I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the recent promotions in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office, will he explain why three members of that Department, with services of 29, 25, and 23 years respectively, have been superseded by juniors with service of under 11 years; and upon how many different occasions have these men respectively been so treated; whether he is aware that, in respect of the senior of these men, it is alleged that a compact was entered into, in consequence of which he was induced to continue his services to the Crown on the occasion of the transfer of the telegraphs to the State, and that this man in the early days of the Service, at a difficult time, rendered efficient service to the Department as a capable telegraphist, and that he holds an unblemished character; and that, as regards the other two, these men have at all times duly performed the duties which they have been called upon to perform; and, whether he will state what steps will be taken to safe guard in the future the interests of these men?

These three officers have been superseded on several occasions because they were not fit for promotion. No compact was entered into with the senior of these men in consequence of which he was induced to continue his services to the Crown on the acquisition of the telegraphs by the State.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that there are a large number of auxiliary sorting clerks employed at the Limerick Post Office, all of whom have spent between four and five years in the service of the Department, during which period they have given every satisfaction in the performance of their duties, but will be compelled to relinquish their employment with the Post Office owing to their inability to qualify in the new programme of educational examination for sorting clerks' appointments, which only became necessary on the 1st of June 1895; and, in consequence of their long absence of over six years from school and lengthened connection with the Department, will he prevail upon the Civil Service Commissioners to issue the old examination papers to those deserving officers when they are about being placed on the Establishment?

The case of the auxiliary sorters in question is now under the consideration of the Post Office Committee of Inquiry, to whom they have appealed, and the hon. Member may rest satisfied that justice will be done.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether his attention has been directed to the inferior quality of whisky sold in Scotland, known as raw-grained; and, whether more stringent inspection could be made whereby whisky of a matured character should be sold, in the interests of the consuming public.

I am afraid the remedy suggested by the hon. Member of more stringent inspection would not be of any effect. The Revenue authorities have no power to exercise any supervision over the materials used by distillers, or to prevent spirits being sold under a certain age. This matter was recently very carefully considered by a strong Committee in 1891, who reported that it is not desirable to pass any compulsory law with regard to age. This opinion of the Committee, of course, applied to foreign spirits as well as to British spirits; but I have some reason to think that the harm done by the sale of immature spirit is principally due to cheap foreign spirit, and not to spirit distilled in Scotland, which, in the opinion of the Revenue authorities, is, as a rule, of a good and improving quality.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, as to the cause of the delay in establishing a telegraph station at Leenane, Connemara, Galway?

The legal formalities in this case have necessarily occupied some time. The deeds are at present in the hands of the guarantors for signature, and, as soon as they are returned duly executed, the Postmaster General will give directions for the extension to be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain the cause of the delay in constructing a pier at Gortmore, near Cong, county of Galway, seeing that the Congested Districts Board have some five years ago voted a sum of money for such work, and that on two or three occasions tenders were invited for the erection of the proposed pier?

Tenders for this work were called for in 1893 and 1894, but were not considered satisfactory. The difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory tender may have been largely due to the remoteness of the locality, but, as there is a bridge now in course of construction in the vicinity, the Congested Districts Board hope to receive a more favourable offer for the erection of the pier and to carry on both works conjointly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a certain percentage of foreign imported forage is supplied for the consumption of the horses of Her Majesty's Forces; and whether in future forage contracts Her Majesty's Government will still reduce the quantity supplied, and substitute home-produced forage therefor?

Forage is contracted for according to standards of quality without reference to sources of supply, and it is not known what percentage may be of foreign growth. I may state, however, that in ordinary years the hay and straw has been mainly of home growth. With a view to encouraging local supply, arrangements have, in certain cases, been made for purchasing forage locally, instead of from contractors. The extension of this system will be considered.

How is the hon. Gentleman able to say that the hay and straw is home grown, since he has no means of ascertaining its origin? [Laughter.]

The Reports at our disposal point to the fact that a considerable amount of hay arid straw is produced in this country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what sort of trial was given to the English trader Stokes, lately hanged by the Belgians in Central Africa; and, what are the charges against him?

Her Majesty's Government have not yet received any reply from the Belgian Government to their inquiries about the circumstances attending the execution of the British trader Stokes; and I am not therefore in a position to give the hon. Member any authoritative information on the two points raised in his question. But Her Majesty's Government regard the case as one of much importance, and are pressing for an early answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, how many police protection huts or stations exist in the county Monaghan; and the respective dates upon which these huts or stations were established; and the cost per annum of each hut or station; and, in view of the almost total absence of crime, ordinary or agrarian, in the above-mentioned county, can he give the assurance that these huts or any of them shall soon be withdrawn?

There are two police protection posts in this county, one of which was established in March, 1887, and the other in May, 1889. The annual cost of each of these posts is about £136, no portion of which, however, is charged to the county. The men employed at these posts are engaged in affording personal protection to caretakers, and cannot be withdrawn as long as such protection is considered necessary. Crime, both ordinary and agrarian, is undoubtedly low in Monaghan, but these two huts were erected for a specific purpose, namely, the personal protection of caretakers, and until the necessity for such protection has passed away the huts must remain.

Does that include the pay of policemen?

I understand that that is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if the negotiations for securing a rifle range at Rossmore Park, county Monaghan, have been broken off; and if so, would he consider the advisability of renewing them in the interest of the Military Service; is he aware that the proposed range at Rossmore possessed exceptional advantages in offering a ground on which practice could be continued in all weathers without those drawbacks which affect ranges on the seashore; also that there is a never-failing supply of good water on the range, and that the ground is peculiarly suited for the erection of huts or buildings to accommodate troops; and, if he will give further consideration to this important matter before finally resolving to abandon the scheme?

A site for a rifle range in Rossmore Park was offered to the military authorities in Ireland last year; but, after careful examination of the ground, they did not consider that it offered such advantages as to render its acquisition desirable. The provision of a range is being considered.

Was it on the ground of price?

No, Sir, it was not on the ground of price, but of the unsuitability of the rifle range.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether his attention has been called to the boat accident which occurred a few hundred yards off the shore at Dornoch on the 21st May, whereby two of the crew of Her Majesty's Gunboat Jackal lost their lives; whether he is aware that on the morning of the 21st May the Jackal anchored off the Dornoch Rocks, and that the Captain, Doctor, Paymaster, and First Officer came on shore to play golf, this being the fourth day between 5th and 21st May inclusive they had spent golfing on the Dornoch Links: whether he is aware that the accident took place whilst one of the ship's small boats was on its way to convey the Captain to the Jackal at the close of the day; and, whether any compensation will be paid to the widow and relatives of the men who lost their lives?

An official report was received from Her Majesty's ship Jackal relative to the capsizing of one of her boats off Dornoch on May 21st last, and the regrettable loss of two lives consequent thereon. The Jackal anchored off the Dornoch Rocks on May 21st, and I believe that some of the officers landed during the afternoon for recreation. The accident took place whilst one of the ship's gigs was on its way to the shore, to convey the Lieutenant commanding the Jackal on board his ship. One of the two men drowned left a widow and one child, and, in accordance with the Queen's regulations and Admiralty instructions, the widow has been granted a pension of 3s. 6d. a week, and an allowance of 1s. 6d. a week for her child. The other man was not married, and appears not to have had any relatives dependent upon him, so that no gratuity has been paid.

asked the cause of the capsizing of the boat.

replied, that it seemed to have been accidental and not due to any negligence. Full inquiry would be made into the circumstances.

asked whether the sheet was fast, and whether the capsizing of sailing boats was not frequently due to making the sheet fast?

said, that in the report that circumstance was not referred to, but if the hon. Member desired it, further inquiries would be made.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing Her Majesty's ship Reynard was stationed at Stornoway during the month of June, he will state why she only visited Loch Roag on 27th June last in response to complaints of illegal trawling, made by the fishermen of the Bernera district of the Island of Lewis, on the 8th and 9th of that month?

I am informed by the Fishery Board that during the month of June last complaints of illegal trawling in the North and West of Scotland were very numerous, and between 6th and 24th of June the Reynard visited, by special instructions, the following places—namely: Applecross, Glendale (twice), and Kyle of Durness, Sutherlandshire. The vessel proceeded to Loch Roag immediately on her return from Kyle of Durness, where she had been ordered to proceed on 17th June after she had returned from Glendale.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, seeing that the Scotch Fishery Board act entirely upon the reports of their own engineers, who were the constructors of the Ballintore Harbour, which is now found to be in an unsatisfactory and dangerous condition, steps will be taken to procure the report of an independent engineer?

The engineers for the Ballintore Harbour were selected by Local Trustees, and the design and estimate was decided on by them, and approved by the Fishery Board. These engineers were Messrs. Stevenson. They are also the advisers of the Fishery Board, who have full confidence in them, and it is not proposed to call in other advisers. I am informed by the Fishery Board that there is no evidence that the harbour is in a dangerous condition as a shelter for fishing boats and vessels, and that they now consider the work as completed according to design. If the trustees dispute the fact, they should apply, according to the statute, to the Sheriff of the county for a completion certificate.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how much of the grant made under the Western Highlands and Islands Works Act remains unexpended to date?

The portion of the grant remaining unexpended up to date is £9,083. 15s.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether during the Recess he will take into consideration the propriety of reducing the rate of interest charged on the River Suck Drainage Loan, in proportion to the reduced rate now paid for money by the Government as compared with that which existed when the loan was made, and thereby mitigate the heavy charge which it is proposed to levy upon the occupiers of land on the improvement area of the river?

The tenants in question pay an annuity for 40 years, representing the increased value of their lands due to the drainage works. The rate of interest covered by this annuity was fixed only five years ago by the River Suck Drainage (Provision of Funds) Act, 1890, at 3¼ per cent., and I have no power to alter it. The hon. Member is of course aware that the tenants have been materially benefited by a free grant of £50,000 sanctioned by the same Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will bring in a Bill next Session to promote and endow technical education in Ireland?

It is true that the amount expended on technical instruction in Ireland is small compared with that expended in England, and the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that, whereas both England and Scotland elected that their respective shares of the Customs and Excise Duties should be applied to the purposes of technical education, Ireland elected to spend her share in other ways. The question, as it affects Ireland, is, therefore, rather one of funds, and I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject in the next Session of Parliament without inquiring fully into the matter, as I shall do, during the Recess.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he will explain on what ground certain pensioners employed in the pay office at Naas have been deprived of their lodging allowance, and compelled to live in barrack, and an appeal against this decision was refused to be forwarded; and if an inquiry will be held into the complaint of the pensioners in the matter?

This was a purely local routine matter, and was settled in the station where it occurred. Inquiry shows that on two quarters in barracks becoming available two pensioner sergeants were directed to occupy them, which made a saving on the local expenditure for lodging allowances. There were appeals which were disposed of locally, which is the proper course in matters of this character.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to a decision of the Court of Petty Sessions at Templemore, County Tipperary, on 22nd August, committing Mr. Rody Gleeson, an evicted tenant on the estate of Sir John C. Carden, to one month's imprisonment for preventing Sir John Carden's steward effecting a sale at Templemore Fair of a number of sheep which had been grazed on Mr. Gleeson's evicted farm; (2) whether he is aware that the steward admitted under cross-examination that Mr. Gleeson did not threaten him or attempt any violence, and that his interference was limited to remarking to the bystanders that these sheep ought to be good, they were grazed on his evicted farm; (3) whether he is aware that the steward's evidence in this respect was corroborated by other witnesses; and (4) whether under these circumstances he will institute an immediate inquiry into the legality of the magisterial decision?

The prosecution referred to in the Question was an application to the magistrates to exercise the powers conferred upon them by their Commission, as well as by a Statute of Edward III., to require Gleeson to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. The steward admitted that Gleeson had not threatened him personally, but that by his action on the occasion he prevented the sale of the sheep, and that if it had not been for Gleeson's action he would have sold the sheep. On cross-examination he swore that Gleeson remained beside the sheep for three hours, and that during that time he spoke to each intending buyer, using words to the effect stated in the Question, and followed each intending buyer till he went away. The evidence of the steward that Gleeson, by his conduct, had prevented the sale of the sheep, was corroborated by other witnesses. The magistrates unanimously made an order calling upon the defendant to give sureties to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour; but this he has declined to do, and has elected to go to prison for a month. With regard to the concluding paragraph, there seems no doubt whatever about the legality of the magistrates' decision, but if the defendant is so advised he can apply to the Queen's Bench Division to review this decision.

asked whether a Statute of Edward III. had not been revived for the purposes of these proceedings, or whether he was to understand that the overt act committed was that he said these sheep were fed on his land, and under these circumstances the man had been sent to prison?

said the Statute referred to had never been abrogated, and was constantly used by his predecessor.

repeated his question as to the overt act, and asked whether the steward did not admit that the man used no violence or intimidation?

There was no violence, but, as I have shown, there was a clear act of boycotting.

asked whether this unfortunate tenant would be afforded means to carry his case to the Court of Queen's Bench?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having reference to the donations of Colonial literature recorded at page 26 of the last Annual Report of the Keeper of Printed Books in the British Museum, he is aware that the large and valuable collection of Colonial publications in the Library of the Museum is much in need of classification; and whether, with a view to facilitating the work of the large and increasing number of readers engaged in the study of Colonial subjects, he will suggest to the governing authorities the advisability of compiling a complete sectional catalogue of the books, periodicals, and publications relating to the British Colonies and Dependencies?

I understand that Colonial books and periodicals are treated exactly like home publications, and that Colonial official documents are systematically arranged, and can be produced on application to the superintendent of the reading-room, even if they have not actually been entered in the catalogue. The compilation of a complete sectional catalogue as suggested would at present seriously interrupt still more pressing work, but the proposal will be considered along with others as soon as the printing of the general catalogue is completed, which will probably be in three years' time. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that, on the creation of the Colony of Queensland, the right of constituting new Colonies in the central and northern divisions, when the growth of population and settlement would render such a proceeding necessary and advisable, was expressly reserved by the Crown; and, whether he will take into his favourable consideration during the Recess the memorials and representations of the inhabitants of Central Queensland with respect to the grievances under which they allege themselves to be suffering in consequence of the continuance of this governmental system?

The hon. Member is mistaken as to the reservation of powers to the Crown. The Colony of Queensland was separated from New South Wales under the authority of an Act of Parliament; but Parliament has not yet authorised Her Majesty to subdivide the Colony of Queensland. I think it is premature at present to propose any legislation for the purpose. ["Hear, hear!"].

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether a remonstrance has been addressed by the Government to Foreign Powers, against the practice of sending brushes and other articles made in prisons to this country; whether there is a considerable manufacture of carpets in prisons in India, and whether this manufacture is fostered and encouraged by the Government, and what the annual value of the carpets so made is; whether these carpets are freely exported to European countries; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to suppress this competition with free labour in this important Trade?

The manufacture of carpets in prisons in India has for some years past been sanctioned by the Government of India, but there are no statistics to show to what extent the manufacture is now carried on, what the value of the carpets so made is, or the number exported to European countries. An inquiry can be made of the Government of India on these points if the hon. Gentleman wishes it. In 1885 the Secretary of State sent instructions to the Government of India that gaol manufactures should, as far as possible, be confined to articles adapted for use by other public departments; but he added—

"It is not, of course, intended to preclude gaols from special industries, such as carpet-making, which have been found suitable as a means of employing convict labour, but for which there is practically no market in the department of Government."

asked, whether the noble Lord would kindly mention one or two of the other articles still made in Indian gaols and exported to foreign countries, and would furnish a return on the subject?

said, that if the hon. Gentleman would specify the articles with respect to which he desired information, he would make inquiries and see whether he could furnish the return asked for. ["Hear, hear!"].

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) has the attention of the Lord Chancellor been called to the conviction of Major M'Farlane, J. P., at the last Dundrum petty sessions, for assaulting his servant on 8th August; (2) whether he is aware that four or five years ago the same defendant was convicted of assaulting a solicitor named Davis; and that he was also arrested in Rathmines, within the past two years, and convicted of another offence; and, (3) is it intended that Major M'Farlane shall retain Her Majesty's Commission as Justice of the Peace

The Lord Chancellor informs me that when his attention was drawn by a Press report to the conviction referred to in the first paragraph, he at once requested Major M'Farlane to furnish him with an explanation. An appeal has been entered by this gentleman against the decision of the magistrates, and the Lord Chancellor awaits its determination before deciding what further action it may be necessary for him to take in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) how the Irish Land Commission propose to secure that the judgments in fair rent applications listed for hearing before Sub-Commissions between now and next year will be postponed pending the passing of the proposed Land Bill; (2) whether they intend to give directions for the purpose to the Sub-Commissioners; and, (3) whether it has hitherto been the practice for the Land Commission to give directions to Sub-Commissioners as regards cases coming before them judicially.

What I understand the Land Commission to have in contemplation is the issuing of instructions to the Sub-Commissioners to postpone judgment in the cases referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. and learned Member's question. I cannot regard this as an interference with the judicial functions of the Sub-Commissioners, as seems to be implied in the last paragraph of the question. ["Hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it is the practice of the Local Government Board for Ireland, to require local authorities who have acquired land under Section 57, Sub-section 1, of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, specifically for the purpose of Part III. of the Act, to obtain the consent of the Treasury under Section 57, Sub-section 3, to the appropriation of the land for the purpose for which it has been acquired; (2) whether he is aware that the English Local Government Board consider that no consent is necessary in cases of the kind; (3) whether the Irish Board consider that the consent is necessary even where the land has been acquired compulsorily under the statutory powers given for that express purpose; and, (4) how the land in such cases is to be disposed of in case the Treasury refuse their consent?

This question has been already answered both by the Attorney-General for Ireland and by the Secretary to the Treasury, and I have nothing to add to those answers, except that with reference to the fourth part of the question, no such case has arisen. As the hon. Member has already been informed, communications are being made between the Treasury and the Irish Local Government Board, with a view to establishing uniformity of practice in the two countries.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the General Annual Report for the year 1894 of all matters judicial and financial within The Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1890, has been prepared as required by Section 29; and, when the same will be laid before both Houses of Parliament?

The materials for the Report are nearly all collected, and the Report itself—which needs careful preparation, will be finished at the earliest possible moment. I am unable to give any undertaking as to the precise time when it will be laid before Parliament. There has undoubtedly been some delay, but this was caused by the extra work thrown upon the Department by the Committee on Public Acts.

asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he saw his way to the adoption of the draft Bill suggested by the Companies' Act (Amendment) Committee appointed by the Board of Trade?

said, that the whole matter was under his careful consideration, but he was sure that his hon. Friend would see that it was impossible for him to make any announcement on the subject at the present moment.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he proposes to take any steps to appoint, this Session, a Select Committee on the Rule of the Road at Sea (Fog Signals), in continuation of the Committee ap pointed last Session, with a view to a Report being made on the evidence then acquired; if this is not practicable, can he now state that no new regulations, altering the existing fog signals, will be promulgated until such a Committee has been appointed, and has reported on the said evidence; and, will it be possible, during the Recess, to have a statement drawn up summarising for, say the last 10 years, the ascertained causes of collisions at sea which took place in fog, falling snow, or heavy rain squalls?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, what course Her Majesty's Government propose to take with regard to the Select Committee on a portion of the Rule of the Road at Sea relating to sound signals, appointed on 25th March last, and which, after sitting till 3rd July last, separated without making any final Report; whether the Departmental Committee on another portion of the Rule of the Road at Sea, relating to the screening of side-lights, has yet reported; if not, when it is expected to report, and whether the Report and evidence will be laid upon the Table; and, whether any opportunity will be afforded either to this House or to shipowners and shipmasters of considering the Reports of these two Committees before any steps are taken by the Board of Trade to cause the issue of any Order in Council dealing with these two portions of the Rule of the Road at Sea?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the question of the hon. Member for King's Lynn at the same time. I regret to say that it has been found impossible, owing to the absence of Members of the Committee, to re-appoint the Committee referred to this Session. I hope, however, to be in a position to move the re-appointment at the earliest possible moment next Session. Meanwhile no Order in Council on the subject will be issued. I am informed that the Departmental Committee on the Screening of Side-lights expects to be able to Report before the end of the year. That Report and the Report of the Parliamentary Committee (if re-appointed) will be carefully considered before action is taken; but my hon. Friend will understand that it is impossible for me to come under the undertaking he asks before seeing the Reports in question. With regard to the causes of collisions, they will be found for each year in Table 61 of the Wreck Register.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would at least undertake not to issue Orders in Council with regard to these Rules when Parliament was not sitting and when attention could not consequently be called to the subject?

Until I see the Report of the Committee I cannot give any guarantee. The cause of the collisions are all set out in the Return, but if the hon. Member is not satisfied with the Return, I will endeavour to satisfy him.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in some instances in North Wales 1 per cent. royalty is charged upon gold, in some instances 3⅓ per cent., in some instances 6⅔ per cent., and in some instances a sliding scale varying from 1½ per cent, to 10 per cent.; whether in Ireland the Crown is levying 5 per cent., whilst in Scotland, in the case of the Duke of Sutherland, they levy 10 per cent.; why there is no uniformity with regard to royalties on gold; whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to send to Wales a practical man, so that he may advise the Crown as to the area of the Welsh gold-field, and what course they should adopt with a view to encouraging the development of the industry; and whether Her Majesty's Government will also send a practical man to Ireland and Scotland to report to the Government upon the existence of payable gold in both those countries?

The general rule which prevails in Wales as to royalty is 1–15th in Crown lands and l–30th in private lands, where the landowner or his nominee is the Crown lessee of the gold. All the lessees have the option of a sliding scale graduated according to the yield of the ore from l–70th in Crown lands and 1–100th in private lands upwards. I think the only exceptions to this are the mine formerly owned by the hon. Member in Wales, where the royalty is 1–100th till April 5, 1898, and l–50th thereafter; and another mine in Ireland, formerly leased by the hon. Member, where the same rate was granted. This is the only lease existing in Ireland. The rate in the case of the Duke of Sutherland in Scotland, as I explained a few days back, was fixed three centuries ago by statute. I shall be very glad to consider whether it is possible to introduce greater uniformity. There will, for instance, be, I think, no difficulty in arranging for working as one concern adjoining sets which are liable to different rates of royalty; but from the number of applications now coming in for take-notes and licences at the present rates of royalty it does not appear that the industry is hampered by existing regulations. The Commissioners of Woods fully recognise the existence of a very extensive goldfield in Wales, and the question how the area can be best defined is at present under their careful consideration, as is the question of the desirability of obtaining reports by experts, but, as at present advised, it is not contemplated to send a practical expert to Ireland or Scotland.

said, that he should like to remove from the right hon. Gentleman's mind the idea that he was not interested in this subject, because he owned nearly half the property concerned, and was therefore entitled to some voices in the matter. He would ask whether gold was not as much the property of the Crown in principle as the Crown lands, and why uniformity of royalties did not exist?

The 10 per cent. gold royalty in Scotland is fixed by statute, and the Crown has, therefore, no power to alter it. In Ireland there is only one mining lease at an extremely low rate of royalty, which was granted to the hon. Member himself. If there are any other applications with regard to Ireland they will be considered. I am now considering whether greater uniformity in the amount of royalties cannot be attained, and if it can be I shall be glad, but the want of uniformity is not as great as the hon. Member suggests.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in office was not considering this question of uniformity of royalty in 1890?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty—(1) whether the scheme for introducing officers of the Mercantile Marine into the Navy, as set forth in the London Gazette of 26th July last, will, if carried into effect, result in the Sub-Lieutenants from 22 to 25 years of age to be so introduced receiving higher pay and allowance than the Sub-Lieutenants who have entered in the usual manner by joining the Britannia at or about the age of 13, and who are now serving in the Navy; (2) whether the Lieutenants from 25 to 35 years of age to be so introduced will be put over the heads of the Sub-Lieutenants now serving in the Navy; (3) whether both the Sub-Lieutenants and the Lieutenants to be thus introduced will be placed under the same conditions of retirement and pension as the Sub-Lieutenants and Lieutenants now serving; and, if not, what differences will be made between these and those; (4) and, whether, before adopting this scheme, Her Majesty's Government took into consideration the advisability of promoting to Lieutenant's rank a sufficient number of the Sub-Lieutenants, and of the deserving and capable Warrant Officers now serving; and, if so, on what grounds this method of filling up the Lietenants' List was rejected in favour of that adopted?

who was very indistinctly heard, was understood to say that the officers introduced from the Mercantile Marine into the Royal Navy would not receive higher pay and allowances than the Sub-Lieutenants of the Navy, except in so far that they would receive 1s. a day for mess allowances. With regard to the third question of the hon. Member, the system of retirement pensions granted to the Sub-Lieutenants and Lieutenants now serving in the Navy was infinitely more favourable than that which would accrue to the officers introduced from the Mercantile Marine. He believed the difference was as much as £100 a year in favour of the officers now serving. Of course, the Lieutenants introduced from the Mercantile Marine would take seniority above the Sub-Lieutenants now serving in the Navy. Before the adoption of the scheme the Government took into consideration every possible alternative, and the whole matter was thoroughly threshed out before the decision was arrived at. With regard to the promotion of Sub-Lieutenants, their time of serving before they received promotion had now been reduced to what was considered a minimum.

asked whether it was not the fact that by the order in the London Gazette the Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants who would be thus introduced into the Navy would be granted an equipment allowance of £40 and £30 respectively, while no such equipment allowance was given to Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants in the Navy. With regard to the question of retirement, he wished to know whether, although the mercantile officers retired with a smaller sum, they did not retire under much more favourable circumstances than the right hon. Gentleman had stated, and whether the difference in pay of the Mercantile Marine Sub-Lieutenants and the naval Sub-Lieutenants was not 2s. a day to the benefit of the mercantile officers?

said, that his informamation was not the same as that of his hon. Friend, but he would make further inquiry. He had been informed that all the circumstances were much in favour of the Lieutenants and Sub-Lieutenants now serving. The scheme had been adopted in order to satisfy a temporary emergency in regard to the number of Lieutenants, and terms must be offered to the mercantile service which would attract the best men from that service?

asked whether appointments had been made or were in contemplation?

said that appointments were in immediate contemplation, and he was glad to say that there were applications from officers in the Royal Naval Reserve who had already served in Her Majesty's ships.

I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the matter on the Estimates. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, under which Vote (Army Estimates) the allowance to the Association for the Employment of Discharged Soldiers is taken?

The sum in aid of the Association referred to forms part of the £2,375 taken in Item "G" of Vote 12.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if, having regard to the time that must necessarily elapse before the erection of the new Custom House at Cardiff, and the consequent great inconvenience that will be suffered by merchants and shippers at Cardiff, his Department will secure temporary offices at the Bute Docks for the transaction of ships' business relating to inward clearances, passing entries for inward cargoes, passing entries for bonded goods (United Kingdom), clearance outwards, payment of light and town dues, and registration charges of masters, pending the erection of the now building?

I hope that it may be possible to proceed with the new building at no distant date, but, meanwhile, I do not think that the Government can fairly be expected to incur the further expense of providing the temporary accommodation as suggested, in addition to the present offices.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he can give a date for the taking of the Army Estimates; and whether any opportunity will be given, during the present Session, of discussing the statement made by the Secretary of State with respect to the reorganisation of the War Office?

who was received with loud cheers, said: Before this question is answered, I wish to put to the Government a question on a matter of great consequence affecting our proceedings. I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether it is in accordance with what I have always understood to be the practice of the House of Commons, that a statement of a very important change in the administration of the Army—[Cheers]—perhaps as important a change as has ever been proposed—should have been made in the other House of Parliament, and not made simultaneously in the House of Commons. [Cheers.] The House of Commons has a right that the statement should be made here at least as soon as—[An hon. MEMBER: "Sooner!"]—it is made in the other House, and that we should not have to learn from a newspaper the course which the Government are about to take in matters of that kind? [Cheers.]

I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is correct in his statement. I should have thought that the right of the administration of the Department of the Government concerned to make the statement in the House to which he belongs, has never been questioned. I may, however, say that it was largely for the convenience of this House that the statement in question was made by my noble Friend, the Secretary of State for War. It would not have been in accordance with our rules to make a statement of that kind in this House until the Estimates affecting the Department came on for consideration. It is, moreover, inconvenient for a Minister to get up and make a statement of policy in the midst of other business. No doubt my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary for War, will make a statement when the Army Estimates come on; but if the statement referred to had not been made as it has, there would have been no general knowledge of the scheme, and the result would have been that hon. Members would have entered upon a discussion of the Army Estimates, much less well equipped than they are now. Therefore, without dealing with the general question of comity between the two Houses of Parliament, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that the Government have been animated in this case by the convenience of the House to which we belong. [Cheers.]

pointed out that the Government were asked last week whether they could make a statement on the subject.

The Under Secretary will make a statement on the War Office Vote, but I think that the statement made yesterday in the other House will place right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in a better position to discuss the subject when it comes on here.

pointed out that his question remained unanswered.

who replied to the question, said: I cannot state the exact date when the Army Estimates will be taken, because I do not know how fast we are going to proceed with those Estimates which remain between this and the Army Estimates, but I shall endeavour to come to some arrangement, both for hastening business and also for knowing when the Army Estimates will come on.

asked whether hon. Members would be furnished with a copy of the statement of the Secretary of State for War?

I do not know whether the "Hansard" Report of yesterday's proceedings will be published before the discussion on the Army Estimates comes on in this House, but, if it is not, the hon. Member can obtain the statement by purchasing a copy of The Times.

inquired whether the convenience of hon. Members who were discussing the Civil Service Estimates was to be sacrificed for the convenience of those more particularly interested in the Army Estimates.

replied that he did not say that their convenience was to be sacrificed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the negotiations with the Government of Japan for the conclusion of a Parcel Post Convention with that country, which were referred to (in an answer to a question on the subject) by the late Postmaster General on the 16th of February last in this House, have been successful; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

The answer to the main question is yes, and a draft convention is under consideration; but it will be evident to the House that in the case of so distant a country as Japan, the settlement of details necessarily takes time.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether he can state the annual revenue and expenditure in connection with the telephone service between London and Paris; (2) whether the telephone is used only, or almost exclusively, in business hours, and is idle for 16 hours out of the 24; and, (3) whether he can see his way to make the rate charged 2s. 6d. for three minutes' conversation, instead of 3s. as at present.

The Postmaster General regrets that he is not in a position to give the information asked for in the first paragraph. The use of the telephone is by no means restricted to what are commonly called the business hours of the day. The present charge for a conversation of three minutes is 8s., not 3s. It is a subject of international agreement, and the Postmaster General does not see his way at present to propose any reduction.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in order to prevent foreign paper being sold as English, he will initiate legislation under which every sheet of foreign paper shall have a water-mark of origin, and each roll of foreign paper be similarly marked every square yard.

As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Select Committee of 1890 reported against the compulsory marking of all goods with the indication of origin. As at present advised, I am not prepared to depart from the position taken up by the Committee.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state the total sums expended on vaccination in Ireland from June 1893 to June 1894, and for a similar period from 1894 to 1895; and, what increase, if any, has been created by the smallpox scare.

The information desired by the hon. Member is not in the possession of the Local Government Board, and could only be obtained by communicating with the Clerk of each Poor Law Union in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Her Majesty's Government will present to the House any correspondence relating to the wholesale forgery, in France, of the labels of makers of patent medicines, and of patent medicine stamps, and the consequent loss entailed upon the British revenue and upon British manufactures.

The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the forgeries referred to in my hon. Friend's question. They are fully aware of the importance of the subject, and representations have been addressed to the French Government with a view to the prosecution of the offenders. There has been some delay, but we cannot doubt that the French Government will carry out their legal and Treaty obligations, pending which result it would not be advisable to present correspondence to the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received a letter, written by a member of an extensive firm of Irish oat exporters, which states that, owing to the large stocks of old oats remaining in merchants' hands, and unsaleable except under cost, new oats will probably have to be sold at much under the lowest average touched for the past 25 years; and (2) whether he will cause inquiry to be made in the matter; and, should this forecast prove correct, will he take any steps to give temporary relief to Irish farmers?

I have received a letter which the hon. Gentleman has been good enough to send to me, containing the statement made in the first paragraph of the question. This forecast, as I stated yesterday in reply to the hon. Member's question on the subject, is necessarily of a speculative character, and even if it proved correct I could not undertake to introduce a measure of the kind indicated.

I beg to ask, whether the facts mentioned in this question, together with the low price of butter and the disastrous harvest weather in Ireland, would not justify the right hon. Gentleman in affording some temporary relief to Irish farmers?

No, Sir; I am afraid not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the decided expression of opinion of the House of Commons on 21st February, on the subject of the Indian Cotton Duties, he will promise that the Duties shall not be repealed until the House has again had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject?

The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that nothing in connection with these Duties will be done hastily or surreptitiously. The vote given on the 21st of February last may fairly be interpreted as giving a sanction to the imposition of these Duties; but that approval was obtained on a distinct undertaking from the then Secretary of State for India that the Duties should in no sense whatever be of a protective character. Since that Debate the Duties in Burma on yarns of 20 and under have been reduced by the executive action of the Government of India from 5 per cent. to ½ per cent., as they were found to be protective in their operation.

wished to ask whether it was not a fact that the expression of the House of Commons would not, in practice, preclude the Indian Government from making the change if they found that the state of the Indian Exchequer allowed of it?

The Indian Government unquestionably have power to deal with it.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Weights and Measures Committee, presented at the close of the last Parliament; and, if so, whether he can state what conclusion have been arrived at by Her Majesty's Government as to the course to be pursued to bring about a speedy adoption of the metric system?

The attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the Report in question, but further consideration is necessary before they can announce any conclusions in regard to the recommendations of the Committee.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether in the future appointments to the Irish Land Commission, he will consider the desirability of appointing men with a practical knowledge of agriculture?

Certainly; the practice in the future in this respect will remain unaltered.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he is aware that, in the Park district of the Island of Lewis, and in many parts of the western mainland of Ross-shire, there are no roads, whilst the people are compelled to pay road rates; and whether steps will be taken to provide these districts with proper means of communication?

As the hon. Member is aware, there is a sum of £3,900 taken for Minor Roads in the West Highlands and Islands Vote—out of this amount £1,800 has been allocated to the Lews and is apportioned to the various districts by the County Council of Ross-shire.

asked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the same state of things existed in the western part of the Island of Lewis, and whether these districts would be provided with proper means of communication?

said that was a matter for the County Council.

asked if the Lord Advocate was aware that the County Council had no power to provide funds for such purposes?

said he was referring to the last part of the question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will bring in a Bill next Session to deal with the ventilation of the tunnels of the Metropolitan Railways?

No, Sir. I cannot make any promise in the matter.

I beg to ask the Attorney-General for Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a gamekeeper of Lord Annally, for shooting at a cyclist on the Lucan Road to Dublin, was only fined 13s. 6d. at petty sessions; and why did not the Crown have the culprit returned for trial to the assizes on a criminal charge?

The answer to this question is as follows: On the evening of the 5th instant, a gamekeeper of Lord Annally, named Barrett, met on the public road near Lucan, and had some altercation with, a cyclist, named Evans. After Evans had parted from Barrett and proceeded upon his journey about 80 yards, the latter, unseen by Evans, discharged a gun he was armed with, but did not hit Evans. Barrett was subsequently arrested by the police, brought before the magistrates sitting at Petty Sessions at Lucan, and charged with the offence of shooting at Evans with intent. Barrett admitted that he had discharged his gun on the road, but denied positively that he had fired at Evans, whereupon the magistrates, as they apparently considered the more serious offence not sufficiently proved, at the request of Evans altered the charge into the minor one of having unlawfully discharged firearms on a public road, and dealt with the case summarily, as they had power to do. Under these circumstances the Crown do not consider it desirable to take further action in the matter.

asked whether, if the gamekeeper had been an evicted tenant, and had been charged with firing at a landlord, his punishment would have been a fine of 13s. 6d.?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is intended to re-appoint, at the opening of next Session, the Select Committee to inquire into the conditions of the Telephone Service, and of the terms of the licence between the National Telephone Committee and the Post Office Department?

I may remind the hon. Member that the reference to the Committee which sat in the last Parliament, was:—

"To consider and report whether the provision now made for the Telephone Service is adequate, and whether it is expedient to supplement or improve this provision by the granting of licences to local authorities or otherwise."

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider applications from local authorities in the meantime?

I should like that question to be put upon the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the method in which the mails are transferred at Holyhead and Kingstown from steamer to train and vice versa, being merely carried on the backs of porters, this being necessarily a slow and tedious process, requiring, when there is a heavy mail, nearly half-an-hour at each side of the Channel; and whether the Postmaster General will take the opportunity of a new mail contract to initiate some speedier and more satisfactory method?

The question of altering the present method of transferring the mails to and from the steamers and trains at Holyhead and Kingstown has been under consideration for many years past, but the Companies with whom the decision rests have not seen their way to substitute machinery for the present system. The time occupied in transferring mails, passengers and luggage does not ordinarily exceed 14 minutes at Holyhead and 10 minutes at Kingstown. The matter is, however, now under the consideration of this Department and of the Board of Trade.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what method was adopted in transferring the American mails?

I only answered the question on behalf of the Post Office, and I should be glad if the hon. Member would put the question upon the Paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why the Macroom Post Office has not been created a head office?

No advantage to the public would result from making Macroom a head post office, whilst, on the other hand, there would be some increase of expense to the Department. Moreover, the change is, for other reasons, undesirable. The Sub-Postmaster of Macroom carries on a private business in addition to the Post Office; and in these circumstances it is not advisable to increase his responsibilities to the Department.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that Macroom was the centre of a very large district, and whether he would recommend the noble Duke the Postmaster General to reconsider the matter?

said, he was not aware of the facts stated by the hon. Member, but he had no doubt they were accurate.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any, and, if so, what steps will be taken to secure a better and more rapid transit from Macroom to Cork; and why the local railway is not employed in carrying all the mails?

Since the 1st June last, the railway has been used for the conveyance both of the night and day mails between Cork and Macroom, and additional time for posting has thus been afforded at Macroom.

asked if an arrangement could not be made so that communications might be sent direct to Dublin.

said, he was not aware whether that could be done, but he would get the information.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if steps will be taken to reduce the police establishment at Mill Street, County Cork, in view of the very peaceful condition of that part of the county?

It is perfectly true that Mill Street district is, at present, in a generally peaceable condition. The number of police now stationed in the district is 16, which is much below the former strength. The area comprised in the district patrolled by these men is unusually large for a police district, and contains upwards of 50 townlands. The Constabulary authorities are of opinion that the strength of the force in the district cannot at present be reduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any steps will be taken to secure the construction of a bridge at Ringabella Ferry Point; and, if this scheme has not repeatedly obtained the sanction of the Local Government Board in Ireland?

I am informed that the erection of this bridge was twice approved of at Presentment Sessions, but that, owing to the promoters not having applied for sufficient money to carry out the scheme, no contract was entered into, and the scheme fell through. The Local Government Board have no jurisdiction in the matter, and the Executive Government have no power to take such steps as are suggested.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would give his assistance in regard to this matter, which was of great importance, both to coastguards and police?

I do not know that I have power to do so. It is a matter for which the Grand Jury are entirely responsible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of Sate for the Home Department when the Criminal Statistics for England, for the year 1894, and the Report of the Commissioner of Metropolitan Police for the same year, will respectively be presented?

It is hoped that the Criminal Statistics for 1894 will be published before the end of the year. The Report of the Commissioners of Police has just been received, and will be laid before Parliament without delay.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, does the Government intend, and when, to propose legislation in pursuance of the Report of the University of London (Gresham) Commission?

In answer to my hon. Friend, I am sorry to say that legislation will be impossible on this subject in the course of the present Session, and I am unable to say what legislative action will be taken by the Government.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Government are favourable to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the laws relating to the licensing and control of the liquor traffic in Scotland with a view to their amendment?

I think I cannot do better than repeat the answer I have already given to an hon. Member on this side of the House, who asked a similar question with regard to England—namely, that it is impossible that the Committee which was suggested should be appointed during the present Session in time to do any efficient work. The question will be considered by the Government during the Recess.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury if he would bear in mind the assent he gave to the suggestion that it would be desirable to discuss two of the supplementary Votes in Class V. (Foreign and Colonial Services)?

I am afraid I cannot give any pledge with regard to Class V. at the present time. I will consult with my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, as to whether a general arrangement can be made, and, as I have said before, I will endeavour to suit the general convenience of the House, but more than that I cannot say at present.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will arrange that the Education Estimates (Civil Service, Class IV., Votes 1 and 2) shall be taken at an hour not later than 9 p.m.?

said the answer he had given to the hon. Baronet applied to all the Estimates.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would agree not to take the Committee on the West Highland Railway (Guarantee) that night?

reminded the hon. Member that it was only the initial stage which was proposed, which need not lead to any discussion at all.

said the question to be determined was whether the Bill was contentious or not.

asked the Attorney-General whether he would consider the possibility of introducing, next Session, a Bill to enable traders in England to recover trade debts owing to them in Scotland and Ireland more cheaply and expeditiously than they could at the present time?

I will certainly consider the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend, but I am afraid I cannot offer any hope of legislation in that direction. I would remind the hon. and learned Member that any attempt to recover debts incurred in England against persons across the border, or in Ireland, raises many very thorny questions.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would move to report progress before 12 o'clock, in order to give him an opportunity of obtaining answers to questions raised by him in the discussion on the Woods and Forests Vote, or, if not, whether the Report stage of the Estimates would be taken to-morrow (Wednesday) at 12 o'clock?

I will answer the question on Dehalf of my right hon. Friend. I do not think it will be possible to interrupt the proceedings so early as 12 o'clock tonight, but I recognise that the hon. Member has a right to be answered certain questions raised yesterday, which I thought my right hon. Friend had already answered. However, I hope I shall meet his wishes by saying that I will not take the Report stage on that Vote to-night, but will put it down for to-morrow.

What time to-morrow?

Of course, at the end of the sitting; it is a morning sitting.

asked if there had not been an understanding that the Arms Act would be taken on Wednesday at a time which would permit of its discussion? If the Arms Act were taken, its discussion would certainly occupy several hours, and, in that event, he wished to know how the general understanding that the House should not rise much later than at the usual hour on Wednesdays could be secured.

I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman does not foreshadow such opposition as the introduction of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. A discussion on the subject would be, perhaps, more than usually inopportune at that stage, I apprehend.

said, he should not trouble the Committee by going into the details of the Vote, but the question of education was not a Party one. The vast majority of the people in Scotland were anxious that there should only be one Committee to administer the grant; that there should be one Board for elementary education and one Board for higher education. A resolution had been unanimously passed that there should be greater unity of action, and the Association had already drafted a Bill. He thought the Secretary for Scotland might do something as to the distribution of this grant. It was necessary that there should be legislation on the subject; they were informed that the falling-off which had taken place was due to the fact that considerable payments had to be made on the ground of pleuro-pneumonia. It was said that the figure was £10,000, but this was owing to the haphazard way in which things were done, and he hoped the Secretary for Scotland next Session would bring in a Bill which would make permanent provision for technical education. Now, the administration of secondary and technical education had been greatly injured by their having separate committees. In England, education was under the Vice President of the Council, but in Scotland it was not so. He had the honour to head a deputation to the late Secretary for Scotland, and he promised that he would consider the question of uniting the two departments, and also having a Board of Agriculture dealing with agricultural matters. He ventured now to ask whether anything had been done? Some little progress was made in the negotiations, but there was nothing further. What they wanted in Scotland was some relation between these bodies—some educational council for Scotland, whether presided over by the Secretary for Scotland or the Lord Advocate, or someone else. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would consider this matter favourably in the Recess?

said, that during the past year a Departmental Committee was appointed to deal with the question of juvenile offenders. It presented its Report three months ago, and he hoped they would get an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Scotch Office, that they would take up the Report of that Committee, and introduce as early as possible next Session legislation on the lines of the recommendations of the Committee. A Bill was introduced in the House of Lords, he thought by the Lord Chancellor, which did include some of the recommendations in this Report. Many in Scotland had in recent years suffered by the method of legislation adopted. Instead of having separate Bills for Scotland, they had Bills dealing with the whole of Great Britain, Scotland being tacked on at the end. This made it more difficult to understand the law for Scotland. There was another subject on which he desired to put a question. Certain papers were handed to him as he came in that afternoon, on behalf of his hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen City, who was unable, in consequence of the state of his health, to be present. The Lord Advocate would probably not be able to give a full reply at present, but perhaps he would consider the question. Certain regulations with regard to the police, issued by the Secretary for Scotland (Lord Lothian) in 1890, had not it was said been carried out to the letter in certain counties in Scotland, particularly the rules with regard to the age at which appointments to the higher posts were made. He would put the Lord Advocate in possession of the papers, in order that he might examine whether there was any foundation for the suggestion, and be able to give a satisfactory answer on a future day. In conclusion, he thought it might be said, with regard to the new Secretary for Scotland—and those who knew Lord Balfour of Burleigh as he did would recognise in him one who was thoroughly acquainted with Scotch affairs, who had lived in Scotland a great deal and who had presided over many local bodies—the only possible objection to his appointment was that he was not and never had been a Member of the House of Commons. They knew that he was a strong politician, and though he was opposed to many of them they were perfectly satisfied that, as regards all subjects into which Party considerations did not enter, he would give a dispassionate and an intelligent consideration to any matters submitted to him.

said, he greatly regretted that the Secretary for Scotland was not in the House of Commons. He ought to be there. There ought to be no buffer between him and the House, and he had seriously thought of moving to reduce the noble Lord's salary on the ground that he was not in a position to meet hon. Members face to face and deal personally with the questions which they raised. He asked the Lord Advocate to impress upon the Secretary for Scotland the desirability of visiting the Highlands. The Scotch Office was very ignorant of Highland affairs. The authorities appeared to him always to stop at Inverness, though that was really where they ought to begin. He hoped that both the Secretary for Scotland and the Lord Advocate would seek to make themselves fully acqainted with the Highlands. He wished to draw attention to the fact that it was extremely difficult to get any satisfactory information from the Scotch Office. He had occasion to inquire, on the 13th of March this year, regarding an eviction on Black Isle. The Secretary for Scotland replied that the man owed four years' rent, though he held the receipts in his hand and invited the Secretary for Scotland to inspect them. To make matters worse he was told this man's behaviour to his own family had been extremely bad, and that he deserved no special consideration. During the General Election he made special inquiries, and found that these statements were absolutely inaccurate, and it was extremely unfair that this poor man should be maligned in this manner. It appeared to be the practice of the Scotch Office to take their information from landlords, who were a bad set, Highland factors, another bad set, and sheriffs. He desired to complain of the practice, of allowing procurators-fiscal to act as landlords' agents or factors. The late Secretary for Scotland expressed his disapprobation of such a practice but it still prevailed, and he hoped steps would be taken to stop it. Referring to the salaries paid in the office of the Secretary for Scotland, he said everyone appeared to be ground down with the exception of the Lord Advocate, and he had to do another man's work in addition to his own for his £5,000.

The salary of the Lord Advocate does not arise on this Vote.

said his complaint was of the excessive amount of work which the Lord Advocate had to do in consequence of the Secretary for Scotland being in another place. He did not want to see the Lord Advocate break down in health in consequence of his arduous duties. Referring to the post of Inspector of Constabulary, he said he could not understand why military men should be pitchforked into such offices over the heads of members of the police force. He asked for an explanation with regard to the £250 for travelling expenses included in the Vote for the Inspector of Constabulary. He would like to know whether the office of this gentleman was in Edinburgh, where it ought to be, or 300 or 400 miles away from Edinburgh, up in Ross-shire, where it ought not to be. A very great deal of this gentleman's time appeared to be spent in Ross-shire. He was paid a large salary in order that he might go up and down the country to keep matters straight, and not to spend his time in his charming home in Ross-shire. He hoped the Lord Advocate would be able to give him such information on the points he had raised as would obviate the necessity for his moving a reduction of the Vote.

said, he was much gratified to know how concerned the hon. Gentleman was for his personal health as affected by the duties he had to discharge. Many of the points the hon. Gentleman had raised, however, were matters which had already been determined and could not be considered on this Vote. With regard to the complaint of the inaccuracy of the information of the Scotch Office, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that every public office was open to receive information from anyone who was ready to supply it, and information would be as welcome at Dover House as in any other public Department. He could not conceive it possible that the late Secretary for Scotland wilfully closed his eyes to the light the hon. Gentleman might have desired to shed upon Scotch affairs. At any rate, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman would have cause to be dissatisfied in future with the accuracy of the information of the Scotch Office. With reference to the topic last touched upon by the hon. Gentleman, there was no such office as Chief Constable in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman must have been thinking of the office of Inspector of Constabulary. That was an office which entailed utterly different qualifications to those possessed by a man who had passed through the force, however high the position to which he had attained, and there was no hardship, in his view, in conferring the office on a person who had not passed through the force. He did not contend that it ought always to be confined to military men, but it did seem to him that, under the present short service system, it was desirable to employ military officers in posts of that kind. With regard to the length of the residence of the present holder of the office in Ross-shire, he did not know whether it was due to the necessity of paying special attention to the police force in that part of Scotland, or to a desire to enjoy the beauties of the country. As to the amount paid for travelling expenses, he would point out that his expenses were not handed over to this officer in bulk, but were regulated by an account sent in by him. Then the hon. Member had referred to an eviction which took place in the spring. He did not think the hon. Gentleman had brought that matter under the cognizance of the Scotch Office. Certainly it had not been brought to his own notice. Had it been, he would have given the hon. Gentleman all the information upon it he could. The only other point the hon. Member referred to was the position of the procurators fiscal. It was true that in some cases——

Order, order. That question will more properly arise at a later stage.

Yes, Sir; that is so, under the next head. He would now pass for a moment to what had been said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen with reference to the Report of the Departmental Committee on habitual offenders which had been submitted to Parliament. That was, no doubt, a question in which a great deal of interest was taken, not merely with regard to inebriates but to all classes of habitual offenders. He was not in a position to say anything as to any possible projects for legislation on the subject, but he could promise that the report of that Committee would receive very careful consideration. It was quite possible that the Scotch people might be willing to submit themselves to legislative restrictions in their personal freedom for which other parts of the kingdon were not yet ripe; and he would leave the question by saying that he entirely concurred in what had been said as to the desirability of treating Scotland separately in such matters; and, no doubt, great inconvenience had been caused by the fact that some Acts of Parliament had been made applicable to Scotland, as it were, by an afterthought. One other topic raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen was the infringement or failure to observe the police regulations issued from the office of the Secretary for Scotland. He had not heard that any complaints had recently reached the Office, but he invited the hon. Gentleman to fulfil the undertaking he had given to supply the Office with information on the subject, and he would promise him that it should receive careful and sympathetic attention. He for one did not see the use of regulations of that sort if they were not observed. He now came to the speech of the hon. Member for Forfar, who introduced the question of technical education. That question rested, to a large extent, on statutes. It was apparent, from the question the hon. Member put to him the other day, that his main purpose was to look after, as was natural, the interests of agriculture. It must be remembered, and he thought the hon. Member had lost sight of that, that the money in question was not devoted by statute to purposes of technical education. There was an option left to the local bodies as to how they should apply it, and one of the complaints of the hon. Member was that the local bodies did not do what he wanted them to do. He for one should look with favour upon any practicable proposal for the simplification of the administration of educational grants. With regard to the desirability of having the amounts of the grant fixed, and so protected against fluctuation, he was in sympathy with what had been said, because the action of local bodies from year to year could not be the same when the grants fluctuated seriously. He promised that the subject should receive the careful consideration of the Secretary for Scotland. The question of central amalgamation which had been adverted to was also one respecting which he could express a very favourable opinion. It was in some respects to be regretted that the body which administered Scotch education was not also the body interested in the administration of the grants from the Department and the grants from the Board of Agriculture. The matter might or might not require legislation. It was being considered with a view to ascertaining what would be the simplest mode of effecting the transference that would become necessary should the conclusion be arrived at that it was advisable and proper that a change should be made.

said, that no doubt there was no one in the other House more conversant with Scotch affairs than Lord Balfour of Burleigh. He protested, however, against the choice of a Peer as Minister for Scotland. The result was very inconvenient. Lord Advocates, in consequence, perhaps, of their legal training, and other circumstances, were seldom in such touch with the views of the public at large as to be capable of dealing with political matters from a broad point of view. It was, therefore, very desirable that they should have in that House a Secretary for Scotland who was in touch with the people. In consequence of the selection of a Member of the other House for this office there arose a very awkward circumstance.

In my opinion, this discussion is really out of order. All that Members are entitled to do upon the Votes for the Secretary for Scotland and his office is to criticise any official act of his. His position in the other House cannot be discussed on this Vote. I do not say it cannot be discussed in this House, but this is not the proper time for discussing it.

said, that when Lord Lothian was Secretary for Scotland, a discussion of this kind was raised on the Vote before the Committee. One objection taken then was that Lord Lothian was not in the Cabinet. He should not pursue the subject further. He thought he had already sufficiently indicated what inconvenience was caused by the fact that the Secretary for Scotland sat in the other House. He wished to impress upon that official that he ought to take steps to keep sheriffs-substitute within bounds in their criticism of Acts of Parliament. Last Session an Act entitled "Fatal Accidents Inquiry (Scotland) Act" was passed with the approval of both Parties. A sheriff-substitute, who had been called upon to administer that law, had said that, in his opinion, the Act was unnecessary and would not accomplish any good purpose; that it would add materially to the expenses of the country; would cast upon the officials a large amount of extra work, and would cause much inconvenience to jurors. The Secretary for Scotland could exercise a certain amount of supervision over these sheriffs-substitute.

said, that the Secretary for Scotland could not exercise such supervision as the hon. Member supposed. That being the case, was the hon. Member in order?

If the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Graham Murray) is correct, and I must presume it is, the position of sheriffs-substitute and their acts cannot be discussed on this Vote.

said, that there were other matters to which he wished to call attention. Why was not the amount set down for estimated travelling expenses smaller? Last year the amount spent was less by £250 than the sum originally asked for. Why had no attention been paid to that increase this year? The same amount was asked for, and, in his opinion, it seemed strange to ask for £250 more than experience had shown to be required. Some explanation ought to be given. Of course, if there was good reason to believe that there would be greater expenditure this year than in preceding years, that would be a complete justification for the demand that was now made. The same criticism applied to the item for special inquiries. Much more was being asked for than was found to be necessary last year. Unless there was some special reason for anticipating an increase of expenditure under this head, the Treasury ought to be contented with the sum which experience showed to have been sufficient hitherto. If more money was granted under these heads than was really required, the surplus was appropriated to other items in the accounts, and this ought to be avoided, if possible.

pointed out that the hon. Member was not accurate when he said that the Scotch Office could appropriate any excess to other items of the account. Any excess would go to the Treasury balances, and it could only be applied to other items by the consent of the Treasury. It did not appear that there had been any such application in the past year, and therefore the hon. Member's remarks lacked substance. It was necessary in these Votes to provide for fluctuating expenses; to provide enough to cover both the average expenditure and contingent increments. It was not desirable to present supplementary Estimates when, by a little forethought, it could be prevented. The figures to which the hon. Member had drawn attention were revised each year, and were fixed, as far as possible, in accordance with the average expenditure. But, as he had said, provision must be made for contingencies. It was impossible to foresee with certainty what inquiries might have to be made in the course of a year by the Scotch Department—inquiries, for example, into the progress of harbour works, in which subject some hon. Gentlemen opposite had shown so much interest.

called attention to the threatened destruction of the Falls of Foyers, and asked the Lord Advocate what steps, if any, the Government had taken in order to preserve in their natural magnificence one of the finest waterfalls in the United Kingdom. He was aware that the reply of the late Secretary for Scotland was that he had no power to interfere, the County Council of Inverness being the body which, after all, was responsible; but, in view of the close communication between the Scotch Office and the County Councils, he submitted that it would not be outside the administrative powers of the Scotch Office if they made some representation to the County Council on the subject. The present Government were showing their interest in the Highlands by a measure they were bringing forward at the present time, but it was no use offering Government guarantees if they were not going to prevent the destruction of the beautiful scenery of the country. Could not the right hon. Gentleman, in consultation with the Secretary for Scotland, do something to satisfy the strong public opinion which had been expressed in regard to this matter? He was informed that a considerable change of opinion had taken place in the last few months, many men who formerly supported the operations of the Company being now desirous of putting an end to them. He was informed that an influential Member of the present Government was a director of the Company. If that was not the case, it would be well if an official denial were given to the statement.

said, the hon. Member proposed to cast a considerable additional burden upon the Secretary for Scotland and himself. Parliament had not seen fit to place the natural scenery of Scotland under the protection of the Scotch Office, and, apart from that, the Falls of Foyers were a case of private property, tempered only by the fact that certain rights were vested in the representative local body. That was the situation; and there was absolutely no power on the part of the Scotch Office to interfere short of legislation. There was, however, another aspect of the question than that to which the hon. Member had adverted, and that was the industrial aspect. He knew the Falls of Foyers very well, and he had further made himself acquainted with the papers in the Scotch Office relating to the proposed utilisation of the waterfalls. He would further look into the matter in conjunction with the Secretary for Scotland, but it must be understood that he should have regard, not only to the general interest of preserving intact such a notable feature of the scenery of Scotland, but also the industrial aspect of it, and its bearing upon the employment of the people in the neighbourhood.

with regard to the labour aspect of the question, said, that he was informed there would not be more than 100 people employed, of whom not one-sixth would belong to the locality. If legislation was necessary he believed that, even at this period of the Session, a Bill would be passed without the slightest opposition.

regretted very much they had not the Secretary for Scotland here. Some of them fought this question 10 years ago, but were defeated, and since then both the late and the present Government had appointed Peers to the office.

Order, order! I have already called the right hon. Gentleman to order in referring to that point; it is distinctly out of order on this Vote.

The Vote is the salary of the Secretary for Scotland.

That is one thing; his position in another place is another thing. The former can be discussed, the second cannot.

I am not discussing his position in another place. I am discussing his position in this place. However, I have merely incidentally alluded to the point, and do not wish to pursue it. There was one item he wished information about, and that was the private secretary to the Secretary for Scotland. The late Secretary went to the War Office and took one of the senior clerks there, and employed him as his private secretary. This gentleman would have £600 or £700 a year from the War Office, and to take him away from his proper work and to give him an additional £300 a year as private secretary to the Scottish Secretary, he protested, was a very wrong and objectionable thing to do. Who was the present secretary?

He is quite a different gentleman. The present Secretary has taken over the private secretary to the Permanent Under Secretary for Scotland.

Has he any other appointment or salary?

That I am afraid I cannot answer.

Then I hope the right hon. Gentleman will inquire. I object to these gentlemen holding dual offices.

I have no doubt he devotes his whole time to the work of the Scotch Office.

wished to say a word with respect to the keen feeling which existed in Scotland as to the projected destruction of one of the most beautiful scenic ornaments of the country, he meant the Falls of Foyers.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not in the House a short time ago when that question was discussed, and the Lord Advocate replied.

No.

After the right hon. Gentleman's explanation I must rule all further discussion on that subject out of order.

said, he should like to press on the Lord Advocate to do all he could, officially or otherwise.

In consequence of the absence of the hon. Gentleman, he probably did not hear the answer of the Lord Advocate.