said, he had to bring before the House a matter he was very sorry to have to trouble the House with, but in the interests of his constituents, and in the interests of the Catholics of Derry and Belfast, he felt bound to state to the House the facts which concerned that Motion. The Belfast and Derry Corporation Bills, as the House would remember, were of a semi-political character. The Catholics of Derry and Belfast opposed these Bills on grounds which he did not, in any way, wish to repeat now. It was thought a hardship by the House that the Catholics of Derry and Belfast, in addition to the costs of promotion, of which they would have to bear their share as ratepayers, should also have to pay counsel to fight their case, which was really a semi-public case; and the Chief Secretary consented that the Committee should be made a hybrid Committee in order that two Irish Members familiar with the legal aspects of this question should be placed upon the Committee, who would be able to express the views of the Belfast and Derry Catholics without their having to go to the large expense of fighting this matter by counsel. It would then have been theoretically possible for the Liberal Party to insist on having one of the four Members nominated by the House to the hybrid Committee. He went, therefore, to the hon. Member for Merionethshire (Mr. T. E. Ellis), and he thought the hon. Member for Louth also spoke with the hon. Member. It was represented to him that if the Catholics' case was to be properly put forward, he (Mr. Knox) should not be left to fight the case as the only legal Member, that it was necessary to have on that Committee also a member of the Irish Bar, who should be familiar with the details of this question, and have practical experience of municipal law. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth having consented, somewhat unwillingly, to go on the Committee, the hon. Member for Merionethshire said that he would have no objection to waive the right of the Liberal Party to be represented on that Committee. He (Mr. Knox) imagined the thing was settled. Already the people of the two places were fully informed about the facts. In both Belfast and Derry there was a Committee elected by public meeting, presided over by the Bishop of the diocese, and fully representing the Catholics of Belfast and Derry respectively. These Committees had previously adopted resolutions asking that he, as the Member for Derry, and either the Member for Louth or the Member for Cork, who were perfectly familiar with the technical details of the question, should be placed on the Committee with him. Those resolutions, he was told, were communicated to the Whips of his own Party. He heard nothing more about what was going on until Tuesday last, when, to his great confusion, he saw upon the Notice Paper the Motion in the name of the hon. Baronet (Sir W. Walrond), which proposed that the name of the hon. Member for East Mayo should be placed on this Committee. The hon. Member for East Mayo, he had no doubt, would wish to serve on this Committee as a politician and an Irish Member from motives which they could quite understand. He did not wish to say anything which he could avoid. All he had to say about the hon. Member for East Mayo was that he was not a lawyer, that he was not familiar with these legal questions, and that he had no knowledge of Irish municipal law. For these reasons the hon. Member could not be expected, on that Committee, to express in the same way as one who had that knowledge the views of the Catholics of Derry and Belfast. It appeared that some information reached the people of Belfast on the Monday that the hon. Member for East Mayo was to be put upon this Committee. The people of Belfast immediately met, and they passed unanimously, as he was informed, a resolution praying that the hon. Member for Louth and himself should serve on this Committee on their behalf, and they did so for the express and very natural reason that they did not want to have to go to the great expense of raising money to appear before the Committee by counsel. The Catholics of Derry, when they had the information, immediately met under the presidency of the Administrator at a public meeting in St. Columb's Hall, Derry, and passed a resolution which he thought it his duty to bring before the House:—

"That, having regard to the complications and legal difficulties likely to arise in the discussion and amendment of the Derry Bill, it is impossible to dispense with an Irish lawyer acquainted with such matters either on the Committee or as counsel. That, as there are competent Irish lawyers in the Irish Party, it seems hard that we should he put to the expense of employing counsel in opposition to the Bill. That the local solicitor wire at once to Mr. Dillon and Mr. Ellis, and to his Parliamentary agents, representing these views. That the solicitor communicate to Mr. Knox these resolutions and urge upon him the importance of having us saved the expense of counsel."

He did not desire to blame the hon. Baronet for putting the Motion upon the Paper; but he thought it his duty to his constituents to bring the matter before the House. He had communicated with the hon. Member for East Mayo to try by every means in his power to induce him to withdraw his name, but he had absolutely refused to do so, and he had deliberately chosen to put this additional burden upon the Catholics of Derry and Belfast. In the case of the people of Derry this was particularly cruel, for they had every year to subscribe for political purposes more than the whole of Connaught. It was quite impossible for him to fight their case on the Committee single-handed against the leading lawyers of the Parliamentary Bar. He had mentioned to the hon. Member the name of Mr. T. Harrington, as well as that of Mr. T. M. Healy, as one who seemed to him (Mr. Knox) to meet all the requirements; but the hon. Member for East Mayo refused to allow his name to be added. He (Mr. Knox) admitted his powerlessness, but he felt it his duty to make his protest against this proposal. He felt it his duty to do so publicly, and to say that he would take no responsibility upon himself, under these circumstances, for the conduct of the case of the Catholics of Belfast. He would do his best, but he did not profess to be able alone to obtain the just rights of the Catholics and to save them from a very heavy expense. He begged to oppose the Motion. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, that so far as he was aware, the course pursued by the hon. Member for Derry City was a departure from the practice of the House. For his part, he did not believe the hon. Member had served the interests of the Catholics of Belfast or of Derry by the speech which he had just made. The hon. Member had adopted a very peculiar course. He belonged, or professed to belong, to a Party in that House, and so long as he belonged to any Party in the House, he was bound to observe the customs and traditions of that Party—[Nationalist cheers]—and so long as he professed before his constituents to support that Party, he ought to confine a discussion of the character which he had initiated there that day to the councils of that Party. What had been the course that had been adopted by the hon. Member? He did not communicate, as it was his duty to communicate, to him (Mr. Dillon) or to his colleagues in the Party any particular desire that he entertained as to the composition of this Committee. The hon. Member communicated with him on the morning he saw the notice placed in accordance with the usual custom on the Notice Paper. Yes, but the hon. Member had forgotten to say that his communication was of a threatening and extremely offensive character. The hon. Member announced that he intended to publish it in the newspapers. He (Mr. Dillon) did not think the House of Commons had any desire, more than was absolutely necessary, to go into this matter. What he complained of was that such a subject should have been inflicted on the House at all. The action of the hon. Member for Derry compelled him to do what he did with the greatest possible reluctance, and that was to state the facts connected with this matter, and also bring under the notice of the House a communication, he had received in connection with the appointment of this Committee, and which he thought constituted a breach of the privileges of the House. After reading the communication which he had received on the previous day he would state, for the information of the House, all the facts, so far as he was concerned, connected with the selection of the names on this Committee. The letter he had received was from a firm of solicitors in the city, who, as he understood, had charge of the opposition to the Bill, and who, as it appeared to him, had sought to manipulate a Committee of the House in the interests of their clients. The letter was as follows:—

"We have been instructed by our clients, the solicitors to the Derry Catholic Ratepayers' Association, to inform you that in order to avoid the expense of counsel, they consider that the presence of a competent Irish lawyer, such as Mr. T. M. Healy, on the Committee of the Derry and Belfast Bill is absolutely necessary. These instructions were telegraphed to us by our clients as soon as they heard that you had been nominated by Sir William Walrond to serve with Mr. Knox."

He submitted that it was a breach of the privileges of the House, for here they had a firm of solicitors seeking to manipulate a Committee, and to nominate Members on that Committee. It appeared to him to be an extraordinary proceeding. He did not, however, think he would be acting justly towards the firm if he were not to state that he received that day from them a letter, which he would describe as between an apology and an explanation, which he he would read:—

"We are sorry to learn that exception has been taken to our letter of yesterday's date. We certainly thought there could be no impropriety in our conveying to you the views of our clients, who represent the Catholics of Derry. We do not see that, acting on the instructions of our clients we have committed any impropriety. If we did so we sincerely regret it and hope you will pardon us."

He did not think that that letter removed the offence that had been committed by this firm of solicitors. He wished now to explain what occurred, so far as he was aware of it, in connection with the appointment of this Committee. It was agreed that the Bills should be referred to a hybrid Committee and four of the Members were to be nominated by the House. He could not accept the version given by the hon. Member for Derry City as to what had passed between him and the Chief Whip of the Liberal Party when this Committee was to be constructed. But he knew what had passed between himself and the Trish Party in reference to the matter. He was told, as one of the Whips of the Irish Party, to communicate with one of the Whips of the Opposition as to whether the latter would be willing to waive their right to a seat on the Committee and thereby allow the Irish Party to be represented by two of its Members, inasmuch as the matters to be dealt in were purely Irish. The Whip of the Opposition sent him a message to say that he was quite willing to do so, and it then remained in his hands, or in the hands of his Party, to nominate two names, and not in the hands of the hon. Member for North Derry. If the Member for Derry City had any particular views to bring forward it was his duty to bring those views to his knowledge, or to the knowledge of his colleagues. He abstained from doing so.

said he was informed and believed that the local people had brought their views, which were also his, before the Whip of the Party.

replied that no such information was brought before him. Acting, therefore, according to his best judgment, he suggested the names of the hon. Member for Derry City and himself, as chairman of the Party, because he thought the Bills were of extreme importance. The invariable practice was followed, any departure from which would involve the House in personal wrangles of the most disagreeable character. He had no notice of any objection to these nominations until the morning of last Tuesday, when he received from the hon. Member a threatening notice warning him that he would institute a personal wrangle in the House unless he withdrew his name. He had not the slightest objection to withdraw his name, but not either at the request of the hon. Member for Derry City nor at the invitation of the firm of solicitors who had charge of the opposition to the Bill. In the interests of decency and order, and for the sake of his Party, he extremely regretted that this discussion had been inaugurated on the floor of the House of Commons instead of in the ranks of the Party, where such a matter ought to be settled. He hoped this was the last time such a thing would occur. The hon. Member said that he was opposing the wishes of the Catholics of Belfast. Well, he was going to hold a public meeting in Belfast the week after next, and he invited the hon. Member to come down to Belfast—[cheers]—

I accept the invitation.

Upon that occasion, because the platform was a much more suitable place than this House to introduce these personal wrangles between Irishmen.

thought he ought to explain the part he had taken in this matter. He was invited in the usual way by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to nominate two Members on behalf of the Opposition. Very soon after receiving that intimation, he received from the hon. Member for Cork a request that, if possible, the Liberal Party should waive its right to nominate one Member upon the Committee on this Bill. Considering, first of all, that this Bill was of a purely Irish character, and, secondly, that, looking to the precedents, there was no probability of an Irish Member being put upon it by the Committee of Selection, he acquiesced in the request Subsequently to that, he had a conversation with the hon. Member for Derry and the hon. and learned Member for Louth upon the two points referred to. He intimated to them that it was not his duty at all to nominate any Irish Member, but simply and solely that of the hon. Member for Cork, who was the Whip of the Irish Party. After considerable delay, the two names of the hon. Member for East Mayo and the hon. and learned Member for Derry City were submitted to him. It was then his duty to hand those two names to his hon. Friend the Ministerial Whip. He handed them over on the day before the Recess; and he believed, in deference to the Irish Members themselves, he was willing to place the Motion on the Paper on a day on which it could be discussed. That was the only part he had in the matter.

said that, as the Whip of the Irish Party to whom the hon. Member for Merionethshire had just alluded, he desired to say that the hon. Gentleman had stated with absolute accuracy the part he (Captain Donelan) took in the matter. He might also state that no suggestion of any kind was received by him or any Whip of the Irish Party, either from Belfast or from any other part of Ireland, with reference to any objection there might be to any names in connection with this Committee.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has noticed, with regard to the completed evidence which has now been published by the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations with Ireland, that the only statement which the Commission has been able to furnish of the amount of the annual payments of taxation by Ireland, so far as derived from Customs and Excise Duties, is based on figures provided by carrying companies for a period of four months ending on the 31st March 1891, and that the estimate of Irish payments during the last 77 years, since the abolition of the Customs cordon, rests solely on this basis; and that, as regards; one important item (tobacco), the Treasury has, since that date, found reason to question the result of the four months inquiry; whether some 76 per cent. of the total Irish revenue is raised by such duties, while only some 53 per cent. of the British revenue is so raised; and whether, as it is most important that this House should have actual figures when it comes to deal with the grave questions raised by the Royal Commission, he is willing, by the re-establishment of the Customs cordon, or by some other equally effective Measure, to take such steps as may be necessary to ascertain more exactly what the annual amount of taxation raised from Ireland really is?

The Royal Commission has of course given full consideration to this subject, and it is open to them to make any recommendation upon it which they may think fit. In the absence of such a recommendation, I do not think I should be justified in taking such a step as is suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the great inconvenience arising from the want of adequate facilities for the stamping of documents at the Inland Revenue Offices at Glasgow, as set forth in the memorials sent to the Treasury by the Faculty of Procurators, the Chamber of Commerce, and the Stock Exchange of Glasgow; and whether he is prepared to remedy the grievances complained of?

I am afraid I cannot add anything to the answer I gave to a similar question on the 9th instant—namely, that the Memorials are being considered by the Board of Inland Revenue and that, when their Report is received, I will give the matter my careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, in the recent Afghan operations, an invasion has taken place of portions of the Bashgal Valley, formerly tributary to Chitral, and without the sphere of influence of the Ameer as settled by the Durand Treaty, they being also within the countries visited by Sir G. Robertson after the conclusion of that Treaty; and why the Agreement with the Amir of Afghanistan, dated 12th November 1893, published in The Standard, and in India in the Bombay Gazette of 21st March, and other papers, as laid before Parliament, has not been circulated to Members?

In the Durand Treaty it was originally proposed that the whole of the Arnawai or Bashgal Valley should remain within the sphere of influence of the Indian Government. When the delimitation began in the field it was found that the Bashgal and Arnawai Valleys ran in different directions, the Arnawai draining into the Kunar from the east, and the Bashgal river from the west. The frontier was, therefore, revised, and the revision placed within the sphere of influence of the Amir of the Bashgal Valley, which is west of the Kunar river, and over which the Mehtars of Chitral have claimed rights. This included part of the country visited by Sir G. Robertson in 1890 and 1891. The delay in circulating the papers which I laid on the Table on March 27 has been partly due to a misunderstanding, which I regret, and partly to the, Easter holiday. The final order to circulate was issued to the printers on Monday last, and the book will be in the hands of Members tomorrow, I believe.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Salford, as representing the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, on what grounds they have delayed, since November 1894, giving their sanction to the extension of the Church of St. Stephen, at Devon-port, considering that the Lord of the Manor had provided the site, and that the funds were in hand?

The delay referred to in this Question has not been caused by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. When application was made to them to accept a conveyance of the site, they instructed their solicitors at once to take the necessary steps for completion The draft was prepared and forwarded to Lord St. Levan's solicitors, who, after keeping it for a considerable time, have now returned it for engrossment, which will probably be completed in the course of a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, on 19th June 1893, in reply to a Question put by Mr. Bodkin, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland promised to have the case of Thomas Butler, formerly a policeman of County Cork, but who was discharged in consequence of gunshot injuries inflicted on him by a fellow constable, inquired into, with a view to increasing the pension of £10 18s. 4d. to £21; whether Dr. Gordon was sent to inquire into this man's case, and what was his report; and whether, in view of the fact that he suffers a good deal as a consequence of his injuries and has to be frequently medically treated, the Government will consent to the sum of £21 being allowed to him?

Inquiry was made into this case as promised by my predecessor, and the Surgeon of the Force visited and medically examined the man. The Surgeon's report is a confidential document, and its contents cannot be disclosed. Butler's case was brought by my predecessor under the consideration of the Treasury, who stated that the pension awarded to him was the highest they could properly sanction to a constable of his pay and service, and that they were unable to sanction any increase in the amount.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the light railway entered in the Annual Railway Returns of the Board of Trade as the Glyn Valley Tramway, is assessed to the railway passenger duty; and, if not, why not?

The Tramway in question is regarded for Revenue purposes as an ordinary road Tramway, and not as a Railway, and has not therefore been assessed to the Railway Passenger Duty. Carriage Licences are taken for the Cars which are used for the conveyance of passengers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed Bill to amend the Irish Education Act of 1892 will make provisions for extending the Act to the whole of Ireland, for enabling justices, as in England, to punish refractory children or to send incorrigible ones to a reformatory, and for defraying the whole cost incurred in carrying out the compulsory clauses out of the Imperial Treasury, and not, as at present, out of the local rates; and, if he can now state when he will be in a position to introduce the Bill.

Pressure of other business has caused delay in connection with the Irish Education Bill. I am unable at present to name a day on which the Bill will be introduced, but due notice will be given to hon. Members opposite.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) if any further steps can be taken to comply with the request of the London School Board for the expeditious hearing of summonses away from the existing police courts, and if he can see his way to further assistance being given by the justices of the peace; and (2) if such or similar requests have reached him from Macclesfield and other provincial boards?

As regards the first paragraph of the Question, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave last, month to the hon. Member for West Nottingham. The present arrangement, which I mentioned then, continues, I believe, to work well. As regards the second paragraph, complaints have reached me from Macclesfield and, perhaps, a dozen other places, that it is the practice at Petty Sessional Courts to hear School Board cases last in the order of business, although the defendants may have been notified to appear at the opening of the Court, and that, in consequence, they are often unnecessarily associated with persons charged with criminal offences. To remedy this, if possible, I have issued a circular letter to the magistrates of these places and other large towns, suggesting that arrangements should be made at their courts similar to those in force in the metropolis.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he has yet received the final decision of the Viceroy with regard to the deposition of the Maharaja of Jhalwar; what opportunity has been afforded to His Highness to defend him- self from the charges which have been brought against him; and, is he now able to lay upon the Table of the House any Papers or correspondence relating to this matter?

The Papers containing the decision of the Government of India have been received within the last few days at the India Office. The Maharaja Rana first gave his explanations to the Political Agent, was next invited to give them in December to the Governor General's Agent, was finally allowed to send them direct to the Viceroy, and was at every stage of the Inquiry invited to explain and defend himself. I am considering what Papers can be laid on the Table of the House in connection with this subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will supply, by Return or otherwise, complete information as to the treatment of habitual inebriates and the Curatel procedure in Austria?

Subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, I shall be very glad to lay upon the Table the information which we have received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna upon the subject to which my hon. Friend calls attention.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will introduce at an early date a Bill to carry out the Report from the Departmental Committee on the treatment of inebriates?

The Bill is in draft, but I am afraid I cannot say when I shall be able to introduce it. The establishment of inebriates' reformatories, and the detention in them for long periods of persons habitually convicted of drunkenness are, as the hon. Member is aware, an entirely new departure in our methods of dealing with crime, and the details of the Measure, especially from a financial point of view, require the most careful consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he has received a copy of a Resolution unanimously adopted at a meeting of the Oldcastle Board of Guardians at their meeting on 3rd February 1896, asking Her Majesty's Government to institute a Board of Agriculture for Ireland, with powers to deal with the various agricultural interests from which the majority of the Irish people derive their subsistence; and, what action will the Government take?

A copy of the Resolution referred to has been received. The intention of the Government to establish a Board of Agriculture in Ireland was announced in the Queen's Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament. The Bill on the subject is nearly ready, but whether it will be possible to introduce it in the present Session, must depend upon the state of Public Business.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will inquire whether James Henry, J.P., Draperstown, Derry, who got possession by decree, for a small debt in 1889, of the farm from which John M'Kenna and a helpless family of 11 children were evicted, redeemed the holding, as required by law, by the payment of arrears then due and demanded under a six months' notice served on him, when he got possession, by the Drapers' Company in March 1889, and which notice expired in September 1889; whether he is aware that the Drapers' Company decreed James Henry for rent due, evicted him in December 1889, and held possession of the farm themselves up to May 1890; whether he will give the names of the persons who had informed and satisfied the Land Commissioners that James Henry was a bonâ fide tenant when they gave him the public funds to purchase this land; was M'Kenna examined, or his claim inquired into, and was he given the option of purchasing by the Land Commissioners, and, if not, why; and whether, under all the circumstances, he will cause the Land Commission to re-open this case with the view of allowing the widow and orphans of M'Kenna to get back their farm?

The Land Commissioners have no information as to the dealings between the Drapers' Company and James Henry between the year 1889, when James Henry obtained possession under a decree as a mortgagee, and the 20th January 1891, the date of the Agreement for Sale by the Company to Mr. Henry. The affidavit to this Agreement stated that Mr. Henry had been in occupation since 1889. The Inspector, in his Report, dated 9th May 1891, stated that the tenant was in occupation and had acquired the holding as above stated in 1889. The basis of the proceedings under the Land Purchase Act is an agreement between landlord and tenant, and the Commissioners have no jurisdiction to give any other person the option to purchase a holding. No claim was made by John M'Kenna when the holding was inspected, and no proceedings were taken by him to have the Agreement for Sale set aside and, therefore, there were no proceedings in which he could have been examined. As already stated, the title of the purchaser has been registered under the local Registration of Title Act, and the Commissioners can take no steps to re-open the sale.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Constabulary authorities can state the number of licensed houses in Kanturk visited by Sergeant Sullivan, R.I.C., on Sunday 29th March and 5th April respectively, as also the number of visits paid to the houses; and were these visits made with the knowledge and sanction of the District Inspector and in connection with the Sunday Closing Act; and, if so, how many prosecutions were instituted and how many convictions obtained for breaches of the Act?

Eleven licensed houses were visited by the Sergeant named on the 29th March, and seventeen on the 5th April. The visits were not specially made by the directions of the District Inspector. It is part of the ordinary duty of the Sergeant to make such visits for the purpose of seeing that the Sunday Closing Act is enforced. There were no prosecutions arising out of his visits on the dates mentioned, but two prosecutions are pending for breaches of the Licensing Act on the 3rd instant.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the great amount of trouble and expense to which many parishes have recently been put by the fact that one man may demand a poll at parish meetings for the election to parish councils; and whether the Government will take steps to amend the Local Government Act 1893, so that no poll can be held unless at least five electors demand it?

I am quite alive to the inconvenience of the existing arrangement, whereby one man may demand a poll at parish meetings for the election to parish councils, and, without pledging myself to the precise number, I propose to alter the existing practice before the polls occur again in the direction suggested.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what are the duties of the Educational Inspector of Poor Law Schools, and to what extent he can communicate his views to the managers of the schools?

I am afraid my reply must be rather long. It is the duty of the school inspectors to examine the teachers and children in Poor Law Schools for the purpose of ascertaining the efficiency of the teachers, and of advising the Board what certificates should be granted to them, and what sums should be paid to the guardians in respect of their services, and of determining in what standards the children can be passed, and in what cases certificates of efficiency can be given. They have to report to the Board on the Schools as regards desks and furniture, books and apparatus, order and organisation, and the state of the school generally. They have to inquire and report as to industrial training of the children, the nature of the instruction, whether it is of a bonâ fide character, whether the children exhibit sufficient skill in. the subjects of instruction, the number of children, and whether any award is recommended to be paid to the guardians in respect of the instruction. The Inspector is also, in his Report, to make any observations or remarks he considers desirable on any of the matters which have come under his attention. The Board, in a letter addressed to School Inspectors in 1878, stated that it was of great importance that any recommendations by the Inspectors which might be brought under the notice of Boards of Guardians should be such as could be supported by the Board; and that all matters of importance which the Inspector considered required the attention of the guardians should, in the first instance, be communicated to the Board, and not directly to the guardians, by the Inspector.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether considerable numbers of children have been retained of late in several of the London workhouses for want of school accommodation and for other reasons; whether the arrangements made for the accommodation of those children are in many cases unsatisfactory; whether reports to that effect have been made by the Inspector and confirmed by the Inspector-General; and, why no change has been made?

The Local Government Board are aware that considerable numbers of children have been retained of late in London workhouses, and that the arrangements where they are so retained are not in all cases satisfactory. Questions as regards school accommodation for Poor Law children have necessarily been much in abeyance pending the inquiry of the Poor Law Schools Committee.

, on behalf of the hon. Member for South Kensington (Lord WARKWORTH): I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is a fact that owing to the system prevailing at the Local Government Board the Chief Inspector General of Poor Law Schools was not aware that children of nine years were being worked as half-timers, though Mr. Holgate, the Educational Inspector, had reported that he found children of nine working as much as ten hours a day?

The Assistant Secretary of the Board, who is also Chief General Inspector, would not be aware of cases where children were improperly dealt with as half-timers or working an unduly long number of hours, unless the facts were reported by the School Inspector. When the Board are informed of irregularities in this matter they would communicate with the guardians. I am not aware that Mr. Holgate, the Educational Inspector, has stated that he found children of nine years working the number of hours mentioned.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether any explanation can be given for the complaint made by Inspector Holgate before the Poor Law School Committee, that he had been for six years trying to get the Local Government Board to issue a new general order, defining what should be the limit of hours during which the children should be put to labour; and, whether the matter is still under consideration?

Mr. Holgate recommended the issue of an order which, among other matters, would have denned the hours of labour of children, and the question having been considered, an order was drafted. The draft was the subject of communication with the general inspectors and school inspectors of the Board. There were differences of opinion among the inspectors, and, subsequently, after some personal conferences, a new order was prepared, and was under consideration at the time of the appointment of the Poor Law Schools Committee. Subsequently, as it was probable that such matters as those with which it was intended that the order should deal would be considered by the Committee, the question of the issue of the order was deferred. Since the Report of the Committee has been made, directions have been given for the preparation of an order in connection with which regard will be had to the recommendation of the Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the recent remarks of London coroners with respect to the reckless riding of cyclists, and especially lady cyclists, in the crowded thoroughfares; whether he can state the number of authenticated fatal and of serious accidents to cyclists that have occurred in the streets of London during the first quarter of the present year; and, whether, for the protection of the cyclists themselves as well as to minimise as much as possible a growing public danger, he will consider the advisability either of limiting cyclists to the less crowded thorough fares, or subjecting them to more stringent regulations in the main arteries of traffic?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a large number of clerks, artisans, and others now used cycles to enable them to get home, and by the aid of which they were enabled to house their families in healthy neighbourhoods, away from the slums and crowded areas of large towns; and whether cyclists had not an equal right to the use of the streets with the more fortunate owners of carriages and pairs and of men who run coaches as a hobby? [Laughter.]

I have obtained a Return which has been prepared by the police after careful inquiry, showing the number of fatal and serious accidents which have occurred to cyclists in the police district during the first quarter of the year. The number of fatal accidents was three; of serious accidents, such as fracture of limb, concussion, internal injuries, 12; in two cases only were the persons injured women. There have been, besides, numerous cases of slight accidents in which persons have either gone to their homes or, if taken to the hospital, have not been detained there. Considering the great number of those who ride in the streets, I cannot say that these figures are high or call for any exceptional measures. At the same time, there can be no doubt there is a great deal of reckless riding; during the first quarter of the year 318 persons were summoned by the police for this and similar offences. I have no power, however, to limit cyclists to certain thoroughfares or to subject them to regulations not applicable to traffic generally; but the police do everything in their power to minimise risk. I think that possibly is an answer to the hon. Member who has put the supplementary Question. In only one case, so far as T have been able to ascertain, has a coroner recently made any remark on the subject of these accidents in the London streets.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether1 an index will in future be appended to each scheme published by the Education Department under the Intermediate Education (Wales) Act and the Endowed Schools Acts?

This Question is correctly addressed to the Charity Commission, as schemes under the Endowed School Acts, including the Welsh Act, are originally prepared in the Charity Commission Offices. As regards such of those schemes as have not yet been submitted to the Education Department, the Commissioners will undertake that they shall contain a table of contents, and, in; the case of schemes already submitted I to, but not yet published by, that Department will supply such a table of contents if requested to do so by the Department.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether his attention has been called to the utterly inadequate accommodation for Members of the House of Commons in the Peers' Chamber; whether he is aware that the space thus allotted to Members of Parliament, on occasions when an interesting Debate is in progress, is very largely encroached upon by others who are not Members of Parliament; whether he will state what persons have access to this space as a matter of right in addition to Members of Parliament; and, whether it would be possible to find room for them elsewhere?

asked whether, if any redistribution of the places available for visitors were effected in the House of Lords, the right hon. Gentleman would take care that members of the general public were given an opportunity of viewing the Chamber?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that in Colonial Legislatures the members of one Chamber were provided with seats when they were summoned to attend the other House, and whether he would consider the advisability of making similar provision for the accommodation in the House of Lords of Members of the House of Commons?

The matter is not one which comes under my jurisdiction, but by the courtesy of the Lord Great Chamberlain, I am permitted to state that the space at the disposal of Members of the House of Commons is limited to some 50 seats in the galleries, and to the space inside, and behind the Bar. The seats in the gallery, known as the Commons Gallery, are exclusively reserved for Members—while to the space at the Bar, younger sons of Peers as well as M.P.'s are admitted. I am informed that on the occasions alluded to more stringent regulations will be taken to keep the space at the Bar for the exclusive use of M.P.'s. I do not see where further accommodation can be found. I have no jurisdiction in this matter, but I will repeat what hon. Members have asked to the Lord Great Chamberlain.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government propose on an early date to continue and complete the Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington, and thus furnish suitable accommodation for the most valuable collections of their kind in Europe; and, if so, if he can see his way to proposing a Supplementary Estimate this year to commence this much needed work?

The question of continuing the Exhibition Buildings at South Kensington is receiving the attention of the Government. The existing plans having been prepared on the assumption that the buildings were required partly for the purposes of the secretariat may have to be reconsidered in connection with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education. Under these circumstances, I do not see my way to proposing a Supplementary Estimate this year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the action of the postal authorities of the United States of America in ordering that all newspaper matter for Great Britain, Ireland, and the Continent must be dispatched by the American line of steamers plying between New York and Southampton, except directed for transmission by a particular ship of the British lines, a condition requiring that every person posting in America should know the names and dates of sailings of every British vessel carrying mails to Great Britain and Ireland; whether he is also aware of the great delay and inconvenience that this arrangement will cause to the general public, and especially to all interested in newspaper enterprise in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Continent, by reason of the delay in delivery of newspapers; and whether he will make representations on these matters to the United States postal authorities with the view of cancelling this arrangement, or will he take any other action in the matter?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been directed to the delay in the delivery of American newspapers generally, but in particular to the residents of Ireland and North Britain; whether he is aware that all newspaper matter mailed in the United States will have to wait the weekly departure of the American Line steamer; whether the route viâ Queens-town, having been proved to be more expeditious for Ireland and North Britain, will this route in future be preferred to Southampton for those mails; and whether he can arrange that the American Post Office will allow the designation viâ Queenstown to suffice instead of naming the steamer as well?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Government of the United States have ordered that all newspaper matter posted in or through the United States is to be carried to Europe by one particular line of steamers which provides fast steamers only once a week; and whether Her Majesty's Government will indicate to the Government of the United States that such action causes great delay and inconvenience to the intercourse between the two countries?

I will answer the Questions of the hon. Member for Kilkenny, the St. Patrick's Division, Dublin, and the Kirkdale Division, Liverpool, together. The Postmaster General has already caused a communication to be addressed to the Postmaster General of the United States on the subject referred to, and he is now awaiting a reply. It should be borne in mind, however, that in common with all other postal Administrations of the Postal Union, the Post Office of the United States is at liberty to make its own arrangements for the transmission of correspondence from that country?

asked whether they were to understand that it was in the power of the American postal authorities to act according to their own views in this matter, and delay the correspondence coming to this country?

They have, I understand, done nothing which they have not power to do.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Department propose to remove more of the work from the Holy-head and Kingstown packet, at present performed by sorting clerks attached to the Dublin General Post Office; and, if! it can he stated why the provincial (Ireland) mails on Monday mornings, and the Sunday morning day mail to England, which is equally as heavy as on; ordinary week days, are now sorted on the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office?

The Department does contemplate providing for a transfer of some slight additional sorting duty from the Holyhead and Kingstown Packet to the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office, where it can be more conveniently performed, but details have not yet been settled. At present only a portion of the provincial correspondence for the Northern Division of Ireland, in addition to the Sunday morning mail to England, is sorted in the London and Holyhead Travelling Post Office on Sunday. The arrangement is adopted with the view of utilising the services of some officers of the Travelling Post Office who would otherwise not be fully employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, before the contract was made by the late Government for the mail packet service between Holyhead and Kingstown, the usual notices were given inviting tenders; and, if so, will he state the date on which the notices were given, and the date on which the tenders were to be sent in; or what, if any, steps were taken to secure an open competition for the contract; and, for how many years the contract was made, and what is the total amount that will be payable to the company under this contract?

A public notice inviting tenders for the conveyance of mails between Holyhead and Kingstown was extensively advertised in the principal London and provincial newspapers, as well as in Scotch and Irish newspapers, on the 7th and 9th of July 1894. The same advertisement also appeared in the Contract Journal of July 11, 1894. The last date for receiving tenders was August 31, 1894. The new contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company is for 20 years from April 1, 1897, and the total payment is £98,000 a year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will consider the desirability, in view of the revelations of money-lending transactions made recently in the Courts of Law, of introducing some legislation whereby the creditors of people engaged in small businesses may be protected from the actions of such lenders, by throwing the onus upon all lenders of sums above a specified rate of interest of proving the solvency of the borrower at the time of lending, their claim otherwise not to rank; and, whether he is aware that one Isaac Gordon, having lent the sum of £45, was repaid £108, and still claimed £41 from the borrower?

The particular case referred to has not been brought under my notice, but I am aware similar cases have recently occurred. I shall be glad to consider carefully the suggestion made in my hon. Friend's Question; but I would point out that it involves a partial re-introduction of the laws against usury, and would require very ample public discussion before any action could be taken upon it.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if he is aware that it is the practice of the Science and Art Department to refuse to consider the examination papers of science and art students on the ground of trivial irregularities in the conduct of the examinations by the local committee; whether, with a view to obviate the hardship to the examinees, he will consider the advisability of modifying the stringency of the regulations, to make them more in accord with the regulations which govern the Oxford and Cambridge and other local examinations; and, whether, in the case of the Alsager (Cheshire) Technical Education Classes, the Department is acting within its powers in refusing to allow an examination to proceed because of the strained relationship existing between the Department and the Secretary of the local committee?

The Science and Art Department refuse to recognise examinations at which irregularities have occurred, which make it doubtful if the examinations have been fairly conducted. The Committee of Council could not modify the stringency of their regulations as long as the examinations involve the grant of public money. The Alsager examination is proceeding.

asked whether the examinees, who took part in the examination referred to in his Question, were to suffer for what had occurred?

replied that the examinees would meet with no difficulty.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will make provision in the Clauses of the proposed Land Bill, having reference to the evicted tenants, that in all cases where it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Land Court that the houses of the evicted tenants had been wilfully burned down or thrown down by the landlord or his agents, that provision be made for their rebuilding from advances to be made out of the Irish Church funds.

As this Question obviously relates to the Clongorey Estate, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his promised intervention in the interest of a settlement of the dispute between the landlord and tenants on this estate has taken place, and if so, with what result?

My answer to the Question on the Paper is that I cannot undertake to make an exception to the general principle which I laid down in connection with this matter in my speech on the introduction of the Land Bill. With regard to the supplementary Question, the position is this: I stated in this House that I should be glad to co-operate in bringing about a settlement between landlord and tenants when I received an invitation from the parties to do so. I have not yet received any direct invitation to intervene, and, as I have said, I shall not take action in the matter until I have. But there may be some difficulty now in consequence of the fact that the six months for which the 13th Clause or Act of 1891 was re-enacted have now elapsed. Until the Land Bill is passed, with the provisions for re-enacting the clause for a further period, it is doubtful whether anything can be done in this matter at all.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that many of the demolished houses had been built by the tenants themselves, and that their erection had involved great toil and expense?

That may be so, but it cannot affect my answer.

In reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to his willingness to act in the character of a mediator in this matter, and with reference to the difficulty that has arisen owing to the lapse of the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891, I desire to ask him whether, in view of the introduction of his Land Bill containing provisions for the re-enactment of the Clause, and the probability of those provisions becoming law, he would take advantage of an opportunity of conducting negotiations for a settlement if such an opportunity should present itself, and not neglect it merely because the 13th Clause of the Act of 1891 has lapsed for the moment?

Of course I shall be glad to consider the advisability of doing as the hon. and learned Member desires, but my conduct must depend ultimately upon the passing of the Land Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the letter of the Local Government Board, dated the 20th March 1896, on the subject of Loans Labourers Acts, in which it is stated for the information of the several sanitary authorities that the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury have decided that loans for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts shall, in future, be granted on the same terms as those pre-scribed for loans under the Housing of the Working Classes Act 1890; and, whether that circular letter authorises the several sanitary authorities throughout Ireland borrowing money at this new and reduced scale of interest to pay off loans contracted for the same purpose under the old and higher scale, and thus very materially relieve the taxpayers of Ireland; and, if not, whether he would consider the advisability of taking steps to facilitate such an arrangements?

The Circular in question notifies to Rural Sanitary Authorities the terms on which future loans are granted for the purposes of the Labourers' Acts, but it does not authorise the borrowing of money at the reduced rate to pay off loans previously obtained.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether the recommendations contained in the Report by the Local Government Auditor, having reference to the accounts of the Carlow Grand Jury, which was read to the Grand Jury at its last meeting, have been carried out; and, if so, will he ascertain, what resolutions were adopted by the Grand Jury, carrying out those suggestions; and, if not, will he state what steps he intends taking in order to support or enforce that official's recommendations; and (2), whether it is a fact, as stated by the Auditor in his Report, that there were two or three instances of arrears being represented on the baronies at the summer assizes, when no arrears actually existed; and, if so, will he ascertain from the Auditor how much of those erroneous arrears had been illegally collected, and what he proposed doing with that amount?

The Secretary to the Grand Jury has been asked to state whether any action has been taken on the recommendations made by the Auditor, who it appears drew attention to the fact that arrears for two baronies had been incorrectly represented at summer assizes, and that in some baronies such arrears did not exist. I may add, in reference to the concluding sentence of the first paragraph, that the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction over Grand Juries, and that the Board have no power to take any steps to support or enforce the Auditor's recommendations.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the varied system of tabulating the arrests for drunkenness, by which the usual annual Return is prejudiced in value as an index of intemperance; whether his Department would consider whether by some general instructions from it the local authorities could be persuaded to adopt some common basis of tabulation; and, whether, failing any adequate results there from, he could suggest the issue of any other Return likely to be more accurate as an index of intemperance, such as the coroners' verdicts on persons found to have died of intemperance?

My attention has not been called to this matter, but I know that in the case of all Returns of this description there is great difficulty in securing their preparation on a uniform rule. If the hon. Member will inform the Home Office as to the points on which the preparation of the Return differs in different forces, instructions will be issued with a view to securing uniformity. The hon. Member will find that the number of verdicts of deaths from excessive drinking is given in the Coroners' Returns in the Judicial Statistics, but there is reason to think that coroners' juries vary much in giving this verdict, and that it cannot be regarded as an index to the amount of intemperance.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that his refusal to exempt the Derry shirt trade from the provisions of the Factory Act 1895, requiring no work to be given out to girls employed in a factory, has caused grave discontent in Derry, which threatens to dislocate the industry; and, whether, having regard to these facts, he will reconsider his decision?

asked whether the right hon. Member was aware that similar dissatisfaction was felt in the shirt and collar trade in Belfast?

I believe that certain representatives of the trade in Belfast desire that there should be some exemption. No, Sir, I am not aware that any discontent has been caused by my decision not to grant an exemption to the shirt and collar industry under Section 16 of the Act of 1895. No communications or complaints to that effect have reached me, nor have I seen any reason for reconsidering my decision?

:Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Derry Trades' Council have passed a unanimous resolution asking that no exemption shall be given?

Since I made my decision I have not received any representation whatever on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether Mr. Robertson has yet taken up his duties as Chairman of the Irish Board of Works; and, whether he has applied to be allowed to give evidence in favour of his former employers, the Great Northern Railway Company, against the Donegal Railway Bill, which is designed to extend the light railways built under Board of Works control when the First Lord of the Treasury was Chief Secretary; if so, whether such application will be granted?

Mr. Robertson's warrant of appointment was dated the 1st instant, and he has taken up his duties at the Board of Works. He has not applied to be allowed to give evidence for or against any Bill. I personally informed. Mr. Robertson that his appointment was deferred until he was able to give an assurance that he was under no obligation to the Great Northern Railway Company to give evidence. That assurance was accordingly given before the 1st instant, the date of his appointment.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the importation of swine from Derry to the port of Morecambe is prohibited; and, whether he will endeavour to have the prohibition removed now that there is no longer any swine fever in Derry or district.

With a view to guard against the introduction of swine fever into Lancashire, the local authority have made a regulation prohibiting the movement of swine into the administrative county, except for slaughter and under licence, but the regulation does not affect the through transit of swine to the districts of other local authorities under certain specified conditions. I should not feel justified in asking the local authority to remove restrictions which they consider necessary, and I think rightly, for the protection of their district, and which it is quite competent for them to impose.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether any reason exists for the retention of the plate licence other than that of its being a source of Revenue.

There exists a considerable difference of opinion on the subject of the plate licence amongst the various branches of the trade, and many of those who pay the licence are opposed to its removal, and that seems to me a reason against its removal. But in the course of the last few days I have received a large number of memorials in favour of the removal of this licence, many of them forwarded by Members of this House. I think there is some misapprehension on the subject, because those who have got up these memorials, which are drawn up on a printed form, evidently suppose that it has something to do with the Budget, whereas it has nothing whatever to do with the Budget. The proceeds of the licence are paid into the Local Taxation Account and distributed to the various local authorities, and I very much doubt whether the local authorities would like to see it abolished.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if, before coming to a final decision with regard to the site for the proposed Naval College, he will order and consider a Report on the suitability of the shores of Southampton Water and the Solent for such an institution?

The Admiralty have given consideration to the claims of the various sites, and they have decided upon Dartmouth.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he will take the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the legal rights, if any, of the clerks serving in Her Majesty's prisons, who paid an examination fee of £3 to be placed on such a scale of pay as will, with reasonable probability, insure their succeeding to a maximum salary of £400 to £450 per annum, in accordance with the terms of the Order in Council of 22nd March 1879, and The London Gazette Notice of 9th September 1879; whether it is obligatory upon the Treasury to approve or to allot such a number of positions in the Prison Department, with reasonable annual increments and without undue classifica- tion, as will give to every clerk who paid such examination fee a reasonable prospect of reaching a maximum salary of £400 to £450 before being compulsorily retired at 60 to 65 years of age; whether, in view of the number of such clerks now waiting for promotion at a salary of £150 after 15 years' service, any special claim for consideration or compensation existed in equity, annual increments of £10 for the next 25 years being necessary to enable them to reach £400 before retirement, even if immediately promoted; and, whether, in view of the great importance of the question, and in the event of the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown being considered unsatisfactory, the Treasury would sanction and bear the cost of a test action being brought in the High Courts on a point of law or the amount of compensation.

The Treasury do not consider that any point of law is involved, and they are not prepared to consult the Law Officers or to bear the cost of a test action in the High Court. T must repeat what was stated by my predecessor, on the 9th April 1895, namely:

"Candidates before 1891 paid a fee of £3 because there were posts in the Department of the maximum value of £400 and upwards to which they could be promoted without further certificate. This rule still holds good for such clerks. There has been no loss of prospects, and there can be no question of compensation. In 1891 the fee was reduced to £1, because clerks since appointed cannot be promoted to the higher posts without the issue of a fresh certificate and the payment of a fresh fee."

It is not obligatory on the Treasury to maintain or create posts with unnecessarily high pay for the benefit of any class of civil servant, and no prisons clerk enters the Service with a claim to rise to a salary of £450 a year before retirement, or to compensation if he fails to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received a statement from Mr. Walter Renton, of Bishop Monkton, near Ripon, to the effect that the Home Secretary has been wrongly informed as to what occurred at the recent burial of Mr. William Simpson in the churchyard of that parish, and stating that on the occasion in question, the gates which are usually opened for funerals were locked, and the funeral party had to enter at a gate which has not been used for any purpose since the last Nonconformist funeral eight years ago, and by steps which are old, dangerous, and overgrown with weeds and moss; and, whether he will make further inquiry into the facts?

I have received the statement, and see no reason to question the accuracy of the allegation that the gate through which the funeral had to enter, though formerly the principal entrance to the churchyard had not been used for some time. Under these circumstances, whether it can properly be described as the main entrance, is perhaps open to question. As I stated before, the matter is one in which I have no authority, and I cannot undertake to make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in the interests of the public and with a view to assist in the promotion of new railways, especially suburban lines, he would consider the advisability of proposing a material reduction in the amount of Parliamentary deposit on Railway Bills, especially as existing railway companies, if they paid a dividend at their last half-yearly meeting, are exempt from making any deposit when proposing any extension or a new line; and, whether he is aware that the promoters of an important suburban railway in 1894 were compelled, in accordance with Standing Orders, to deposit the large sum of about £100,000; and that the directors of the said railway were, in the Session of 1895, placed in the position of having two Bills before the House at the same time, one for abandonment, in order to satisfy the requirements of the bankers who advanced the money for the deposit, the other for additional powers?

The matter referred to in the hon. Member's Question, could only be dealt with by legislation, which should only be introduced after most careful inquiry. I cannot hold out any hopes that such legislation will be introduced. It is scarcely possible for me to deal within the limits of an answer to a Question with the last paragraph.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. HAVELOCK WILSON), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the accident which happened on board the steamship Westbury, in the North Sea, on the 5th March last, whereby the second engineer of the vessel lost his life; whether he is aware that the accident was caused in consequence of the vessel having a deck load of bale goods, which at the time of the accident was covered with tarpaulins, thus making it very dangerous for the crew getting from one end of the vessel to the other; and that after the second engineer fell overboard considerable delay took place in getting out the boat, in consequence of the bales of goods being stowed around and about the tackle of the boat; whether any Inquiry has been held into the cause of the loss of life of the engineer in question; and what powers, if any, have Board of Trade officers to prevent officers taking vessels to sea loaded with deck cargoes, and thus rendering it dangerous to the lives of those on board?

My attention has been called to the case of the Westbury, and a formal investigation has been held into the circumstances referred to in the Question. The Court of Inquiry found the master in default for not having fixed life lines or taken other precautions for the safety of his crew. He was severely censured, but, owing to what were regarded as extenuating circumstances, his certificate was not dealt with. The Court also found that the slight delay that occurred in getting the boat into the water did not contribute to the loss of the life of the second engineer. The Board of Trade have power, under Section 459, to order the detention of a ship unfit to proceed to sea without serious danger to human life by reason of overloading or improper loading.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland how long has Patrick M'Quaide, of Gola, county Monaghan, been confined in Dundalk Gaol for contempt of court by trespassing on his evicted farm; is he aware that the prisoner was committed to gaol for trespass without being heard, through having no means to pay his train fare from Monaghan to Dublin, and that he cannot make any application for his release, as he is entirely destitute of money to pay a solicitor; and will the Government convey him from Dundalk to Dublin to enable him to ask for his discharge; and, if not, will he state how this man can be released from custody?

M'Quaide was committed to gaol on the 30th of January last. I am aware that he did not appear in obedience to the summons served upon him to answer for his contempt of court, but am not aware of his reasons for not appearing or whether he is destitute. His proper course would appear to me to be to forward a memorial, in which he should endeavour to purge his contempt, either to the Receiver, or Chief Receiver, or the Judge who committed him. Should M'Quaide's presence in Dublin then become necessary the Government will convey him there.

May I ask whether under the present law a Judge of the High Court can keep a person in gaol for contempt of court for the term of his natural life?

Ordinarily speaking, when a person is committed for contempt of court, he remains in gaol until he has purged his contempt.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Crown has yet decided to institute proceedings against Patrick Keating, of Kylnoracy, Carrick-on-Suir, for carrying arms without a Magistrate's licence; whether the Excise Authorities have had their attention called by the police to the evidence given in the prosecution against him for shooting at a girl named Hannah Hickey on the 9th March last; and, whether it is the duty of the Inland Revenue to take steps to recover the penalty to which a person who carries a gun on the public road without an Excise licence is liable?

It has been decided not to institute proceedings against Keating for carrying a gun without having previously obtained a licence under the Peace Preservation Act, as he had been duly licensed to carry a revolver, and the Crown, moreover, were advised he kept the gun in ignorance of the requirements of the law. The matter has been brought under the notice of the Inland Revenue Authorities, but it is not known whether they will take proceedings against the man under the Gun Licence Act. The question of instituting proceedings under this latter Act rests entirely with the Inland Revenue.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the bye-laws published by the Inspectors of Irish fisheries which respectively prohibit fishing with nets of any kind in the non-tidal waters of the River Suir and prohibit fishing in its tidal waters with nets exceeding 40 yards in length, at present await the sanction of the Lord Lieutenant in Council; (2) whether he is aware that their enactment will deprive more than 100 families of their means of livelihood, and that the nets, the use of which is sought to be now prohibited, have been used from time immemorial in the non-tidal and tidal waters respectively, and without restriction as to length in the latter; and (3) whether steps will be taken to provide a less expensive appeal than that to the Lord Lieutenant in Council from the decision of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries in cases such as this?

The bye-law referred to will not, I am informed, be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant in Council for about a month, so as to afford all persons an opportunity of appeal. I have no information as to the second paragraph, but any representations in regard to the matter should be made to the Committee of the Privy Council on the hearing of the appeal. As regards the third paragraph, any alteration of the existing procedure would require legislation, and without expressing an opinion on the merits of the suggestion, I cannot hold out any hope of taking the matter up at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he has received from Mrs. J. C. Reynolds, of Paxford, an assurance, sustained by evidence, that on her being ejected from the churchyard of Blockley, Worcestershire, on the occasion of the burial of Mrs. Dark, she was told by the Vicar that he was acting in accordance with a rule which had been in force for some years, which rule, he has informed the Home Secretary does not exist, and, whether he has inquired, or will inquire more particularly into the circumstances of the case?

I have received further communications on this matter, both from Mrs. Reynolds and from the Vicar. These do not necessitate any modification of the answer I have already given, and I do not purpose making further inquiry in the case, which is one in which I have no authority whatever.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has not received a communication to the effect stated in the question?

I have received a communication from both sides, from Mrs. Reynolds, and from the Vicar, and they contradict each other.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has yet taken into consideration the petitions presented by the fishermen and other residents of the district of And-more, county Waterford; (2) whether he is aware that the late Mr. Villiers Stuart, of Dromana, as published in the Appendix to the second Report of the Royal Commission on Irish Public Works in 1888, mentions Ardmore as an admirable site for a breakwater, and points out the advantage it would confer on the fishing industry there, and the probable development of it; and that the evidence of Sir Robert Sandeman also emphasises the necessity of a small slip or breakwater at Ardmore; and (3) whether, in view of the evidence referred to, the Lord Lieutenant will make a favourable reply to the prayer of the petitioners.

The facts are as stated in the second paragraph, though it is to be observed that the Royal Commission in their Report did not accept the view of the late Mr. Stuart; at all events, they made no recommendation in favour of the scheme suggested. The Memorial in question has been received, but I must repeat what I have already stated, that there is no evidence before me to indicate that the work referred to has any special claim to Government assistance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that a considerable number of Army Reserve men and Army pensioners residing in the borough of Oldham have been recently deprived of a large portion of their quarterly pensions for borrowing small sums of money on the security of their pension certificates of identity; and, whether, seeing that by the Army Regulations, whilst the Army Reserve man forfeits £1 10s. for pledging his certificate, the Army pensioner if in receipt of £5 6s. 6d. a quarter forfeits the whole of such sum, although the offences are similar, he will reconsider the cases on being furnished with particulars, and consider the advisability of taking steps by which it may be made illegal to lend money on such certificates?

In the case referred to in the Question, a moneylender was found by the police to be in illegal possession of a number of certificates, and he was fined for the offence by the magistrates; 57 Reservists were each mulcted in a month's pay, viz., 15s. 6d., and 11 pensioners each lost a month's pension, averaging £1 7s. 9d.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can state the progress that has been made in the Costa Rica Packet Arbitration Case, and when he expects a final decision in the matter will be arrived at?

The British case was presented to the Arbitrator in November last. The Netherlands counter-case was presented last month, and is now being studied by the Governments and parties concerned with a view to such rejoinder as is contemplated by the Convention. The case is following its regular course, but it is impossible at present to say when a final decision will be reached.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Trade, whether he will consider the advisability of enabling Members of this House to obtain travelling concessions to attend to their legislative duties; whether he is aware that in many constitutionally governed countries the Members of the Legislature have free passes or lower fares upon the railways; and, whether this point will be considered in connection with the Budget, so as to give Members of this House equal facilities to those afforded in other nations?

I am aware that in some countries passes over railways are given to Members of the, Legislature, but I cannot hold out any hope to the hon. Member that the system is likely to be introduced in this country.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(l)whether, considering the number of seamen coming from the coasts of counties Down and Antrim, he will use his influence with the Admiralty to have a training ship placed in Belfast Lough; and, (2) whether he will state if it is the intention to continue to keep the Grampian industrial school ship in Belfast Lough?

As regards the first paragraph, I must refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to his previous question of Tuesday last. As to the second paragraph, I understand the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools has from time to time suggested the abolition of the Grampian training ship, and the transfer of the boys to a suitable house on shore, and that the Committee in October 1894, passed a resolution to the same effect. I am making inquiry as to how the matter stands precisely at present.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman declines to use his influence with the Admiralty in regard to the matter mentioned in the first paragraph?

I think the hon. Member will see, if he reflects upon it, that he can hardly ask me to use influence with the Admiralty with regard to a matter in which their decision has been more than once stated in this House.

You are responsible for the government of Ireland.

Is the right hon. gentleman aware that a home for the inmates of this ship has actually been provided?

I was not aware of the fact, but I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will agree to appoint a Select Committee of the House to consider the question of mail packet contracts for India, China, and Australia, and refer to it the tenders received in reply to the recent notices sent out calling for the same?

There are many objections to referring to a Select Committee of the House of Commons tenders received for a mail packet service, and the House has already a very large control over these contracts before they are concluded. An Inter-Departmental Committee, representing the Treasury, India and the Colonies and the Post Office, of which the right hon. Member for North Leeds is Chairman, has been appointed to make arrangements for the new contracts for the India, China and Australia Mail Services, and the tenders for these services, which have been recently invited, will be considered by that Committee when sent in. The hon. Member is of course aware that no mail packet contract is binding until it has been approved by a Resolution of the House, as I stated in the Debate on the Packet Service Vote in answer to the hon. Member himself on the 10th instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the great advantages derived by many persons suffering from bites of rabid dogs from the cures possessed by the McGowan family of county Cavan, he will direct the Auditor of the Local Government Board to pass as items of necessary public expenditure the fees paid for sending persons to these men to be treated and in every case cured?

I am not sure that the Local Government Board have any power to interfere with the discretion of their Auditor in reference to the course which should be taken by him in dealing with payments of this kind.

asked, whether it was the fact that 'many Conservative Boards of Guardians were in favour of giving this family payment for their work?

It may be so. The facts have not come before me.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman himself had power to interfere in the manner suggested?

No, I have not.

asked whether any other Member of the Government had such power?

replied in the negative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has yet been able to inquire into the case of Jones v. Aylward as promised, and what is the result of such inquiry; whether he is aware that the tenant is to be evicted by the reversioner, who refuses to be bound by the act of his predecessor, and whether the forces of the Crown will be used on that occasion and, whether he will see that the provision in the Land Bill making tenancies created by limited owners binding against reversioners is made applicable to this and other cases where ejectment proceedings have already been taken?

Further inquiries have been made in reference to this case, and I am informed that the reversioner obtained a decree for possession, but that execution was stayed to enable the tenant to appeal. The hearing of the appeal was fixed for to-day in the Court of Appeal. The Government has no discretionary power in the matter of giving the forces of the Crown in the execution of legal process.

asked whether the Government had power to stay proceedings in the matter?

No, I believe not.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he is aware that the Belgian Government is having swift steamships built to carry Belgian agricultural produce to the British market at nominal freights: And, in such case, what steps he proposes to take to prevent such foreign agricultural produce being conveyed to London at preferential rates over home produce?

I understand that the Belgian Government are making arrangements with the Société Cockerill for a service of cargo steamers between Ostend and the Thames. They are not to be large vessels, but of 600 to 700 tons, with a speed of 10 or 12 knots. There will be no subsidy.

asked whether he was right in thinking that, whilst there might be no actual subsidy given, the agreement included preferential rates over the Belgian State lines, which practically constituted a subsidy?

Yes, Sir; I believe that is true, and that very easy terms are afforded for through rates on the Belgian lines.

asked whether it was the case that these charges were practically subsidies which were granted by the Belgian Government in consequence of the fact that these vessels were built in Belgium and gained the shipping bounty?

We have no information of that kind, but if the hon. Gentleman will put a Question upon the Paper I will endeavour to answer it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, what opportunities are afforded to the men of the Royal Naval Reserve of loading and firing modern breech-loading guns; and, in the case that no such opportunities are afforded to those engaged at drill on board H.M.S. President, would it be possible to allow a fast gun vessel to embark Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve attached to the President at Blackwall occasionally in summer for practice at the mouth of the Thames?

Instruction in all the operations of loading modern breech-loading guns is given to Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve on board all the drill ships, and at 19 out of the 34 drill batteries, and modern breech-loading guns are being supplied to the remaining 15 batteries. It is not possible to fire the breech-loading guns from the drill ships, except in the case of the Medea and Medusa, which, being sea-going ships, have replaced the old drill ships at Southampton and North Shields. The extension of this system of training the Royal Naval Reserve in sea-going vessels, as in the case of the Medea and Medusta, is under consideration. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, (1) whether the version of the Durand Agreement with the Amir of Afghanistan, published in The Standard of 1st April 1896, and in other papers, is correct; if so, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been (tailed to the violation of the third article of that Agreement last November and December, when the Bashgal Valley was entered and taken possession of by Afghan troops, notwithstanding the stipulation that the Amir should not exercise interference therein: (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to secure the restitution of the territory thus improperly acquired, and such reparation as is now possible for the slaughter and enslavement of the many thousands of Kafirs in a district which was specially included within the British dominions; and (3) whether he will inform the House as to any action that has been taken by Her Majesty's Government on behalf of the people in those portions of Kafiristan which, by the Durand Agreement, have been assigned to the rule of the Amir?

My reply to the Question put by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean answers all the questions put by the hon. Member except the last. As regards the last, I stated, in reply to the hon. Member for Darlington, on the 23rd of March, that the Viceroy would use any favourable opportunity of exercising his good offices on behalf of the Amir's Kafir subjects, and he is prepared to do so; but, so far as I know, no such opportunity has yet occurred.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the amount to be paid by Mauritius towards the maintenance of a military force in that island has been settled; what is the amount; whether the amounts to be paid by Singapore and Hong Kong as their military contributions have been settled; and if he can state the amounts so to be paid annually by each of the colonies concerned?

The amount to be paid by the Straits Settlements and Hong Kong this year will be 685,000dls. and 388,000dls. respectively; the amount to be paid by Mauritius is not yet definitely settled. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he is aware that a telegram was received in Liverpool on Saturday last, 11th instant, to the effect that a large derelict scarcely showing itself is this evening reported 15 miles south-west Fastnet, in the direct line of route of Atlantic liners between Liverpool and the United States; and, whether, seeing that there are now three of Her Majesty's ships lying in Queenstown Harbour and Her Majesty's Flying Squadron at present in Berehaven, the Admiralty will telegraph instructions to have immediate search made for this dangerous derelict, whose exact position can be easily ascertained, and have it destroyed, thus affording Her Majesty's Navy a practical opportunity of gaining experience in the use of explosives and naval artillery, and at the same time rendering service to the mercantile marine?

The only intimation received by the Admiralty of a floating object in this locality is a report in the Shipping Gazette that "some wreckage" was seen on the 7th instant near the position named. It is impossible to say where it may be now, but it is very likely ashore on the southwest coast of Ireland. The Admiralty have only sent vessels to search when from several definite reports it is apparent that a derelict vessel of considerable size is remaining in the track of trade, but in this case these conditions are not present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether there is any objection to the employers and workpeople interested in the question of steaming in weaving sheds being represented at the Inquiry that has been ordered to be made by a committee of experts; and, whether the conduct of such Inquiry will be left entirely in the hands of the Committee making the same?

Assuming that representation by counsel, any suggestion for which would have to be carefully considered, is not what is intended by the Question, I see no objection to those interested in the Inquiry being represented at it. It is a matter, however, which, subject to what I have said, will be left entirely in the discretion of the Committee.

I have to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for not having given longer notice of this Question, but it is a matter of urgency that this scandalous transaction should at once be brought under the notice of the House. I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that two Protestant missionaries have been sent to prison for a week in Sligo for street preaching, two Protestant magistrates on the Bench dissenting to the decision of the six Roman Catholics, who formed the majority; and, whether the Government will take any action to secure the release of these prisoners?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question, he wished to ask him a Question of which he had given him private notice—namely, whether he was aware that on Friday last two of the preachers referred to arrived in Sligo from Dublin, and in company with about 50 police commenced to preach in front of the Town Hall in Sligo, thereby interfering with the free passage of persons desiring to enter and leave the Town Hall; whether he was aware that the librarian of the Free Public Library in the Town Hall and the caretaker of the Town Hall both swore at the trial that the action of the preachers occasioned obstruction to persons entering and leaving the Town Hall; whether the evidence was taken down in writing at the trial on Monday last; whether the right hon. Gentleman had read a copy of the evidence; whether he was aware that the District Inspector—

Order, order! The hon. Member is going beyond the limits of a Question. He is practically making a speech by simply prefacing each sentence with the words "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware."

said, that he desired to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in conclusion, why it was that the police on the occasion referred to did not carry out the provisions of the 14 and 15 Vict. c. 92 sect. 14 sub-sections 1 and 2?

The decision of the magistrates was that the defendants should pay a fine of ten shillings each, or in default to be imprisoned for seven days. They refused to pay the fine, and went to gaol. I have been informed that proceedings are about to be instituted by the defendants in the Superior Court to have the decision of the magistrates reviewed. The only way in which the Executive could interfere would be through the exercise of the prerogative of Mercy. At the present stage, and on the facts before me, that course would not appear to be desirable.

asked why it was that the police did not enforce the law upon that occasion?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware, in connection with the cases of obstruction in Ireland, that the constabulary—

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman, as I understand, has given an answer that the matter is under judicial inquiry, and that therefore the subject is not a proper one for discussion. That is a conclusive answer.

said, that he begged to give notice that he should call attention to the matter on the Irish Estimates to-morrow.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, if he will have electric lights placed in the Committee Rooms, as any fog may stop the proceedings of Committees at present?

Five Committee Rooms out of 23 are already furnished with electrical fittings. Preparations are now being made for providing the electric light in 10 others, eight of which will be completely fitted up at Whitsuntide. I may explain that, the darkness having come on so suddenly on Tuesday, the attendants, who had the usual oil lamps in readiness, were unable to place them at once in the considerable number of Committee Rooms which happened to be in use at the time.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, if it is intended that the Education Committee of a County Council, proposed to be established under the Education Bill, shall bring up its proceedings in full meeting of the County Council for the approval or otherwise of the latter?

The reports of the Education Committee to the County Council will be governed by the provisions of Section 82 (2) of the Local Government Act, 1888.

said, that the question that he asked was not based upon the wording of the Bill, but was as to the intentions of the Government which they desired to embody in the Bill. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman whether, on a subject of such extreme importance, he was not entitled to an answer.

said, that the intention of the Government was that the reports of the Committees should be regulated by the general law.

I beg to ask he Secretary of State for India, whether the district collectors of the Madras Presidency were opposed to the extension of the Village Service Act (which formerly applied only to Ryotwari villages) to Zemindari and Devastanam villages; and, if so, on what grounds; whether this extension of the Act was based on the assumption that certain abuses of power by village watchmen complained of by villagers in Tinnevelly were prevalent in Zemindari and Devastanam villages; whether, on the Madras Landholders' Association pointing out that no such abuses prevailed in Zemindari and Devastanam villages, the Madras Government withdrew from the statement of objects and reasons the allegation on which the extension was founded, and yet proceeded to make that extension; and, whether, in view of the extreme unpopularity of this extension amongst the Madras landholders, he will request the Madras Government to reconsider the matter?

The Madras Government report that the "district officers of Madras almost, if not quite, unanimously feel the absolute necessity of bringing the village servants in Zemindaris under control" in the way provided by the Act. They conjecture that the statement to the contrary refers to opinions recorded in 1871 –5 upon another proposal. Since 1882 the necessity of bringing village servants in Zemindaris under control has been under discussion; the necessity was held to be general and by no means confined to Tinnevelly villages. I do not find that the differences in wording between the "statement of objects and reasons" as first framed in February 1892, and the statement finally published with the Act, give support to the suggestion in the third clause of the Question. As at present advised I am not prepared to act upon the suggestion in the fourth clause of the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that the telephone service attached to the House was free to all the Members of the House from the year 1883 until Friday last, when the Post Office, having taken over the trunk lines, deprived Members of their privileges in connection therewith, he will explain on what grounds the London and suburban service of telephonic communication is still free, as it is at present?

There is no charge, as I understand, to Members of Parliament for the use of the London local lines, because they remain in the hands of the National Telephone Company, who, no doubt for good reasons, allow such messages to be sent free of charge by Members. The trunk wires are now in the hands of the Government; and, as I stated on the 14th instant, it is not in the power of the Post Office to allow Members of this House to use the telephone trunk wires free of charge; and, if it were, I see no reason why Members should have the privilege of using the telephone free of charge any more than they should use free of charge the Post Office or the Telegraph service.

asked whether the Post Office could not take over the trunk lines subject to existing arrangement, and whether the right hon. Gentleman did not consider that an arrangement drafted for 13 years, which would be greatly to the convenience of the Members of the House, came under that category?

No, Sir, I do not.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the boy James Morey is still in hospital at Maryborough Prison; and, if so, how long he has been there, and what is the present condition of his health?

The convict James Morey is still in hospital at Maryborough Prison. He has been in hospital since the 7th August 1894, except for a period of four weeks. A telegram was received from the Governor of the prison last night stating there has been no appreciable change for the worse in Morey's condition, and that his life is not at present in danger.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he is aware that the Relieving Officer of Carrickmacross Union reported to the guardians of that union, that a case in which he represented the guardians under the Public Health Act was dismissed by the Magistrates at Petty Sessions Carrickmacross, on 20th March 1896, on the ground that the guardians should be represented by a solicitor; will he state who was the Chairman on this occasion; and, if a solicitor is needed in such cases; and, if not, will he call the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the matter?

This Question was only placed on the Paper to-day and there has not been sufficient time to obtain a Report. Perhaps the hon. Member will repeat it to-morrow.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is now able to state what will be the constitution of and terms of reference to the Committee to be appointed on Old Age Pensions; and, whether the proceedings of and evidence taken before the Committee, as well as its Report, will be, laid upon the Table of the House?

was understood to say, that until some further progress was made it would be undesirable to make any statement.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether when selecting a Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon the undesirability of Members introducing, supporting, or voting upon Bills of companies of which they are directors, or in which they have a financial interest, he will take care that no Member selected to serve on such Committee is a director or shareholder in any public company?

I could not follow the suggestion of the hon. Member, because, in the first place, there is no means of inquiring as to the shares which the hon. Members have in public companies; and, in the second place, if it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to exclude from the Committee any Member of this House who may have a pecuniary interest in the Debates of the House, it is evident that we cannot stop at the shareholders in public companies, but we must exclude landowners and occupiers of land, publicans [ironical Opposition, cheers]——

And sinners. [Laughter.]

Certainly; and we must also exclude not only shareholders in railway companies, but those customers of the railways who desire by the action of this House to get their freights reduced.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, with a view to prevent the great waste of time and money arising from the abuse of the law relating to the trial of Election Petitions, he will consider the advisability of appointing a Select Committee to inquire into the question, or take such other steps, as he may deem necessary, for dealing with the same by early legislation?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the present condition of this matter is not satisfactory—["Hear, hear!"]—but it is too large a question for me to answer without much further consideration than I have been able to give it.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole licensing question, the Government would be disposed to introduce a Bill to suspend, pending the Report of the Royal Commission, the granting of new licences for the sale by retail of intoxicating liquors, similar to the Bill introduced by Mr. Bruce, which received the Royal Assent on the 17th of August 1871?

said that until the Royal Commission to inquire into the licensing question had reported it would not be politic on the part of the Government to introduce any legislation with regard to the liquor traffic.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury which of the Irish Votes would be taken on Friday, and in what order they would be taken?

said they would begin with the Irish Votes to-day in Class 2, and proceed in that order.

asked when the Irish Votes would be continued if they were not got through to-day?

I could not say as yet.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would say anything as to other business?

On Monday my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board will move the introduction of his Bill with regard to rating, which could not be moved until after the Chancellor of the Exchequer had made his statement. On Tuesday my present intention is to proceed with the Manœuvres Bill. In all probability Thursday will be devoted to the Budget.

asked whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs could give the House any information as to the accuracy of statements which appeared in the papers to the effect that Major Lothaire, the murderer of the Irishman Mr. Stokes, had been acquitted at Boma?