said, he had hoped the further progress of this Bill would not be inconsistent with the proposals of the Government, but certain points of difficulty had arisen which he feared might be insuperable. He was not in a position yet to make a full statement of the proposals of the Government on the subject; and, therefore, he moved that the Debate be adjourned till next Thursday.

seconded the Amendment. He said that as the Representative of a constituency that contained the chief pilotage centre in Great Britain, he should not be justified in giving a silent vote on this subject. There was no doubt that the consideration of this question had been pressed upon the Board of Trade by a body called the General Shipowners' Society of London, which represented, he believed, something under 10 per cent, of the net tonnage coming into the Port of London. It would be interesting to the House to know how matters had arrived at their present stage when the Board of Trade presented their Provisional Order for confirmation. In 1888 there were certain domestic differences between the pilots on the one side and the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House on the other, and a Committee of that House was appointed for the purpose of making certain inquiries. The result of those inquiries was that the Committee recommended that upon the Pilotage Committee of the Trinity House the pilots themselves should be represented. In order to carry out the recommendations of that Committee, a Bill was introduced in that House in 1889 by the right hon. Member for Bristol and the right hon. Member for Cambridge University. In Committee an Amendment was inserted enabling the Board of Trade to provide for the representation, not only of pilots but also of shipowners if it should seem expedient. Their contention that day was that it was not expedient that representatives of the shipowners should be added to the Pilotage Committee. That Committee exercised not only administrative, but also judicial functions, and it would be highly inadvisable in the public interest that the judicial functions which they exercised should be tainted by the introduction of personal interests, which could not fail to be introduced if representatives of the shipowners and the pilots were added to the Committee. In the public interest it was absolutely essential that that body should remain in its present impartial and unprejudiced position. He knew that it had been suggested that the Trinity House Committee viewed leniently the laches of pilots, but his own experience did not bear out that view. It had been his business occasionally to ask for a reconsideration of the cases of certain pilots, and he had invariably been met by this reply from headquarters—

"We occupy a great public position; it is our duty to insist that the pilots shall do their work thoroughly and well, and we are unable to review the decision which we have arrived at."

He looked upon the proposal contained in this Bill as a sordid attack made indirectly against men who were pursuing an arduous and responsible calling, who in foul weather and fair carried the lives of those who crossed the Channel in their hands, and who in time of war were liable to be called out to serve in Her Majesty's ships in the defence of our shores.

said, that in his opinion this was not the right stage at which to take objection to the Bill—whether the criticisms of the hon. Member for King's Lynn and of the hon. Member who seconded the Amendment, were right or wrong. He thought it would be an unfortunate step for the House to take to refuse to allow the Bill to be considered by a Committee. It certainly would be unfortunate if it came to be the practice to reject Bills so full of details as this one on the Second Reading. He thought all Members of the House would agree that the Private Bill Committees did their work in an extremely satisfactory way, and he was not at all convinced by the speeches that had been made that any other course could be taken with regard to this Bill than to allow it to follow the usual course.

said, that up to a late hour last night he had been inclined to agree with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter; but that day they had not heard a single word, either from any Member of the Government or from any one of the promoters of the Bill, as to its necessity or advisability. What was the case with regard to this Bill? In 1888 a large committee sat upstairs, and that committee, after hearing witnesses from Gravesend, from Ireland, and from Scotland—witnesses in favour of and against; the choice pilotage system, witnesses for and against allowing masters and mates to hold pilot certificates—came to a deliberate decision as follows:—

"Looking to the dissatisfaction which exists under this head, as well as under that relating to the management and disposal of the various funds maintained for the benefit of the pilots and their families, your Committee are of opinion that the best way to meet these difficulties would be by the direct representation of pilots on all pilotage boards. They recommend that such representation should consist of not more than four in each case, the men eligible for election to be acting pilots of not less than eight years' service, or retired pilots of good character."

There was not one word of recommendation for placing on the Pilotage Committee of Trinity House any representative of the shipowners. He was very much struck on the Committee with the straightforwardness and fairness with which they were always met by large shipowners when they advocated the interests of the pilots, and he did not complain of their conduct; but it was another matter to alter the constitution of the body which managed pilotage matters in this country. It was proposed to give the pilots voting power, but they could not vote when they were hove to in the Channel; whereas the shipowners would have no difficulty in electing their representative. There were nine or ten various conflicting interests connected with the pilotage system in the English Channel. Probably the point of all others which would be most acutely contested between shipowners and pilots would be the question of choice pilots, and that was not mentioned in the Schedule. In Trinity House there was a body able to carry on their business from year to year no matter what Party was in office; and though he spoke of the Board of Trade and all connected with it with great respect, he would much rather see this matter of pilotage kept in the hands of a non-political body like Trinity House than in those of a body like the Board of Trade, which must be swayed from this side to that. His belief was that the wheel system would be better maintained if it was kept as clear as possible from anything like the shadow of Party politics. Unless he heard from the Secretary to the Board of Trade some good reason to the contrary, he should vote for the Motion to postpone the Second Reading of the Bill.

said, his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House, and the speakers who had preceded him, appeared to be somewhat anxious to make out that the object of this Bill was in some way or other to damage the position of pilots. The object of the Bill was nothing of the kind. No man in the House had greater reason for trying to do justice to the pilot than he had, and he would be the last person to support a Bill which would damage the service. He believed the result of the Bill would be to increase the efficiency of the service, and it would do so by admitting a certain amount of daylight in connection with its working. He was very much surprised that the Bill should be opposed by the Elder Brethren of Trinity House. There could be no doubt whatever that there was great room for reform in the pilotage service in the channel and in the river, and that the Bill now before the House was a step in the right direction. Those who were the taxpayers, if he might use the expression in this matter, ought to have a voice in the arrangement of the service. The company with which he was connected paid something like £8,000 or £10,000 a year in connection with pilotage in the Channel and the river Thames, and he claimed a right to have a voice in the management of the service. At the present moment there were pilots engaged in the service of Trinity House who were earning more than the captains of ships which had travelled 70,000 or 80,000 miles in the course of the year. He contended that some daylight ought to be let in on the pilotage system as it at present existed, and the best way to do that would be by admitting shipowners to representation on pilotage boards. He did not think himself for a moment that the pilots would refuse to send a representative. He believed that the opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill did not proceed from the pilots, but from the Elder Brethren of Trinity House, whose action he could not account for.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member into the many points suggested by the valuable information in the Blue Book, but he desired to say, from his experience of a body whose duties were somewhat similar to those of the Trinity Board, that a representation of pilots and shipowners analogous to that proposed by this Provisional Order, had been in operation for many years in connection with the pilotage authority of the River Mersey. Shipowners had been for many years represented on the Committee which had special charge of pilotage in the area of the Mersey; and since the issue of the Report of the Committee the pilots too had had full representation—some people thought rather too much. There was no difficulty in the selection of suitable men to represent their brethren who were concerned in pilotage operations in the Mersey. He believed that the clause contained in this Order was one which would be easy in operation, and would be of great value.

said, that no one had told them why the Bill was introduced, and on whose behalf; and an hon. Member had said he was not aware that the pilots had spoken. In his hand he held a closely argued protest against the Bill signed by 244 pilots, who would not have objected so strenuously to the Bill if they had not felt that it would do them some damage. Therefore, there was a question of principle involved which it was for the House to determine on the Second Reading. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade would tell them who wanted the Bill and who had asked for it, seeing that the pilots were against it and are content with the existing authority who managed the pilotage of the Thames. The Committee of this House who examined into the whole question reported in favour of pilots being represented in two respects; but that conclusion did not apply to the present case. The area of the Thames, with which the Bill dealt, was not an area which came under the representation of the Committee. The recommendation applied to certain other ports, and no doubt rightly to the case of the Mersey. No one had shown that the representation of pilots was desirable or necessary in the Thames area. Then the Committee recommended that there should be a representation of shipowners because they contributed to the funds; but that did not apply in the Thames area to shipowners and pilots who did not contribute. It was therefore for the Government to show why there should be any interference with a pilotage authority for a large area with whose management no fault had been found. In no part of the world was pilotage conducted on better or more economical principles than it was in the Thames district, and it would be interesting to hear what were the motives of those who were promoting the Bill.

said, the House would have gathered that the matter was very much one of detail, and evidently fitted for the consideration of a Committee, and he hoped the House would not depart from its uniform practice by allowing the question to be decided on ex-parte statements made in a Second Reading Debate. The Bill in no sense derogated from the importance of Trinity House, and he desired to pay emphatic tribute to the ability, zeal, and wisdom, with which the authorities of Trinity House discharged their functions. In that case they had to deal with a statute which appeared to contemplate the representation upon pilotage authorities of pilots as well as shipowners. Under the statute, orders had been made in a number of cases for putting on the authorities, in some cases shipowners, on some pilots, and in some cases both; and no difficulties whatever had arisen in conducting the election of representatives. The demand for the measure came from the shipowners of the port of London, who were a large and influential body. After careful consideration he came to the conclusion that the shipowners made out a primâ facie case for examination, and in these circumstances he considered it was the duty of the Board of Trade, in accordance with the statute, to facilitate the passing of a Provisional Order. [Mr. T. GIBSON BOWLES: "What was the case generally?"] It had been stated by the hon. Member for Greenock, who, speaking on behalf of the shipowners, said that they paid pilotage dues, and desired that their interest in pilotage should be represented. The shipowners asked for two representatives, and if they got them, it would be necessary to give the pilots two; but it was proposed to give one to the shipowners, one to the pilots, and four to Trinity House. Therefore it was clear that neither the shipowners would have an opportunity of altering the policy pursued, and all that they would be able to do would be to state directly to the Pilotage Authority what their interests were. It was not an unreasonable demand that they should be able to do that; and it seemed to him to be a matter in which the House ought to trust the judgment of a Committee. There was no political element whatever in the matter.

said, he had only remarked that he much preferred that pilotage laws and regulations should be in the hands of the Trinity House, rather than in those of the Board whose President changed with the Government.

said, the Committee had nothing to do with the business; it did not act in it at all, and it was not represented on the Pilotage Authority. The Bill ought to go to a Committee, so that the claim might be patiently investigated; and if anyone desired to nominate Members of special qualification, he saw no objection to their doing so. If any questions of principle were not dealt with satisfactorily by the Committee they could be raised on the Third Reading of the Bill.

submitted that the question involved was not a question of detail at all. So far as the pilots were concerned, no one who knew anything about them pretended that they wanted any representation; that they were practically unanimous was shown by the fact that out of 270 pilots over 240 had signed that protest against the Bill, and the remaining 30 were not in the port at the time the document was signed. This was not a Bill introduced by the shipowners on their own account; but it was a procedure by which the Board of Trade took up the case of the shipowners by embodying a Provisional Order in a public Bill. He distrusted this claim very much.

It is under the statute that shipowners claim representation; we put in the pilots also.

The right hon. Gentleman said the shipowners demanded it.

Some of the pilots, too. [Cries of "Name!"]

said, that those of them who had been consulted by the pilots had not the slightest reason to suppose that there was a single pilot who desired it. This was a matter of principle, and it was their duty to challenge an alteration which they believed to be uncalled for. There was not the least analogy between Liverpool and London. In the case of Liverpool, the pilotage boats were taken over by the Dock Board, and it was obvious that the transference involved some representation of the pilots. With all deference to the President of the Board of Trade, the opinion of the House must be taken upon this Provisional Order, which was put forward for the shipowners and not for the pilots.

remarked that he was reluctant to say a word against a Bill promoted by the Board of Trade, but he had been asked on behalf of the pilots to oppose this Bill. Where a primâ facie case for reform had been made out he agreed that reform should be considered, but not a single particular had been mentioned in which reform was necessary.

said, he had explained fully that, the shipowners being largely interested in these Rules, should have an opportunity of stating their views to the Pilotage Authority.

, resuming, said, that under the existing system, the shipowners could suggest their grievances, but they had not done so. He hoped the House would reject this proposal, and not give a Committee.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade whether he would consent to the Bill, after it had been read a Second time, being referred to a hybrid Committee.

said, that he was perfectly willing that that course should be adopted.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Procurator Fiscal of Inverary refuses to return to Mr. James Findlay a watch of which he was robbed on the 5th of August 1891 at Tarbert, and for the theft of which the thief (who had in the meantime pawned the watch and sold the ticket) was in September of the same year sentenced to two months' imprisonment, notwithstanding the fact that security has been offered by the owner in view of any claim that may arise against him; whether anything has been done in the matter since the 7th of August 1893, when he said he was taking steps which he hoped would result in Mr. Findlay obtaining possession of the watch without delay; and whether he will take further steps to ensure the return to its owner of the watch, which has now been detained by the Procurator Fiscal for over three and three-quarter years?

I have again caused inquiry to be made into this matter, and am informed that, in addition to Mr. Findlay, there are two other claimants to the watch in question. Mr. Findlay has not offered to secure the Procurator Fiscal against liability in a manner which the Fiscal regards as placing him in a safe position. If he gives such security, or obtains an Order for its delivery from a Court, the Procurator Fiscal will hand over the watch to him. He has been advised that he cannot safely part with the watch until the owner has established his right to it in a Court of law. This might be done by a very simple and inexpensive process, and until Mr. Findlay adopts this course, I cannot say that the Procurator Fiscal is bound to deliver the watch to him.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the discharge of mud hoppers into the Mersey and into adjacent channels thereof, and to the great increase, of late, of stench and of insanitary deposits on the shores at low water adjacent to Seacombe, Egremont, and New Brighton; and whether, if such be the case, he can take steps to cause the dredgings to be discharged in deeper water?

No complaint of the nature suggested in the question of the hon. Member has reached the Board of Trade, but I understand that the subject to which he refers is engaging the serious and constant attention of the Harbour Authority, and of the Acting Conservator of the Mersey. Apart from the amount of silt dredged from the Docks, which is discharged in the centre of the river, I am informed that the sewage of the large and increasing population named by the hon. Member is discharged on the foreshore of the Mersey considerably above low water mark, which is more likely to produce the inconvenience complained of than the deposit of dredged silt in the centre of the river.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the recent Report of Her Majesty's Consul at St. Nazaire, that owing to the bounty allowed by the French Government on shipbuilding in France, contracts which would otherwise have been given to British shipbuilding yards have been withdrawn; and if he can suggest any remedy for a state of affairs so detrimental to British labour, or bring any influence to bear on the French Government to terminate this system of bounties?

I have seen the Report referred to. Other Reports seem to show that such increased activity as there may be in shipbuilding in France is chiefly due to requirements of the French Government for its naval purposes. It is entirely a matter for the French Government whether they should give bounties to their own shipbuilders, and I do not think that any representation from a foreign Power upon the subject would have any effect.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, if he is aware that several of the local authorities in London are employing foreign workmen in paving the thoroughfares under their control with a substance peculiarly dangerous to horse traffic in a damp climate; and, if he will issue a circular to the vestries and other bodies pointing out that the best means of relieving the serious distress arising from want of employment lies in the engagement of British labour?

The Local Government Board have no information whatever on the subject referred to in the question. It is within the discretion of the local authorities in London to decide as to the material which they will use in paving the roads, and as to the workmen which they deem it necessary to employ in laying down the material decided upon. The Board have no authority to interfere in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will make arrangements for permitting bicycles and tricycles to be ridden, subject to proper regulations, in Hyde Park before the hour of 10 a.m.?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he can state if any decision has been arrived at to permit cycling in Hyde Park?

In answer to these questions, I have to say that His Royal Highness the Ranger has consented to an alteration of the Park Rules so as to give cyclists the use of the carriage roads in Hyde Park from the how of opening until 10 a.m. The regulations necessary for safeguarding the general public interests will he made. The new privilege cannot be exercised until the expiration of 40 days after notice of the new rules shall have been given in the London Gazette, as provided by the Rules Publication Act of 1893. Steps will be taken to publish the notice as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he has yet decided whether Bradford Barracks is to constitute the headquarters of a regiment; and, if not, to what purposes are they to be devoted?

For the present, Bradford Barracks will be occupied by three companies of the battalion which has its headquarters at Sheffield.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had decided that the troops should be quartered in manufacturing towns on the ground of military efficiency.

On the ground of general efficiency.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if his attention has been called to an official inquiry into the complaint of Taran Chunder Bose v. Aijuddy and others, held at Faridpore, and reported in the Indian journals of 24th April; is he aware that it is stated in the official report that the said Taran Chunder Bose charged Aijuddy and two others with robbery before the Deputy Magistrate, who submitted to the District Magistrate that the evidence justified a prosecution; that the District Magistrate not only refused to prosecute Aijuddy and his accomplices, but ordered that Taran Chunder Bose should be prosecuted under section 211, I.P.C., for instituting a false case; that, on application to the High Court by Taran Chunder Bose, this order was not only set aside, but the District Magistrate was ordered to send up Aijuddy and his fellow-robbers for trial at the sessions; that eventually the persons accused of robbery were all convicted, and the conviction was upheld by the High Court on appeal; and whether, in view of the fact that the District Magistrate who refused to prosecute was the same gentleman who, as District Magistrate at Balladhun, was severely censured by the Calcutta High Court, and afterwards by the Viceroy in Council, for his conduct in the Balladhun murder case, he proposes to take any action in the matter?

My attention has not been called to this case, but my hon. Friend has favoured me with an extract from the newspaper on which he relies. I am not in a position to say whether the statements contained in that newspaper are correct, but I will refer the allegations to the Government of India, who are the proper authority to deal with matters of this description.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Secretary of State has yet received from the Governor of Ceylon the Report on the consumption in the Colony of opium and bhang, promised in a letter from the Secretary of State written to the secretary to the Society for the Suppression of the Opium Trade; if so, has any action been taken with regard to it; and will he lay the Report and all Correspondence relating to it upon the Table of the House?

Reports have been received from the Governor of Ceylon regarding the consumption of opium and bhang in that Colony, but before deciding what action, if any, should be taken on those reports, the Secretary of State has been awaiting the issue of the reports of the Royal Commission on Opium and of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission. Those two reports having now been received, the Secretary of State hopes to address the Governor of Ceylon very shortly on the subject, and the correspondence, as soon as it is complete, will be presented to Parliament.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases where ponds have been set aside for the water supply of parishes in enclosure awards and Parish Councils decide to utilise these ponds for drinking water, the Councils have any and what power to prevent traction engines entering, fouling, and taking water from such ponds; and, if they have no power, whether County Councils have power to make bye-laws to regulate the conduct of traction engines with regard to such ponds?

I am not aware that either a Parish Council or a County Council have any power in the matter referred to.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of the Government has been called to that part of Mr. Hardinge's Report to the Foreign Office, dated Zanzibar, 13th March, 1895, whether he estimates that in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba from 50,000 to 78,000 slaves are illegally held; and, what steps the Government propose taking that slaves held illegally in the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba may regain their freedom?

I have to point out that, in giving the figures quoted, Mr. Hardinge observes that it cannot be too carefully borne in mind that all such calculations are mere guesswork, but the whole subject is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland invited 12 architects to submit anonymously designs for the proposed Portrane Lunatic Asylum; that the letter of conditions inviting competition stated, amongst other things, that a committee of selection would select not more than three out of the 12 competitors, and place them in order of merit; that the committee of selection did select three, and stated that they were of equal merit; that the Board of Control thereupon obtained estimates upon the three designs, and when they were obtained adopted the design which would cost, according to the official surveyor's report, £30,000 more than one, and £48,000 more than the other, of the designs which had been adjudged by the committee of selection to be of equal merit with that adopted, thus imposing a grave additional burden upon the ratepayers; that the methods pursued in the conduct of the competition for designs and in their selection have been condemned by the Council of the Institute of Architects of Ireland, as violating certain fundamental conditions regulating the competition, on the faith of which generally the competitors submitted their designs for adjudication; that they hold that, in view of the facts, no adjudication has taken place within the meaning of the conditions; and whether representations will be addressed to the Board on the subject, with a view to their adopting steps for holding a fresh competition?

The Board of Control did invite 12 architects to submit, anonymously, designs for the proposed Asylum at Portrane. In the "Instructions" for the competition it was stated that the Board of Control would appoint a committee of selection to select not more than three of the designs sent in, which they considered of merit, and to place them in the order af merit. The committee having examined the plans, &c., made a report, which has been communicated to the competitors, and the Board of Control then considered it necessary to get an approximate estimate prepared by an independent surveyor of each of the designs selected by the committee of selection. It was found that the two less costly of the designs would have required very extensive remodelling, which would in one ease have increased the cost considerably. In the third and more costly design an amount of accommodation had been provided in excess of that in the other two, or more than was considered necessary, the reduction of which to what was necessary would reduce the cost by about £30,000 without varying the general design, which the Board considered in many respects of great merit and well suited to the site. With this reduction there will not be, as alleged, any additional burden thrown on the ratepayers by carrying out the particular design which the Board have selected. The Council of the Institute of Irish Architects did express an opinion as stated in the question. The selection having been made, and the architect instructed to prepare the working designs, there can be no further competition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received an extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Board of Guardians of Galway Union, at its meeting of the 15th instant, from which it appears that the Guardians took all necessary steps to put the Seed Supply Act into operation in Arran Islands; (2) whether he is aware that upwards of 80 persons applied for seed, and were informed that, not being rated, they could not be supplied unless they gave security; (3) whether Dr. Clements, Local Government Inspector, reported to the Board that a number of persons who were in a very poor condition on the Islands were in the position of squatters; (4) whether he is aware that it is only by a free grant of seed or by employment on relief works that these people could be relieved; (5) and whether the Government will take steps, either by an immediate free grant of seed or by the opening of relief works, to save these people from impending starvation?

I have received the communication referred to in the first paragraph and understand that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph. Dr. Clements reported that a number of the fishermen on the islands were cottiers. The Local Government Board inform me that the potato crop on the islands last year was undoubtedly a good one and that the relieving officer reported to the Guardians in October last that the people never had a better crop. Nearly all the tenants on the islands, with perhaps one or two exceptions, are reputed to have planted their potatoes some weeks ago. There is a reduction of 30 per cent. in the numbers receiving outdoor relief as compared with the corresponding period of last year, and only one landholder, who is sick, is now in receipt of relief. The Board advise me that the circumstances of the people would not justify the opening of relief works.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has he made any further inquiries whether an estate bailiff, named Moran, employed by Lord Clanricarde, occupied a seat on the Bench at the Petty Sessions Court held at Woodford on the 13th instant; from whom, besides Colonel Longbourne, R.M., who presided, has he sought for information; does Colonel Longbourne still adhere to his statement that no one but the Magistrates sat on the Bench; and will an opportunity be afforded the hon. Member for East Galway, who was present in Court on the above day, on sworn evidence, to prove that the bailiff Moran sat on the Bench during the holding of the Court?

Colonel Long-bourne now informs me that Moran, though not employed as a bailiff, is employed in some other capacity in the office of Lord Clanricarde's agent. It further appears that Moran stood for a short time on the Bench at Woodford Petty Sessions Court on the date mentioned, and that he was there at the invitation, not of Colonel Longbourne, but of Lord Clanricarde's agent, who was one of the Magistrates presentation the occasion. I am not aware that there is any means of preventing a Magistrate from inviting to the Bench any person whom he pleases, but, at the same time, I am of opinion that it is objectionable, having regard to the relations existing between landlord and tenant, that any person employed as Moran is, in his agent's office, should occupy a place on the Bench of a courthouse.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has taken any notice of the difference between the information supplied by Colonel Longbourne, when the hon. Gentleman asked the question a few days ago, and the statement now made?

No doubt there is a discrepancy between the two statements, but I understand that it is not very considerable, because the person in question only stood upon the Bench for a few minutes.

was understood to ask if the right hon. Gentleman would lay before the House the sources of the information supplied to him on the last occasion and then.

said, he did not think he could do so.

Was not this man Moran armed with a rifle?

Will an opportunity be accorded to Colonel Longbourne for an explanation?

I will put the case before him.

Did Colonel Longbourne, in his first reply, stating that Moran was not a bailiff, concede the fact that he was in the employment of Lord Clanricarde?

I am not sure. Of course, it is not my business to know what the man's employment is, but I do not think he was, in any sense, employed by Lord Clanricarde.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the propriety of giving him a change of air at once?

, in rising to put a further question, was met with cries of "Order!"

said, he had already called upon Mr. Kearley.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that marines on embarkation are still charged for white clothing, notwithstanding the promise recently made that such practice should be discontinued?

Yes, Sir. Until a new Order in Council could be obtained the old system has necessarily gone on.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can explain why the claims of the warrant officers of the Navy, which he assured the House more than a year since were then under consideration by the Admiralty, and as to which he hoped to be able in a short time to make an announcement which would be regarded as satisfactory, have not been dealt with; whether he is aware that the Civil Lord has recently stated that the question has taken a new turn, and is engaging the consideration of the Admiralty with a view of the whole question being reconsidered; and whether he can now announce the present position of affairs?

I am able to confirm the statements on the subject of warrant officers which we have made from time to time. It is a large and important subject, a decision on which cannot be hurried. Meanwhile, the consideration which I said last year was being given to the question of an increase of numbers of warrant officers has resulted in an addition of about 100 by the present year's Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Robert Lyons, alleged to be a native of Castlerea, County Roscommon, who enlisted in Manchester in 1888, and was discharged on the 6th instant owing to insanity, and sent under escort by the Commandant of Netley Hospital to Castlerea Workhouse; and whether he will recommend that soldiers discharged under such circumstances be committed to a military asylum, and not returned to an Irish union to which they either did, not belong or had left many years before?

The proceedings in this case appear to have been quite in accordance with the section of the Army Act which relates to the discharge of lunatic soldiers. Castlerea was given in the man's attestation as his place of birth.

I beg to ask the ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether, when the Island of Matacong was taken possession of by France in consequence of its cession under the Convention of 1882, confirmed by the Agreement of 1889, the French Government must be taken to have had notice of the existence of private proprietary rights in the island belonging to British subjects; (2) whether the French Government, in the desire impartially to investigate these private rights, decided that particular claims must be proved before the local tribunals, and the proofs demanded in this case were duly delivered to the French Authorities in June 1893; and (3) whether the French Government have yet reported to Her Majesty's Government what is the decision that has been arrived at; if not, whether any steps can be taken to expedite a settlement, seeing that it is two years since the legal inquiry was commenced?

No special reservation of private proprietary rights was ever made, but the French Government have never denied that such rights would be valid if they could be properly proved. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. No decision has yet been, given by the French Government on the papers submitted to them. In reply to a further question by Sir G. BADEN-POWELL,

said, the question had formed the subject of communications to the French Government, who were quite aware of the desire that a decision should he come to.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it is his intention, when making promotions (some of which are six months in abeyance)necessary to fill the seven vacancies existing in the Telegraph Department, Dublin, he will make the salaries of the newly appointed officers retrospective, and promote to the assistant superintendent's class the officer who stands first on the list of the next lower class; also if it is his intention to select the most senior men in the class of first class telegraphists for the vacancies in the clerks' class, if they possess the requisite qualifications as to character and ability; whether, having regard to the fact that many of those now standing at the head of the lists of first and second class telegraphists, who have been lately passed over for promotion owing to their lack of technical knowledge and operating skill respectively, have had no opportunity of acquiring this knowledge, he will take into account their long service; and whether, if he finds himself unable to promote them to a higher class, he will consider their case with a view to giving them some equivalent for promotion?

The promotions to which the hon. Member refers were made a few days ago, and will be announced immediately. They will take effect from the date of my decision, and not retrospectively. It was a matter of great regret to me not to be able to promote the officers who stood at the head of their respective classes, and I am sure the hon. Member will understand it is out of my power to compensate those who have been passed over.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the duties to be performed by the Artillery officers whom it is proposed to place over the heads of officers now serving in the Ordnance Store Department are duties which cannot be adequately performed by the officers whom it is proposed to supersede; whether the War Office intend to recoup the increased expenditure involved in the appointment of these new officers at enhanced rates of pay, by substituting quartermasters for regimental officers in the junior ranks of the Department; whether it has been the invariable custom of the Department to allow all such regimental officers, if efficient, to re-engage in the Ordnance Store Department on completion of their term of service; whether such regimental officers have been debarred from competing for Staff College appointments during the period of their service with the Ordnance Store Department; and whether it is contemplated to extend the age limit during which they may be allowed to compete, so as to place them on an equality with other officers in their respective regiments?

The details of the proposed reorganisation of the Ordnance Store Department are still under consideration, but I may say that one great object in view is to bring the Department into a condition in which the most intimate knowledge of artillery details will be available in working it. With this view one or two experienced artillery officers may be brought in in the higher ranks, but as those ranks will be correspondingly augmented the promotion of officers below them will not be seriously interfered with. Although the reorganisation may cause some immediate increase of expenditure, the normal cost of the Department will be much reduced; and this reduction is effected—as suggested by the hon. Member's question—by substituting officers of the quartermaster class for regimental officers. As regards regimental officers now serving in the Department, those in the second period of seven years may, if thoroughly efficient, be selected for continuance; those in their first period, also, if found efficient, may be continued for a period not exceeding two years. In the past, an efficient officer might be continued, but he could not claim continuance as a right. While serving he was not allowed to compete for admission to the Staff College. It is not contemplated to extend the age for admission to the Staff College.

said, it was a matter of policy interpreted by the Adjutant General and the Quartermaster General, who were the most competent judges. They considered it would be beneficial.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question?

I have explained the reason why those officers should be placed over the heads of officers now serving.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen the report of a case in which an application was made for a warrant for the removal of an old woman named Gordon to a Galway Union to which it was alleged she belonged, although it was stated that she had been in this country for 40 years; and whether any similar power exists for the transference of English paupers to their native place from Irish Unions; if not, whether steps will be taken to assimilate the law in this respect between the two countries?

I have not seen any report of the case referred to. There is at present no power to remove paupers from Ireland to England, corresponding to the power to remove them from England to Ireland. I understand that the question of amendment of the law on the subject is under the consideration of the Irish Secretary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) if he is aware that the Newry Board of Guardians, having advertised for a trained hospital nurse with a certificate in midwifery, appointed to the office a spinster of 25 years of age, who admittedly had no training as a hospital nurse and was without the specified certificate in midwifery, and that the Local Government Board, with these facts clearly before it, confirmed the appointment; (2) whether it is the practice of the Local Government Board, before approving of an appointment made by a Board of Guardians, to see that the selected candidate has the required qualifications; (3) if, in view of the vital importance of the duties to be discharged, he will state whether there was any neglect in this matter, and if not, what considerations weighed with the Local Government Board in ratifying the appointment; (4) if the Local Government Board informed itself of the fact that another candidate, Mrs. French, had the required training and certificate, and that the accepted and unqualified candidate is a Protestant, while the rejected and fully qualified one is a Catholic; (5) whether the competence of the person appointed has since become a subject of correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians; and (6) whether, instead of allowing this nurse to hold the appointment and to go to some institution where she may become properly qualified, as appears to be contemplated, either the Board of Guardians will be asked to insist on her resignation, or failing that, the Local Government Board will consider the propriety of ordering her removal from office and the immediate appointment of the properly qualified candidate?

The Local Government Board confirmed the election of Miss Fenn to the office in question, on consideration of the replies to the usual queries and of her testimonials, which showed she had had considerable experience both in nursing and midwifery. The reply to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. There was no neglect in this instance, the Board having satisfied themselves that the person elected was competent to discharge the duties of the office. The Board have no information as to the qualifications or religious views of the other candidates. It would appear Miss Fenn is a Protestant. The Medical Officer of the workhouse suggested to the Guardians the desirability of her receiving some further training in midwifery, but the Guardians decided not to consider the matter further. The Local Government Board see no reason for requiring this nurse to resign her position, as they have no grounds for believing she is not qualified to discharge her duties. There is no obligation on a Board of Guardians to insist that nurses shall possess certificates in midwifery, and as a matter of fact very few workhouse nurses possess this qualification.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Parcels Post Convention between Germany and Japan came into operation on the 1st January 1895; whether a British parcel addressed to Japan must at present be conveyed by this service (first going to Hamburg, and then being shipped back again through the English Channel) with a minimum charge of 5s.; whether the charge for a parcel to various parts of China, sent by British steamships and carried viâ Hong Kong, is 10d. only; and whether, now that peace has been concluded between China and Japan, and a British line of steamships connects Canada with Japan, he will endeavour to establish a cheap and rapid parcel and pattern postal service to Yokohama, viâ the Canadian Pacific Railway and steamship service?

The minimum charge at present for a parcel is 5s. to Japan and 10d. to China, as stated in the question, though I should add that in the one case the charge covers a weight of three pounds, while in the other of one pound only. The negociations with the Japanese Government are proceeding satisfactorily, but it is not yet possible to say what route will prove to be the best for the proposed Parcel Post. I would refer the hon. Member to the answers which I gave on the same subject on the 7th June 1894, and on the 15th of February last.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a despatch has been received from the Governor of Queensland respecting an interview which His Excellency had with a number of influential residents of the central division of that Colony at Rockhampton on 1st April; whether he is aware that in the address presented to His Excellency on that occasion it was affirmed that the desire of the inhabitants of Central Queensland for the concession of local self-government was becoming stronger and more profound as the absolute necessity for it became more apparent, and that considerable disappointment was felt at the delay of the Imperial Government in giving effect to that desire; and, whether any of the obstacles that were cited as preventing the immediate creation of a new Colony in Central Queensland when the Secretary of State for the Colonies last received a deputation on the subject, have since been removed?

No despatch from the Governor of Queensland has been received in regard to the matter mentioned in the question, of later date than the 30th March. If further despatches are received they will, of course, receive due consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether any decision has yet been arrived at with respect to the future occupation of the Templemore Barracks?

As at present advised it is not intended to make a permanent occupation of Templemore Barracks by regular troops. The head-quarters of the Tipperary Militia Artillery will remain there.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on what grounds was Mr. Thomas Mulvahill refused a gun licence by the Resident Magistrate of the district?

Inquiry has been made in the County Galway on the assumption that the person referred to resides there, but no such application has been refused by the Resident Magistrates of that county. If the hon. Gentleman will supply me with particulars to enable the case to be identified further inquiry will at once be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, why the witnesses from Woodford, who had to attend on subpœna the Cork Winter Assize on two occasions, have not been paid their expenses; and, whether, having regard to the fact that they are all poor men, he will see that the Crown Solicitor be directed to pay them their expenses?

I have asked the Crown Solicitor to report why the witnesses referred to have not been paid their expenses in this case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the cutting of the hill near Mount Charles, County Donegal, for which he stated a presentment had been passed, is a cutting for the purpose of facilitating carriage from the pier and not from the freestone quarries near Mount Charles; whether he has received a memorial adopted at a meeting held in Mount Charles on the 21st January last, and signed by the Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Methodist clergymen, poor law guardians, and magistrates of the district, informing him of the severe distress prevalent in the district, and asking means to relieve it; and, whether, having regard to the prevailing distress, and the benefit likely to accrue to the quarrying industry, he will consider whether public works can be instituted for cutting the hill between the quarries and the pier and railway station

In replying to my hon. Friend's previous question of the 16th instant on this subject, I stated that I had directed the Local Government Board Inspector to make further inquiry as to the alleged existence of exceptional distress in the locality mentioned. Pending the receipt of the Inspector's Report I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question. If he will repeat it on Tuesday next I hope to be then in a position to given him an answer.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman had not been misinformed?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state if any public money will be expended in starting drainage works in the Breandrum Division of the Mohill Union; whether, as the rivers in that district are now nearly dry, the sinking of the beds of these rivers could be done at a comparatively small cost; and, whether, in view of the distress in the locality, he will be prepared to recommend that these drainage works be started, and steps be taken to assist the efforts of the chairman of the Local Drainage Board in the matter?

I am informed by the Local Government Board that there is no exceptional distress in this locality such as to justify the opening of relief works and under these circumstances the drainage works referred to could not be undertaken as relief works.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the total number of passes under the Science and Art Drawing Examination in Elementary Schools in England and Wales, in the year ending 31st August 1891 was 5,128, and in the year ending 31st August 1894 was 18,510, an increase of about 260 per cent., whereas the passes under the Science and Art Drawing Examination in Scotland rose from 725 in the year ending 31st August 1891 to 965 in the year ending 31st August 1894, an increase of only 33 per cent.; whether, notwithstanding the extraordinarily rapid increase in he number of passes in England and Wales since 1891, the percentage of "Excellent" passes in the year ending 31st August 1893 was 25 per cent., and 24 per cent. in the year ending 31st August 1894; and whether, in the case of Scotland, the percentage of "Excellent" passes actually fell from 27 per cent. in the year ending 31st August 1893 to 16 per cent. for the year ending 31st August 1894; and, if so, whether he can explain the relatively unsatisfactory results of these examinations in Scotland as compared with England?

My attention had not been called to the figures, which certainly needed the very careful examination which has been given to them. The standard has been very slowly rising; and the result is, that a certain number of schools in Scotland which had previously just succeeded in obtaining "Excellent" fell to "Good." The award is made partly on the report of the inspector and partly on the revision, by the examiners at South Kensington, of the drawings made by the scholars. The Scotch schools are treated in precisely the same way as the English, Welsh, and Irish schools, and the greatest care is taken in making the awards. It would appear that while the instruction in drawing has been slightly improving in England and Wales, under the stimulus possibly of its being a compulsory subject for boys—which it is not in Scotland—this has not been so in parts of Scotland. I shall be very glad to arrange that the hon. Member shall see the drawings and make any examination or comparisons that he may think desirable.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can say in what part of Scotland improvement has not taken place?

I am afraid I do not know.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that Duncan McIver, a crofter on the Newhall Estate, at Ferrytown, Balblair, Ross-shire, recently holding under lease, but now from year to year, is under notice of eviction though only £2 in arrears, or one-half year's rent due at Martinmas last; that Duncan McIver reclaimed from barren moorland all the land comprising his croft with the exception of half an acre, and that he and his family built the dwelling-house, barn, and byre on the holding; and, whether any steps can be taken to prevent the proprietor anticipating the Crofters' Bill, which, on becoming law, will give to McIver fixity of tenure and compensation for improvements?

If the hon. Member means Donald McIver I have nothing to add to the detailed replies which I gave in the House on the 23rd of April and the 13th of May, in the course of which I stated the manner in which this tenant had treated his obligation to pay rent.

said, his question referred to Duncan McIver, not Donald. Would the right hon. Gentleman take the trouble to inquire into this case?

said, this crofter since the year 1890 had only paid 16s. rent under compulsion out of a rental which, according to the hon. Member's question, would be about £16, and he thought, that being the case, the House would quite understand the circumstances.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make further inquiry, seeing that the man only owed £2?

said, the hon. Member forgot what he said in the last sentence of his answer, namely, that this man had only paid 16s. except under compulsion.

But he has paid it. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of the Government to send the forces of the Crown to aid Mr. Shaw Mackenzie, the landlord of this property, in evicting this man.

Most certainly on this occasion the Crown will not take any unusual course whatever. This man has not put himself in a position to have an unusual consideration shown to him. His behaviour to his own family has been extremely bad, and in no respect does he deserve special consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the circumstances in connection with the appointment of a check weighman at the Ashton's Green Colliery, Parr, St. Helen's, on 23rd April 1895; whether he is aware that, after the miners had had a meeting and passed a unanimous resolution to elect a checkweighman by ballot, in accordance with the provisions of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, and also had appointed two of their number to conduct the ballot, the top manager refused to allow these men to go on the pit bank; that the manager of the colliery, Mr. Thomas Pennington, interfered and urged the men, in contravention of the Act of Parliament, to decide the matter by a show of hands; and that this is the first attempt in the county of Lancashire of a colliery manager to interfere with the appointment of a checkweighman; and whether, in view of the fact that the miners are dissatisfied with this interference, and with a view of giving satisfaction, he will cause a thorough investigation into the circumstances under which Henry Pennington was alleged to be appointed as checkweighman at this colliery?

The Mines Inspector has investigated this matter. He finds that it is the case that the top manager refused to allow the men who were appointed to hold the ballot to go on the pit bank, on the ground that they were strangers and not employed in the colliery. I have not been informed, as a fact, whether this is so, but I am informed that the top manager assigned it as his reason for acting as he did. The manager says that he did not interfere with the men or urge them to decide the matter by a show of hands, but, on being asked, he expressed an opinion that this might be done. The Inspector has now called attention to the provisions of Section 14 of The Coal Mines Regulation Act, and it has been arranged that a fresh election shall be held by ballot. The employer has undertaken not to place any difficulty in the way of such an election.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that in the Findochty Licensing Appeal Case a petition was presented to the Banff Quarter Sessions against the licence signed by 204 out of a total of 245 householders of Findochty, and another petition signed by 526 persons over 18 years of age out of a total population of 1,200; whether Quarter Sessions refused to receive or consider these petitions, and whether such refusal was lawful; and whether he can state to what extent the majority of justices who granted the licence on appeal were connected with Findochty, or had taken steps to ascertain the requirements and wishes of the local community?

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?

In reply to my hon. Friends I may say that I am informed that on the 16th April last, Alexander MacDonald applied to the Licensing Court of the lower district of Banffshire, in which district Findochty is situated, for renewal of a transferred certificate. Notice of objection had been lodged in terms of the Statute; and on the morning of the Court a petition signed by 186 householders of Findochty out of 246 against the application was lodged. No objection was taken to the reception of the petition. The local justices, 12 in number, after hearing the parties' agents, unanimously refused the renewal of the licence. The applicants appealed to the General Quarter Sessions for the whole county, and 46 justices from all parts of the county attended the meeting. The applicant's agent objected to the petition which was received in the court below being read, as also a copy of that petition with additional signatures said to contain over 200 names. He stated that he had a petition in favour of the licence; but he asked the Court to refuse to receive all petitions from any quarter. On a division it was decided to refuse the petitions by 27 as against 15. I cannot say that the Court exceeded their powers in doing so. The Court then sustained the appeal and granted the licence, by 26 votes to 18. I am informed that the petition admitted by the District Court was a bonâ fide one, and was signed by genuine householders who opposed the application; and that a large majority of the householders in Findochty are opposed to the renewal. I am informed, likewise, that there had been an organised canvas of justices on the part of the licensing trade; some justices coming from the upper parts of the county to support the appeal, who had little or no knowledge of the local conditions of Findochty; while the proceedings of the Court were such as hardly to enable them to acquire much knowledge during the hearing of the case. The proceedings at the Quarter Sessions were not (I quote the words of the Sheriff Substitute of Banffshire) "such as to induce respect for the administration of justice," and there were certain additional circumstances which fully bear out this emphatic opinion.

Has the right hon. Gentleman any information that this man got his licence because he offered to entertain to dinner the magistrates of the county?

I think the circumstances which I have been able to detail to the House on the highest authority are sufficiently strong, and that we need not enter on any other matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a re-directed telegram (which costs a shilling originally for transmission) is treated as an unpaid letter, and a fine of 2d. imposed; and whether he will give instructions that for the future re-directed telegrams sent through the post shall be treated as redirected letters, and no further charges imposed?

A telegram re-directed by post is subject to a charge of one penny, and, if a fine of twopence has in any case been imposed, it has been imposed through an inadvertence which I regret. But I fear that I cannot give instructions for remitting the charge of one penny. To allow documents, which had not been dealt with and passed through the post in the ordinary sense to be treated as re-directed letters would be to open a very wide door, and might lead to frauds on the Revenue which it is my duty to protect.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Her Majesty's Government have now decided to place two unofficial members on the Executive Council of Hong Kong; and whether they have come to any decision, and if so what, as to the further proposal of appointing two additional unofficial members to the Legislative Council?

The subject in question is still under consideration, and no answer can be given at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will agree to the Motion for a Return relating to the mail steamers running between England and the Continent, which stands on the Paper this day?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I am afraid I shall not be able to consent to the Return in the form on the Paper, but perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House what is the population of the 27 parishes in Anglesey alleged to be without a resident clergyman; whether each of these parishes is united for ecclesiastical purposes with another parish, and that in every case a resident clergyman officiates in the joint parishes; and whether one-third of the parishes in Anglesey have so small a population that they have no parish council?

The population of these parishes appears to be roughly about 4,700. I have no doubt that in every case such provision as seems to be necessary is made for the spiritual wants of the Church of England in these parishes, either by grouping them with other parishes, or by utilising the services of clergymen residing in neighbouring parishes. I made no charge against the Church of neglecting its duties in Anglesey; on the contrary, it would probably be a very wasteful arrangement to maintain a separate resident clergyman for the benefit of a small handful of people in a thinly-populated parish. My reference to Anglesey was to refute a statement, made with every pretence of authority, that the Church of England, unlike the Nonconformist bodies, maintains a resident clergyman in every parish in Wales. The case of Anglesey shows that the Church, when the circumstances require it, adopts the plan of grouping parishes, and serving one parish by a minister resident in another. There appear to be 78 parishes in Anglesey, of which 20 have no parish council.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with regard to the statement made by the then Home Secretary in 1891 that he had by the first and second clauses of the Factory Bill of that year, now the Factory Act of 1891, taken dictatorial power (being power to send to workshops a factory inspector or any number of inspectors), whether the power referred to, contained in Section 1 and Section 2, sub-section (2), has been a dead letter

No order has been made under Section 1 of the Factory and Workshops Act 1891. As regards Section 2, sub-section (2), the inspectors have rarely, if ever, taken proceedings under those provisions, but the powers of the section have been useful in enabling the inspectors to secure the attention of local authorities to complaints under Section 4 of the Act of 1878.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories will be in the Library?

It will be circulated to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government of the South African Republic have offered a pension of £1,000 per month to the King of Swaziland, and whether he has refused to receive any pension or allowance from the Government of the South African Republic?

I presume that by the word "pension" the right hon. Gentleman refers to the payment by the Government of the South African Republic of moneys derived from the collection of the private revenue of the King under power of attorney. We have no official information as to whether any instalment of the money has as yet been tendered to, or refused by, the chief.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he would state what prisoners convicted of treason-felony, or other crimes connected with the use or unlawful possession of dynamite, have been released during this year before the expiration of the terms of their sentences, and the amount of penal servitude or imprisonment remitted in each case?

Two prisoners—namely, Peter Callaghan and Henry M'Cann—both convicted of treason-felony and sentenced to penal servitude for life, have been released on licence in the present year. Each of the prisoners had served 11 years and three months. The intention to release, and the grounds for so doing, were in each case stated by me in this House in answer to questions.

asked whether, in view of the great public meetings recently held in Ireland in favour of the release of the treason-felony prisoners now in Portland, the right hon. Gentleman would consider their cases with a view to their release.

I have no further statement to make at present.

was proceeding to repeat his question, when he was called to order.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in dealing with the age limit of exemption in elementary schools in agricultural districts, he will consider the advisability of making provision for retaining the scholars who have, not passed at 11 years of age as half-timers up to 14 years, and so give them some chance of agricultural employment early in life, and also retain them in their own districts

I understand the hon. Member to suggest that the Department should make it possible for all children to attend school half time only after 11 years of age, whether they have passed the standard of exemption fixed by the live-laws in force in the district or not. This would be contrary to the Education Acts, and I am not prepared to initiate legislation in order to make it possible. Children between 13 and 14 years of age are now exempt from the legal obligation to attend school if they have obtained a certificate of previous due attendance, though they may not have passed in any standard.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if constant and numerous discharges of workmen are taking place from the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; whether these point to a serious reduction, in expenditure; and whether arrangements can be made for a shorter working week or some other method adopted to lessen the great hardship caused by the said discharges of Government employés?

Owing to the decreased demand for the productions of the ordnance factories some diminution of the establishment is necessary; but care is taken to effect the reduction with as little hardship to the men as possible. As has been already stated, in view of the severe winter, men have been kept on who were in excess of the actual requirements of the factories. The present time is considered a favourable one for men obtaining other employment, and some discharges are consequently taking place. Working short time can only be adopted as a temporary expedient, and not for the purpose of maintaining permanently an establishment beyond the requirements of the Service.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Lord Brassey was appointed some months ago Governor of Victoria, Australia; and whether his predecessor has left the Colony; and, if so, when it is proposed that Lord Brassey shall proceed to Australia?

Lord Brassey was selected early in the year to succeed Lord Hopetoun in the Government of Victoria. He will assume the Government on the expiration of Lord Hopetoun's leave of absence in September next.

asked, whether there was any precedent for the Governor of a colony, who as such represented Her Majesty, remaining so long in England and going about making political speeches in favour of candidates? [Cries of "Oh," and cheers.]

There are plenty of precedents for Governors not assuming office at once, especially in a case like this, in which the late Governor's time has not yet expired. A Governor is entitled, under the terms of his appointment, to so much leave, and that he usually takes, as in this case, at the end of his term. While on leave he is on half-pay, and the new Governor does not take office until the expiration of his predecessor's leave. Lord Brassey, therefore, at the present moment is not Governor of Victoria.

Then is there any precedent for a gentleman in this position going about taking part in political campaigns? ["Hear, hear !" and Cries of "Notice."]

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is within the legal right of a Parish Council or parish meeting to remove any existing stone, wooden, iron, or other stiles used in connection with rural footpaths which they may consider inconvenient, and to substitute therefor turnstiles or stiles of any character which may, in their opinion, be more suitable; and whether, if it be legal to remove such stiles as above-mentioned, the authority so removing them will be under a continuing obligation to keep the substituted stiles in repair?

I am advised that a Parish Council have no right to remove or substantially alter an existing stile except with the consent of the owner of the land where it lies.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office why the Militia are drilled with the Magazine rifle and shoot with the Martini, and whether representations have been made to him of the confusion which such an arrangement might cause on service; and when helmets will be issued to the force?

A temporary arrangement is necessary, owing to the ranges available being, in many cases, unsuitable for the Lee-Metford rifle. It is, however, very necessary that the Militia should learn to handle, and become familiar with, the mechanism of the new weapon, which they would use if mobilised. Therefore, they are drilled with the Lee-Metford; but, for want of long ranges, they have to shoot with Martini-Henry rifles. Next year it is intended to give them cartridges of reduced power, which can be fired on any range from Lee-Metford rifles. This will be another step in advance, though still short of the best possible training. As to helmets, 25,000 will be issued this year to the Militia. The 34 units which are to be trained with regulars or in camp are to be first supplied. Of these, 25 have already received their supply, and the remaining helmets will be issued with the least possible delay.

asked if the cartridges for the shorter range would be manufactured from cordite.

Yes, cordite.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that land can be purchased for long-range firing in the South-Eastern district at a low price, and with nothing alive near it except, possibly, the pea-bug?

replied that the War Office were alive to the need of accommodation, and were taking steps to provide it.

asked if it was intended to take measures to arm the Volunteers with the Lee-Metford rifle?

I think that hardly arises out of this question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a large Boer commando is about to attack the Basuto Chief, Magato; whether he can inform the House of the reasons for this attack; and whether Magato's territory is within the boundaries of the Transvaal?

I have no official information as to the relations between the Government of the South African Republic and the Chief Magato. The Chief resides in the Zoutpansberg district of the Republic.

As this is an important question, I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will make official inquiry and obtain information? There are many thousands of natives involved in this matter.

I certainly am not going to give any such pledge. This is a question affecting the internal administration of the Transvaal, and under the London Convention we are expressly excluded from interfering. If there were any question affecting British subjects arising in connection with it, then it would be another matter.

I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that under the Convention of 1884, the clauses of which are still binding, Her Majesty's Government agreed that the interests of the natives of the Transvaal should be protected?

I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether the House of Commons is not entitled to receive information as to an event of such importance occurring in the Transvaal?

Every hon. Member has the ordinary means of information in regard to it, but what the hon. Member opposite asked was whether I would make special official inquiries with regard to this matter, and that I declined to do.

I would ask whether we are not under an obligation to protect the interests of the native races in South Africa?

If any question arose as to any breach of the London Convention, of course we have a resident Consul General in the Transvaal who would report instantly to the High Commissioner, and the High Commissioner would at once communicate with us. What I understood the hon. Gentleman to ask was that we should at once, without referring to the High Commissioner, make inquiries on this side of the water, and that I declined to do.

What I desired the hon. Gentleman to do was what I again ask him to do, and that is to ask Her Majesty's representative in the South African Republic for information on this point, so that we may know the truth about it.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining information from the Transvaal; that the sources of information are exceedingly unreliable; and that, except we obtain official information, we are not aware of what takes place?

Of course, we have an official representative in the Transvaal, whose duty it is to send us any information which he thinks will be important or necessary to us in order to decide this or any other question. In the ordinary course of his duty he will send us, through the High Commissioner, such information as we require. That is a different matter from what I understood the hon. Member to desire us to do.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Rev. J. S. Harris, Wesleyan minister, of Manchester, was recently refused permission by the Governor of Strangeways Prison to see a prisoner in the room set aside for ministerial visits to prisoners, on the ground that clergymen belonging to the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are alone entitled to such a privilege; and whether there is any reason why prisoners belonging to other Nonconformist Churches should not be entitled to receive ministerial visits from their clergy upon precisely the same footing and subject to the same regulations as prisoners do who belong to the Roman Catholic Church?

The Rev. J. S. Harris did apply to see a remanded prisoner in Manchester Prison, but as the prisoner had declared himself on reception as of the Church of England, and the Governor understood that the visit was to be as that of the prisoner's minister, he did not permit it to take place. The Governor denies having stated that clergymen of the Church of England and of the Roman Catholic Church are alone entitled to such a privilege, as he well knew that, under Schedule I., Regulation 47, Prison Act, 1865, a prisoner has the right to be visited by the minister of the church to which he belongs. On his conviction, on the 11th instant, the above prisoner declared himself a Wesleyan, and applied yesterday to see Mr. Harris as his minister, and the Governor at once wrote to that gentleman asking him to call and see the prisoner.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the statement of the local police, denying that Thomas Colreavy, of Drumhass, in Mohill Union, died from the effects of hunger is seriously contested by the clergymen and the bulk of the people in the district; whether he is aware that this mar was refused seed potatoes at the Mohill Union Workhouse, and had afterwards to seek from his neighbours some seed potatoes; whether the attention of the Local Government Board Inspector, Dr. O'Grady, was directed to his condition by the local clergyman some short time before his death; and whether, to allay public feeling in the matter and arrive at the truth, he will order a sworn inquiry to be held into all the circumstances of the case?

I have directed the Local Government Board to hold a sworn inquiry into the circumstances attending the death of this man, and pending the result of the investigation it would not, I think, be advisable at the present moment to make any further statement in reference to the inquiries of the hon. Gentleman.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War—(1) whether the provisions of the Army Discipline and Regulation Act, 1881, relating to the billeting of Yeomanry upon inn-keepers, etc., compel inn-keepers to take on billet several troops of yeomanry in immediate succession for periods of ten days each; (2) whether penalties would be incurred on inn-keepers in the event of non-compliance with the Act; and (3), if the inn-keepers are liable to take the several troops of yeomanry in succession, whether he will cause such regulations to be issued as will ensure the inn-keeper being recompensed a reasonable charge for the billet?

As regards the two first paragraphs of the question, the answer is, Yes. The maximum sums payable for billeting are fixed by Act of Parliament, and I have no power to pay more.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision concerning the future administration of Chitral, and concerning the steps that may be required for the safeguarding of British interests in that quarter, and of the lines of communication with British India; and, if so, whether he can state such decision to the House?

The matters to which the hon. Member's question refers are receiving the most careful attention of Her Majesty's Government.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is true that the late ruler of Chitral has been sent to India, and, if so, whether it is proposed to keep him in India, or what the Government are going to do with him?

I have no information on that subject except what has appeared in the newspapers.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. R. M. Dane), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Excise Authorities have not yet prosecuted the three men who were poaching in the townland of Ballybreast, County Derry, on 8th August, without licences, in the close season?

I understand that the Board of Inland Revenue decided not to prosecute in this case because the poachers had been wounded on the occasion referred to by the gamekeepers?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has, since the 19th March and 21st April last, considered whether some means might be taken to warn householders how to prevent kitchen boiler explosions during winter; and, if so, will he state his decision?

Yes, Sir; I have carefully considered this matter, and a circular letter is now being prepared which will state fully the precautions which should be taken to guard against the explosion of kitchen boilers in time of frost. This circular I propose to issue to all water companies and to local authorities supplying water for domestic purposes, with a request that the precautions to be taken against explosion may be brought under the notice of householders shortly before the approach of winter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether arrangements have yet been made to survey the site of a lighthouse on the Flannan Islands, with the view of making a reliable estimate of the cost of establishing a station there?

The Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses inform me that, according to present arrangements, their engineer hopes to proceed in the middle of next month to the Flannan Islands in order to survey a site for a new lighthouse.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a case tried at the Dublin Commission on the 18th April last, in which the prisoner was convicted, under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Statutes, on the evidence of his wife, for cruelty resulting in the death of his child, and sentenced to two years' imprisonment; whether he is aware that, although the evidence disclosed a clear case of murder, the Crown Counsel stated that it was impossible to proceed against the prisoner on the capital charge, owing to the fact that the only witness of the crime was the prisoner's wife, who was not a competent witness in the case of the felony, but a competent witness in the case of the misdemeanour; and whether, in view of the circumstances of the case, the Government will consent to apply the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill to Ireland?

I am informed that the facts are as stated. It does not follow that the Bill in question would meet the case, since in trials for murder the wife of the person charged could not, under the Bill, be called as a witness without the consent of the person charged.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mr. Coates, national schoolmaster at Sixmilecross, sent in his resignation to the National Board shortly before his death in March last, and became thereby entitled to a gratuity of £160; and, whether the National Board have refused to give the gratuity to his widow, and on what grounds?

I regret to have to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to postpone this question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that considerable public inconvenience arises from the absence of the Clerk of Petty Sessions Dromcollogher, County Limerick, without any explanation; and, what steps will be taken to have the duties of the office properly fulfilled?

I have not yet completed my inquiries in this matter, and will ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question for about a week.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the usual custom of billeting has been departed from in Newcastle West, County Limerick, regarding the O Battery of Artillery, viz., men and horses distributed proportion ately among the licensed vintners, and that 65 out of 85 horses have been placed with a Mr. Dawson, Petty Sessions clerk whose stables considerably exceed the distance allowed by the Regulations; and whether, as the allowance given by the Military Authorities merely covers the outlay incurred by vintners when men and horses are billeted on a licensed premises (the allowance for billeting of men alone being insufficient) he will order that no departure from previous practice be sanctioned?

Under the provisions of the Army Act the allotment of billets is entirely in the hands of the local Police Authority, subject to the control of the local Justices or Court of Summary Jurisdiction, to whom persons aggrieved at the manner in which billeting may be carried out are instructed by the Act to appeal.

I wish to ask is it a proper course to take for the Resident Magistrate of the district and for the Petty Sessions Clerk to canvass the officers before the troops pass through the towns as to the billet?

I am sure I am not aware what is the proper course to be pursued; but, as I have said, the matter is one entirely in the hands of the local Police Authorities subject to the control of the local Court of Summary Jurisdiction.

As the Police gave notice to the publicans to provide fodder for the horses, and thereby caused them to incur expense, will the Military Authorities recompense the publicans in the matter?

I do not think the Military Authorities are responsible.

Who is responsible?

I should think the Police.

I wish to ask whether, when people are put to expense of this kind, and when afterwards by favouritism the billeting is directed to other channels, some compensation should not be given? And I would further ask whether some provision should not be made in the Army Act to meet cases of this kind?

Of course, if the matter and the circumstances are explained to me, I will consider whether in another year any provision in the Army Act could provide against a case of this sort.

As there are nine batteries of artillery passing through this town——

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lientenant of Ireland, why the usual Petty Sessions are not now held in the Court House at Golden, County Tipperary; is he aware that inhabitants of the Golden Petty Sessions district are caused much expense and loss of time by having to attend Petty Sessions at Cashel, in another district; and, will he take steps to have Petty Sessions at Golden for the convenience of the people of that district?

It appears that for some time past Petty Sessions business has not been transacted at Golden, but at Cashel, and it also appears that the Golden Sessions were abandoned in consequence of an order issued by the magistrates, who considered the Court House was unfit for occupation. As soon as the matter was brought under the notice of Government, steps were taken to secure that the business of Petty Sessions should be transacted at Golden as usual, and the magistrates have been informed that, if the Court House is in an unfit state, it is the duty of the Grand Jury to provide a proper justice room. Ths Sessions were held at Golden on the 21st instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that some of the Irish Land Commissioners and Sub-Commissioners are over 65 years of age; and, does he know why they are not retired in the usual way, according to the 65 rule?

With regard to the status and tenure of office, of the Judicial and other Land Commissioners, I would refer to my answer to a question addressed to me on the 19th February last by the hon. Member for South Roscommon. As regards the Assistant Land Commissioners, I am informed that none of these gentlemen are over 65 years of age?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, when he expects to receive from the Admiralty details of its proposed normal clerical establishment, which was called for by Treasury of 10th August 1889, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments.

My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. The scheme for the Department of the Accountant General of the Navy was approved some time ago, and is in operation. A scheme for the other Departments of the Admiralty has been prepared, and is now under the consideration of the Board. It will very shortly be submitted to the Treasury.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Galway (Colonel J. P. Nolan), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he would request the Board of Public Works to draw up plans and an estimate of the cost of bridging Lough Carrib at Knock Ferry; and whether, seeing that such a bridge would enable the residents on the east of Lough Carrib to use the new Galway and Oughterard Railway, he would consider the advisability of giving some help from the Imperial Treasury to a public work of this magnitude?

The question of constructing this bridge has been several times brought under the notice of Government, and in March 1893 I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury pointed out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there were no public funds available for the work. The construction of the bridge would entail a larger expenditure than is available either from the funds of the Congested Districts Board or from those for the relief of distress. It appears, therefore, to be a work that only be undertaken by the Grand Jury.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he is in a position to say when the Committee which has been considering the Amendment of the Companies' Acts, is likely to make its Report?

The enquiry has been a very complicated and difficult one, and the proceedings were interrupted by the indisposition of the Chairman, and of one of the Judges who is a member of the Committee. I trust, however, that the Committee, who have given very close and earnest attention to the subject, will be able to present their Report in the course of next month.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the fact that the entire Russian Press are demanding the cession of a part of Chinese Manchuria, and a port in Korea; and whether the statement that the Russian Government have demanded these concessions is correct?

I cannot add anything to the answer which was given to the hon. Member last week in reply to a similar question from him, and which applies to this question also.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has a tenant who carries out repairs a right to deduct income tax from the full amount of rent payable to his landlord, although he may have only paid income tax on the balance of the full amount of rent after the reduction of one-sixth part thereof under Section 35 of the Finance Act, 1894?

The answer to this question is in the negative. Section 40 of the Income Tax Act, 1853, provides that no tenant chargeable under Schedule "A" shall be allowed to deduct from his rent a greater sum than the amount of the duty actually paid by him.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the Intoxicating Liquors (Local Control) Bill, whether, in the event of a limiting resolution coming into force in any area, and a licence being then granted as an ordinary licence in respect of premises theretofore continuously licensed as a beerhouse since the 1st of May 1869, such ordinary licence will be thereafter held subject to the protection conferred by the 19th section of the Beerhouse Act, 1869 (32 and 33 Vict. c. 27); and whether, when a limiting resolution is in force and a licence is granted as an ordinary licence, there will exist any right of appeal against a refusal to renew such ordinary licence at any subsequent general annual licensing meeting?