?

I have no doubt that the fact as stated by my hon. Friend is correct, but I am informed that they have not made any application for an increase. I am sorry I cannot assent to the proposal contained in the question. It would be irregular for me to give a pledge of the kind referred to in the absence of an application from the men concerned, who should, if they have any complaint, address the Commissioner of Woods and Forests in the regular manner.

The men assure me that they did make an application to the bailiff.

inquired whether, if the men ask for an advance, care will be taken that they are not dismissed for so doing?

I hope so; I shall do all in my power to prevent it.

What is the meaning of a "Crown farm at Shimpling," and is it the fact that the Government are carrying on a farming business there, and sweating the poor labourers?

This is a farm which the Crown has not been able to let. If my hon. Friend can find us a tenant for it we shall be very glad.

As that offer has been made, perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me what is the rent?

I do not know.

May I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information as to the present position of the dispute in the Scotch coal trade, and whether he has intervened?

The Board of Trade have not intervened because they have not found that any fitting opportunity has arisen at which its intervention would be likely to accelerate a settlement of the dispute. I have, of course, information regarding the present position, but I am sorry to say that none of it is such as would be, in my judgment, likely to have a good effect if communicated to the House at this moment. I may, however, express my earnest hope that the masters will take the earliest opportunity of meeting the men with the view of discussing the best means—fair to both parties—of putting an end to a dispute which is causing such widespread distress.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of British interests involved, Her Majesty's Government intend to increase the strength of the British squadron in Corean waters?

I have received no notice of the question, which it is therefore impossible to answer with precision. The Foreign Office have no reason to suppose that the squadron is at all insufficient, or that any opinion to that effect has been expressed by the authorities on the spot.

I sent the notice to the Foreign Office. May I ask whether the Under Secretary has any information as to the statements in to-day's papers to the effect that a great European Power is sending eight further vessels to Corean waters?

I have not yet seen the statement in the papers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will give the names of the consignees of the 6,000 German chisels recently seized at Leith, fraudulently marked as English goods, having regard to the strong presumption that they were so marked by order of the importers?

Having communicated with the Commissioners of Customs, they inform me that they do not desire to give the names of the consignees of the chisels. It would be undesirable, in the absence of evidence that the consignees were parties to the fraud, to publish their names.

Am I not justified in stating that no Sheffield firm was concerned in this contraband importation?

I have no information whatever on the point.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the list purporting to contain the names of the Committee appointed by the Local Government Board to inquire into the management of pauper schools, published this morning, is correct?

The list in the papers to-day is correct as far as it goes, but it is not complete. It will, therefore, be convenient if I state all the names of the Committee. They are:—Mr. Mundella (Chairman), Sir John Gorst, Mr. Lyulph Stanley, Mrs. Barnett (wife of Canon Barnett), Rev. Brook Lambert (Rector of Greenwich), Dr. Russell Reynolds (President of the Royal College of Physicians), and Mr. W. Vallance (clerk of the Whitechapel Board of Guardians). The following are the terms of Reference:—

"To inquire into the existing systems for the maintenance and education of children under the charge of Managers of District Schools and Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, and to advise as to any changes that may be desirable."

asked whether the Halifax School Board contemplated the delivery of a course of lectures to children on the injurious effects of alcohol, and whether an application had been made by the Federated Brewers' Association, asking to be allowed to provide an able lecturer on the same subject, so that any incorrect statements promulgated by the first lecturer might be corrected? He wished to know whether the School Board would be allowed to arrange for the delivery of lectures of that description?

I have no doubt that teaching on the subject of drink is allowed in schools under the innocent heading "Food and Drinks" in the syllabus on health, but I have not heard of any effort being made in the direction indicated. I imagine that the Halifax School Board will be able to look after itself in this matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, inasmuch as he cannot give the Benbow frigate as a place of rest and recreation for the watermen, lightermen, and seamen of the Thames, he will consider whether, when the sale of the other old ships takes place shortly, it would be within the scope of his power to give some one of these disused vessels that possibly may not find a purchaser to be used for the above-named purpose?

I informed the hon. Gentleman the other day that the Benbow is quite unfit for the purpose which his question suggested. I fear that the same objection applies to the other ships which are the property of the Admiralty, and are about to be advertised for sale. But I have given direc- tions that a copy of the sale list shall be sent, as soon as it is finally settled, to the hon. Member, and if he will watch the sale or make any other inquiries, he will be able to decide whether he agrees in the opinion which I have expressed on behalf of the Admiralty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the strong feeling in New South Wales in regard to Treaty arrangements affecting colonial trade, he could state what action would be taken on the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown?

We are now in communication with the Colonial Office, but I shall not be able to announce a decision before the House rises for the Recess.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it is intended to give us an opportunity to obtain replies from Ministers to questions which we put to-day, but got no answer to?

I am afraid there will be no opportunity to-day.

There are several points on which I wanted information, and could not get it because of the absence of Ministers.

The hon. Member has had many opportunities of extracting information; probably he will be able to survive this last blow.

Then I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we can have any opportunity of raising these questions in the Committee on the Appropriation Bill?

In Committee yon can deal with nothing except Appropriation, I imagine. Of course, I am not in a position to answer that question. The better plan will be to elicit the information from the Chairman of the Committee.