said, that the promoters had agreed with the Works Committee to set back the Strand frontage a distance of 25 feet for the whole length of the area proposed to be acquired. The consequence would be that the narrowest part of the Strand would be made a broad substantial thoroughfare with an average width of 80 feet. Of course, the Bill was in the interests of the hotel, but it was much more in the interests of the Strand. Of the 12 persons interested, the promoters had acquired the interests of seven; there were two who were not very anxious; there was one who would sell if he had the power to do so; and there was only one who actually opposed the Bill. This Bill would afford the opportunity for a decided improvement in a great thoroughfare.

said that the Bill proposed compulsorily to acquire the property of certain residents on a part of one side of the Strand. Before such powers were given by the House, it was necessary to see what advantage to the public would result. When the Bill first came under his notice he was very doubtful whether it ought to be read a Second time. The public benefit would be merely a widening of the Strand for a short distance by a few feet. But since the introduction of the Bill, an arrangement had been arrived at between the London County Council and the promoters by which the Strand was to be set back no less than 25 feet for a distance of about 80 feet, including the whole frontage opposite the new hotel. He would not now say whether that was a sufficient improvement, but it was sufficient to allow the House to read the Bill a Second time and send it to a Committee. The London County Council had petitioned against the Bill, and they would be competent to appear before the Committee to protect the rights of the public.

said that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the position. The County Council were now willing that the Bill should be proceeded with, though there were some points which would have to be considered by the Committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a notorious criminal named Charles Taylor, who on the 9th instant was convicted upon three indictments at the West Kent Quarter Sessions at Maid-stone, was subject to police supervision at the period when the offences were committed; when was Taylor last released from prison; how many times after his release did he report himself to the police, and what was the date of his last report prior to his arrest; and, what were the respective dates of the offences of which he was convicted at Maidstone?

At the time of committing the offences charged against him, Taylor was at liberty under the conditions of a licence granted to him under the Penal Servitude Acts. He was last released from Prison on the 28th March 1895, and reported himself to the Police on that day, and that day only. There were three indictments against him, one for house breaking on the 11th December 1895, one for larceny from a dwelling-house on the 1st January 1896, and one for resisting his lawful detention on the 28th January; the first of these only was gone into.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster of Tunbridge Wells was acting under official instructions in requiring candidates for appointment to sign a document expressing willingness to be transferred to another town should the exigencies of the service demand it?

The Postmaster was acting under official instructions in the matter. It is intended to employ a certain number of women at Tunbridge Wells instead of men as soon as suitable accommodation can be provided, and this arrangement renders it desirable that men now being appointed to existing vacancies should clearly understand that they can only be admitted on the condition referred to. The Postmaster General considers this arrangement a fair one in the interests of the men as well as of the Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has been the rule for clerks in post offices to refuse to give receipts for express letters and express parcels; and, whether any precaution is taken to guard against loss or theft of such letters or parcels, or to furnish the sender with means of proving that he dispatched the letter or parcel in case of loss or theft, with a view to the recovery of compensation?

It has not been the practice hitherto to give receipts for express letters any more than for other letters, and experience has shown that there is no demand on the part of the public for them. Such receipts are in fact not necessary, because the Post Office keeps an accurate record or way bill of every express letter at every stage, which in itself would be a proof, for all purposes of compensation, of the posting of the letter, and also affords a sufficient guard against theft, by fixing the responsibility for the articles conveyed upon the messenger performing the service.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, (1) whether it has been brought to his knowledge that a series of alarming burglaries were committed in Montrose between the month of November 1894 and March 1896, and that a prisoner named Hugh Macdonald pleaded guilty in the Sheriff Court at Forfar to eight charges; that the Sheriff in dealing with the case said that the charges were of such a serious nature that, in his opinion, he was deserving of a more heavy sentence than it was within his jurisdiction to impose, and accordingly remitted him to the High Court of Justiciary for sentence; that upon the case being called in the High Court, the Lord Justice Clerk said it would have been very difficult to have avoided sending the prisoner to penal servitude, but that nevertheless the Judge then and there dismissed him from the bar and granted him instant liberation, because, through the inadvertence of a clerk the plea of guilty, although written on a copy of the indictment, was not signed upon the principal document; (2) whether there was no method of correcting such a technical informality, and whether this burglar, guilty on his own confession, could have been detained till the clerk's blunder was remedied; and (3) whether steps will be taken to enable Judges in Scotland to correct mere technical errors or detain prisoners in custody till they are corrected?

The statements in the first paragraph are substantially correct. There was no method of remedying the mistake, which was not technical, but consisted in the omission of a statutory requirement; and the Court held they had no power to order the accused to be further detained. I am considering the propriety of proposing a remedy in the direction indicated. Meanwhile I am issuing a circular to prosecutors and sheriff clerks, and taking other steps which I hope will prevent the recurrence of this regrettable miscarriage of justice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that a boat master named Thomas Meany, in the employment of the Grand Canal Company, lost his life on the night of Friday the 10th instant at the twelfth lock on that canal, and that an inquest was held in the case; (2) whether he will state what was the verdict arrived at by the Coroner's jury, and why no public intimation was made of their decision; (3) whether he is aware that within the last few years material changes have been made in the construction of the boats used by this Company, and that since that date the number of accidents have been considerably increased; (4) whether he will ascertain whether night traffic is carried on by this company, and whether the locks are sufficiently lighted, having due regard to the safety of the men employed on night duty; also whether there is a man on duty and in charge of each lock during the night, or is the opening and closing of the lock gates left to the men who are in charge of the boats; (5) whether there is any limit to the number of hours of continuous work to be performed by men in charge of the boats; (6) whether the law provides for the inspection of the working and management of these canals, with a view to the protection of the lives of the men employed on this service; and, (7) whether any inspection or inquiry has ever been made out; and, if so, when?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. (2) The coroner's jury returned a verdict of accidental drowning. No reporter was present at the inquest, and hence, I presume, no public intimation of the case was given. (3) I believe the fact to be as stated in the first part of the third paragraph, but I am not in a position to say whether the changes referred to have resulted in an increase in the number of accidents. (4) Night traffic is continuous. The only lights used at the locks are the lamps used by the lock keepers. There is a lock keeper at each lock for duty both by day and night. It is his duty to open and close the gates, and the keys are in his custody. (5) The reply to the fifth paragraph, so far as I can ascertain, is in the negative. The matter appears to be one of contract between the canal company and the men. (6) I am informed that it is not the function of the Board of Trade to generally inspect the working and management of canals, and I do not think the law provides for any such inspection. (7) There has never been any inspection or inquiry in the case of the Grand Canal.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will ascertain whether Lieut.-Colonel John James Hardy Eustace, J. P., was awarded by the Grand Jury of the county of Carlow, at last Assizes, of which he himself was sworn in a member, the sum of £27, in compensation for malicious injury to a thatched cabin or hovel, the thatch and roof of which was burned on his property, the value of which, as fixed by the Government valuator and as stated in the official records in the office of the Grand Jury, was 5s., and on which the taxes due up to the last Assizes were paid by the landlord?

The facts are, I believe, substantially as stated, the rent of the cottage being, however, £1 5s. I informed the lion. Member on Tuesday last that Colonel Eustace, took no part in the deliberations of the Grand Jury when this case was under consideration, and that it was open to the hon. Member himself, or any other ratepayer, to have objected before the Judge of Assize to the amount of compensation awarded. But no such objection was, as a matter of fact, raised.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it would be possible to furnish a Return, showing to what extent, in the case of convictions and orders respectively, Courts of Summary Jurisdiction avail themselves of the power conferred upon them by Section 7 of The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, to allow time for the payment of the sum adjudged to be paid, to direct payment by instalments, or to take security for payment?

I have consulted the Chief Magistrate, but find that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to prepare the Return which the hon. Member asks for.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in view of the fact that in all memoranda of agreement between school managers and pupil teachers to be executed in accordance with Article 38 of the Code of Regulations for Day Schools for 1896, by which, in engagements which are to begin on or after the 1st July 1896, pupil teachers are not to serve in school for more than 20 hours in any one week, it is the intention of the Privy Council, or the Education Department, to issue instructions as to how the time thus placed at the disposal of pupil teachers is to be employed; if this time is to be devoted to the furtherance of their studies, whether managers will be instructed to arrange for definite instruction to be given to their pupil teachers during this time; and, as the Regulations of the Code will compel managers to engage additional teachers to supply the places of pupil teachers thus taken from teaching, what arrangements it is proposed to make to aid them in bearing the additional cost which will be thus incurred?

The Committee of Council do not propose to issue instructions regarding the employment of the time placed at the disposal of pupil teachers by the change in the Code. It may be devoted to study or to recreation, as circumstances may render it desirable. The change, which does not apply to pupil teachers engaged under previous Codes, will not necessarily involve additions to the staff. It is hoped that any difficulties will be met by a rearrangement of the time-table.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether the valuations of Government property, in London, and at Plymouth and Devonport, are made, as stated in the letter of the Treasury to the Local Government and Taxation Committee of the London County Council of the 22nd September 1893, under the authority of and in the manner prescribed by the Treasury Minute dated 27th June 1874 (Parliamentary Paper, 234), and are based on the principles laid down in the Memorandum on the subject which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer on the same day read in the House of Commons (Hansard's Debates, vol. 220, page 478); and, if not, then under what authority and in what manner, and based on what principles, are the valuations now made; and whether the contributions in substitution for the rate on the assessable value of the Citadel at Plymouth is a penny in the pound less than the rate levied on other assessable adjoining property, although the residents in the Citadel enjoy all the amenities derivable from local expenditure by the local authorities of Plymouth.

The valuations of Government Property in London and at Plymouth and Devonport were made under the authority of, and in the manner prescribed by, the Treasury Minute of 27th June 1874, and are based on the principles laid down in the memorandum on the subject read in the House of Commons on that day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Nearly the whole of the London valuations have recently been revised by the Treasury and the Assessment Committee of the Districts in which the Government Properties are situated. A revised valuation of the Government property in Plymouth was settled in December last jointly by the Treasury Valuer and the Assessment Committee's Valuer, and on the 13th December the Clerk to the Plymouth Guardians, who are the Assessment Authority for Plymouth, wrote to the Treasury respecting the new valuation as follows:—

"I am instructed by the Guardians to inform you that they consider it a fair and just valuation.

"The Urban Sanitary Authority concur in the proposals, which they consider not unreasonable, that as very little use is made of their sewers by the Government, the contribution to the General District Rate should be subject to a reduction of one penny in the pound on the rates of each year."

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk, as representing the Charity Commissioners, if he could state to the House upon what grounds the Charity Commissioners decline to sanction the handing over of the parochial charities of the village of Harleston, Northamptonshire, to the management of the parish council, seeing that the said charities appear to come under the terms of the Local Government Act 1894, Clause 14.

The only provisions of the Local Government Act 1894, which permit trustees of a parochial charity to hand over their trust to the management of the parish council are contained in Section 14, Sub-section 1. That subsection does not apply to all parochial charities, an Amendment designed to make it so apply having been rejected in this House. The Commissioners have decided that the sub-section deals only with cases in which trustees hold real property which is enjoyed in specie—i.e., as land or houses—by the inhabitants of a parish, and that it does not apply to cases like that at Harleston, in which the property is let and the benefit of the rents enjoyed by such inhabitants. Later sub-sections enable the parish council to obtain representation in the trusteeship of the latter class of parochial charities, but not to take over the management of the trust as a whole. The Commissioners therefore have no power to sanction the proposal of the Harleston trustees.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the death of a pauper named Richard Davey at the West Ham Union, at the inquest on whom the house surgeon of the West Ham Hospital stated that Davey's jaw was broken, and the dead man's brother stated that Davey had been buried without any notification of his death having been made to his relatives; and, whether the Local Government Board has made or intends to make an inquiry into the matter?

The attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the case referred to. The circumstances attending the death of the man were the subject of a prolonged inquiry by the coroner, and I am informed that the jury returned the verdict that the death was from peritonitis, and that they unanimously expressed their opinion that the officers used no more violence than was necessary to convey the deceased to the receiving wards. As regards the statement that the man had been buried without any notification of his death having been made to his relatives, the guardians inform me that when he was admitted to the workhouse in April of last year, he described himself as a widower, and gave the address of a brother residing at West Ham as his only relative. Immediately Davey was placed on the danger list by the medical officer, a messenger was dispatched to the address given with a message notifying the fact, when it was found the brother had removed to Worth Tawton, Devon, and a letter was immediately posted giving particulars of the death and date of the funeral. In the course of inquiries made by the police, it was ascertained that the deceased had a wife living at Leyton. The widow received notice at 11 a.m. on the 7th instant, the deceased being buried at 2.30 p.m. I have applied to the coroner for a copy of the depositions, and when they are received I will consider whether any further action on the part of the Local Government Board is required.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Art Library at South Kensington is in charge of the Keeper of the Art Library, or in charge of the Director of the Museum; who is responsible for its management and the appointment of its staff; and, whether, as a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Science and Art Department exercises any control over the Library and the appointment of its officials?

The Art Library is in charge of the keeper, who is responsible for its management to the Director of the Art Museum. The staff of the Museum below the rank of keeper and above that of attendant are appointed by open competition, and are allocated to the several divisions by the Directors The Secretary of the Science and Art Department exercises a general control over the Library, but he does not appoint its officials.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been directed to the recent decision of Mr. Plowden at the Marylebone Police Court with regard to an itinerant street musician; and, whether it is obligatory on the part of a householder to give his reasons to a street musician for requesting him to desist before he is able to make the musician go away?

The Question which the hon. Member puts to me is one as to the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and one, therefore, which the Courts alone are competent to decide. I understand that the learned magistrate has consented to state a case on the point for the opinion of the High Court.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to make considerable changes in the mess uniforms throughout the Army?

It is under consideration whether a reversion to the former more simple form of infantry mess jacket would not be desirable. If adopted, time to wear out jackets of the existing pattern would be allowed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) if he has received a memorial from the tenants of the Bath Estate, county Monaghan, who purchased their farms under the Ash-bourne Acts, for an extension of time in payment of their instalments from 49 to 75 years; and (2) whether he will grant the prayer of the memorialists before the next instalment day arrives?

Memorials have been received from the tenants on other properties in this county, but I do not appear to have received one from the Bath tenants. As to the second part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to the provisions of the Land Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention has been called to the text and terms of an alleged treaty between Russia and China, whereby the latter Power, in addition to granting commercial facilities to Russia, confers the right to use ports, recruit forces, build barracks and coal depôts, lay a branch line through Kirin and Manchuria to Talienwan, occupy and fortify various positions, including an island near Talienwan, establish depots for stores, and maintain garrisons in such positions; and whether he can give any information on the subject to the House?

Rumours of such an alleged treaty have appeared, and have been discussed in the newspapers; but Her Majesty's Government are in possession of no reliable information on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, although the Home Office has hitherto directed prosecutions in cases where shuttles are a source of danger, and has obtained convictions in each case where shuttle guards had not been provided, a decision has just been given by the Recorder of Blackburn which seems to throw doubt upon the law governing such cases; and, whether steps are being taken towards obtaining a reversal of this decision?

It is the case that the Recorder of Blackburn has recently quashed a conviction which was obtained against certain cotton manufacturers for neglecting to fence the shuttles in their looms. On the application of the counsel acting for the Home Office, the Recorder has consented to state a case for the decision of the High Court.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, whether he will consider the desirability of excluding from the bicycle track in Hyde Park, between the hours of 10 and 12 o'clock, carriages to which the entire of the park is open all day, and which are a source of inconvenience and danger to the bicyclists?

I have already explained, in reply to other hon. Members, that I was not prepared, as then advised, to exclude carriages from the road to which this Question refers. I am now, however, in communication with the Commissioner of Police and the legal advisers of the Government; and I hope next week to be in a position to state definitively what can be done to meet the wishes of hon. Members who are anxious to secure the greater safety of bicycle riders on the road in question.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to an inquest held before the Deputy Coroner for East London, on 7th April, on the body of the daughter of a printer, residing at 22, Mary Anne Street, St. George's, E., who was alleged to have died from the effects, direct or indirect, of vaccination; and, whether any Inquiry into the case has been made either by the Local Government Board, or on behalf of the Royal Commission on Vaccination?

Neither the Local Government Board nor the Royal Commission on Vaccination have received any information as to the case referred to. I have communicated with the Coroner requesting him to forward to the Board a copy of the depositions, and, as soon as they are received, I will consider whether an Inquiry in the case appears to be necessary.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to the memorandum in the Board of Trade Journal for April, by the Registrar General of Shipping and Seamen, dealing with the question of suicides in the engine-room staff of the Mercantile Marine, in which he says that suicides in the foreign-going vessels are prevalent to a degree calling for serious attention; and, whether he will order an Inquiry into the question with a view to the application of remedies?

The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the large number of suicides that have occurred among firemen and trimmers in the Mercantile Marine, and my right hon. Colleague has directed steps to be taken to elicit further information on the subject. When he is in possession of all the facts, he will further consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, considering the low rate of interest at which the Government can borrow money, he will reduce the rate of interest which Irish public boards are compelled to pay for money borrowed from the Board of Works?

I am afraid I have really nothing to add to my previous answers on the subject. As I informed the hon. and learned Member on the 9th March, in reply to his Question about the Westport Harbour Loan—

"Four per cent. is the lowest rate of interest which can be allowed for such loans in the absence of special legislation, and as the Local Loans Fund is at present constituted, any reduction in the present rate of interest would seriously endanger its solvency."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department—(1) whether it is part of the duties of an inspector of mines to inquire into the action of the safety lamp as a cause of miners' nystagmus; and, (2) whether it would be competent for an inspector to prohibit the use of any class of safety lamps, if it were proven that such lamp caused nystagmus?

The answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative; but I may add that Dr. Snell, of Sheffield, who has written a work on miners' nystagmus, and is still carrying on his investigations into its causes, is afforded such assistance as is in his power by the Inspector of the District. The conclusions so far obtained, point, I understand, to other causes than the use of safety lamps.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. WALLACE), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain on what grounds two Edinburgh telegraphists of the established staff, who were sent on special duty to Killin and South Queensferry respectively had their salaries stopped during the time they were away from headquarters, the allowances only being granted; and, if he will direct that the amount withheld in each case, along with the railway fare of the telegraphist sent to South Queensferry, be paid, and that all telegraphists sent on such duty be granted the allowance in addition to the salary, as has hitherto been the custom?

The two women telegraphists at Edinburgh referred to by the hon. Member, who were in receipt of wages of 12s. and 13s. 6d. a week, respectively, accepted employment, one on the 4th August 1894, and the other at the end of July 1895, on temporary relief duties at South Queensferry and Killin, at wages of 16s. and 20s. a week respectively. It was explained to them that their pay at the Edinburgh office would cease during the period they were so employed. As the higher wages were intended to cover any additional expenses for subsistence, it is not proposed to pay these officers their ordinary wages as well. Directions were, however, given in November last to apply at Edinburgh in future cases the arrangement in force at other offices, namely, to pay a subsistence allowance in addition to the ordinary wages. As regards the payment of railway faros, the Postmaster General is making inquiries and will communicate the result to the hon. Member when he has the necessary information.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether any change was made in the work allotted to John Daly, at present confined in Portland Prison, at the time immediately following his election as Member of Parliament for Limerick; and, whether during this week he was and subsequently has been employed in the class of menial work, on which only the lowest class of criminals are usually employed?

No, Sir, no change whatever has been made in the work assigned to John Daly since his election. He is required to take his turn with the other prisoners in his workshop in the performance of the duties to which the hon. Member alludes; but the practice is not a new one, and Daly has taken part in the work for years without any complaint. It is entirely a mistake to suppose that the work is usually given to any particular class of prisoners.

asked whether Jabez Balfour and his companions were required to perform the menial work which Daly had been made to do?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to the necessity for a graving dock at Belfast sufficient to admit battleships, whether, considering the amount of money expended by the Belfast Harbour Commissioners in making docks and harbour works at Belfast, and considering the convenience to the Navy to be able to have battleships repaired there, he will make inquiry as to the desirability of granting a subsidy towards making a sufficiently large graving dock at Belfast?

asked whether, before granting a subsidy towards the construction of a private dockyard at Belfast, the Admiralty would complete and equip the Government Dockyard at Haulbowline?

This Question is similar to one which was brought before the First Lord of the Admiralty last month by various hon. Members interested in the Clyde navigation. I must repeat the statement then made that the Admiralty have, as the House knows, extensive and costly plans in hand for the improvement of the docking accommodation of Her Majesty's ships, and that they are not prepared at present to take up the further large question of subsidising private docks in this country?

asked whether they were to understand that the Admiralty refused to spend in Belfast any of the millions they had obtained from the House?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that a very large number of documents enclosed in halfpenny wrappers are surcharged because they are said to contain communications in the nature of a letter; whether an order for goods fixing the date of delivery is passed, but an order stating "urgently wanted" is surcharged, and an order defining exactly what goods are required is passed, but if simply "as before" is said it is surcharged; and, whether the Postmaster General will endeavour to make some consistent regulations on the subject, and furnish the public with clear and definite information as to what is and what is not admissible?

The Postmaster General is aware that a number of documents enclosed in halfpenny wrappers are surcharged as containing communications of the nature of a letter, and that orders are among the documents so offending. Messages are often added in writing to orders for goods which constitute the documents letters, and render them liable to letter postage. The particular expressions "urgently wanted" or "as before" are not, strictly speaking, admissible. The regulations on pages 4 and 5 of the Post Office Guide are as clear and as definite as it is possible to make them, and it is from inattention to these that the documents are so drawn as to be inadmissible at the halfpenny rate. A line has, of course, to be drawn somewhere, and it is thought that already very large concessions have been made with respect to halfpenny postage.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, what is the estimate of the annual value, the rateable value, and the acreage of the agricultural land to which the relief proposed to be given by the Agricultural Land Rating Bill extends?

It is estimated that the rateable value of the agricultural land to which the Bill extends is £26,250,000. I presume that the annual value to which the right hon. Member alludes is the annual value referred to in Clause 9 of the Bill. I have not the same material for making an estimate of the annual value as I have in the case of rateable value, but I have no reason to suppose that there is any great difference between the annual value and the rateable value of agricultural land. The acreage of the land is estimated at 32,745,610, without including allotments and other holdings— the area of which does not exceed one acre—as to which no statistics are available.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would give similar information in respect to Scotland and Ireland?

I shall be happy to do so after notice.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that there is little difference between the annual value and the rateable value. Is it not a fact that a large reduction is always made on the annual value before the rateable value is arrived at?

I shall be very glad to give the right hon. Gentleman any further information that I can.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the total abolition of slavery throughout the province of Witu, as fixed by an agreement entered into at Jongeni, 18th March 1891, between Her Majesty's Consul and the Administrator of the British East Africa Company on the one part, of the Sultan and Chiefs of Witu on the other part, will take place finally and absolutely on 24th May 1896, the date specified in the agreement?

The position taken up by the late Government with regard to slavery in Witu is fully explained in the "Further Papers Relating to Witu" Africa No. 1, 1894, which were laid before the House in January 1894. In view of the state of affairs on the mainland, it is not at present possible to put into operation the comprehensive measures there foreshadowed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the sum of £7,600,000 has already been paid from postal revenue for interest on the £10,000,000 originally borrowed by the Government for the purchase of the telegraphs in 1870; and whether he can explain what measures are being taken to pay off the purchase money, and to relieve the telegraph service from the burden of the interest upon it?

NO sums have been paid out of either postal or telegraph revenue for interest on the stock created for the purchase of the telegraphs. That stock has been treated as part of the general debt of the country, and the interest is included in the provision made for the debt charge. In the years 1870 and 1871 stock amounting to £67,600 was purchased out of the surplus balance on telegraph revenue and cancelled; but, as there has been no surplus since that date, no measures, other than those applicable to the rest of the National Debt, are being taken to pay off the telegraph debt.

On be half of the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. WILLIAM REDMOND), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if the Post Office authorities will order a sub-post office to be established in the neighbourhood of Moy Lahinch, County Clare?

An application for a post office in the neighbourhood referred to is in the hands of the local surveyor for inquiry, and the hon. Member shall be informed as soon as a decision can be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if the Government purpose constructing a pier at Portaleen, Glen-gad, Malin; if this place has been examined lately by a Government official; and if he reported in favour of the erection of a pier there; and is he aware that this is one of the most frequented fishing ports in Donegal; and that the district about that of Glengad is one of the, if not the, most congested and poorest districts in Donegal?

With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. An inspector of the Congested Districts Board recently visited Portaleen with a view of furnishing a Report on the proposal made to the Board for the erection of a pier at that place. The Report of that officer is now before the Board, but it would be contrary to practice to disclose its contents.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the state of the existing law whereby railway companies are required to provide in Bills promoted by them for the height and width of bridges over roads in urban districts; and whether he will introduce a Bill amending the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, so as to provide that, in the construction of new railways through any urban district, the height of any bridge throughout shall be not less than 16 feet, and that the span of any such bridge shall be of the width provided in the byelaws of the urban sanitary authority for the construction of new streets within such district, and so as to provide also for the erection of proper screens hiding from view the traffic over such bridge, the prevention of the dripping of water therefrom, and the user thereof for advertising purposes?

The President of the Board of Trade is aware, of the provisions of the law and of the Standing Orders of this House. It is open to local authorities to press upon promoters and Parliamentary Committees their views upon the points referred to in the hon. Member's Question. At present there is nothing to show that this procedure fails to afford them adequate protection; consequently, there do not appear to be any grounds for proposing amendment of the law.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, (1) whether Her Majesty's Representatives in South Africa have received any complaint from the Matabele as to the treatment of Native women at the hands of the Chartered Company's servants; and, (2) whether any complaint has been made of the Company's servants enforcing a Law whereby they take over 10 per cent. of the cattle belonging to the Matabele?

The answer to the first part of the Question is that no such complaint has reached me. The answer to the second part of the Question is the same. I have stated, in answer to the hon. Member for Derby on February 13, what the law is as to the proprietorship of the Matabele cattle, and I may now add that I have directed that, as soon as. circumstances permit, an inquiry shall be made as to the manner in which the law has been administered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, having regard to the serious nature of the late explosion at Brancepeth Colliery, in the county of Durham, he will appoint some one to represent the Home Office at the adjourned inquest on the 12th of May?

Yes, Sir, I have decided to appoint counsel to represent the Home Office at the inquest.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he can state when the Royal Commission on Vaccination is likely to make a Report?

I can add nothing to the reply which, during the Session, I have frequently given in the House. I have communicated with the Commission, and am informed that they are considering their Report, and that it will shortly be presented.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any Dispatches or telegrams relating to the occupation of Chitral have been sent by the Secretary of State to the Government of India since the Dispatch of the Secretary of State of the 16th of August 1895; and if there have been any such Dispatches or telegrams, will he inform the House why they have been omitted from the Correspondence recently presented to Parliament?

No telegrams or Dispatches, except those relating to details of unimportance, have been sent to the Government of India since August 16th on the subject of Chitral. On the day upon which the Correspondence was laid upon the Table of the House—viz., March 27th—a Dispatch was sent to India dealing with proposals for reduction of military expenditure in Gilghit, but the correspondence on this point is not concluded, as further experience of the recent changes is necessary before final arrangements can be sanctioned. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it I will gladly show him these Dispatches.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the proposed rifle range near Downpatrick, whether any inspection of grounds has been recently been made at the instance of the Military Authorities; and. if so, if he will state with what result; and whether he has any intention of securing proper accommodation for a rifle range in that district?

No recent Report has beer received from the Commander of the Forces in Ireland as to a site for a rifle range in the neighbourhood of Downpatrick, the matter remains where it was when the hon. Member asked a question relating to it on the 5th ultimo.

I asked the hon. Gentleman whether an inspection was made, not whether a report had been received.

The only answer I can give the hon. Gentleman is the one I have already given.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will inquire whether any inspection will be made, and give the House the result of that inspection?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, how often rural letter-carriers in Ireland are supplied with waterproof capes for their protection and that of the parcels, etc., which they carry; and whether, seeing that the supply has become irregular, steps will be taken to see that this grievance will be remedied?

The supply of waterproof capes to rural postmen has, until recently, been renewed every three years, but in future new capes will be issued every two years. There was some delay on the part of the contractors in completing the last winter's issue, but it can hardly be, said that the supply has become irregular. Every effort will be made to prevent delay in future.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Buckfastleigh Roman Catholic School, built and opened in 1893, and certified by the Education Department as a public elementary school satisfying all the requirements of the, Code, and since examined by Her Majesty's Inspectors, and reported of very highly, receives no grant; whether he can say why this school has been so treated; whether this school will be entitled to a grant under the Education Bill now before the House; and whether, in the time between now and the passing of the Education Bill, this school will be allowed a grant under the existing law?

The school, as I stated in answer to a Question on the 29th of August last, is refused the grant on the ground that it is unnecessary, within the meaning of Article 80 of the Code, The position of the school will not be affected in this respect by the Bill now before the House?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the fact that the percentage of fatal accidents to the numbers employed in certain classes of railway work is considerably higher than the similar percentages of fatal accidents to the numbers employed in coal mines and in factories and workshops, and to the difficulty of determining the causes in many railway accidents, he will consent to the Second Reading of the Coroners' Inquests (Railway Fatalities) Bill, and to send the Bill to a Standing or Select Committee, or will introduce legislation on similar lines to place the inquests in railway accidents on a similar footing to those in the cases of mines and of factories and workshops?

In the opinion of my right hon. Colleague there is nothing to show that existing legislation fails to give Coroners ample means of obtaining technical assistance in difficult cases, or that any such comparison of percentages as is suggested by the hon. Member can be made. Under these circumstances the reason for the legislation referred to does not seem strong.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, can he state what was the number of policemen employed in county Cavan in the years 1875 and 1895 respectively; what is the present number of extra police employed there; and, in view of the peaceful state of the county and the depressed state of the farming interests, will he consent to a reduction of the police force which on inquiry may be found to be unnecessary?

The police establishment of county Cavan numbered 285 men in 1875, and 243 men in 1895. There are no men of the extra force stationed in the county. The existing establishment entails no charge whatever to the local rates, and, consequently, no relief to the farming interests would ensue upon a reduction of the present free quota.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the limit of 20s. a child, imposed by Section 26 of the Education Bill, applies to blind and deaf children supported and educated under the Elementary Education Act, 1893 (Blind and Deaf Children); and, if the limit does apply, will he, considering the expensive character of the education given to blind and deaf children, take steps to specifically exempt them from its operation.

Clause 26 is not intended to apply to blind and deaf children.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with reference to the movement of the 7th Hussars from Natal, whether it is intended to send to South Africa another Cavalry Regiment or Mounted Infantry, as stated; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the disaster at Lang's Neck in 1881, when Mounted Infantry were employed, was in a great measure due to the want of Cavalry, the Government will consider the necessity of employing Cavalry and not Infantry for Cavalry duties.

Three hundred men of the 7th Hussars and 250 Mounted Infantry now in South Africa are, as the hon. Member is aware, under orders for service in Matabeleland. It has been decided to send a further body of Mounted Infantry from England to the Cape, Mounted Infantry being considered better fitted than Cavalry for the special work to be performed. I would point out that the operations proposed are against the Matabele, and, therefore, the parallel suggested in my hon. Friend's Question does not apply. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether the hon. Gentleman would keep an account of the cost of these troops, in order to submit the payment of the amounts to the Chartered Company.

Certainly, every item of the expenditure is carefully registered.

asked whether it was not in consequence of the absence of Cavalry at Lang's Neck in 1881 that we lost the Transvaal? [Cries of "Order!"]

On behalf of the hon. Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state on what date the long promised revision of the Dublin Sorting Office will come into operation; and, if so, how far it will extend towards an improvement of the hours of duty, an increase of salary, a widening of the prospects of promotion, and an increase of First Class Officers?

The Postmaster General regrets that he has not been able to carry out the revision of the staff of the Sorting Office in Dublin yet, nor is he in a position at present to state what changes will be made in connection with the revision. He is daily expecting from the Secretary of the Post Office, Dublin, the further reports required to enable him to come to a decision.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is intended to use green slates of a cheap and inferior quality, produced in Germany, in the construction of the roof of the large Military hospital about to be erected at North Camp, Aldershot, instead of the well known hard green slates of the North of England?

No, Sir; there is no such intention.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case of a number of youths who entered the School of Telegraphy in connection with the Belfast Post Office at various dates from June 1892 to June 1893, upon the understanding that when qualified they would receive constant employment and also appointments as vacancies occurred, and having since been employed on an average only about three days a week, have lately been informed that there is no prospect of receiving appointments for years to come; (2) whether some time after their admission they were asked to sign a paper to the effect that they had no claim on the Department and they refused to sign it; and (3) whether, considering the small number now affected, he will reconsider their case with the view to provide for their appointment?

The Postmaster General is fully acquainted with the circumstances of the case. It is not true that the youths in question were admitted to the School of Telegraphy at Belfast upon the understanding that when qualified they would receive constant employment and appointments on the occurrence of vacancies. On the contrary, the Duke of Norfolk is assured that they were admitted to the school on the usual condition that their admission gave them no claim on the Department for appointment to the establishment or for fixed employment in any capacity. They have been employed whenever possible as temporary telegraphists, and they have been paid for their services at the usual rates. As the work in the Telegraph Department has not always been available the youths have from time to time been offered temporary employment in the Postal Branch, but they have refused either to accept this, to qualify themselves for permanent employment by learning postal work, or to afford assistance when this has been required at times of pressure, although of course such assistance would have been paid for at the usual rates. The statement made in the second paragraph of the Hon. Member's Question is correct.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second paragraph of the Question?

The statement made in the second paragraph is correct, but, as I have said, had the youths shown themselves willing to take advantage of such opportunities as could be offered them, the present difficulty might not have continued; but in the circumstances, the Postmaster General does not feel justified in making exceptional arrangements to retain in the service candidates who are not ready to accept such work as the Department have to offer to them. This reply is the same as that given to my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast some weeks ago, when he was in communication with the Post Office on this subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in the construction of the Stranorlar and Glenties line of railway, under the direction of the Board of Works, the contractors have diverted a road south of Cloghan Station in such a manner as seriously to interfere with the drainage of adjoining land, especially that occupied by James Kee; whether the responsibility for this part of the work rests on the contractor or on the Board of Works; and, what compensation is to be secured for the occupiers whose land is injured?

The interference with the drainage caused by the road diversion has been obviated by the works carried out by the order of the Drainage Commissioners. The responsibility presumably rests with the Board of Works as Drainage Commissioners. All questions of compensation are, or have been, dealt with by the Arbitrator's award.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that jurors in Ireland have to travel in some instances 30 miles to be present at the presenting of white gloves to the Judge; whether he will, during the present Session, introduce a Bill on this subject to prevent jurors attending Sessions or Assizes if no cases are to be tried; whether he has seen a resolution passed by Sessional Grand Jury at New Ross in October last, and the remarks of Judge Kane on the occasion; and if he is aware that Judge Orr, in October last, at Castleblaney, when addressing the Grand Jury, regretted the hardship imposed upon jurors having to attend before him when no business was to be done, and expressing a hope that legislation on this subject would be passed soon to prevent this hardship upon jurors?

With the permission of my right hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. I am aware that jurors are obliged in some instances to travel a considerable distance to attend Quarter Sessions when it may turn out that there is no business to be disposed of, but I think thirty miles must be an exaggeration. I am also aware that several Grand Juries, assembled at Quarter Sessions, have passed resolutions in reference to the present state of the law, and County Court Judges have made comments upon it; but none of these persons have made any reference to the almost insurmountable difficulty of dealing in one Measure with remote or peaceful districts and localities less fortunate where many accused persons are returned for trial during the two days preceding the Quarter Sessions. A Bill dealing with the subject cannot be introduced this Session.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can give any information as to the approximate date when the Metropolitan Counties Water Board Bill may be expected to come before this House?

The answer to this Question is that it depends on the other House of Parliament. I am informed that the Second Reading will probably be taken in the course of next week, and the Bill will come down when the other stages have been completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the plan proposed by the United States Government in regard to the disputed frontier line between British Guiana and Venezuela for referring the question to the decision of a Commission composed of two Englishmen and two Americans with, if necessary, a fifth member, a neutral, or of the Chief Justices of England and the United States with, if necessary, a third neutral member, has been declined by Her Majesty's Government; whether in the scheme of general arbitration as to any disputes arising between Great Britain and the United States, which has been submitted to the Government of the United States by Her Majesty's Government, the Venezuela dispute was excluded; whether negotiations with regard to this dispute are still continuing between Her Majesty's Government and the United States; and, whether, if this be so, there is any probability of an agreement before the American Congress adjourns in May?

Negotiations with the United States Government are still proceeding, but it would not be advisable to make any statement with regard to them at present.

May we suppose that these negotiations will have a favourable termination?

That, undoubtedly, is the hope of Her Majesty's Government.

I wish to give the right hon. Gentleman notice that I will ask a Question on this subject on Monday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, having regard to the fact that telegraphic communication between this country and the West Indies is slow, circuitous, and excessively costly, and is liable to interruption in consequence of the disturbed condition of the Island of Cuba, which the wire crosses, whether representations have reached him as to the necessity of a more efficient system, both for the purpose of Imperial defence and the improvement of commercial communication between the British West Indies and Great Britain; whether there are any constructive difficulties which would impose obstacles to laying a cable which should be under British control; whether any such scheme is under consideration; and, whether he can hold out any hope of its being carried into effect at an early date?

I have received communications from the West Indian Colonies representing the importance of establishing improved telegraphic communication between this country and those colonies for the purpose of Imperial defence as well as for commercial purposes. I have no reason to think that there are any insuperable constructive difficulties in effecting such communication. Proposals on the subject are under consideration, and I hope that they may result in a cable being laid at no distant date.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, with regard to Clause 13 of the Education Bill which prohibits any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board, whether the local authority would be justified in distributing the School Board surplus to schools not provided by a School Board?

An education authority would not be justified in distributing any of the School Board portion of the special aid grant to schools not provided by a School Board. It is expressly provided that Clause 13 (1) shall not apply to the special aid grant.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether a considerable Boer force is now assembled near Mafeking; and, if so, whether President Kruger has offered Her Majesty's Government any explanation with regard to that fact; and, whether he can inform the House as to how many Foreign immigrants with a military training have entered the Transvaal since January 1896?

According to my information the Government of the South African Republic has placed strong patrols all along its north-western and western boundaries, which would include Mafeking, in order to prevent the introduction of rinderpest. It informed the High Commissioner of its intentions in telegrams of March 19 and 21, and on March 22 Sir Hercules Robinson answered suggesting that the Republic should increase these patrols, as there was a tendency to break quarantine. He himself was at the same time taking vigorous action to maintain the cordons in the colony and protectorate. I do not know how many foreigners with a military training have entered the South African Republic since January 1, 1896, and as shipping companies and port authorities never ascertain and record such particulars about passengers, I fear I never shall know exactly. I may add that the rumour that a large number of German immigrants were landed at Delagoa Bay the other day is absolutely contradicted by the owners of the ship which was alleged to have brought them.

May I ask this Question of the right hon. Gentleman? Has not the Transvaal Government the right to allow German or any other immigrants to enter its territory?

I do not think their right to do so has ever been disputed.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, what hour, if any, is fixed by statute for the morning commencement of business in the Belfast County Court and Recorder's Court; is he aware that grave conplaints have been made from time to time by suitors in those Courts, owing to prolonged attendance in waiting to have their cases heard; and, can any arrangement be made to allow the business to be commenced earlier than 11 o'clock a.m.

I beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. David Ross, Q.C., the late Recorder for Belfast, in his time commenced his sittings at 10 a.m., but that hour was found to be so inconvenient to the suitors and solicitors that it had to be altered to 11 a.m.; and whether it was the general opinion that the present Recorder, Judge Fitzgibbon, had invariably made his arrangements to suit the convenience of the suitors and practitioners without regard to his own convenience?

The statute provides that the Court shall not be opened before 10 o'clock. The present Recorder, following the practice of his predecessor, sits at 11 o'clock, and does so to suit the convenience of the legal profession rather than his own. I have not heard of any complaints such as are mentioned in the Question, and having regard to the arrangement made for the dispatch of business, such an amount of work being selected for each day as it is calculated can be disposed of in the day, I think it is impossible that inconvenience such as is complained of can arise from the sitting of the Court at 11 rather than 10 o'clock. I am aware of the statements to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Down calls attention.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the Rathdown Guardians were some years ago provided with the sum of £537 to build labourers' cottages, and that about a year ago the Local Government Board of Ireland warned the Guardians that if they did not at once proceed to build the cottages they (the Local Government Board) would order the cottages to be built, he will advise the Local Government Board to forthwith exercise their rights under the Labourers' Acts, and order the cottages to be built in the Rathdown Union?

I replied to a similar Question put by the hon. Member on the 10th instant. Since that date the Local Government Board have received the application of the Guardians for confirmation of a Scheme for the erection of three cottages, and the matter will be dealt with by the Board as expeditiously as possible.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he will state on what day it is proposed to resume the Committee on the Military Man- œuvres Bill; and, whether the Bill will be passed in time to allow manœuvres to be held this year?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the necessity of passing the Military Manœuvres Bill by 1st May if manœuvres are to be held this year; and whether, seeing that the main portions of the Bill have now been approved by the House, he will give the necessary time to complete the stages of this Bill?

It is the fact that it is desirable that the Military Manœuvres Bill must be passed before May 1, because unless it is passed by that date it will not be possible to hold the manœuvres in the course of the present year. The House is aware that I have done what I could to give facilities in order that that desirable object should be attained. Unfortunately that object has not been attained, and it is quite impossible for me any longer to allow the Manœuvres Bill to stand between the very important proposals of the Government which have to be dealt with during the remainder of the Session. I will, however, endeavour to see whether it will be possible, by suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule or otherwise—["Hear, hear!" and Opposition cries of "Oh!"]—to get the Bill through in time. ["Hear, hear!"] I ought to say that I am not very sanguine of the issue of any such endeavour on my part. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether it was not the case that the right hon. Gentleman had not given further facilities for passing the Bill than something like five hours for the discussion of this most important Bill. ["Hear, hear!"]

That depends upon what the hon. Gentleman considers to be facilities. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] I remember one Tuesday which we devoted, as far as the Government can devote a day, to this Bill. It so happened that private business on that afternoon occupied an extraordinary amount of time, especially as far as hon. Members opposite were concerned. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman recognised that the Bill was of first-class importance to the Army, and whether in the circumstances he was prepared to make such provisions for passing the Bill as lay in his power, ["Hear, hear!"]

I am ready to do my very best. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked what that best was— whether it might not be the worst for the House. ["Hear, hear!"] Was it the intention of the Government to allow the Debate upon this important Bill to proceed after Twelve o'clock?

If the further discussion upon this Bill is to take place at this period of the Session it must be after Twelve o'clock. I am afraid that I cannot say at the present moment whether I can make arrangements for carrying my proposal into effect.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill legalising the use of the metric system of weights and measures in all transactions in the United Kingdom; and, if so, whether, in view of the fact that the compulsory adoption of the system has been enforced without difficulty and with complete success in France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Japan, and many other countries, he will introduce into such Bill compulsory provisions to take effect within a given period?

said that he had already informed the House that he did not see his way to introducing a Measure this Session which would have the effect of changing our whole system of weights and measures. It would be unjust to compel people to adopt a system of weights and measures which was not desired.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the fact that many private Acts of Parliament passed between 1800 and 1865, relating to inclosures and other matters of great interest to county, urban, and parish councils, have no index procurable from the Queen's printers, and also that the index for similar Acts passed prior to 1800 is not available for the general public, he will take into consideration the necessity of publishing such an index, either as a Parliamentary Paper or otherwise.

said he had made inquiries into the matter, and he found that there was a House of Lords paper in 1867, which, he understood, gave the index to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That paper was, however, out of print, and he would consider whether it could not be reprinted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will agree to the Return with reference to persons in receipt of annuities from the Post Office and other insurance offices which stands on the Paper this day?

As regards Post Office Annuities, the information is in the possession of the Post Office, but its tabulation would involve a considerable expenditure of time and money. As regards friendly societies and insurance offices, no Government Department is in possession of the information required. It could only be obtained by issuing circulars to 24,000 friendly societies and to the various insurance offices. The insurance offices would not be under any obligation to give the information asked for, and, so far as I know, this is also true of the friendly societies. In these circumstances, I do not think the Return can be given.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury whether he would consider the advisability of facilitating the discussion on the Irish Land Bill this Session by appropriating the remainder of Tuesdays and the whole of Wednesdays to Government business?

Yes, Sir; I will consider that proposal. [Cheers.]

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies a Question, of which he had given private notice, namely— whether he had been correctly reported that day in The Times as having stated in the course of the speech delivered last night at the Constitutional Club in regard to the South African Republic, when he was made to say, "The administration is defective and corrupt; the preservation of order, the administration of the police, all the Departments of the State are subject to just criticism"; and whether, having regard to the important effect which that declaration was likely to have, he intended to afford the House an early day for the discussion of the Transvaal question. ["Hear, hear!"]

The private notice of which the hon. Gentleman speaks only reached me a few minutes ago, but at the same time I am perfectly able to answer the Question. ["Hear, hear!"] I have not been able to read the report of my speech in The Times, but I have no doubt that it is, as usual, substantially correct. ["Hear, hear!"] As regards the particular paragraph to which the hon. Member refers, I would point out to him that it alludes to circumstances and facts which are matters of common report and of common knowledge, and have been so for a long time past, and, therefore, it does not constitute any special ground for urgency of discussion. ["Hear, hear!"] At the same time, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already stated that if it should be the desire of any considerable section of the House that the matter should be discussed, although the Government do not think that the present is the most convenient time, they will be perfectly ready to put down the Colonial Vote for discussion at an early date.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to lay any papers upon the Table with reference to the charge of corruption against the Transvaal Government.

That will not be necessary, I think. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.]

said that, with regard to the statement just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, he wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury would put down the Colonial Vote for to-morrow week in case that there was a considerable expression of feeling in favour of that course being adopted.

Yes. If I am satisfied that that is the general view of the House, I am certainly prepared to do it; but I will remind the House of what my right hon. Friend has said with regard to the views of the Government as to the convenience of the present time for the discussion of the subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury what class of Estimates would be taken To-morrow?

The Scotch Estimates will be taken.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what the course of Business will be?

The Second Reading of the Agricultural Bill will be taken on Monday, and will be continued until it is finished. We hope to take the Budget on Thursday. We propose to put down Clauses 6 and 7 after the Scotch Estimates.

I have promised, I think in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, to lay upon the Table the instructions with regard to the appointment of Sir Richard Martin, and also the alterations which will be necessary in the Charter in order to transfer the entire control of the police to Her Majesty's Government. Those are under consideration at the present moment, and I hope to lay them on the Table at a very early period. As regards Matabeleland, I will consider the question; I am not quite sure whether the time has come for the presentation of papers, which, I would remind hon. Members, must necessarily deal only with the facts already published. There are no papers in the ordinary sense of the word, only the telegraphic reports which have been published as they have arrived.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the Financial Commission, whether it was the intention to present the draft Report of the late Mr. Childers along with the evidence, or whether that Report would be postponed?

said the Government had nothing whatever to do with the matter, and had no control over the proceedings of the Commission, which rested entirely with the Commissioners.

said, the Motion was absolutely without precedent, and if carried the result would be to make a very heavy charge on the time of hon. Members, and actually to deprive many of them of the opportunity of discharging their public duties in the House. During the seven or eight years for which he had been Chairman of one of the Standing Committees, it was never even suggested that the Committee should sit while the House was sitting, except to finish the proceedings on a Bill.

said, that in previous Sessions a sessional Order had been made sanctioning the sitting of Standing Committees during the sitting of the House. This year this was not done and therefore the Motion was necessary. The Bill under the consideration of the Standing Committee on Law had occupied a great deal of time—he did not for a moment say an undue time—[ironical Opposition cheers]—and would occupy more time, and there were three other Bills which they had to consider, and which would probably be precluded from consideration if the Motion was not passed. He had obtained the consent of the Committee to ask the House to give them more time. If the discussion of one Bill was to occupy all the time of the Session, he thought the system of Grand Committees would break down. Now that the House held morning sittings on Tuesday, the Motion was all the more necessary. An hon. Member who was, perhaps, the most prominent opponent of the Benefices Bill in the Committee, had told him that although he would object to an unlimited extension of the time of the Committee, he would not object to an extension of one hour. It was not proposed that the Committee should sit till four every day, but only that it should have the power to sit after three if any matter was before them which could be finished in a short time—of course, with the consent of the Committee. Therefore he thought this Motion was not one of a very unusual character, and it was only intended by it to enable the Committee to do their work.

said, the Motion was put down on the Paper in the name of a Member of the Government, but he hoped the House would observe that not a word had been advanced by him in support of what was an utter departure from the precedents of Standing Committees. He also objected to this Motion being made by a Member of the Government at all; it was a Motion made in the interests of a private Bill— an ecclesiastical Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Rochester. Why were the Government taking this Bill under their shield? The only time, he believed, when a Motion approaching this had been made was in 1892 in the interest of another ecclesiastical Bill, the Clergy Discipline Bill. The Motion asked for an extension of time, not until three, but until four o'clock. The right hon. Member for the North-East Division of Manchester had himself said that no undue time had been taken over the Benefices Bill. As far as he had observed there had been nothing in the nature of obstruction, and most of the Debate had been conducted by hon. Members who sat on the opposite side of the House. If the argument of the right hon. Baronet held good at all, it would be an argument against ever sending Bills of this character to a Grand Committee. As a first Amendment to the Motion, he would move to omit the words "every day," and to insert the words ''on Tuesdays and Fridays."

said, he had no objection to the Amendment.

seconded the Amendment.

pointed out the inconvenience to which hon. Members had been subjected at the last sitting of the Committee. They had then three times to rush down to the House to record their votes. ["Hear, hear!"] He thought that this Motion was not in the interests of the promoters of the Bill. The result would be that Members who were unable to discuss the Bill in Committee would feel themselves called upon to avail themselves of the better opportunity afforded in the House when the Bill came back to it. As to the remarks about the congestion of business in the Grand Committee, if necessary they could have two Committees, and not rush a particular Bill through the existing Committee to the great inconvenience of Members desiring to do their duty in Committee and attend the House.

did not desire to express any opinion about the Grand Committees. He had no great experience of them. [A laugh.] He should defer any remarks he had to make until the Bill came before the House, but he must own there was a great deal of force in the suggestion of the hon. Member as to half-past three. Acts of Parliament and Resolutions of that House were no doubt very powerful, but neither a Resolution nor an Act had power to make an individual appear in two places at once. It was inconsistent that business should be going on concurrently elsewhere.

said, they had before them a Resolution moved by a Member of the Government in the interests of a Bill promoted by a non-official Member. He must say that so far as he was aware that was perfectly unprecedented.

explained that he put down the Motion at the request of the Chairman of the Committee, to whom he said that he ought to move it himself. [''Hear, hear!"] On inquiry at the Table, however, he was told that a Member of the Government ought to move the Motion. There was a precedent when, on the 20th of May 1892, a Member of the Government moved a similar Motion.

It was a Government Bill.

was not sure about that.

Oh! Yes, it was—that is my recollection. The Bill was managed by the present Attorney General.

It was not a Government Bill for all that. [Laughter.]

said, it appeared to him that the difficulty had arisen mainly from the fact that a private Bill of a very contentious character had been sent to this Committee raising a stronger feeling of opposition than the promoters of the Bill anticipated. If this were to be pursued, they would have the whole machinery of the Grand Committees thrown into disorder. It was like a goods train breaking down on the line and blocking more important traffic. It added to the poignancy of the case that Members in case of a Division had to come from the other side of Westminster Hall. He feared that half-past three would not accomplish his hon. Friend's purpose.

I have another Amendment. [Laughter.]

saw no reason why the two Standing Committees should not meet on the same day.

said, that when the Bill was read a Second time it was pointed out that it would be better to refer it to a Select Committee, and that difficulties might arise if it were sent to the Standing Committee. It was pointed out that the effect would be to block other Bills which should properly go before it.

I hope the House will not spend more time in discussing this question. As to the question of dividing the House, which has exercised some hon. Gentlemen, next Tuesday and the Tuesday after will be occupied by Second Reading Debates, and there will be no necessity for Divisions. As to the action of the hon. Member near me in moving this Motion, he has pursued what he understood to be the precedents. It is a matter of courtesy only, and it does not matter who makes the Motion.

said, that in the last Parliament there was a far more aggravated state of things when the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill was before the Grand Committee. The Chairman at that time declared that there was obstruction, and yet the promoters of the Bill did not ask the Government of that day for assistance, although the Session was more advanced.

said, that this Bill last year was laid aside through want of agreement on the Committee.

That is not relevant to the Question before the Committee.

said, that he wished to point out that if the Committee sat at inconvenient times the experience of last year would be repeated.

rose to address the House, but

said, the hon. Member has spoken once; he seconded the Amendment.

No, Sir.

Several hon. Members rose at the same time, and I selected the hon. Member for Mid. Cork as seconder. [Laughter.]

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."