said, the Bill proposed to renew certain powers granted by a previous private Act to a local Company to acquire land in Parliament Street, Westminster, for the purpose of erecting buildings upon it. The question was one of very considerable public interest. The Government, having considered it, had come to the conclusion that it was desirable to take the land themselves for their own purpose. As he did not wish to take the House by surprise, he begged to move that the Debate be adjourned till Thursday, when he should be prepared to make a full statement of the position of the Government upon the question.

raised the question how far the rights of the public would be affected by the Bill. It was, he said, well known there had been for some time very great dissatisfaction at the treatment by the South Eastern Company of its clients, and he wished to get an expression of opinion and promise from the promoters that no opportunity would he taken advantage of to place the travelling public in a worse position. Of course, the Company might say that they only took the opportunities afforded them by existing general statutes, but they had just ascertained that the Company, in connection with another Company, had altered their tariff so far——

rising to Order, submitted that the hon. Gentleman was travelling into matters outside the scope of the Bill.

said, that the hon. Member was entitled to raise the question of rates in so far as it related to the undertaking which the Company by the Bill proposed to take over.

said, the hon. Member was under a complete misapprehension, as under the Bill the Company could charge no other rates than those they were now empowered to charge.

said, that if anything improper was alleged against the Company, the other side would get more advantage by exercising their right of reply than by trying to close his mouth. He had no other interest than to endeavour to safeguard the rights of the public, and everyone was aware—he was bound to use some illustration—that the public Press sometime ago teemed with letters in regard to the treatment by this particular Company and another Company of their third-class passengers. He asked for an assurance from the promoters of this Bill that they would not exact their entire "pound of flesh" from the travelling public. He would refrain from blocking the progress of the Bill on the understanding that an assurance of that kind were given.

feared that he should not be in order were he to digress as the hon. Member had done.

denied that he had digressed.

said, that the Bill could have no effect upon the question of fares. The fares which could be charged were statutory fares, and nothing would be altered by the proposed transference to the South Eastern Company. The sole and exclusive object of the Company was to save the unnecessary expense of a separate Board of Management. The President of the Board of Trade was the guardian angel of the interests of the public in railway matters, and he could be trusted to take care that those interests were not prejudiced by a Bill of this kind. Nothing that this Bill proposed to do would affect or could affect the question to which the hon. Member had drawn attention. He trusted therefore that the Second Reading of the Bill would not be opposed further.

hoped that in matters of this kind the President of the Board of Trade would act as the guardian angel, not only of the Railway Companies but also of the public. The representatives of the public in that House desired that the President of the Board of Trade and the officials of his Department should consider Bills of this kind, so as to be in a position to direct the attention of the Committee upstairs to any unfair provisions which they might contain. It was the more necessary that the Board of Trade should discharge that duty, as it was very difficult to discuss adequately Bills of this kind in that House.

said, that it was correct to say that this Bill would not affect the legal aspect of the question of fares on the line which was to be transferred to the South Eastern Company. But what the hon. Member for Finsbury desired was an understanding that the South Eastern Company would not raise the actual fares now charged on the line to be transferred, and he thought the hon. Member was entitled to an assurance that the South Eastern Company would not make use of this Bill to charge maximum fares. If that undertaking were given his hon. Friend would probably be satisfied.

declared that the Company had not the slightest intention or desire to raise the fares, nor did this Bill afford them means of doing so. The sole object of the Company was to secure economy by getting rid of a useless second Board of Management.

observed that the South Eastern Railway wanted looking after more than any other railway in the Kingdom. It was not enough to say that everything was to be as it had been, for there was a good deal that ought to be altered in connection with the South Eastern. He trusted the Committee upstairs, before returning the Bill to the House, would take care that everything that ought to be done in the interests of the public was done. Concessions ought not to be granted to Railway Companies for the benefit of directors and shareholders. They ought only to be granted for the benefit of the public and the country. He hoped that everything that was necessary would be done by the Board of Trade to protect the interests of passengers and others on the lines to which this Bill applied.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will have inquiries made into the action of the Factories' Inspector at Hull, who has lately caused prosecutions for slight breaches of the Acts?

I have made inquiry with regard to the prosecutions referred to, and I find that in every case the Inspector acted properly in undertaking them. I cannot regard it as a slight offence that employers who are allowed two hours' overtime should exceed that limit, or that firms who have been allowed to substitute another day for Saturday as the half-holiday should deprive the workpeople altogether of the weekly half-holiday. In one case a boy had been employed for 7½ hours without a break for food. I entirely approve of the action of the Inspector, who would have failed in his duty if he had allowed the provisions of the Factory Act to be disregarded.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will appoint a Select Committee to inquire why there is a loss on sixpenny telegrams throughout the country, and to inquire into other matters connected with the expenditure and deficit in the telegraph department, especially with regard to press telegrams?

No, Sir; I cannot agree to the appointment of a Select Committee as the hon. Member suggests, except on the terms which I stated in this House on the 4th and on the 29th ultimo. I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answers I then gave. I have, so far, received no such assurance as I asked for on those occasions.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can inform the House what is the number of civil parishes in Anglesey which have separate parish councils; what is the total number of parish councils which have been formed in. Anglesey; and how many parishes have been united in order to form parish councils?

I find that the total number of parish councils in Anglesey is 52, and that each of them has been formed for a separate parish.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, if he will explain why, although since the retirement of Professor Brown from the directorship of the Veterinary Department in 1893 no fresh director has been appointed, the Department has been re-named the Animals Department; whether he will state who is the director or principal of the Animals Department, and whether he is a member of the veterinary profession; and whether he is aware that a strong feeling exists in the veterinary profession against the recent alterations in the organisation and methods of the Veterinary Department; and will he state what steps, if any, he proposes to take in the matter?

On the re-arrangement of business which took place on the retirement of Professor Brown in 1893 the term "Animals Division" was applied to the officers engaged on duties which are connected with the animal industry, but which do not require the possession of veterinary knowledge for their proper performance. The term "veterinary" would have been inappropriate to the division thus constituted, and a separate status, was, moreover, assigned to our veterinary staff. The principal of the Division is Major John Trenchard Tennant, who is not a veterinary surgeon, but who has had nearly 20 years' experience of the business upon which he is engaged, and to whose ability and work in the past agriculturists are very greatly indebted I am aware that many members of the veterinary profession would have preferred that no changes in our organisation should have been made, but I am satisfied that these changes were necessary in the interest of the public service, and I do not propose, nor indeed is it in my power, to make any other arrangements.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) if he can explain why no communication has been made to any of the Foreign Powers interested in the North Sea Fisheries, a period of nearly two years having elapsed since the recommendations of a Select Committee of this House; (2) whether he has now received any communication from Lowestoft forwarding him resolutions unanimously passed at a meeting of those engaged in the trawling industry and, longshoremen of that port, taking strong objection to Part I. of the Fisheries Acts Amendment Bill; (3) whether he has also received a communication from the Gipping Angling Preservation Society expressing strong approval of Part II. of the said Bill; and (4) whether he is now in a position to state what opportunity he is prepared to afford the House of discussing the principles of the Bill?

As I explained, in answer to a former question, the negotiation of international conventions is a difficult and delicate matter, and one which does not always issue in success. In this particular case much consideration would be needed before the steps referred to in the question tending to enlarge the territorial three-mile limit could be taken, and the matter is still before Her Majesty's Government. I have received such a communication as mentioned in the second paragraph of the question, but must observe that some of those Gentlemen who were at the meeting, including the gentleman in whose office it was held, were present at a previous meeting which unanimously approved of the proposals which are embodied in the Bill. I am not at present able to say what opportunities for discussing the Bill can be given.

May I ask the right hon Gentleman whether he proposes to continue the course of putting this Bill down after midnight when there is no chance of discussing it?

Yes, Sir; I must take the best course I can.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when will an examination for County Inspectors' clerks (Royal Irish Constabulary) be held, and what is the cause of delay?

The Inspector General informs me that appointments of members of the force to the position of County Inspectors' clerks are made from the list of assistant clerks without examination. For the position of assistant clerk, however, an examination is, as a rule, necessary, but, as a number of members of the force, who have already passed a Civil Service Examination, have volunteered for this post, no further examination is, at present, contemplated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) what are the respective percentages of answering at a results examination which entitle a pupil to a satisfactory pass and to a mere pass in the several subjects of the programme; and (2), whether, in order to secure uniformity of examination in the several districts, the Commissioners of National Education would cause the instructions to their inspectors to be published as is done in England?

(1) The general understanding amongst the Inspectors is that wherever a percentage can be taken as a basis of the calculation, the value of the answering of a pupil at the results examination to entitle him to a satisfactory pass should be over 60 per cent.; and to entitle him to a mere pass it should be over 40 per cent. (2) The Commissioners have, however, under consideration, the propriety of issuing, at an early date, a code of regulations as to the interpretation of the results programme, and of the mode of examination to be pursued in certain cases, for the general guidance of Inspectors and teachers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign. Affairs, whether he has observed that under the rule respecting the use of the prefix "Honourable" by Colonial Members of Parliament and Ministers when absent from their respective Colonies, the non-official Members of the Legislative Council appointed by the Governor of Natal and other Colonies of minor importance would be accorded a distinction denied to some of the most distinguished servants of the Crown, such as the Members of the Council of the Viceroy or Governor-General of India; and whether he can state the number of persons entitled, under the rule referred to, to be styled "Honourable" throughout the Empire, and also the number of officials and Members of Council disqualified by it?

The rule on this question refers, as I have already twice informed the hon. Gentleman, solely to the Members of the Executive or Legislative Councils of the self-governing Colonies. I have no information as to whether the Members of the Indian Council desire that it should be extended to them. The number of persons entitled would, therefore, be the number of Executive Councillors and Legislative Councillors for the time being in Colonies possessing responsible government, besides the ex-Executive Councillors to whom the privilege of retaining the title for life has been granted. The number of persons to whom the privilege has not been extended—there is no disqualification in the matter—would be the members of the other Colonial, Executive and Legislative Councils for the time being. I must be allowed to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Colonies of "minor importance" to which he alludes include Canada, the Cape, New South Wales, New Zealand, and others, as well as Natal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware of the amount of the loans borrowed and expended by the Guardians of Carrick-on-Shannon Union, under the Seed Supply (Ireland) Act, 1895; (2) whether he can state the amounts expended respectively under the Seed Supply (Ireland) Acts of 1880 and of 1891, stating the quantity of seed distributed in the years 1880–91, and 1895, also the amount allowed the clerk for his services during 1880 and 1891; (3) whether the clerk of the union was allowed a sum of over £50 out of the surplus of the loan for his duty in connection with the seed distribution at the weekly meeting held on 9th May last; (4) whether due notice of this meeting was given to such members; and (5) whether he can specify the duty performed by the clerk and his assistants?

In reply to the first question, I have to say that the amount of the seed loan applied for this year in the Carrick-on-Shannon Union was £1,205, and the amount expended was £1,178. The answer to the second question is that the amount expended in the Union under the Act of 1880 was £7,222, and under the Act of 1891, £2,123. The quantity of seed distributed in 1880 was 500 tons; in 1891, 282 tons; and in 1895, 180 tons. The sum allowed to the clerk for his services under the Acts in 1880 was £75, and in 1891, £50. In reply to the third and fourth questions, I have to state that a sum of £50 has been voted to the Clerk for his services this year, but no notice of the intention to advance this sum was given, and the matter is to be reconsidered after notice. The answer to the fifth question is that the duties of the clerk and his assistants have been to carry out the instructions of the Local Government Board, to fill up the several forms, and to personally carry out the work of distribution for 13 days to more than 1,000 persons. The work to be done by the clerk in this matter is not yet at an end.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an agreement to purchase was entered into on 1st November 1891 between James Coy and the trustees of the O'Hara Estate, Derryhoyle, Craughwell, County Galway, and that the interest on the amount of the purchase has been regularly paid since; and could he explain the grounds of the delay in the sale being confirmed and completed?

I am informed that the proceedings in this case are in the Land Judge's Court, that they have been pending since September 1893, that the requisitions on title issued on the 18th January last, and that they have not since been answered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Sunday 28th April, at Corduff, near Carrickmacross, bodies of people, returning to their homes from a peaceful meeting, were stopped on the high road by the police; and that one body of people when stopped by the police proceeded to cross the fields in order to reach another road; whether they were pursued by the police and roughly handled; and, whether some band instruments were taken from the people by the police and the instruments injured; and, if so, whether the action of the police was in accordance with the law?

I am informed by the District Inspector of Police that the promoters of the meeting referred to had previously been warned that no assemblage would be permitted within a certain radius. An attempt, however, was made by the crowd, accompanied by a band, to hold the meeting inside this radius, and at this point one of the drummers pushed his way through the police, who quietly stopped him, took the instrument from him, and at once handed it over to the other bandsmen. The drum was in no way injured. The District Inspector assures me that the people were not at any time pursued, nor was anyone roughly handled, as at no time did the police come into collision with the people.

The right hon. Gentleman says "within a certain radius." A certain radius of what?

Within a certain radius of an evicted farm. My hon. Friend is aware that I have laid down that a meeting should not be held within a given distance of an evicted farm. That rule has worked very well, and the people have not complained of it.

It is very important for the people, in order to understand this matter, to know whether a rule applies to an evicted farm on which a new tenant is living, or whether it applies also to an empty evicted farm; because I understand that in this case it was an empty evicted farm.

If my information is right, on this occasion the meeting was held to denounce two given individuals, not, it is true, for holding, but for allowing their cattle to trespass on a farm near their holding. That would be an object of individual intimidation if my information is correct.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in November 1890, an award was made between the Drapers' Company and certain of their tenants, one of the conditions of the award being that if the sales of their farms should be delayed through the fault of the Company the tenants should not be called upon to pay any rent to the Company pending such delay; and that this condition has been violated in the case of John Wright, who has been served with an ejectment by the Company for the sum of £46 16s. 8d.; and whether he will inquire whether the delay in carrying out the sale of John Wright's farm is caused by the Land Commission or by the Drapers' Company?

I am informed that the application for an advance to purchase the holding referred to was refused by the Land Commission on the grounds that there was no means of access to the holding except through another holding upon which Wright resided, and in respect of which no agreement for purchase has been lodged. It would appear, therefore, that the delay has been caused by the tenant, who could get over the difficulty by entering into an agreement for the purchase of both holdings.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take against the proposed increase of the Belgian duties upon biscuits, hosiery, hardware, watches, cotton tissues, carpets, woollen shawls, and scarves, waxed cloth, and kindred specialities of British trade and labour, as detailed in the May number of The Board of Trade Journal, and which increases are declared to have been not only approved but even added to by the Central Section of the Second Chamber in Brussels?

I have conferred with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject, and in our opinion it would not be to the advantage of British trade that any official representation should be addressed to the Belgian Government at this moment. The proposed changes are now before the Belgian Chambers, with whom the decision with regard to them rests.

Then am I to understand that nothing whatever is to be done when a foreign Government makes a tariff against British goods? [Cries of "Order."] I ask the President of the Board of Trade is nothing whatever to be done?

The hon. Member will not be correct in understanding that nothing is to be done or is being done. I have answered the question on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that the local licensing authority unanimously refused the transfer of the licence of the only public-house in the village; of Findochty, in Banffshire, in compliance with the almost unanimously expressed request of the householders and inhabitants; and that the transfer was then granted in appeal by the Banff Quarter Sessions by a majority of 26 votes to 18; and whether, if the case is as above stated, he can suggest any method by which the inhabitants of Findochty can obtain redress in the matter?

I have received a telegram from the Sheriff of Banff saying that he is sending a report on the subject by-to-day's post, and I shall reply to the hon. Member to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he is aware that at the recent parish council election in the Lochalsh ward of Lochalsh parish, Ross-shire, the Rev. Angus Galbraith and Duncan M'Lennan were elected parish councillors on the nomination of Donald Cameron and Farquhar Macrae, and that Donald Cameron was also elected a parish councillor; and that Donald Cameron and Farquhar Macrae, although their names appeared on the roll of voters, had their names returned to the parochial board, since the parish council election, as being in arrear with their rates, and therefore not entitled to be entered on the roll of voters or to nominate or be a candidate; whether he will declare, in consequence of these irregularities, the election of the above councillors null and void, and either declare the three other candidates elected or order a new election; and whether he will take steps to protect the bonâ fide electors in future, and prevent such irregularities in making up the roll of voters in the parish of Lochalsh.

I am informed that the persons referred to paid their rates immediately after the collector made up his books on the 20th of June, and were therefore not returned to the Assessors as defaulters. I have no power to declare the election null and void. The only competent way of raising the question was by petition in the usual way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at the petty sessions held at Woodford on Monday the 13th inst. Colonel Longbourne R. M., presiding, a bailiff on the Clanricarde estate occupied a seat on the Bench; and whether, in view of the fact that his attention has been frequently called to the relations that exist between Colonel Longbourne and Lord Clanricarde's servants, he will state whether it is the intention of the Lord Chancellor to take any action with regard to the conduct of this Magistrate?

Colonel Longbourne informs me that it is not the fact that a bailiff on the Clanricarde estate occupied a seat on the Bench at Woodford Petty Sessions on the 13th instant, and that no relations of any sort exist between him and Lord Clanricarde's servants.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Board have declined to grant Orders in the Metropolis under the Electric Lighting Acts unless the power of purchase in favour of the Local Authority be reserved at the end of 42 years from the 22nd August 1889, and upon the terms of Subsection 2 of the Act of 1888; whether, in view of the fact that this section provided for the Companies working the electric light for 42 years from the date of the Order, it is intended to require a company to sell its undertaking before it has had 42 years of working life; and, if so, whether, as the period of 42 years reckoned from 1888 is already reduced by nearly seven years, and is daily diminishing, he will consider the desirability of giving terms more favourable to the Companies in consideration of their Order lasting for a shorter period than the 42 years provided by the Act?

Yes, Sir; that is so, but Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1888, provides that the Local Authority may purchase the undertaking after the expiration of a period of 42 years, or such shorter period as is specified in the Provisional Order. The Board of Trade have held that it is in the interest of London that the power of purchase by the Local Authority or Authorities shall, as far as possible, operate at the same date over the whole of the Metropolis. To this policy the Board of Trade adhere. The time does not seem to have arrived when it becomes necessary to consider whether any relaxation in terms on which such undertakings may be purchased may require to be made in order to render it worth the while of Companies to enter upon new enterprises.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contract for supplying meat to the troops in the Home District has recently been given to a person who has been more than once fined for supplying inferior meat in another district; whether the General Officer commanding another district has objected to this person supplying the troops in the district under his command; whether the General Officer commanding the Home District has any voice in the appointment of the contractor; and whether, in other districts, the General Officer has a voice in such appointments?

There is no contractor for the meat supply of the Home District. The supply is divided among not less than 11 contractors. Except for a few large stations, the General Officer commanding accepts such tenders as he thinks fit. In the few exceptions he submits the tenders, with his recommendation, to the War Office for decision. After full consideration a contract for supplying meat to a part of the Home District has been given to a certain contractor, to whom, it is presumed, the hon. Member's question refers, but security has been taken for the due performance of his contract.

Has that person been fined before?

I do not think he has been fined before, but one or two complaints of greater or less importance were made against him; and on the whole he has supplied other districts with perfect satisfaction on many occasions.

I suppose such a matter comes first of all before the Director of Contracts, and does not come before the right hon. Gentleman until there is a difficulty or difference of opinion.

It would come before the Financial Secretary to the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the contract for the supply of meat for the troops in the Home District has recently been let by tender; and whether the lowest tender has been accepted?

Contracts have recently been made for the meat supply of all stations in the Home district except London, which is still under consideration. In each case the lowest tender has been accepted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that Section 93 of the Act 1 and 2 Vict., chapter 56, provides that any guardian who is concerned as contractor for workhouse supplies renders himself liable to forfeit £100, and that Section 22 of the Act 6 and 7 Vict., chapter 92, provides that any person who has been convicted under the first-mentioned section shall not be capable of being elected or of acting as a guardian—(1) whether it is the duty of a Local Government Board Inspector, when made aware of the facts of the case, to institute proceedings against any person who violates the above Acts; (2) whether Mr. Lynch, Local Government Board Inspector, is aware that Mr. Moran, the defeated candidate at the late poor law election for the Westport Union, offended against the law in supplying bread to the Union during his term of office as guardian of the poor; and, if so, why does he not prosecute Moran; and (3) is he aware that the late Dr. Brodie and Mr. Robinson, Local Government Board Inspectors, issued writs and recovered the usual fine (£100) for similar offences as those with which Moran is charged, in two cases?

I am informed that it is the duty of the Local Government Board, but not of their Inspector, if satisfied that the law has been violated, to institute proceedings as mentioned in the first paragraph. The Board state that there was no corroboration of the charge made against Moran, and that there was not, in their opinion, sufficient evidence in support of it to justify them in instituting proceedings against him. With reference to the third paragraph, I am told that the proceedings mentioned were taken by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Local Government Board respectively, and that in both cases the evidence was considered sufficient to justify the taking of the proceedings.

May I ask, was it not the duty of the inspector to report to the Local Government Board that he had been offered proofs that this man was fraudulently carrying on business?

I think he is now no longer a guardian.

Is it not the fact that at this moment the question is pending whether or not this man is to be a Poor Law Guardian? Is there no prospect of bringing him to justice if, as I have satisfied myself, the charges are true and can be proved?

I have just said that I was going to look into the matter a little further.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution of the Westport Board of Guardians, passed at their meeting on the 9th instant in which they say that, owing to the failure of potato crop and the want of remunerative works, the outdoor relief rate has become so high that they have resolved to discontinue it; and what steps he proposes to take in order to enable the Board to carry on the work of the union.

My attention has been drawn to the resolution referred to. The question of affording employment on relief works to increased numbers in this union is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the loss of time involved in the present arrangement for the conveyance of night mails between Limerick and Foynes by road instead of by rail, as the day mails are now carried; and, whether these mails for a large district of North Kerry and West Limerick, bringing also in many of the places so served the only mails in the day, could be expedited by three hours without any material increase of cost, to the great advantage of those localities, if conveyed by rail; and, if so, whether he will take steps to effect the necessary changes for the purpose.

I have not received any complaints on the subject, and I can hardly admit that the existing service by road is inconvenient, seeing that the mails reach Foynes by 6.0 a.m. and are not despatched from that place until 6.30 p.m. The Waterford and Limerick Railway Company have, however, come forward with a proposal to convey the Mails, and I am in communication with them, with the view of ascertaining whether any satisfactory arrangement can be come to. There is a considerable loss on the existing service, and I should not feel justified in sanctioning any new arrangement which involved a material increase of expense.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether Post Office servants are debarred from taking an acting part in political elections, such, for instance, as speaking in support of candidates, and standing on their local political committees or councils?

The case is as the hon. Member's question implies. The words of the rule are as follows:—

1. That no Postmaster or other servant of the Department shall serve on a Committee having for its object to promote or prevent the return of a particular Candidate to Parliament. 2. That he shall not support or oppose any particular Candidate or party either by public speaking or writing.

I hold it to be of the highest importance that Postmasters and all other Post Office servants should maintain a certain reserve in political matters, and not put themselves prominently forward on one side or the other; that they should, in fact, carefully avoid doing anything that may lend colour to the suggestion that in the discharge of their official duties they are influenced by political or party motives. In practice, the rule I have quoted applies not to the Post Office alone but to the whole of the Civil Service of the Crown.

asked whether the rule applied to the sub-postmasters?

Yes, Sir; a sub-postmaster is in the service of the Post Office.

asked whether the rule would prevent a postman asking a question privately with regard to the service?

Oh no, Sir! It would not affect a question of that kind.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it is the intention of the Government to propose or accept an Amendment by which laundries attached to convents will be exempted from the operation of the Factories and Workshops Act?

The question as to the best mode of adapting the provision of this clause to religious and charitable institutions, in connection with which laundry work is carried on for profit, is under consideration, and the decision of the Government will be announced in due time before the clause is reached in the Standing Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he will state the names of the counties in Scotland where the sanitary inspector or sanitary inspectors engage in private practice or hold any other appointment?

Sanitary inspectors are engaged in private business or hold other public appointments in the following counties:—Aberdeenshire, Fife (Dumfermline district), Nairn, Peebles, Selkirk, Orkney, and Zetland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the harbour inside the pier at Greencastle, County Donegal, which was built at considerable expense out of public money, has been for many years silted up with the sand to a depth of seven feet at the pier head, so that it is now impossible for small fishing boats to go alongside the pier except at high water and in good tides; is he aware that this is the only safe pier between Portrush and Ramelton for fishermen; and whether, in view of the fact that the Board of Works' Engineer recently inspected the harbour in consequence of representations from the locality, and reported the harbour as useless, and recommended that it should be restored to its original state, the Board of Works will give the necessary order to have it dredged so that it can be used by the fishermen in this most important fishery district?

I am informed that the bed of Greencastle Harbour has silted up during late years to the extent of three feet in depth near the pier head. There are several very fair small harbours between Portrush and Ramelton, but I have no doubt that the deepening of the harbour at Greencastle would be of much benefit to the fishermen. The Government have addressed a communication to the Secretary to the Grand Jury informing them of the work required to be done and the estimated cost. Should the Grand Jury not move in the matter at the coming Assizes it is the intention of Government to recommend the Treasury to authorise the Board of Works to proceed with the work.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state the number of Lascar sailors and firemen employed as the crew of the Peninsular and Oriental steamship Himalaya; whether he can state how many of those men live in the forecastles allotted to their use; how many of such forecastles are certified for the accommodation of men in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act; and whether he can also state if the section of the Act has been complied with which provides that at the entrance to each forecastle there shall be carved or painted in a prominent place on the beams or otherwise the certified number which each forecastle shall accommodate?

I am informed that the Peninsular and Oriental steamship Himalaya carries 154 Lascars, namely, 53 deck hands and 101 firemen and trimmers. These men are all berthed in the poop, which is certified for the accommodation of 123 seamen, in accordance with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act. They were engaged in India under the provisions of the Indian Act, which requires less accommodation for seamen than the British Act. In certifying for tonnage in cases of this kind, the Board of Trade surveyors disallow the deduction made from the gross tonnage in respect of crew space, the result of which is that the vessel has to pay more for light and harbour dues. The number for which the poop is certified is carved in a prominent place on the beam just within the entrance to the poop.

asked whether all the ships in the Port of London carrying Lascar crews were complying with the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act.

replied that he could not say without notice.

asked whether there was a sufficient number of Board of Trade surveyors to see that the Act was complied with upon all ships at the different ports of the United Kingdom, and, if not, whether he would see that more inspectors were appointed?

We have no reason to think the number of surveyors is insufficient.

gave notice that at the end of Questions he would move the adjournment of the House to call attention to the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to certain irregularities disclosed at a recent sworn inquiry held at Mount Bellen Workhouse respecting the alleged adulteration of necessaries supplied to the inmates of the Union hospital; (2) if the Local Government Board have taken any steps to remedy the state of things disclosed in the report of the Ladies' Visiting Committee, who declare the clothing of the women dirty and insufficient, and the blankets very old and thin; (3) if the Local Government Board will ascertain what has become of a supply of 100 blankets provided by the Guardians for the use of the inmates of the workhouse, and how many are now in store; (4) whether he is aware that the wife of the workhouse master acts as matron and his daughter as schoolmistress, and that four other grown-up members of the Master's family occupy apartments in the workhouse; and (5) will he direct full and careful inquiry to be instituted into the management of this workhouse in the interests of the inmates?

An inquiry of the nature indicated in the first paragraph was recently held by the Local Government Board, and the Guardians have taken steps to prevent a recurrence of the irregularities complained of. (2) The Ladies' Visiting Committee made a report to the Guardians, as stated in the second paragraph, although they at the same time observed that the workhouse was clean. The Guardians having made no order on this report, the Local Government Board directed their attention to the matter, and the Guardians have since obtained a supply of new blankets and clothing materials. (3) The Board will inquire as to what has become of the 100 blankets referred to. It appears there are now over 200 pairs in store. (4) The facts are as stated in the fourth paragraph. The Guardians have expressed the opinion that no inconvenience would be caused by the Masters' family remaining in the workhouse. It is hoped that, as a result of the recent inquiry, the workhouse will be better managed in future. If further cause for complaint should arise the matter will be promptly inquired into.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the need for allotments at Egg Buckland, he will again consider the application of the Egg Buckland Parish Council for land at or near Fort Austin, suitable to be let by that Council to inhabitants of the parish?

The Adjutant General will in the course of a few days make a visit of inspection to the station, and will ascertain whether it would be possible on military grounds to make any concession to the applicants.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that since police protection has been granted to a man named M'Cordick, in the parish of Drumreilly, South Leitrim, the constabulary have turned his house into a temporary barrack, and employed him to run messages; and whether he can state for what further period the police intend to continue making payments to this man for these purposes?

It is a fact that the man named in the question is receiving special protection, and that his son is occasionally employed by the police in the conveyance of provisions. I am inquiring whether some other arrangement is not practicable.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Irish Government have agreed to the rules drawn up by the Commissioners of Education in Ireland regarding the Christian Brothers' Schools?

The correspondence between the Commissioners and myself is still proceeding. I have not yet been able to agree, so far, to the terms proposed. I understand there is a meeting of the Commissioners to-day to consider the terms of a further reply. The hon. Member need be under no apprehension that I shall fail to lay the Papers before the House before any decision is finally carried out.

As I understand it, the Lord Lieutenant has declined to sanction the rules passed by the Commissioners, and the right hon. Gentleman has conveyed an intimation to that effect. Has the right hon. Gentleman submitted any other proposal to the Commissioners for their acceptance, or what are they meeting about?

Without the slightest desire to conceal anything from the House until the whole of the negotiations are complete, this is a very inconvenient way of presenting to the House and the country the course of things. I did not say the Lord Lieutenant had refused to sanction the rules. The rules were submitted to us for the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant. We showed some reason to the Board why those rules were unacceptable. We made a proposal of our own, and that is under their consideration. It would be convenient if the question were left alone until the whole of the correspondence is in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is a fact that the rules he declares are unacceptable to himself and the Lord Lieutenant, received the sanction of the great majority of the Commissioners, including the Protestant and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Dublin?

I think that would be anticipating the full and proper account of what is taking place, so I hope the hon. Member will excuse my not going further into the matter.

said, that as this was a matter in which the public were concerned, he would put a question on the Paper when the Chief Secretary thought it convenient.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information as to the bounties granted by the French Government to French fishing boats in Newfoundland; and whether he will furnish a Return showing the exact amount of those bounties and the conditions under which they are given?

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris will be asked to furnish a tabular statement such as is desired.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House if the Italian law granting bounties on merchant shipping for a period of 10 years from 1885 has been renewed, or whether he can afford any information as to the intention of the Italian Government to renew the same; whether the French Government have renewed the law giving similar bounties; and whether he will grant a Return showing the bounties now given by the various European Governments towards the construction and running of ships, in continuation of the Return (Commercial, No. 14) laid before Parliament in 1889?

The date of the Italian Law is December 6, 1885. Its duration is 10 years, and it has not therefore yet expired. No information has been received as to the renewal of it. The French Law was renewed with amendments for a period of 10 years from January 30, 1893. Information on the subject will be found in The Board of Trade Journal of March and of May, 1893. Her Majesty's representatives will be asked to bring the Return of 1889 up to date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the intention of the Government to propose any measure for the reform of the War Office?

The hon. and learned Member can hardly expect me to give an explicit answer to his question. The subject is a large one, and if any important alteration were at any time contemplated, I should of course take a more suitable method of communicating it to the House than is afforded by an answer to a casual question. I may add, that if by "measure '' the hon. and learned Member means "legislative measure," none would be necessary for the purpose indicated, which is a purely executive proceeding.

stated that by "measure" he meant the carrying out of the recommendations of the Hartington Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman was a Member. He desired to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to carry out those recommendations.

We have had a great many discussions on the matter, in none of which, if I remember rightly, the hon. and learned Member has ever taken part, and from which he has been, happily for himself, absent. My views on the matter have been stated over and over again, and I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the half-holiday is granted to clerks in the Exchequer and Audit Department on every Saturday throughout the year; whether this priviledge is granted to clerks who have entered that office since the issue of the Order in Council of 21st March 1890; whether the practice has existed for many years without detriment to the service; and whether there is anything to prevent the head of any department from allowing a similar privilege to clerks in his own office?

I have explained in reply to previous questions that a discretion rests with heads of departments in giving effect to the leave regulations of the Order in Council. I am informed that the Comptroller and Auditor-General allows his staff to leave at 2 p.m. every Saturday, subject to the condition that they commence their attendance an hour earlier on those days.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he has anything to announce with regard to the relations between the Scottish Education Department and the Science and Art Department; and whether he is aware that there is a strong feeling in Scotland that this matter should be promptly dealt with.

The relations between the Scotch Education Department and the other Departments that are concerned with special branches of educational administration in Scotland, have been the subject of careful consideration. The negotiations with the Agricultural Department have resulted in a proposal which has now been submitted for the consideration of the Treasury. The Science and Art Department have not seen their way as yet to immediate action in the matter; but I am in further communication with them, and I hope that an analogous arrangement to that with the Agricultural Department may be found practicable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will lay upon the Table of the House all correspondence respecting the recent arbitration in the Transvaal as to the rights of British-Indians, and of British subjects generally; whether Her Majesty's Government was a party to the submission of the rights of British subjects to arbitration; and if he can state what is the nature of the sanitary regulations for the infraction of which British subjects in the Transvaal have been punished?

The question at issue, namely, the rights and position of British-Indian subjects in the South African Republic, is too complicated to enable me to explain it within the limits of an ordinary answer, and I will therefore lay Papers referring to the question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a short Statement, or Return, showing the capital expenditure on Government buildings for the accommodation of Viceroys, Governors, Lieutenant-Governors, Chief Commissioners, and Agents of the Governor-General in India during the last ten years, giving the amount spent in each province separately, with a brief note of the reasons for incurring the expenditure?

The detailed information asked for by the hon. Member is not available either in the Public Works or Finance Departments of the India Office. It could only be supplied after reference to India.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether it is permissible to adorn the front (or stamped) side of an envelope with a design or sketch, but forbidden to write, print, or otherwise impress anything beyond the address (and the sender's name and address) on the front of a post card; can he state the reason for the distinction to the House; and whether he will consider the possibility of abolishing it?

Post cards are issued that the public may be able to send a certain class of communications, for which they must otherwise pay full letter rate, at a postage of one halfpenny; and the rule which forbids anything but the address and the sender's name and address to be written or printed on the front part of a post card is, I consider, reasonable and necessary.

On behalf of the hon. Member for the Holmfirth Division of York (Mr. HENRY J. WILSON), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether a Supplement to the Report of the Royal Commission on Opium, containing the Memorandum of the Maharaja of Durbhanga, will be in the hands of Members before the Debate takes place on Friday next?

The Memorandum will be presented to-day, and I understand that it will be distributed to hon. Members on Wednesday next.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the circumstances under which John Gilchriest, late post messenger from Granard to Finnea, was obliged to leave the Postal Service, namely, that he was transferred to Athlone, a distance of 30 miles from his home and family, and on his arrival there was asked by the Postmistress what was his religion; and that, on declaring he was a Roman Catholic, he received no instructions as to his route, or his time of departure or return; and whether he will order a full inquiry into this case, and recommend that compensation be given to this man for his term of faithful service in the Post Office employment?

Time has not admitted of my inquiry into the allegations contained in the hon. Member's question, but I am having inquiry made, and the result shall be communicated to him.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Venezuelan Government has yet afforded Her Majesty's Government any explanations, asked for nearly three months ago, of the action of Venezuelan armed forces last January in marching into British territory, hauling down the British flag, making prisoners of British police officers, and forcibly conducting them out of British into Venezuelan territory; and, if so, can he now state the purport of the explanations, and what course the Government intends to pursue?

The explanations which were promised have not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether, in determining on the boiler fluids for the cleansing of the boilers in Her Majesty's vessels, selection is made only after full competitive trial of any "thirds" submitted by responsible persons with certificates of successful use in vessels of the mercantile marine, or whether it is the fact that no such trials arc made and no public competition invited?

No boiler fluids are used for the cleansing of the boilers in Her Majesty's vessels.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he has had before him the papers in connection with the case of a young man named Coughlin, who was killed on the 17th March last at Hamilton, Lanarkshire; whether he is aware that it was shown during the Inquiry that certain Orangemen in the locality, who were apprehended for the outrage, had previously threatened the young man and his friends; whether any prosecution is contemplated, seeing that other outrages of a similar character have taken place, and that in no case has anyone been punished; and whether any special steps will be taken to detect the authors of these crimes?

I have received communications from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark and others, in regard to this very painful case, and I have now the Papers before I me. Seven men, including two uncles of the deceased, were arrested, the case was duly investigated by the Procurator Fiscal, very full precognitions having been taken. Crown Counsel, after considering these, called in the assistance of an eminent medical expert. The deceased had walked home and gone to bed, after the last of two, and, according to some witnesses, three separate affrays in which he had been involved that evening. The medical evidence was to the effect that death was caused by a small punctured wound on the left side of the head, which could not have been caused by a kick, but must have required a sharp pointed instrument. No evidence could be obtained that any of the accused had used, or possessed, any weapon such as could have produced the wound in question, and in these circumstances it was felt that there was no chance of obtaining a conviction. I am informed that no other outrages of a similar character have taken place in this district. There was no evidence of previous threats, except the statement that one of the men arrested had, in a quarrel with the deceased some time before, used some threatening language of a vague character, to which no importance appears to have been attached by anyone at the time. None of the men arrested were Orangemen, or connected in any way with an Orange Association. Nothing has been discovered, either in the course of the investigation, or since, to indicate that the occurrence was due to political or party feeling.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the National Board refuse to recognise the fact that a large fair is being held outside a school as a reasonable cause for closing a school for the day, even when the children could not, without great difficulty, make their way to the school?

The Commissioners require in every case where schools are closed for a longer period than the prescribed limit of 40 school days, exclusive of Saturdays and holidays, that the cause of closing for the excess days shall be shown to be of a reasonable and necessary character. The holding of a fair in the locality of a National School does not in all instances render it necessary to deprive the children, or at least a large proportion of them, of the benefit of school instruction on the fair days; but should the circumstances be such as to render it reasonable and proper that the school should be closed, the Commissioners would not refuse to recognise the fact, and would not withdraw payment for such days.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can explain on what terms the site formerly occupied by Her Majesty's Theatre is held from the Crown; whether there is any provision for forfeiture on failure to fulfil the building covenants; and whether it is proposed to allow the site to remain any longer vacant.

The site is held under an agreement for a lease, but the lease will not be granted until the new buildings are erected. The agreement is forfeitable on certain conditions, but, as I stated on the 29th ult., it is not considered necessary to take any immediate steps on behalf of the Crown, whose interests are not prejudiced by the delay.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will endeavour to meet the strong feeling in Ireland in favour of the granting of time for the further stages of the Bill to repeal the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and whether he will undertake that if Government time is given to any Bill not introduced by the Government, this Bill will be considered to have the first claim?

I regret to say that the Government have no time at their disposal, and, therefore, are unable to give as favourable an answer to the hon. Gentleman's question as they could wish.

May I ask whether we are to understand that the Government have no time at their disposal for anything else?

That is certainly hypothetical, and we cannot, I am afraid, give any undertaking on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, if he should find a day to spare, undertake to give that day for the consideration of the repeal of the Crimes Act, and not for the Irish Sunday Closing Bill?

We had better wait until we find a clear day.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, whether he has yet caused inquiry to be made into the alleged distress arising from the want of seed potatoes in the Lochbroom district of Ross-shire; and, if so, will he state what steps he proposes to take to deal with the matter?

Yes, I have received a special Report on the matter from the General Superintendent of the Local Government Board, which fully confirms the statement I made in reply to questions in this House. He relates in detail that there was not any failure of the potato crop, or any exceptional distress in the Lochbroom district.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Report of experiments in the prevention of potato disease, conducted by the Irish Land Commission (Agricultural Department) during the season 1894, will be laid upon the Table?

Particulars of the demonstrations conducted by the Commissioners in 1894 in the spraying of the potato crop will be furnished in their Annual Report for the year ended 31st March last, which will shortly be laid before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the case, as stated by Colonel Colvile in his Dispatch from Kampala of 5th December 1893, that the State of Usoga owes allegiance to Uganda, and that the State of Unyoro is tributary to Uganda; and, if so, whether, in view of the further statements contained in the said Dispatch, that Kabarega the King of Unyoro, had invaded Usoga, and that the capital of Kabarega, is the only remaining great Slave Trade centre in that part of Africa, the Government will extend the Protectorate they have declared over Uganda to Usoga and Unyoro?

I see no reason to question the correctness of Colonel Colvile's statement, but it does not seem necessary as far as the present relations between Uganda and Unyoro are concerned to alter the limits of the Protectorate.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has observed the large increase in the production, in Belgium last year, of steel ingots, rails, and plates, as also in the production of Bessemer pig iron, a state of affairs which exists also in Germany; and if, having regard to the depression prevailing in the British iron and steel trade in the last three years, he will forthwith appoint a small Committee of competent experts to inquire into the causes of this contrast, and the best means of promptly remedying them?

Yes, Sir, but I see no reason for appointing a Special Committee to investigate the causes of fluctuation of comparative production in a particular industry such as that of iron and steel, especially when that industry in this country is so efficiently represented by bodies such as the Iron and Steel Institute and various Chambers of Commerce, with whom the Board of Trade are in frequent and friendly communication.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the iron and steel industry was the second largest in the country, and that an enormous number of men connected with it were out of employment?

said that he was fully aware of the immense magnitude of the iron and steel industry, and for that very reason he thought that they might rely upon the Iron and Steel Institute to communicate on any matter of importance affecting their interests.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he can state the reason for the arrangement that the Channel steamer Victoria, owned by the South Eastern Railway Company, is placed under the French flag?

I have communicated with the South Eastern Railway Company, and am informed by them that they do not own any Channel steamer bearing the name Victoria. The London Chatham and Dover Railway Company possess a steamer so named, and, as I explained to the hon. Member for South Birmingham on the 19th February last, and to the hon. Member for East Worcestershire on the 25th February, it is the case that the day service of mails between London and Paris is carried by vessels belonging to that Company, who, being paid by the French Government, are under contract to fly the French flag. The contract in question will expire in 1896, and I understand that the new contract will be given to the Northern of France Railway Company.

asked whether this vessel was British owned, and yet carried a foreign flag?

said that the vessel was owned by the London Chatham and Dover Railway Company, but as it carried the French mails it flew the French flag.

asked whether the vessel was liable to be used against us in time of war?

said that he was not aware, but asked the hon. Member to put down his question upon the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that the White Star and Cunard Lines of Atlantic steamers have within the last month joined together to charter a tug to steam for a fortnight off the West Coast of Ireland, in search of derelicts, as an experiment; whether the Admiralty followed suit and also sent out a tug for the same purpose; whether the Liverpool Steam Tug Company also joined in this search for derelicts, and ultimately succeeded in finding the large derelict Birgette in the Atlantic and safely towed her into Queenstown Harbour; and, whether this great success will encourage the Admiralty to renewed efforts in this direction and induce it to send out a tug or tugs again until all dangerous derelicts in the track of oceangoing ships are destroyed or brought into port?

No information as to the action of the White Star and Cunard lines of steamers in searching for derelicts has been received at the Admiralty. In the case of the Birgette, the Admiralty became aware that this derelict—one of the rare cases of a derelict ship remaining long afloat—was approaching the concentrated trade route at the entrance of the Channel. One of Her Majesty's ships was, therefore, sent to search for her. The search was continued for 13 days, but was unsuccessful. She was eventually picked up by a private tug and towed into Queenstown. It has been the practice of the Admiralty to send one of Her Majesty's ships, when available, to search for derelicts in such cases as that of the Birgette, and it is not proposed to depart from this practice in the future.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give instructions to the Admiralty to obtain information as to what had been done by the White Star and Cunard lines in the matter.

What has been done by the White Star and Cunard Lines is no business of the Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to take 15,000 men into the New Forest this autumn to manœuvre there for three weeks; if so, whether any special precautions will be taken to prevent such an occupation of the forest from endangering the old woods and impairing the natural beauty of the forest, which Parliament has declared to be especially worthy of preservation for the national enjoyment, and also to protect the forest from the dangers which will arise this year owing to the existence of large quantities of heather, killed by the long frost, and thus left in a highly inflammable condition; whether the operations of the forces will seriously interfere with the roam of the commoners' cattle, and thus injure the large class of small stock farmers for which the district is noted; and whether, in view of the fact that there are in other parts, e.g., in Essex, wide tracts of country going out of cultivation, where a nominal payment in respect of the manœuvres would be a boon to the distressed agriculturists, he will reconsider the intention to hold manœuvres in the New Forest?

asked whether there were not in Essex thousands of derelict acres available for the operations?

It is proposed to take a force this year to the New Forest for manœuvres, which will last a short time. Every precaution will be taken to prevent damage to the forest and to protect the interests of the commoners. The preparations are far advanced, and the substitution of another locality would be very inconvenient. The locality referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite is not, I believe, viewed with favour by the authorities for this purpose. I see no reason to reconsider the proposal I am further informed by a very high authority that the inhabitants of the New Forest would view with something like consternation any proposal to check the proceedings.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General when it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce the Bill to amend the Extradition Act, so as to enable a prisoner to be tried upon an extradition warrant elsewhere than at Bow Street Police Court?

This Bill was introduced on Tuesday last into the House of Lords.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, seeing that, owing to the depreciation in the value of agricultural land, and the extra charges entailed by the new Death Duties, the large majority of landowners are unable to pay the heavy rates of interest charged to borrowers under the various Land Improvement Acts, the Government will advance money at the lowest possible rate of interest to landowners for the erection of farm buildings and of cottages, for drainage, and for such other improvements as are requisite for the proper cultivation of the soil?

This is a very large question, and I could not pronounce upon it without having a regular plan laid before me for the purpose. But, according to the information I have, in consequence of the great abundance of money at the present time, there never was a period at which money could be obtained on mortgage of land at so low a rate of interest.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government respecting the proposed withdrawal of the troops in July next from British Honduras, in view of the critical condition of the Colony, and the serious peril to which the white inhabitants are alleged to be exposed in the event of such withdrawal taking place; whether it has been reported from the Colony that the constabulary, though re-organised, remain disaffected, and that the Native population openly threaten an attack upon the whites as soon as the troops have gone; and whether, seeing that no telegraphic communication exists with the outer world, Her Majesty's Government will cause further inquiry to be made before finally deciding to withdraw the troops in question?

The Colonial Government and Legislature have made provisions for the establishment of a new civil police force for duty in Belize and the southern districts of the colony of British Honduras, the existing semi-military constabulary force being retained for service in the northern frontier districts; and it is hoped and believed that thus adequate provision will have been made for the proper care of the colony by the time fixed for the withdrawal of the troops.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the recommendations of the Commissioners, embodied in their recent report on the electrical communication with light stations, have been approved; whether the same will be carried out without unnecessary delay, as regards the Farmby Light-vessel, the Maplin Pile Lighthouse, the Smalls Rock Lighthouse, the Little Ross and Bidston Shore Lighthouses; and whether arrangements will be made to display the storm warning signals at the 25 lighthouses, as recommended, at the small cost of £1 each?

In addition to the works recommended in the recent (Third) Report of the Royal Commission, there are still some works, recommended in their First Report, which have not yet been carried out. A sum of £11,000 has been placed at the disposal of the Board of Trade for the purpose of effecting electrical communication with light-vessels, &c., during the present financial year, and the Board are at present considering on which of the works recommended that amount, which is not sufficient for all—should be expended.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last part of the question.

That depends on the amount of money in hand.

May I ask whether the sum is on the Estimates for the current, or for the past year?

The current year.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he would make two distinct Bills of this Bill, inasmuch as the first part of the Bill was opposed, while the second was not opposed?

said, the objection to the first part of the Bill came from a very limited district indeed, and he took it that the enormous preponderance of opinion in the fishing industry was in favour of the first part.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could say when he intended to take the Bill?

said, that, of course, as there was some opposition to a part of the Bill it could not be taken after 12 o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman was understood to say further that he could not then state when the Bill would be taken.

Is this a Bill which ought to pass its Second Reading without discussion?

I think I have expressed my feeling quite enough on this matter.

With reference to the 15th Order of the Day, the Intoxicating Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill, I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to take the Second Reading before Whitsuntide, or after, or at any time?

The Bill will certainly be taken, but it will not be taken before Whitsuntide.

Will the Naval Works Bill be again taken in Committee? It is a Bill of great importance, and it is non-contentious.

Yes, Sir; I hope a very short time will dispose of that Bill. I believe there is only one question still remaining for the Committee, and I hope to get the Bill passed through Committee before Whitsuntide.

Is it the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take any steps to so accelerate the passage of the Welsh Bill as to insure that the Irish Land Bill will come on at a period of the Session when it is likely to get a fair consideration?

Yes, Sir; I hope the Irish Land Bill will come on at a period of the Session at which it will receive the sanction of this House.

Before the Local Veto Bill?

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has any further statement to make with regard to Scotch business?

I propose to put down the adjourned debate on the Scotch Standing Committee for Thursday, and on that occasion I will make a statement with reference to Scotch business.

Will that be with the object of referring the Crofters Bill to that Standing Committee?

I shall make a statement on that subject when the Motion is made for the appointment of the Committee.

I regret to say that that is not good enough for me.

I understood that Committee on the Finance Bill was to be the first Order for Thursday.

That is so; but I will adjourn the Finance Bill in order that sufficient time may be given for the discussion of the Scotch Standing Committee. [Cries of "What time?"] I do not anticipate that there will be a long discussion upon the Motion for the appointment of that Committee. I will make an arrangement and will endeavour to ascertain what will be convenient.

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the unsatisfactory condition of employment of Lascar seamen on board British ships, and the infringement of the Merchant Shipping Act by shipping companies in failing to provide the said Lascar seamen with the proper special accommodation provided by the Statute.

I have looked at the Notice of Motion which the hon. Gentleman has handed to me. I do not think it is one which comes within the terms of Standing Order 17. That Standing Order provides that the Motion must relate to a definite matter of urgent public importance. Of course the employment of sailors and their treatment are matters of great public importance, but whether, in the shape in which they are referred to in this Motion, they are urgent within the meaning of the Standing Order, may be a matter of doubt. I am clearly of opinion, however, that this is not a definite matter, which it is essential it should be, in order to bring the Motion within the rules. It would involve inquiry by the House into the conditions of employment of Lascar seamen on board British ships in general; it would mean inquiry into their treatment in a vast number of cases, and it would be impossible for the House on such a Motion to discuss the details of alleged infringements of the Merchant Shipping Act by shipping companies in failing to provide Lascar seamen with the proper special accommodation provided by the Statute. These are matters entirely of detail, and I think the Standing Order intended that the matter to be discussed should be a definite matter, and that it was not intended to include such matters as this. Therefore I deem it to be my duty not to submit the Motion to the House.

I should like to ask your ruling in regard to the latter portion of the Motion—eamely, whether the infringement of an Act of Parliament is not a definite matter of urgent public importance.

That would depend upon the particular case put before me. What is put before me here is the general infringement of an Act of Parliament by shipping companies in general.

I will call attention to the matter on the Vote on Account.

assented to the Amendment.

said, he could not help regretting that his hon. Friend should have introduced this question at this stage of the Bill, where to him, it did not appear very logically to arise. His hon. Friend had quoted his declaration to which he meant to adhere, and so far as he could to carry it out—that he would not consent on behalf of the Government to the continuance of any disability in the case of clergy of the Disestablished Church, which were not shared by other religious communities. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the disqualification for sitting in this House fell within the category to which he had referred; and so far as he was concerned he should be glad to consent to its removal. He did not think, however, his hon. Friend's words were well chosen for the purpose. The effect of his proviso would be that any clergyman who held a preferment in Monmouthshire would not come within the scope of the Amendment at all. According to the wording of the Amendment, Monmouth would be excluded from the scope of the clause. He should suggest that his hon. Friend should withdraw the Amendment, and accept some such words as these:—

"And no person shall, by reason only of being a bishop, priest, or deacon of the Church in Wales be disqualified or liable to any penalty for sitting or voting in the House of Commons."

moved the form of words suggested by the Home Secretary.

pointed out that, if this concession was made, it would have to go a great deal farther. There was another large body of episcopal clergy, namely, the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church, who were excluded from sitting in the House of Commons; and if the clergy of the Disestablished Church in Wales were to be exempted from the present disability, so, logically, must the whole body of the Roman Catholic clergy of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He was perfectly willing to see both classes of clergy admitted.

I quite agree; so am I. The only point is that one class is within the scope of this Bill and the other is not. It is the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 which disables Roman Catholic priests from sitting in this House of Parliament, and the clause would have to be repealed before you could remove the disqualification, for which there is no foundation whatever. You cannot do it by means of a clause in this Bill.