said, that feeling that the Rules of the House, and the circumstances under which the Bill was carried over from last Session, prevented him from making a Motion for its recommittal, he proposed to move its rejection on the Third Reading.

said the Motion for recommittal would not be in order, but that the hon. Member would be in order in moving that the Bill be read that day six months.

said he moved the rejection of the Bill on public grounds. It was proposed by the Bill to transfer as a monopoly a public market for the gain of private shareholders, for the market in question was private property. The proposed removal would mean an increase of taxation on the sale of native produce. With the exception of a market at Crewe, this was the only such private cattle market in the whole of the North of England, and the majority of the Members would doubtless agree that such a market in so large a city as Liverpool should be controlled by the Corporation, for the protection of the public interests. Under this private ownership illegal charges had been levied in the market for 20 years past, four-pence per head on beasts and 2s. per score on sheep being charged where only half that amount should have been levied. But these extortionate charges were made the basis of the future schedule of charges to be imposed at Bootle, and the result would be that a protective rate would be paid at Birkenhead on foreign imports to the disadvantage of the native or Irish produce. He was not a Protectionist, but at least the common sense of the House would condemn any system of Protection as against the native producer. The reason why the market was to be changed was that the owners had found it convenient to sell or change the position of the market rather than to embark upon an expenditure of £5,000 or £6,000 to meet modern requirements, now that the market was included within the Liverpool boundaries, the sanitary conditions of the market having been neglected in the past. The whole of the trade were opposed to the change, and it was an extraordinary thing that by this change a large city like Liverpool should be deprived of a market for the sale of native produce. The market was for the sale of Irish and Scotch live stock, not only for Liverpool, but for all the great commercial and industrial centres of the North, and it was proposed to change the market from a position where it had given satisfaction for a number of years in order that the owners might escape the expenses necessary to comply with modern requirements. He asked the House to consider these important points—that 1,000,000 people of Liverpool were to be without a market for the sale of native produce in future, that their native produce was to be at a disadvantage, and that foreign importations should be sold in Birkenhead at a lesser cost and with more convenience than their own produce at Liverpool. The retention of the market in Liverpool was an absolute necessity for English, Irish, and Scotch producers of stock, and he would like to remind the House that although they heard a great deal about foreign competition, as a matter of fact Ireland sent more live stock to Great Britain than all the other countries in the world, and yet, here was Liverpool, which was the greatest market for Irish stock in the three kingdoms, proposing to disestablish the market and place the dealers in Irish stock at a disadvantage as compared with foreign competitors. That he thought was a very strong argument which should weigh with the House in its consideration of this matter. It might be asked how it came about that this market should be moved. It was alleged that where the new market was to be placed in Bootle would be more convenient for the importation of Irish live stock, but that all hung upon one circumstance, and that was that a landing stage should be established lower down the river. The Irish sea captains who brought over the stock, swore before the Committee of the House of Lords that they could not land the live stock, particularly at the season of the year when the larger portion came from Ireland, at the landing stage opposite Bootle. But in addition there was opposition to the Bill by reason of the fact that the live stock would have to be driven through the streets of Liverpool for a long distance. The London and North Western Railway Company had provided facilities at the Prince's Landing Stage, so that any one desirous of avoiding the driving of the cattle through the streets could, with a very little extra cost, have the stock brought up to the market from the stage by train. The Railway Company had a splendid service from Stanley Market to all parts of the kingdom, and by reason of that fact there was no cattle market so suitable as the Liverpool one for the Irish or Scotch live stock trade. Failing a landing stage at Bootle, he would like to point out that the live stock would have to be driven right along all the most congested portion of the quays and it would be next to impossible to get live stock down to Bootle from the Prince's Landing Stage. This was a more important question than would seem at first sight. It meant this, that the greatest market in England for Irish stock was about to be disestablished upon false and flimsy pretences. The reason why he had been desirous of re-committing the Bill was that new matters of fact had arisen which ought to be brought under the consideration of the House or of the Committee which would have to consider the subject. The cattle salesmen who were most interested, did not appear before either House. The gentlemen had been paying double tolls for a period of 20 years, and they had paid these illegal tolls believing them to be legal. They never saw the Act of Parliament which was passed in 1832, and when they appealed to the directors of the market upon the matter, they were told that there was an Act of Parliament which enabled them to charge these double tolls. The salesmen took their word for it, but after the Committee of the House of Lords had given their decision on the Bill they found that they were being charged double tolls. They then appealed to a magistrate at Liverpool, but the case was dismissed. Then they were advised to take proceedings in the Court of Chancery of the County of Lancaster. This they did, and on the 29th of November last the Vice-Chancellor of that Court declared that the owners of the market were only entitled to charge 2d. per beast and 1s. per score of sheep, instead of 4d. and 2s. respectively as they had been doing all this time. The owners of the market were not satisfied with this decision and they appealed to the Court of Appeal. That Court had unanimously affirmed the decision of the Vice-Chancellor and declared the tolls that they had been charging were illegal. There ought to be an objection in a popular assembly like the House of Commons to handing over any monopoly of public rights to private individuals, and whatever might have been the tenour of things in 1832, surely those who represented popular constituencies in the House should not perpetuate a monopoly by handing over a public market to a private company. There was one extraordinary point which he had almost omitted to mention. It was this, that the owners of the Liverpool Cattle Market absolutely controlled for seven miles from the centre of that city the sale of everything in the nature of live stock. They levied a charge upon the sales whether they took place in the market or outside of it, and they did this absolutely without the power being conferred upon them by Act of Parliament. He wanted to know whether in the year 1896, the House of Commons was going, by solemn Resolution, to perpetuate a monopoly and powers which ought not to be granted to private individuals for the purpose of private gain. That was an absurd proposition and he trusted the verdict of the House would show it was so. He trusted all those Members who represented the march of progress would declare war against monopoly, against private gain upon public interests, and would assist him in the endeavour he was making to put an end to this system, which had so long been the curse and bane of Liverpool. He would remind his hon. Friends from Ireland that this meant an imposition upon what unfortunately was almost the only trade they had left to them, and it would be another tax put upon the shoulders of Irish producers for the benefit of a body of private speculators. He, therefore, begged to move that the Bill be read that day six months.

seconded the Motion for rejection. He thought there were two observations of his hon. Friend which would meet with the assent of all sections of the House. The first was that it was desirable, as a general principle, that such a municipal want as a market should be in the hands of a public rather than of a private body. The second was that as between the cattle of Ireland and the cattle of foreign countries, if any preference was to be given in accommodation and facility for sale, it should be in favour of Irish cattle, and not of foreign cattle. The danger his hon. Friend pointed out was this. The present cattle market was comparatively close to the docks where the cattle were landed. The new market was at a very considerable distance from where the cattle were usually landed. The fear of his hon. Friend was that the inconvenience of getting Irish cattle to the new market would act as an inducement to a large number of salesmen to buy American cattle rather than Irish cattle. It was not to be supposed that any hon. Member would desire to increase the sale of American cattle at the expense of the Irish cattle trade. The second point in his hon. Friend's complaint was that the amount of tolls and charges upon the landing of cattle must have very considerable influence on the cattle trade, and the schedule of tolls fixed for the new market were based on the charges hitherto illegally charged. The tolls originally fixed were 2d. per head of cattle, and 1s. per score of sheep, and these were raised by the Acts of 1869 and 1876 to double that amount. The charges for the Stanley Market were not considered exorbitant by traders, but since then litigation had been carried from court to court, and it had been found that the authorities of the old Stanley Market had acted illegally, that in fact they had charged double the amount they were entitled to, and therefore the whole basis of the proposed charges was removed. What his hon. Friend desired was that the new schedule of tolls in the new market should be fixed, not upon the exorbitant and illegal rate, but upon the old and legal rate of 2d. per head for cattle and 1s. per score of sheep. But his hon. Friend was in the difficulty that the Committee had decided, and it was unlikely that the House would reverse the decision of its Committee. His hon. Friend was precluded by the Rules of procedure from moving the recommittal of the Bill. Under the circumstances all that he could expect was that the Minister of the Crown who was responsible for matters of this kind—the Minister for Agriculture—would bring his influence to bear in favour of the view of his hon. Friend, and in the interest of the Irish cattle trade, and those responsible for the Bill should give an assurance that the views of his hon. Friend should have full consideration in another place.

observed that as he had the honour of introducing the Bill to the House, and as it affected his constituency, he had felt it incumbent upon him to ask the House to agree to the Third Reading. The request that had been made by the hon. Member for Dublin was one which ought not to have been put forward, and he would shortly state why. This new Liverpool Cattle Market was to supplant the old or Stanley Market. The old market was insanitary, badly situated, it was not roofed, the soil was pervious to every kind of moisture, it was in the midst of a densely crowded part of Liverpool, had been objected to by the medical authorities and the District Council and though it had 14 years of a lease to run, granted by the Corporation, the latter did not intend to renew the lease. The site of the old market was 7½ acres. The site of the new market was 30 acres and power was given to take 15 additional acres, if it should be requisite. The old market was four miles from the landing stage, cattle were now landed in a weak state from the ships, and had to be driven in herds through crowded streets to the market. So much for the question of convenience. On the other hand, the new market was close to the North Docks of the River Mersey, the cattle could easily be landed, a special landing stage would be built for the purpose and the market would be provided with every modern convenience and every humane appliance. There was another reason why the Bill should be read a Third time. A great deal had been made by its opponents of the increase of toll as illegal. He would point out that this Bill was before a Committee of the House for six days and its opponents did not then think it worth while to allude to the increase of toll. The Bill was read a Third time in that House without opposition; it went to the House of Lords, passed its Second Reading there and was for four days before the Committee in the other House, and not one word was said about the increase of toll. Indeed the Measure would have been read a Third time in the Lords, but for the Dissolution, at which time it only wanted one day to complete its final stage. It was in these circumstances that the Bill now came before them, and to make this opposition to it was practically an abuse of the forms of the House. The Bill had already, as he had explained, been read a Third time by the House of Commons, and if it were to be thrown out now the House would be stultifying the verdict it had previously given.

did not intend to go into the general question, but the question of tariff was an important one and one of which the House should have cognisance. The standing charge of the Stanley Market had been found to be 50 per cent. higher than was the legal charge. In the Bill promoted by the new company the Stanley Market shareholders were entitled for every £20 value in that concern to rank as holding £100 in the new market. That calculation was made on the basis of the fees which the Court of Appeal had declared to be 50 per cent. above those legally due. If the company came into existence with the shares of the Stanley Market capitalised in the new market at that figure, then the new company would be over-capitalised, with the result that in its fees to the new market the public must pay an extra tax in order to provide the increased dividends for the overcapitalised stock. He submitted, therefore, that this matter ought to be fully gone into and on public grounds this was a question which ought not to be overlooked. It was important that the fees of the cattle market should not be excessive, and in the long run the general consumer was keenly interested in seeing that such fees were fixed on a fair and equitable basis.

observed that the hon. Gentleman had stated that the charges had been increased by 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, they had been increased by 100 per cent.

as one who sat for six days on the Committee before whom this Bill was considered, desired to say a word or two, as he might possibly take a more impartial view than either the hon. Member for Dublin, who had moved the rejection of the Bill, or the hon. Member for Bootle, who had supported the Third Reading. It was perfectly true that this was merely a question of one monopoly or another. There was an old company and a new one. The next question was that of the suitability of the site. All who sat on the Committee had been convinced that Liverpool had outgrown the present site of the Stanley Market, which on several grounds was unsuitable, one great objection being that the cattle had now to be driven through a residential district. He did not say that the Bootle site was a perfect site. There was a doubt in the minds of the Committee on the subject. But the site would be suitable if a proper landing stage could be arranged for cattle. There was conflicting evidence as to this and consequently the Committee only passed the preamble of the Bill subject to the insertion of a clause that the cattle market at Stanley should be kept open and in working order for the space of at least two years after the completion of the new cattle market, etc. The term ''plant'' was to be deemed to include the erection, with the approval of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board, of suitable landing stages conveniently near the site of the market, and the certificate of the Board of Agriculture was to be conclusive evidence that such landing accommodation had been provided. That clause showed there was doubt in the minds of the Committee as to the perfect suitability of this site. With regard to tolls, he was informed that it had been proved that since the Committee sat the tolls at Stanley Market had exceeded the legal amount. But he understood that only the legal charges would be permitted by this Act. The weight of evidence before the Committee was distinct as to the unsuitability of the Stanley Market site, and that provided proper landing stages could be arranged, Bootle Market would be better than Stanley Market.

said, he would not enter in any respect into the merits of the Bill. But before the House decided to reject the Bill it should bear in mind that this Bill went through all its stages last year; that a Committee sat six days upon it in that House, that it passed the Report stage and its Third Reading, and then went to another place where it also passed all its stages except the final one. Under the new Standing Order the House was seised of the Bill again, and he ventured to submit that before the House rejected a Bill with such a history, an overwhelming case should be made out, and it should be shown that something or other had happened in the interval which would justify the House in throwing out a Bill which had passed through all its successive stages. Had such an overwhelming case been made out?

reminded the hon. Member that legal proceedings with regard to the amount of tolls were pending at the moment the Bill was before the two Houses, and therefore the opponents of the Bill were unable to oppose the part of the Measure relating to them. They were only now able to do so by a decision of the Court of Appeal.

said he was coming to that point. As a matter of fact, he believed that while the Bill was in the House no question had arisen as to the legality of the charges. The question did not arise until June or July. Had any overwhelming case been made out for the rejection of this Bill? The question of legality of charges was litigated. A decision was given which had recently been upheld to the effect that these charges were excessive. But, for the future, the charges at the Stanley Market would continue, not on the old basis, but on a new basis. The Stanley Market would no longer be able to make charges which a Court of Law had declared excessive. The charges would be those laid down in the original Act of Parliament. Not only that, but by a clause of this very Bill these charges were to be continued by the new company, during the period of erection of their new premises, and two years besides. The question arose whether the Committee which settled these charges and tolls had all the material upon which to arrive at a decision? The Committee considered the tolls and charges levied in similar markets in other parts of the country. The markets in Glasgow and Birmingham were specially referred to and the scale was fixed after considering these. The Local Government Board had also drawn their attention to them. He had only entered into the merits of the case to show that no such overwhelming case had been made out which would justify the House in throwing out a Bill which, in the ordinary course, but for the interposition of the General Election, would have become law. It would be a dangerous thing, whatever their view of the merits of the case might be, to throw out a Bill which had passed all its stages in that House, and nearly all its stages in another place. He hoped the House would read the Bill a third time, leaving the opponents of the Measure to raise their points in another place.

said the House would not take the extraordinary course it was asked to do, of rejecting a Bill of this kind unless exceptional circumstances were shown. If some new matter had arisen or some great principle was involved, the House might possibly reverse the decision of its Private Bill Committee, which gave painstaking and judicial consideration to every matter brought before them. The only argument the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had advanced was that the effect of the Bill would be to drive the business in cattle from Bootle to Birkenhead. He only hoped the hon. Member was a true prophet, but for himself he had never heard that the people of Birkenhead anticipated any extraordinary flow of benefit from this Bill. He hoped the House, considering all the circumstances and recognising that only grave arguments should induce it to upset the decision of its Private Bill Committee, would read this Bill a third time.

said, that having heard the discussion, in deference to the wishes of the House he would withdraw his Motion.

said, the Bill sought to violate what had been for many years the definite settled and uniform policy of Parliament as declared by a long series of Acts with regard to the enclosure of Metropolitan common lands. His Amendment dealt solely with the question of principle, which was the only ground on which those who had any knowledge of Private Bill Procedure could feel justified in asking the House to oppose the Second Reading of such a Bill. The principle hero involved was a very important one, and the ground of opposition to the Bill was the manner in which it dealt with common lands. So far back as 1845 Parliament recognised the vital importance of metropolitan interests in the preservation of commons, and it adopted a policy which had been confirmed by subsequent legislation; it laid it down as its duty to preserve open spaces and commons within the metropolitan area and in its immediate environs. In 1864 a strong resolution was passed by the House of Commons declaring that it was the duty of the Government to take steps to preserve these commons and open spaces. In the following year a Select Committee went exhaustively into the question, and the outcome of their Inquiry was the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866, which expressly exempted metropolitan common lands from being made even the subject of recommendation for enclosure under the Enclosure Act. It further gave the inhabitants of the Metropolis the right to apply for a scheme by which any open space or common might be regulated for their use. In 1876 an Act was passed to provide for cases of enclosure and for the regulation of commons, and metropolitan common lands were expressly exempted from its enclosure provisions. So by a series of public enactments metropolitan common lands had been excluded from the limited power possessed by the Board of Agriculture with regard to rural commons. This was the position of Parliament, and it was a strong position. This Bill was promoted by Lord Dysart's trustees, and the estate they represented was a wealthy one; it consisted partly of lands on the banks of, or adjacent to, the river Thames in the neighbourhood of Petersham, Ham, and Richmond. Some of these lands were freehold, and there were other lands over which the trustees had only manorial rights. In particular there was a piece of land, about 200 acres in extent, known as Ham Common Fields, over which the trustees had manorial rights and which it was the object of this Bill to seek to enclose. These were lammas lands, on which rights could be exercised only for a portion of the year; but that restriction did not make them any the less common lands. He did not labour that point, because he did not suppose there was any question about it; and, indeed, the Act of 1869, which extended and amended the Act of 1866, expressly declared that lammas lands were common lands. If these lands were not common lands, why was a Bill introduced to enable the promoters to enclose and make use of them? They proposed to extinguish common rights over these lands, to seize and enclose them, and to add them to what was already an enormously wealthy estate. It was proposed to give compensation to persons who had common rights, but only if they had exercised their rights within three years. That was an extremely cool proposition. This was an attempt to subvert the settled and declared policy of Parliament in respect of metropolitan common lands, and, moreover, it was an attempt to do so by means of a private Bill promoted by persons who were chiefly interested and concerned in the development and improvement of this estate. No doubt there would be given to the House a glowing account of the benefits to be conferred on the locality in return for the passing of this Bill. It would be said that the Richmond Corporation would have the benefit of a water logged meadow, and that the district council of Ham would receive £15,000 in hard cash and the gift of Ham Common, which for generations had been the subject of conflict, and even of actual physical struggle, between the villagers and the representatives of the estate. It would also be said that in return for the stopping up of a number of footpaths over these lands the promoters were to make certain, other footpaths and carriage roads, which would improve the neighbourhood and possibly make it more convenient for the well-to-do classes. Whenever people desired to get hold of land of this kind it was because they were philanthropic and wanted to confer benefits on a locality—but such pretensions usually meant one for other people and two for themselves. The question was not whether certain ratepayers were going to receive good value for the support they were giving this Measure, but it was whether the House was prepared to go behind the settled policy of Parliament and to allow the enclosure, by a private Bill, of metropolitan common lands. The Bill was petitioned against by the commoners of Ham, by the London County Council, and by the Society for the Preservation of Commons and Open Spaces; and the opponents ought not to be put to the cost of opposing the Bill in Committee. He asked the House to uphold the rights it had affirmed by a long series of public enactments, and he concluded by moving:—

"That, having regard to the policy of Parliament as declared by the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1866 and 1869, this House is not prepared to entertain a Bill for the enclosure of metropolitan common lands."

in seconding the Amendment, said he felt that a principle of great public importance was involved. A report issued that morning described the footpaths threatened as ill-defined and unnecessary tracks and paths by which people roamed all over this estate; and the question was whether Londoners were to be deprived of this privilege. He was sure that Parliament, after having passed a series of Acts for the protection of such lands, would not allow a private bargain, such as the Bill proposed, to deprive Middlesex of one of its few recreation-grounds. ["Hear!"]

said, he rose on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, to support its Second Reading. He could not understand why this Bill should not be allowed to follow the usual procedure of Private Bills—to be read a Second time by the House and then referred to a Committee upstairs—as there was nothing against its principle. [Cries of "Oh!" and laughter.] It was a most debateable point whether the lands in question were common lands within the Act of 1866. They were not ordinary pasture lands on which lammas rights were enjoyed. They were let to tenants from year to year, and were used as market gardens. But, in any event, lammas rights, such as they were, were recognised by the Bill, and those who were entitled to them would receive just compensation. With regard to the riverside, the trustees had entered into an agreement vesting in the Thames Conservancy enough of the land to enable them to double the width of the towing-path from Richmond to Teddington Lock. The lands between the enclosed lands and the river were 17 acres in extent. Of these no fewer than 14 acres would remain open for the public to walk upon, and on the remainder no buildings were to be erected. For years past questions of dispute in respect to the rights over Ham Common had arisen; and therefore, while the rights of Ham commoners were reserved, the trustees proposed to vest the management of the common in the Ham District Council. That body was young, and was imbued with local patriotism, and had succeeded in getting from the trustees good terms for the benefit of the whole parish. The trustees were to invest £4,000 in the schools.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether these schools are not voluntary schools?

said, they were national voluntary schools—[ironical Opposition cheers]—and were the only schools in the parish. [Ministerial cheers.] They were also to invest £2,500 for the benefit of almshouses already erected but poorly endowed; to contribute £5,000 towards the cost of sewering the parish; and to give a site free of consideration for an addition to the parish burial-ground. All these terms represented about 2s. 6d. in the pound on the rateable value of the parish.

Am I right in saying that they are also to give a site for a vicarage?

said that was so, provided the District Council required the present vicarage for their offices. He had not forgotten that, but he did not mention it, as he thought he was wearying the House by demonstrating the generous way in which the trustees were treating the parish of Ham. Then there was the question of footpaths through Petersham Meadow, which was within the boundary of Richmond. There were various paths, some new, some old, and some which led to nowhere from nowhere. For many years the public were allowed to wander at their own free will over the whole of King's Meadow, which was in front of the historic house of Ham. The Richmond Council, therefore, said to the trustees that if they proposed to enclose any of those paths they should supply other paths in places more convenient, and that the trustees were going to do. Petersham meadows were to be conveyed to Richmond, and kept as open spaces; the object was to prevent their being built upon, as they formed the chief feature in the foreground of that celebrated view, and if they were built upon, the beauty of that lovely scenery would be absolutely spoilt. It was said that the meadows were sometimes waterlogged. Only four of the 22 acres were submerged, and by erecting a concrete wall they would be able to render those four acres sound. He denied that the changes proposed by the Bill would affect the view from Richmond Hill. The trustees had looked after the rights of Londoners; and, as there was nothing in the Bill, which had the sanction of the Court of Chancery, to differentiate it from other Private Bills, he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading.

trusted that the Members of the House of Commons, irrespective of Party or locality, would seriously consider the propositions of this private Bill. For the benefit of Members from provincial constituencies, who did not know the extreme beauty of the locality affected by the Bill, he might say that one standing on Richmond Terrace, and looking away over the river west and north-west, saw a view which had been sung by many poets, and which the average Englishman admired and cherished probably more than any other view within a hundred miles of London. It was proposed by the Bill to concede Petersham Meadow, immediately underneath the terrace, and thereby sacrifice the beauty of that unequalled scene.

I would remind the hon. Gentleman that no part of the lammas land whatever can be seen from the hill.

said that, unfortunately for the hon. Member's contention, he had had the pleasure the other day of walking from Wellington Barracks to Richmond with a battalion of the Cold-stream Guards, to see how their boots wore on the way—[laughter]—and he took the opportunity while the men were resting of looking at this particular view from the terrace. ["Hear, hear!"] He contended that the proposals of the Bill would take away certain lammas rights, and would materially injure the beauty of the view from Richmond Terrace. This Bill sought—under the guise of giving £5,000 for sewage purposes, £4,000 to a school, the site for a vicarage, part of which might be used for local board offices, and relief of rates up to 2s. 6d. in the pound—to take away from the whole of London and Middlesex one of the best views within 20 miles of the Metropolis. They were also told that certain low-lying lands might be conceded to Richmond Corporation; but that was land on which, probably, dwelling-houses would not be allowed to be built. The London County Council, by the Bill of 1894, prevented low-lying lands of this description from being built upon; and, if the Corporation of Richmond attended to the sanitary interests of its locality, it would schedule this land and prevent buildings being erected upon it. The local authorities of Richmond and Ham should, he maintained, have sought to co-operate with the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council in bringing in a Public Bill to compensate the Dysart trustees for injury sustained by them, whilst, at the same time, maintaining the common and lammas rights, that ought to be inalienable, and which this district had enjoyed for generations. He objected to the Bill because it closed public footpaths. It enclosed land, at present unenclosed, which had been reclaimed from the river. This was given to Richmond Corporation as a concession. What was the concession? For the purposes of navigation and pleasure, the Thames Conservancy had been compelled to dredge the river at this particular point, and the sand and ballast that they had taken from the river had been dumped down on the banks. The Dysart trustees were so generous that they were prepared to give the Corporation of Richmond this sand and ballast. The fact was, they should be suspicious of this local authority having been squared by a contribution of £15,000 to concur in this Bill. But what Richmond and Ham got at the spigot, London lost in the beauty of the place at the bunghole. It might be convenient for Richmond and Ham to receive £15,000 for drains, schools, and other purposes; but he believed that if the London County Council, the Middlesex County Council and the City Corporation had been approached, they would have co-operated to buy out the Dysart trustees. As a London boy, who cherished Richmond Park, Petersham Meadows, Epping Forest, and many other parks and open spaces that had been preserved to the people of London by the Metropolitan Public Commons Act, he asked the House to recognise that this Bill was going to destroy the rural and picturesque appearance of the river between Richmond Bridge and Teddington Lock; and it was substituting for the picturesque rusticity of that spot, cheap-and-nasty houses. These houses were to be within 38 feet of the river, and that space was not to be occupied with a towing path, but by a macadamised road. If there was one thing which Morris or Ruskin would plead for in this stretch between Richmond and Teddington, it would be for the preservation of those apparently insignificant waste pieces of land, with a green fringe, that made the River Thames so beautiful at this spot. He hoped County Members would help London Members to retain this beauty-spot by voting against the Bill.

said, the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill had very properly taken the point of principle, but as the Debate proceeded they had condescended to matters of detail. The House would recognise that, constituted as it was, it could not settle such matters as the question of terms. That question could only be decided by a Committee after hearing evidence and, if necessary, examining the spot. Upon the question of principle he thought it was his duty, being partly responsible for the conduct of Private Bill legislation, to say a word. The hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill took the general principle that no Metropolitan commons had been enclosed since the passing of the Metropolitan Commons Act, and that the House by passing that Act had clearly shown the spirit in which it intended that these lands should be dealtwith. No donbt these lands were technically commons under the Metropolitan Commons Act, but they were not commons in the usual sense of the word. These lands were all market gardens.

No.

Does the hon. Member deny that?

Yes.

That shows the difficulty of discussing these matters in this House. In Committee the hon. Member could be cross-examined upon oath. [Laughter.]

I am prepared to take an oath now. [Laughter]

I am afraid I am not in a position to administer an oath to the hon. Gentleman. These lands were used as market gardens, and that if the hon. Member went on them he would be a trespasser. The number of persons who held lammas rights over these lands was very small, and he would point out what he considered a very grave danger in the interests of the public. Suppose the lord of the manor were to buy up these lammas rights. They were, he believed attached to particular tenements, and if the Dysart trustees purchased these tenements they would sink these rights in the freehold. Then what would become of the right of the public? It would be gone. The trustees would be able to enclose these lands without giving the public a single acre in exchange. With such a very small number of holders of common rights the rights of the public were in a very dangerous position. He was certain that if the Bill went to a Committee the rights of the public would be fully considered. On the other hand, he thought the public might be damnified if the House were to throw out the Bill, for the Dysart trustees, who were very rich, might then be induced to attempt to make terms with the few holders of these limited rights, and would then become absolute possessors of the land. He had given the matter his most careful consideration, and had come to the conclusion that neither the rights of the lammas holders nor the rights of the public were likely to suffer from a thorough investigation by a Committee, while an opposite result might be arrived at if the Bill was not read a second time.

said, that the case of the opponents of the Bill was that a principle of public law would be invaded by this Bill. Although it was perfectly true that a very small number of persons apparently had rights over these lammas lands, it was equally true that as long as one person would not sell his right over these lands or could not be found, the trustees could not build over them. As these 200 acres consisted of good building land, it might be taken that if the trustees had been able to buy up the rights of the persons referred to they would not have come to that House for a Bill of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] The London County Council and the Middlesex County Council had petitioned against the Bill in order that they might be represented before the Committee. The inquiry before the Committee would involve a very large expenditure, and hon. Members ought to be sure that no principle of public law was invaded by the Bill before they required the authorities to send money in opposing the Measure. The bargain embodied in the Bill was a thoroughly unfair one and was greatly to the advantage of the trustees. They were told that the towpath was merely a narrow strip of land, but there was a large space between it and the hedge over which a large number of people roamed. He was told that there was so much room between the towpath and the hedge that a legendary ghost chose it for his nightly walk [laughter], and yet by this Bill everybody, as well as the ghost, would be driven off the land. [Renewed laughter.] This was one of the finest walks in the neighbourhood of London, and it would be utterly destroyed if the Bill passed. ["Hear, hear!''] Ham Fields were 22 acres in extent and Petersham Fields were 170 or 180 acres, and, therefore, the proposed bargain would be most advantageous to the Dysart Trustees. The opponents of the Bill spoke as Londoners, and they said that the whole course of modern, legislation was based on the principle of preserving open spaces within a given area round London. In these circumstances, he hoped that the Bill would not be allowed to pass. ["Hear, hear."]

said that the House ought to emphasise the principle which was laid down in the Act which Parliament had passed some 30 years ago, which prohibited absolutely the enclosure of metropolitan commons. ["Hear, hear!"] The question, therefore, was, Did this Bill propose to decommon a metropolitan common? If it did, the promoters of the Measure were attempting by means of a private Bill to set aside public law. ["Hear, hear."] If the House came to the conclusion that this was a metropolitan common they must reject the Bill at this stage, and in that case he should feel himself compelled to vote against the Measure. He, however, would suggest that it should be an Instruction to the Committee to examine into the question whether the lands proposed to be dealt with by the Bill were common lands within the meaning of the Metropolitan Commons Act, and, if so, to strike out all the clauses applying to such lands. In the absence of such a proposal on the part of the promoters of the Measure, a strong prima facie case having been made out that the lands in question were common lands, he should be compelled to vote against the Bill. ["Hear, hear!'']

pointed out that it was practically admitted that this was a Metropolitan common, and the Legislature would stultify itself if it were to pass this Bill after having passed an amending Act for the express purpose of bringing lammas lands, such as those now proposed to be dealt with, under the operation of the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1866. In 1866 a definite proposal was made and carried through the House, which had been acted upon for 30 years, that the Commissioners should not entertain any application for the enclosure of metropolitan commons. It was perfectly clear that Parliament had laid down a definite course of policy for dealing with commons within the metropolitan area. Was it right, then, by private Bill, the discussions on which involved great expense and outlay to those who were willing to put forward public rights and defend them, to interfere with a public Act of Parliament? For these reasons, he submitted that it was right and necessary to pass the Resolution proposed from the other side of the House.

said, that the rejection of a Bill of this character at this stage was an extreme course, to which the House very rarely lent itself. The House had confidence in the competency and impartiality of its Committees upstairs, and it had, moreover, the safeguard of the Third Reading. If the Bill came down from the Committee in such a condition as was not generally satisfactory, it could be rejected at that final stage. Without referring to the details of the Bill, he would point out that there was nothing in it which precluded the scheme being made, in its passage through Committee, satisfactory to all parties, and the interests of the public, and if such a result could be secured, it would be a pity to throw away this chance of gaining it. The opposition to the Bill was founded on the general principle of the policy of the Act of 1866. It was quite true that that Act did prohibit the entertaining of an application for the in closure of any metropolitan common or any part of one; but it was well to remember the particular evils which had to be contended with at the time of the passing of that Act. In 1866, encroachments on metropolitan commons by builders, and their neglected condition as regarded drainage and their want of protection as open spaces for public use and enjoyment, were the special evils which called for remedy; and the vital principle of the Act of 1866 was declared to be the provision of machinery to call forth and organise local effort for the proper protection and management of commons. The interest of the locality was held to be the best guarantee for care and preservation of the commons; and as this Bill contained full provision for control by local authorities, he believed that it might be made to fulfil the purposes of the policy of the Act of 1866.

said, that although he had no authority to speak on behalf of the promoters, he believed that he was in a position to say that if this Bill were read a second time, they would agree to the Instruction to the Committee, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard. He therefore trusted the House would allow the Bill to be read a second time.

complained that the Government had taken a very inconvenient course. On February 18 they had introduced a Provisional Order Bill bearing exactly the same title. The effect of the introduction of this said Bill would be to involve the opponents of the Provisional Order in serious additional expenditure. Did the Government wish to embarrass the people of Armagh? He thought that the Government ought to have given some explanation of their action. The Bill emanated from the Local Government Board for Ireland, of which the Chief Secretary was the head, and its introduction was the act of the Government, and they were responsible. Why was this second Bill required? The first Bill failed to provide for the suitable representation of the people of Armagh in connection with the matters with which it dealt. Was it the object of this Bill to remedy that defect? There were in Armagh 7,500 inhabitants.

Order, order! The hon. Member cannot discuss the question of the representation of Armagh on the Motion for leave to introduce this Bill.

said that the Bill affected the urban sanitary authority of Armagh, and that the urban sanitary authority in that town was identical with the Corporation.

said that the hon. Gentleman was entirely out of order.

asked whether it would be possible afterwards, on other stages of the Bill, to discuss the point?

My ruling applies only to what is before me.

said in that case he would defer his observations until the Bill was before the House. At present he protested against the Government placing on the opponents of these Bills the additional expense involved under the Standing Orders in lodging a petition.

If the hon. Member had only ascertained the dates of these proceedings, he would have seen there was no ground for his complaint against the Government. The first Provisional Order was made on the 16th August 1895. A Bill to confirm it was introduced and ordered to be printed on the 8th February 1896. The second Provisional Order was not made till nearly a month afterwards, namely, the 3rd March 1896. It is difficult to see why the Government should be requested to anticipate the result of the initial proceedings m reference to the second General Order which has just begun, and delay the introduction of the Bill to confirm the first Provisional Order, until they had ended.

saw no reason why the two sets of Provisional Orders should not be introduced in one Measure. The Government surely knew that there was a likelihood of this second Provisional Order being necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government can give the House any information with regard to the trial at Zanzibar of Ali bin Abdullah, an influential Pemba Arab, who has been sentenced by the Judge of the British Court to seven years' imprisonment, a fine of 5,000 rupees, and subsequent deportation, for gross cruelty to his slaves?

Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General reported on the 26th of January, that Ali bin Abdullah had been arrested on an order of the Sultan, on a charge of gross cruelty to one of his slaves, and by arrangement with the Sultan was to be tried by Mr. Cracknall, Her Majesty's Consular Judge in Zanzibar, with two Arab Cadis as his Assessors. A report of the result of the trial has appeared in the Press, but the official account from Mr. Hardinge has not yet reached us.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the Government have any information as to the progress made by the Government of India in arranging that the Behar Opium Agency shall, as the Benares Agency already does, deal direct with the cultivators of opium instead of dealing through middlemen?

The latest report from the Board of Revenue, dated February 1896, shows that the plan of dealing direct with opium ryots is being tried this season, at the time of making payments, in selected sub-divisions of the Behar Opium Agency. As soon as experience has been gained of the new system, both by ryots and opium revenue officials, it can be introduced gradually into the whole Agency.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, with reference to the proposals recently submitted to the Treasury for the reorganisation of the Statistical Department of the Customs, and in respect of which an inquiry by a Committee was made, he can state how the question now stands, and when the decision of the Treasury will be communicated to the Commissioners of Customs?

Certain questions relating to the future organisation of the Statistical Department of the Board of Customs are now under consideration by the Board of Treasury, and a decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether His Excellency has received a copy of a resolution unanimously passed by the Mullingar Asylum Board, at a large meeting of governors on 4th April 1895, asking him to appoint Most Rev. Joseph Hoare, Bishop of Ardagh, a governor of the asylum, vice Most Rev. Dr. Woodlock, resigned; and, if so, why it is that His Excellency has refused to make the appointment; and will he now reconsider his decision and make the appointment; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds.

The resolution referred to was received by the late Lord Lieutenant, who undertook, in the event of a vacancy among the County Longford representatives on the Mullingar District Lunatic Asylum Board, that the recommendation made on behalf of the Most Rev. Bishop Hoare would have careful consideration. The present Lord Lieutenant will be happy to favourably consider the case when the opportunity indicated arises.

asked whether the opportunity for the appointment was not at the commencement of the year when the Board was reconstituted.

replied that that was not sufficient ground for removing a gentleman who occupied the position which the hon. Member wished to see occupied by the Bishop.

asked whether he was to understand that the Lord Lieutenant had decided not to appoint the Most Rev. Dr. Hoare to the Board of Asylum.

No, Sir, that would be very incorrect.

intimated that he would call attention to the matter on a future occasion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the rate for the smallest parcel conveyed by parcels post from England to the Continent, viz., for a three pound parcel, is considerably higher than the rate for the largest parcel, viz., an eleven pound parcel, conveyed between France, Germany, Austria, and Italy; whether France and Germany extend favours to each other in this matter which they have not hitherto extended to England; whether the charge of 10d. upon an eleven pound parcel, made by the English railways to the English Post Office, exceeds the whole postal rate from Berlin to Bordeaux, or Cologne to Buda Pesth; and, whether steps can be taken to remedy these disadvantages to English commerce?

The total charge on a three pound parcel sent from England to Germany is higher than the charge on an eleven pound parcel exchanged between France and Germany, or Germany and Austria. It is the same as the charge on an eleven pound parcel from France to Austria, and it is lower than the charge on such a parcel from Germany to Italy, which is 1s. 5d., and a delivery charge of 3½d. I am not aware that France and Germany make more favourable arrangements with each other than they do with this country. The total charge on a parcel from Berlin to Bordeaux is 1s. 1d., and from Cologne to Buda Pesth 8½d., including delivery in both cases. As I have already explained to the hon. Member, the disadvantages to which he refers are due to the geographical position of this country, which involves a charge for sea postage on parcels exchanged with the Continent, and to the statutory payments which have to be made to the railway companies on parcels conveyed within the country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has come to any decision with reference to the scheme prepared last year by the Admiralty Director of Works for the construction of a mercantile mole at Gibraltar, in compliance with the wishes of the Chamber of Commerce in that port?

The Government are considering ways and means for the construction of a new mercantile mole at Gibraltar, and I hope they will announce their decision very shortly.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cottages have been built up to the beginning of this year under the Labourers' Acts (Ireland) 1885–6, what is the average annual charge on the rates of the locality for each house, and whether he can see his way, by a simplification of the machinery of these Acts, to place their working on a more satisfactory economical footing?

The last annual Report of the Local Government Board shows that on March 31, 1895, 10,848 cottages had been provided under the Labourers' Acts, and that 802 others were in progress or contracted for. The next annual Report of the Board will bring this information down to the 31st instant, and they are unable at present to say precisely how many cottages had been built at the beginning of the year, but estimate the number at 11,500. The annual charge on the rates in respect of each cottage varies in different unions, having regard to the class of building provided, the rents charged, and the scarcity or otherwise of building materials. The general average cost of providing these cottages may, however, be taken at about £125 for each cottage, and the average rent charged is only about 1s. a week, or £2 12s. a year. The annual loss to the ratepayers during the term of a loan of £125 for 50 years (the maximum period) would be about £3 per house, without taking into account the cost of repairs, collecting the rents, insurance, taxes, arrears, &c. These form a considerable item, often exceeding the rents paid by the tenants, and the Local Government Board do not think it would be very wide of the mark to put down the average loss to the ratepayers at about £5 per cottage per annum. This loss to the ratepayers does not arise out of any defects in the machinery of the working of the Acts, which, no doubt, is cumbrous, but from the low rent charged as compared with the cost of construction and the necessary outgoings.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, both as regards the Metropolitan Police District and the rest of the county respectively, how many convicts liberated on licence are under obligation to report themselves, and how many actually report themselves; and, how many persons sentenced to a term of police supervision are now under obligation to report themselves, and how many of them actually report themselves?

It would take some time to collect the information which the hon. Member asks for. There would be no difficulty I think in giving a return, if the hon. Member moves for it, of the number of persons at large under police supervision, as licence-holders or supervisees, in each police district as on pages 190 to 193 of the criminal statistics for 1893, and the number of those who either are allowed to report themselves by letter or have had the obligation to report remitted. No useful results would, however, be obtained I think by attempting to compile returns of the number of those who report themselves or of those who omit to do so. If a person under police supervision fails to report, his arrest is at once attempted—if he cannot be found, it is impossible of course for the police to say that he is actually in the district and, therefore, to include him in the return.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to a lecture, delivered on Thursday, 5th March, at Coventry, in which the lecturer, Mr. Donald Stuart, described as late Captain 86th Regiment, who, condemned to imprisonment for three years in 1893, did seven months at Wormwood Scrubbs and the rest of the time at Parkhurst, alleged that murders and outrages, of which the outside world knows nothing, are frequently committed in prisons, and that prisoners are kicked and beaten in the most brutal fashion; and if the Secretary of State for the Home Department will cause an Inquiry to be made into these allegations?

My attention has been called by the hon. Member's Question to the report of a lecture delivered by this man. Inquiries are always made into charges of this kind if particulars are given. Without some particulars it is impossible, of course, to proceed very far, and the allegations made by Stuart were entirely general in character. It is only fair to the prison officials to add that it is not uncommon for prisoners and ex-prisoners to make charges of an atrocious character which investigation proves to be wholly without foundation.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been drawn to the increase in the number of carriages and equestrians during the last few weeks that frequent the road on the north side of the Serpentine, to the imminent danger of bicyclists, who have been granted the use of that road up to 12 o'clock; whether he will deem it advisable either to limit the number of carriages and equestrians, or exclude them altogether; and whether, in the event of that not being conceded, he will cause to be prepared and railed off a strip of Rotten Row for the use of bicyclists?

I am sorry to say that I cannot agree at present to any alteration of the arrangements for bicycling in the Parks. After I have seen their working during the summer months, I will consider the matter further in communication with H. R. H. the Ranger.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to amend the Elementary Education Act this Session, with the view of limiting and lessening the expenditure of the London School Board?

It is not proposed to deal exceptionally with the London School Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state the average rate of result fees per pupil earned in Cavan District No. 23 in the years 1885 and 1895, and the total result fees in same district and years; also the number of cases in which National School Teachers in this district have appealed to the Education Commissioners against the examination of their pupils in 1885 and 1895. And, whether, in the cases of such appeals results fees have been paid on the marking of the district inspector appealed against, or of the head inspector sent to examine the school; and, if on the former marking, why?

I have not yet received full information in reply to inquiries which I have made arising out of this Question, and must ask the hon. Member to repeat it tomorrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, having regard to the fact that the Government propose placing the new rifle in the hands of the Volunteers at an early date, they are prepared to undertake any consequent alteration in ranges; or, whether, failing that course, Commanding Officers of Volunteers would have power to borrow money for the construction or reconstruction of ranges and butts under the Bill entitled "a Bill to amend The Military Lands Act, 1892."

Commanding Officers of Volunteers have already power, under the Military Lands Act of 1892, to borrow, subject to the Secretary of State's sanction, for the purpose of acquiring land for ranges. The general question of ranges is one on which I hope to touch in introducing the Estimates.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Tipperary, Mr. T. J. CONDON, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the great inconvenience suffered by people of Cahir, Clonmel, and Carrick-on-Suir arising from the frequent and long delays in the arrival of the morning mails from Dublin. And whether he will inquire into the cause of the delay with the view to have this irregularity prevented in future?

The delays referred to by the hon. Member arise chiefly from the inability of the Water-ford and Limerick Railway Company to keep back the Waterford train at Limerick Junction when the mail from England is from storm or other cause late in arriving. The Post Office has communicated with the Railway Company on the subject, but owing to the line being single there is much difficulty in arranging for a detention of the Waterford Train at the Junction on the occasions in question. The matter will not, however be lost sight of. I must add I have answered almost the same question on February 28.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he can give an assurance that the rules contained in the Factory Act, by which the giving out of work in the shirt trade and similar industries is controlled, will not be relaxed; (2) whether he is aware that the relaxation would lead to the reintroduction of sweating in the trades referred to; and, (3) whether he will cause careful inquiry to be made into any petitions in favour of the relaxation of the rules which may have reached him, with a view to ascertaining how far they really represent the views of the actual workers in the trade?

I am unable at present to say more in answer to the hon. Member's Question than that the whole subject is engaging my consideration and that the inquiries suggested in the last paragraph of the Question are being made.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has received a memorial from the Moray Firth Fisheries Association, complaining that the service of sea police has proved inefficient for the purpose of suppressing beam trawling in the Moray Firth, and recommending the employment of two or three fast steamers, similar in build to trawlers, manned partly by local fishermen acquainted with the fishing grounds, and under the direct control of the Fishery Board; whether he has given consideration to the facts and arguments adduced in support of this recommendation by a body representing a large number of practical fishermen; and, whether he will state what objections, if any, there are to the course proposed?

The Secretary for Scotland has received the memorial referred to, but he cannot admit that the service of the sea police in the Moray Firth has proved inefficient. Through the co-operation of the Admiralty, gunboats have assisted in the suppression of trawling, and the Secretary for Scotland does not consider that the advantages of the proposal suggested in the memorial would be commensurate with the heavy additional outlay it would involve. Various suggestions have been received both from the memorialists and from other sources, all of which will continue to receive careful attention.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that illegal trawling is usually carried on with greater vigour on Sundays in the Moray Firth and around the Western Islands, and that the gunboats, to which the duty of protecting the line fishing industry is assigned, frequently remain in harbour on that day, arrangements will be made for these cruisers to exercise proper vigilance every day in the week?

Without admitting the assumptions of fact on which this Question is based, I may say that according to my information the attention of the Commanders of cruisers engaged in fishery superintendence has been specially directed to the fact that trawlers are addicted to Sunday fishing, and the Commander of H. M. S. Cockchafer has reported that, when the weather permits, he is at sea two Sundays out of three.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will furnish the names and addresses of the persons authorised to receive complaints of illegal trawling in the Moray Firth?

I shall be glad to furnish the hon. Member with the information he desires.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether any explanation can be afforded of the causes of the falling off in recruiting of 10,537 for the past three years, 1892–5.

The explanation is that more men were required to complete the establishment in 1892 than were wanted in 1895. In each year the establishment was completed, as many recruits being forthcoming as were required.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, if he will state the amount expended in recruiting in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland during the current financial year?

To the end of January the expenditure was £732 15s. 2d.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether attention has been directed to the high percentage of rejections of recruits who presented themselves in the past three years for medical examination; and whether in the year 1895, with 55,698 presenting themselves for medical examination and 22,839 rejected, only 29,059 is the total number of recruits who joined; and, whether the 3,800 recruits who passed the medical examination, and who did not join, were rejected for other, and, if so, for what reasons?

The figures quoted in the Question are accurate. The number of rejections is attributable to the care with which applicants for enlistment are examined. The 3,800 who passed the medical examination, but did not join, consisted of men who either failed to appear for attestation or were rejected by approving officers on grounds of unsatisfactory character, &c.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has any knowledge of the identity of the English Military Officers who are reported from Madrid as having volunteered their services to Spain in the event of possible hostilities between Spain and the United States of America; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent English Officers, Naval or Military, declaring or acting under similar circumstances against a friendly Power?

No such report has reached the War Office. Service under a foreign Government against a friendly Power would bring a British subject under the penalties laid down in the Foreign Enlistment Act.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the number of times the Scottish Fishery Board's cruiser New Vigilant has broken down since she was purchased, and the amount which has been expended on her repairs?

I am informed that the vessel referred to has never broken down since she was purchased, but on one occasion she sustained some damage during a storm. The sum expended on her in repairs since her purchase is £238.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, on completion of the works now in progress at Port Ness, the breakwater will be 240 feet in length as originally designed?

The original design was 250 feet which was finally reduced to 125 feet, because a substantial contractor could not be found to undertake the original design for the £15,000 granted for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is now in a position to state whether any steps have been taken to prosecute the owner or master of Trawler No. A 560 for trawling within the three-mile-limit off Wilkhaven, Tarbet, Ross-shire, on the 11th ultimo?

My answer to this is in the negative, the matter being under the consideration of the Crown Authorities.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the Command Paper, France, No. 1, 1896, containing the Treaties between France and China, signed at Peking on the 20th June 1895, will be circulated to Members?

It will be distributed this week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the recent advertisement in the London daily papers for clerks for employment in the Statistical Office, Custom House, at initial salaries of 30s. a week, whether, considering the fact that the initial salary of Second Division Clerks is only equivalent to 27s. a week, and that there are a number of such clerks at the present time awaiting employment at the Civil Service Commission, he can state the reason why the services of these Second Division Clerks are not utilised in the Statistical Office, and the corresponding saving of salary effected?

There are only eight unappointed Second Division Clerks, and all of these are already in Civil Service employment, mainly as temporary Copyists. Even had such clerks been available, their employment in the Statistical Office would have been open to considerable objection. The work of the Office requires some preliminary training, and to assign it to unappointed Second Division Clerks who are liable to be withdrawn at a week's notice would mean a continuous and inconvenient exchange of trained for untrained officers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the fact that the professional prospects of a great number of Majors in the Army are very seriously injured by the extension of the term of command beyond four years, now granted in many cases to Lieutenant Colonels commanding regiments and battalions, the Government have any intention of endeavouring to compensate for this injury by improving the conditions under which Majors can retire, as, for instance, by re-introducing the provision, recently abolished, by which a Major could retire on a pension of £300 a year after seven years' service in that rank?

It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to re-introduce the very expensive system under which Majors could retire, after seven years' service in the rank, on £300 a year. Promotion has hitherto been sufficiently maintained without it. It is not anticipated that the occasional extension of terms of regimental command will render it necessary to resort to any measure of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, (1) if the attention of the Government has been called to the empanelling of the Rev. A. N. Haire-Forster, J. P., as a grand juror at the present Monaghan Assizes; (2) is it legal for a clergyman in Holy Orders to be sworn a grand juror; and, (3) is it the case that, when some years ago the Rev. A. H. Packenham was summoned on the Antrim Grand Jury, the going Judge of Assizes refused to allow him to be sworn?

The answers to the first and second questions are in the affirmative. As to the third question it is the fact that the Rev. Mr. Packenham, on being sworn on the Antrim Grand Jury in the year 1860, was objected to, and then withdrew. But I have been unable to ascertain whether any decision was given on the question of qualification. I may mention that the Rev. Mr. Forster has not held any ecclesiastical office for a period of 12 years, and that he is a large landed proprietor.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what is the effective strength of horses on the British establishment of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery together at the present moment, and what were the corresponding numbers in 1876, 1877, 1878, and 1879?

The effective strength of horses on the British establishment of the Royal Horse Artillery and Royal Artillery together is at present 4,420. The corresponding numbers for the years in the question were—in 1876, 5,964; 1877, 5,950; 1878, 5,950; 1879, 5212. The Horse Artillery has been reduced in the interval since 1876 by seven batteries, and this accounts for 730 out of the total reduction. In 1879–80 a reduction of about 700 wagon horses was made in the field batteries. It may also be observed that there is now a reserve of horses which did not exist in the earlier years named.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a Resolution of the Belfast Grocers' and Spirit Dealers' Association complaining of the large increase in the assessments for Income Tax by the present surveyor of the city on small traders, and if a Return of the annual assessments from Belfast for the last five years can be granted?

My attention has not been called to the Resolution mentioned by the hon. Member. Individual assessments cannot of course be given, but there is no objection to stating the number of assessments and the total amount of profits assessed for each of the past five years, if the hon. Member desires it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why funds are no longer available to enable improvements to be made in the case of vested schools in Ireland; and will Parliament be asked to increase the provision?

The sum voted for this service for the current financial year has already been expended, and the Treasury, acting on the recommendation of the Irish Government, have agreed to ask Parliament to increase the provision in the coming financial year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether non-official members of postmasters' families, who reside in the post office, are required to make a declaration of secrecy; and, if not, what steps are taken to prevent them having access to letters and telegrams?

The declaration which persons in the employment of the General Post Office are required to make by law can hardly be described as a "declaration of secresy," but all persons dealing with letters and telegrams are required to make it. The sub-postmaster of every office is held responsible that no information shall be divulged and would be severely punished if it were divulged by members of his family or persons in his employment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the interests of national education, he will take steps to shorten the period of retirement, on full pension, of Irish teachers?

As at present advised, I am not prepared to take any further steps for the purpose indicated in the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether steps have been taken to place the Irish National Teachers' Pension Fund upon a solvent basis?

The steps taken to secure the solvency of the fund are still the subject of correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he can state for what reason the citizens of Sligo, charged at Sligo Assizes with obstructing the street preachers who came to cause disturbances in the streets of Sligo, have been refused the prompt and speedy trial to which they are entitled; (2) whether he is aware that Colonel Cooper, the foreman of the Sligo Grand Jury, protested against the withdrawal of the police from country stations to protect strangers who came to make a "bear garden" of the streets of Sligo; (3) if he will say to what town the venue is to be changed; and (4) will he explain the reason for the change?

The trials in these cases have been postponed in order to give an opportunity for an application to be made to the Queen's Bench Division to change the venue on the ground that owing to the local prejudice and excitement, and especially to the comments in the two local newspapers, the Sligo Champion and the Sligo Independent, a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained in the local venue. I believe the foreman of the Grand Jury did make use of language to the effect stated in the second paragraph, though I am unable to say whether he used the words quoted in this connection. The place to which the venue will be changed is a matter to be decided by the Court of Queen's Bench.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he will state whether the Estimates for the coming year of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, which include a sum of £3,500 towards the erection of the Flannan Islands Lighthouse, will receive the sanction of the Board of Trade in time for the work to be commenced early in the summer?

The Estimates of the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses will, I hope, receive the final consideration of the Board of Trade during the present month. I am not yet able to say what proposals for new works will be sanctioned, because it will be necessary carefully to consider all these with regard to the state of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the many competing claims upon it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, has his attention been drawn to a sentence of three years' penal servitude inflicted on two youths at the Westmeath October Sessions, for dropping a stone of about four ounces in weight from a bridge on a passing train; and, whether, as there was an entire absence of evidence that the act was committed with a malicious intent, he will have an Inquiry made into the case with the view to a reduction of the sentence?

It is the fact that at the Quarter Sessions held at Mullingar, in October last, two young men, aged about 21 years, were convicted and sentenced to a term of three years' penal servitude on a charge of having thrown a stone weighing about a pound at a passing train. A memorial praying for a remission of the sentence has been received from one of the prisoners within the past few days, and this memorial is at present under the consideration of the Lords Justices.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the letter of the Bishop of Galway and Kilmacdaugh, in the Freeman's Journal of the 9th inst., suggesting that the State will reconstitute the Queen's College at Galway on lines that will afford Catholics to enter without a strain of conscience: and, whether, considering the counties of Galway and Mayo, apart from the other western counties, have a population of considerably upwards of 400,000, he will so reconstitute the College as to enable the Catholics of Connaught to take advantage of the education facilities which the late Sir Robert Peel intended for them?

This Question raises an important issue which would require more consideration than I have yet had an opportunity of giving it before I should feel myself justified in offering an opinion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state why the hon. Member for North Kildare was not re-appointed this year as one of the governors of the county Carlow Asylum, which is the asylum for the counties of Carlow and Kildare: Whether he is aware that he has been for some years one of the governors of this institution, and that he was one of the most regular attendants at the meetings of the board of governors; and, whether, considering that he is one of the largest cess-payers in the county of Carlow, and is one of the Members of Parliament for the county of Kildare, he will consider the desirability of re-appointing him?

asked whether it was not a fact that the Member for South Belfast had not been re-appointed this year one of the governors of the Co. Down Asylum from which he was dismissed by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland?

The answer to the hon. Member for South Belfast is in the affirmative. Under a rule which has existed for some years, it is not the practice to select a Member of Parliament to be a representative of the Lord Lieutenant on a District Lunatic Asylum Board. His attendance in London in connection with his Parliamentary duties would, of necessity, interfere with his attendance at the Asylum Board meetings.

asked the right hon. gentleman whether it was not the fact that a vacancy at present existed, and how it was intended to fill it up.

I must ask for notice of that Question.

On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Petitions presented by the Irish, English, and Scotch light-keepers, whether he can state about what time he expects action will be taken in the matter; whether he can say when the Departmental Committee will be in a position to present its Report; and, if the Report will be circulated?

As a matter referred to in the question is one which has to be dealt with in the first instance by the different lighthouse authorities and not by the Board of Trade, I am not able to say when action is likely to be taken. I understand that the Committee will be in a position to make its report at an early date, but until that report is received I am not able to make any definite statement as to its circulation.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Galway, MR. D. SHEEHY, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the number of electors in North Galway exceeds by 325 the number of inhabited houses in the constituency according to the last census, while there are only 15 freeholders and leaseholders and rent-chargers on the register; whether he will inquire as to the causes of the extraordinary increase of the electors from the poor law and county officials responsible for the production of the lists; whether any other Irish constituency exhibits a corresponding increase in its electorate; and, whether, seeing that the addition of nearly 3,000 names from 1891 to 1895 adds to the amount of the candidate's security to the sheriff at a Parliamentary election from £400 to £700, strict inquiry will be made as to what officials are responsible for this addition to the electoral strength of the constituency in a county in which the population has been steadily decreasing in recent years?

It is necessary to make inquiries from the Clerks of several Poor Law Unions in the constituency referred to, and I do not think I shall be in a position to reply to the hon. Member's question until Monday next.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether Army Medical Officers after resigning on receipt of a gratuity are liable to be recalled to serve up to the age of 55; and, if so, will he explain on what grounds; whether Combatant Officers resigning on gratuity are also liable to be recalled up to the same age; and, will he explain on what grounds the names of Army Medical Officers appear on the Monthly Army List (Active List) mixed up with those drawing pension?

It is part of the contract under which officers serve and are paid that they should, if retiring on retired pay or gratuity, be liable to be recalled up to the age of 55 to serve in case of emergency. This applies to Combatant Officers unless they retire as lieutenants or captains, when the liability only extends to the age of 50 years, beyond which it is not considered that they would be efficient in those ranks. The names of medical officers on the retired list with liability to further service appear in the Army List after those on the Active List as a matter of convenience, because there are a number of home appointments for which such officers are eligible.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether any further cases of transit pneumonia have been reported as occurring in cattle imported from Canada and the United States; if the affection is clearly specific, or merely caused by hardship and exposure; and whether there is any infective power; and, if so, of what degree?

The cases to which I understand the hon. Member to refer are the cases in which contagious pleuro-pneumonia has been discovered in cattle brought from Canada and the United States. Of these, there have been, in all 88 cases—viz., 72 from the United States and 16 from Canada, since October 1892. The disease is undoubtedly a specific one and of an infectious character, but the degree of infectivity is relatively low.

asked whether it was a fact that the sanitary officers in the United States and also in Canada, had cast serious and grave doubts upon the infectious character of the disease?

said, he did not know whether the sanitary officers cast those doubts, but certain doubts were cast. The question was raised and it was proved conclusively in this country that the disease was infectious.

asked whether those doubts were not embodied in the very latest return issued by the Board of Agriculture?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state if constables on fixed point duty outside public-houses are expected to exercise supervision as regards the protection of property in the vicinity of their posts; and whether, in the event of the repeated destruction of property in the vicinity of such a post, some special protection can be afforded the owner of the injured property upon application at the nearest police station?

All constables on fixed point duty are instructed to render assistance in every case in which police duties and powers require them to act. In the event of destruction of property immediate attention would be paid to an application for protection on its being made at the nearest police station.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state why the Highland Railway Company have failed to construct Railways Nos. 2 and 5 (one of which is a railway of two miles only), as provided under the Highland Railway (New Lines) Act, 1890?

I have communicated with the Company, but have not yet received their reply.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether 50 German marines are engaged in surveying the harbour and island of Lapa, and in bringing the roads into good order; and whether the necessary soundings and surveys having already been made at Quemoy, an act of annexation is imminent?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to a report contained in a leading Berlin journal that the Chinese Government have ceded Lapa, therein referred to as a treaty port, to Germany; and whether he has any information on the point?

Her Majesty's Government have received no such information in regard to Lapa or Quemoy. They have, however, telegraphed to Peking to inquire.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, to what extent each of the four further Votes, in the Navy Supplementary Estimate, provides for "New Construction"?

The provision for New Construction under the several Votes is as follows, viz.:—

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is his intention to introduce legislation during the coming Session to alter the rate of interest charged on loans made by the Board of Works in Ireland to a sum more in proportion to the present market value of money, and to fix a rate of interest on these loans that will insure the Department against loss, but will not provide a large and substantial profit to the Government; if he will extend the provisions of such legislation to corporations and town commissioners, in order that they may be able to borrow money on such terms as would make it possible for them to build artisans' dwellings in Ireland, and let them at a reasonable rent; and, would he also state what are the various rates of interest charged to the different public bodies in Ireland?

The various rates of interest on loans advanced by the Board of Works in Ireland are given in Appendix E to the Board's 63rd Report, issued in 1895, to which I beg to refer the hon. Member. As I stated in reply to a Question put by the hon. Member for West Mayo on the 9th instant, any reduction in the present rate of interest on Government Loans would seriously endanger the solvency of the Local Loans Fund as at present constituted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, if he is aware that the extra officers of Her Majesty's Customs are in receipt of 21s. and 19s. only per week, and are liable to work 72 hours and 60 hours respectively, without any possibility of a rise in wages or pension on retirement; and, if so, whether he will advise Her Majesty's Government to grant these men a uniform wage of 24s. per week for 48 hours' work, and the same advantages both as regards sick pay and retiring pension as are now accorded to other servants doing similar work in Her Majesty's Customs?

Under the present system, some of the London extra men are ordinary casual labourers, paid 3s. 2d. a day when employed, but with no claim to continuous employment or retiring allowance. The others, who are classed as permanent labourers, are liable to employment from 8 to 4 in summer, and from 9 to 4 in winter. or longer if the public service requires. If their usual daily attendance exceeds the hours mentioned, they are paid 21s. a week; if not, 19s. They get a week's notice before their employment can be discontinued, and after sufficient length of service may receive retiring gratuities under certain conditions. The work is generally of a light character, not involving hard physical exertion. The whole subject is now under consideration in connection with the proposed establishment of a class of persons to be known as "Customs Watchers," consequent on the abolition of the grade of outdoor officers. The watchers are designed to take the inferior kinds of duty which now fall to outdoor officers, and which include, generally, duties on which extra men are employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether Sir Jacobus de Wet is absent from Pretoria, and has entrusted his responsibility for British interests, during his absence, to a Dutch gentleman who has taken the oath of allegiance to the Transvaal Government?

Sir Jacobus de Wet was granted a fortnight's leave of absence for reasons of health on February 18, and has now probably resumed his duties. During his temporary absence the High Commissioner arranged that those duties should be performed by Mr. Advocate Cloete, of Pretoria, a member of a highly respected Cape family, who have always been noted for their attachment to the British Crown, and some of whom have rendered distinguished services to Her Majesty and her predecessors. I am not aware whether Mr. Cloete has taken the oath of allegiance to the South African Republic, but, if he has, it is no bar to his temporary employment as our representative at Pretoria.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he intends to introduce into the coming Land Bill a purchase clause of a retrospective character, so as to ameliorate the condition of those tenants who, through stress of circumstances, were compelled to purchase at high prices, and who now find it very difficult to keep their engagements with the Land Commission?

The only answer I can give to this question is to say I cannot disclose the provisions of the coming Land Bill prior to its introduction.

On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, about what date he expects to have the proposed Irish Land Bill printed and ready for circulation?

The Bill will be circulated, following the usual course, when it has been introduced.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the Court Valuer who visited Lord Annaly's Co. Long-ford estate in January 1895, with a view to reporting on the proposal of the tenants to purchase their holdings at the following prices: under £10 valuation, 16 years' purchase; under £30 valuation, 17 years' purchase; and under £100 valuation, 18 years' purchase, has yet sent in his report to the Commission: and, if so, was it favourable to the sanctioning of the purchase, and what is the cause of delay in this case, which affects a large number of tenants?

In replying to a question addressed to me by the hon. Member on the 27th ultimo relating to this matter, I stated I would inquire whether anything could be done to expedite the proceedings. I have since been in communication with the Registrar of the Land Judges' Court, and have been informed that the solicitor having charge of the sale of the property hopes to be able, during the next sittings, to bring the proposal of the Land Commission before the Judge, and so to close the sales to the tenants. It is a fact that, to facilitate the preparation of the rental and the sale of the holdings, the Land Commission departed from their usual course and had the estate inspected prior to the preparation of the rental. As a rule, the Inspector's report of his inspection was favourable. I may add that, in a police report received by me this morning, it is stated that a number of purchases have been completed on this estate at Rathcline.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if Ireland's portion of the Budget surplus which was applied under the Education (Ireland) Act of 1892 to free education in the National schools, has been applied in such a way as to make all the schools really free; (2) has his attention been drawn to the fact that, while 10s. per pupil is paid in lieu of school fees for every child in average attendance at an ordinary English school, only 4s., or a little over, is paid for every child attending an Irish school, and that, while the average income of an English principal teacher is £137, that of an Irish principal teacher is only £97; (3) whether the salaries paid to the teachers of small schools in Ireland (previously paid from the ordinary Education Grant), the bonuses paid to certain assistant teachers, and other special payments, are made out of the Parliamentary School Grant under the Act, and is it the intention of the Government in the present Session to make these payments a charge on the ordinary Education Estimates, and pay the money now given for those purposes as an increased residual Capitation Grant; and, (4) what other steps do the Government intend to take to raise the incomes of Irish teachers to an equality with those of English teachers?

As to the first paragraph, the Act of 1892 provided that in any school receiving aid from the School Grant where the average rate of fees received in 1891 was in excess of 6s. for each child, fees may be charged, but so that the average rate of fees shall not exceed the amount of such excess. Thus, if 10s. was the average rate in 1891, fees may still be charged, but so that the average rate shall not exceed 4s. per pupil. About 1,000 schools are authorised to charge "excess fees" under the Act of 1892. In answer to the second part of the Question, I have to say that the School Grant for Ireland for the current financial year if distributed on the principle of capitation, as in England, would yield about 9s. 9d. per pupil. No proper comparison can be drawn between the incomes of teachers in England and Ireland, as 34 per cent. of the incomes of the former and only 7 per cent. of the latter are derivable from local sources, and the fixed salaries of Irish teachers vary according to their class. The public grants, moreover, are paid to Irish teachers individually and directly, whereas in England the funds are at the disposal of school managers. The answer to the third Question is that the salaries of the teachers of small schools are still paid from the ordinary Education Grant, the only change being that these schools share also in the benefits of the School Grant, which makes provision for bonuses to assistants quite independently of what is termed in the question "the ordinary Education Estimates."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the serious complaints frequently made about the inadequate hospital accommodation at Aldershot is receiving attention; and, if so, how; whether a hospital for infectious diseases has been built; and, whether any, and if so, what steps have been taken to provide a hospital for soldiers' families?

The subject of the hospital accommodation at Aldershot has been duly considered. In a few weeks 104 additional beds will be ready for occupation at the Cambridge Hospital. A hospital of 251 beds for the Marlborough lines is in course of erection. A hospital of 48 beds for infectious diseases—half for men, half for women and children—will be ready in the summer. A contract is about to be made for building a hospital of 50 beds for soldiers' wives and children. The plans of this hospital are completed. Half the accommodation will be for maternity cases.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the case of powers having been conferred upon an Urban District Council by an Order of the Local Government Board, under Section 33 of the Local Government Act, 1894, to appoint and revoke the appointment of assistant overseers, an existing assistant overseer in any such urban district who has been appointed by vestry and justices holds office on the same terms as before, his appointment being only revocable by the vestry?

The Local Government Act, 1894, by Section 33, provides that, in the case of a transfer of powers under that section, the Local Government Board shall make such provisions as may seem necessary and just for the preservation of the existing interests of paid officers; and it has been the practice, therefore, of the Board, when they have issued an Order conferring on an Urban District Council the powers of a Parish Council as to the appointment or revocation of the appointment of an Assistant Overseer, to provide that the Assistant Overseer in office at the date of the Order shall continue to hold office on the same terms as was previously the case. The appointments in such cases are only revocable by the vestry.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that in recent years some hundreds of British subjects have been engaged within the Sierra Leone and Gold Coast spheres of British Government (in many cases through the paid agency of a native of Sierra Leone, named Porter) under contract for service as labourers at Boma, in the Congo Free State, for a period of two years; (2) whether the labourers have been subsequently employed without their consent as soldiers, and, although British subjects, compelled by force to go on expeditions to distant parts of the Congo territory to be employed in war; (3) whether these men or many of them have been compelled to remain beyond their contracted period of service; (4) whether they have been subjected to most cruel floggings, and in some cases actually murdered by Belgian commissioned and non-commissioned officers; arid, (5) whether the engagement of these native subjects of Her Majesty has been made with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives in those colonies?

Her Majesty's Government is aware of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph; and complaints have been received of these British subjects having been employed without their consent as soldiers, and of their having been cruelly flogged, and in some cases shot; but not of their having been compelled to remain beyond their contracted term of service. They were engaged with the knowledge of Her Majesty's Representatives, and every possible precaution was taken in their interests; but, in consequence of the complaints received, the recruitment of labourers for the Congo in the British West African colonies has now been prohibited, and the attention of Vice-Consul Arthur, who has now reached his post, has been specially directed to the matter. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if an official Inquiry has been held into the case of the death of a man named Mahony, of 112, Brandon Street, Walworth, where the deceased was attended, as it is alleged, by an unqualified medical practitioner, and where the order for burial was granted by Coroner Wyatt, of Surrey; and, if the Home Office has come to any decision as to the necessity for holding an Inquiry?

An Inquiry into the case was made by the coroner, who was satisfied, as a result, that death was due to natural causes and that no inquest was necessary. I have obtained a full Report on the case and can discover no grounds for any action on my part.

On behalf of Mr. McCARTAN, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will state the amount recommended by the Board of Works as required to restore the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, and whether he will mention the amount proposed to be given by the Treasury toward this object?

The estimated amount required to restore the pier is £12,000 with a margin of £1,000 more for possible contingencies. The maximum amount which under certain conditions the Treasury might consent to provide would be £5, 000.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, (1) whether the hospital accommodation at Malta has been frequently complained of in consequence of certain sanitary defects;(2)whether, as in the last Report a considerable increase in the number of cases for hospital treatment is given, an Inquiry into alleged defects will be made;(3) whether the high ratio of cases invalided, 210·76 per 1,000, can be explained; and (4) what was the entire number of cases under treatment?

No complaints of the nature stated in paragraph 1 of the Question have been received, but it was decided in 1894 on general grounds that the sanitary arrangements of the hospital did not comply, in all respects, with modern requirements. Various works are being gradually carried out to meet this want, and they will be completed in the ensuing financial year. The increase in the number of cases for hospital treatment is due to the augmentation of the force on the station. It is desirable in the interest of the Service as well as beneficial for the individuals to invalid promptly from Malta to England, in order to faciliate speedy recovery and resumption, of duty. There were 1,448 cases under treatment in 1895. No Inquiry of the kind suggested appears necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been called to the case of No. 4,443, Private Benjamin Ball, aged 62 years, who served 9 years 262 days in the Rifle Brigade, of which he spent one month at Malta, 13 months in the Crimea, including siege of Sevastapol, and two-and-a-half years in British North America, being eventually discharged as unfit for further service, and only received 6d. a day for two-and-a-half years; that, having endeavoured to earn a livelihood since his discharge, he is now certified as being totally incapacitated from earning a livelihood, owing to chronic bronchitis and lung disease; and that he has been refused any compassionate allowance on the ground that he did not complete the necessary period of 10 years' service; whether it was through the exigencies of the Service and not his own fault that he did not do so; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of considering this and all such cases on their merits, irrespective of the length of service?

There has not been time since the hon. Member addressed his question to the War Office to ascertain the facts of Ball's case, but, assuming that they are as stated in the question, Ball is not entitled to a special campaign pension as he did not servo 10 years. One difficulty in the way of removing the 10 years' limit is that it would give rise to a heavy additional charge upon the non-effective Vote, it being estimated that there are still over 15,000 soldiers with Crimean service alive; to pension all of them would cause a charge of nearly £250,000 per annum.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Commissioner appointed by his predecessor to inquire into the circumstances of the death of Thomas Weir, a patient at the Holloway Sanatorium, whilst confined in a "dry pack," and to the opinions there in expressed and recommendations made as to certain features in the management of that institution, also to certain charges and allegations of other serious occurrences since at the same institution, and to the Report of Messrs. Bagot and Needham to their fellow Lunacy Commissioners in respect of their investigation into these occurrences; whether those making the charges and allegations had any notice of this inquiry, or were afforded by Messrs. Bagot and Needham any opportunity of in any way sustaining their statements; (2) whether the Lunacy Commission has come to any conclusion or taken any action on the report of their colleagues; and (3) whether, having regard to the state of things disclosed by the Report of the Commission of 20th April, 1895, and that of Messrs. Bagot and Needham of the 30th October, 1895, he proposes to take any steps with respect to the management of the Holloway Sanatorium?

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second is that the friends of the patients whose cases were inquired into by Messrs. Bagot and Needham received notice of the inquiry, and had the opportunity of attending either in person or by their legal representative. The report of Messrs. Needham and Bagot was adopted by the Lunacy Commissioners, and in the recent revision of the regulations of the Sanatorium they insisted on the insertion of a stricter definition of the duties of the medical staff, and of provisions to insure more careful personal supervision by the superintendent of the patients individually, and of their medical and other treatment. I believe that the recent investigations, and the steps which have been taken in consequence of them, will put the management of the Sanatorium on a more satisfactory footing.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what is the present number of midshipmen borne on the active list of the Royal Naval Reserves; whether that list is full; and whether there are any qualified candidates, and, if so, how many, waiting for appointment; and, whether, in considering applications for appointment as midshipman in the Reserve, any special consideration is given to those coming from sons of naval officers?

The present number of midshipmen on the list of the Royal Naval Reserve is 440. It is now full. There are 27 qualified candidates who have applied for appointment. The fact of a candidate being the son of a naval officer is, together with other points, considered, but the appointment must depend upon his general qualifications for a commission in the Royal Naval Reserve.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Patrick O'Neill, lately deported from London to the North Dublin Union; whether he is aware of the fact that this man, an artist and sculptor, was 43 years a ratepayer in London, and at one time paid rates in three different parishes; that, owing to ill-health and other circumstances, he was obliged to seek parish relief; and that he was forcibly sent to Dublin, and separated from some unfinished work and his tools, which if in his possession would enable him to resume employment; and, whether he will inquire into this case and bring about a change in the law regarding the deportation of those Irishmen and women who have spent their labour-lives in Great Britain?

I have made inquiries as to the case of Patrick O'Neill. I am informed by the Guardians of the parish of Camberwell, by whom he was removed to Ireland in December last, that for some years prior to August, 1894, he was continuously in and out of the workhouse, under the name of Joseph Jones, and that he again became chargeable in November, 1895. From a communication which I have received from the Lewisham Union, it appears that he was removed to Ireland by the Guardians of that Union in October last, and that the request that he might be removed to Ireland came from himself solely. He subsequently returned from Ireland to England, and it was on his return, when he became chargeable to the parish of Camberwell, that he was again removed. Prior to his removal by the Camberwell Guardians, inquiries were made at the addresses where it was stated that he had clothing and tools, but it was found that they were of little or no value, and that the persons holding them declined to give them up unless certain amounts owing, for which they were detained, were paid. Similar statements were made by the Guardians of the Lewisham Union as to the results of their inquiries with respect to the property alleged to belong to him. I have no confirmation of the statement of the man that he had been a ratepayer for 43 years in London, and at one time paid rates in three different parishes. As regards the question as to the law of removal, I cannot add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. Member on 25th February last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any steps are being taken to provide suitable buildings for the Royal College of Science and Art, Dublin, and to extend and promote technical training and education in Ireland up to the industrial and scientific requirements of the present day.

The first part of this Question should be addressed to the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and as to the latter part of the Question I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the similar inquiry he addressed to me on Friday last.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any attempt will be made during this Session of Parliament to provide a remedy obviating the discharging boys at 16 years of age from the Baltimore Industrial School; whether the suggestion of their detention until the age of 18 has been frequently and strongly advocated in the reports of the Inspector of Reformatories and Industrial Schools in Ireland; whether the practice of sending boys to learn practical work on the sea under 14 years of age has been found successful; and, whether the Government will undertake to provide some remedy dealing with the subject?

It is true that the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools has recommended the detention of boys who desire to follow a seafaring life until they reach the age of 18 years. No boys under the age of 14 are sent to sea in the fishing boats belonging to the School. Legislation would be required to extend the period of detention as proposed, and I am not able to give any undertaking to deal with the matter during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Standard of the 10th March, as to the case of Surgeon-Major Clarence Smith; whether the allegations contained in that statement with respect to the gravity of the offence charged against Surgeon-Major Smith, the action of the Government of Madras and of the late Secretary of State are correct; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission appointed by the late Secretary of State to investigate this case?

The offence for which Surgeon-Major Smith was required to retire from the service was more serious than would be gathered from the article alluded to, and there was on that point no difference of opinion whatever between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. A Commission had been appointed before I took office to inquire into the accuracy of the allegations made, and their Report was only received a short time back. The delay that thus occurred in settling the case resulted in a postponement of the date of the retirement of the officer in question, which secured him, according to the existing regulations, certain advantages in respect of pension. It would be contrary to the practice both of the War Office and of the India Office to make public any papers affecting the conduct of an officer upon which the Secretary of State has passed orders, and I am not prepared to depart from that practice in this case.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Board of Customs have had under consideration certain complaints made as to pay and hours of the extra men employed by the Department in the port of Liverpool; whether the proposed remedy of the entire abolition of casual employment has now received consideration; and, whether any new system has yet been decided on as to the carrying on of the work hitherto done by extra men?

The Board of Customs have not received any memorial from the Liverpool extra men as regards their pay and hours since I answered the hon. Member's Question of the 3rd September on the same subject. The Board are fully alive to the desirability of reducing casual employment to a minimum, but they do not think it possible to dispense altogether with it, or with the services of extra men. The question of the conditions of such service is, however, now to some extent under review in connection with a rearrangement of the junior class in the Outdoor Department, and any representations from the Liverpool casual extra men will be considered in the same connection.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, considering that the Second Reading of the Prison-made Goods Importation Bill is persistently opposed, and that under such circumstances there is no chance of its being passed into law without the assistance of the Government, he can see his way to promise any facilities for its discussion?

I do not see much chance of my being able to find time for this Bill, for at present I have not succeeded in finding time for the Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I may add that if the hon. Member in charge of the Bill had had the foresight to put it down on a certain Friday night, the Second Reading would now have been obtained.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that great interest is taken in this Bill in many parts of the country?

I am aware of that, and I hope great interest is also taken in those Bills mentioned in the Queen's Speech to which I have referred.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he will consider the advisability of making arrangements by which a fixed interval of one hour may be allowed for dinner?

If my memory serves me right, there was a proposal made by the late Mr. W. H. Smith to the effect that the House should sit every night till one, and that there should be an interval of one hour, between eight and nine for dinner. The dinner hour was given up and the House got to bed an hour earlier in exchange [cheers], and I cannot help thinking that if the same alternative were to be put forth now, the same decision would be arrived at. [Cheers.] At the same time, I am decidedly of opinion that the practice of counting the House during that time has been greatly abused, and, if I saw any means of putting an end to that abuse, I would gladly take advantage of it.

asked was not Mr. Smith's proposal abandoned out of consideration for new Members, and also whether there was any ground for the assumption that new Members were of a more modest and retiring disposition than the Gentlemen who sat in previous Parliaments? [Laughter.]

I suppose my hon. Friend alludes to the fact that the dinner time affords a suitable time for new Members to practise their oratory, and I imagine they are no less anxious to practise oratory in this than in previous Parliaments. [Laughter.] Though I should be sorry to confine them to the dinner hour, it would be very hard to deprive them of that time. [Laughter and "Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the statements in the Spanish press that, in the event of a war with the United States, resulting from a recognition by the latter Power of the Cuban insurgents as belligerents, Spain will fit out privateers to prey on the United States commerce; and has the Government taken into their consideration the fact that Spain, not being a party to the Declaration of Paris of 1856, which assumes to declare that privateering is abolished, would be within her rights in thus acting; and that Spain would be within her rights in capturing, whether by privateers or by men-of-war, all United States property found on the high seas under a neutral flag; whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the situation which would thus be created for Great Britain, which, by adhering to the Declaration of Paris, has waived her right to capture enemy's goods under the neutral flag when herself at war, while, when herself at peace, her own carrying trade would be so seriously interfered with in the case contemplated; and, whether, in view of the complications and injuries which would arise, either during a war between Spain and the United States, or between Great Britain and any other Power which has not acceded to the Declaration of Paris, Her Majesty's Government will submit to the consideration of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty, and will itself consider, the whole effects of the Declaration of Paris, and the advisability of exercising the right of Great Britain to withdraw from it by another Declaration.

I have no reason to question the view of international law expressed in the first paragraph by my hon. Friend, who has made a special study of this subject. In view, however, of the fact that no privateers have been used in any war since 1856, even by those Powers who did not accede to the Declaration of Paris, and in view of the fact that the doctrine that the neutral flag covers enemies' goods, except contraband of war, has received general acceptance of recent years, it may, perhaps, be doubted whether the Spanish Government would actually resort to such measures as are suggested. As to the last two paragraphs, while fully admitting that the eventuality mentioned by my hon. Friend may have an important bearing on the interests of neutrals, I do not think anything can be gained by an expression of opinion on the part of the Government regarding what is after all only a hypothetical case. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware of any more general acceptance of the principle than was involved in the Declaration of Paris itself, and, also, if he would reply to the suggestion contained in the last paragraph of the question.

I have given no further expression of opinion on the part of the Government except that this is a hypothetical case, on which a declaration of opinion at the present time would, perhaps, not be expedient. I have not failed to consult the authorities to which my hon. Friend refers, and I believe I am correct in saying there has been a general acceptance by all the Powers—though not embodied in a formal treaty—of the view that the neutral flag does cover enemies' goods, except contraband of war. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that admission has been refused to a committee of the Wembley Urban Council to a building called the Poplars, in their district, where a nuisance was believed to exist; (2) whether the Poplars is used as a laboratory for experimenting on animals, and, if so, for what kind of experiments; (3) whether in that case it is registered as required by the Act; and, (4) whether, as the local authority has been refused admission, he will see that it is properly inspected and controlled?

The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. The Poplars is duly registered under the Act, but hitherto it has been used exclusively for the production of anti-toxic remedies and testing their efficacy. Whether the processes carried on there are experiments within the meaning of the Act, is a difficult legal question which is engaging my consideration. The place has been visited by the inspector under the Act, who, on each occasion, found the premises in good order and the animals well cared for. He also has instructions to visit and report to me upon the place from time to time. I am informed that in refusing admission to the committee of the district council, the occupiers acted deliberately and under legal advice. This matter, however, does not appear to come within my jurisdiction under the Act, and I will refer it to the Local Government Board.

referring to a Motion standing in his name for a return giving a list of all the evicted tenants reinstated under the Evicted Tenants Act of last Session, and giving in reference to each case (a.) name of landlord and tenant, (b) name of county in which the farm was situated, and (c) terms on which the tenant had been reinstated, asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether a return could be granted in that form after the period for the Evicted Tenants Bill of last year had elapsed. The return was necessary for future discussion of the subject.