I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if it is proposed to carry out the recent recommendations as to further inspection of the brass trade?

Special rules which carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, so far as the law allows have been framed and issued, and have been accepted by 1,540 firms; 175 firms have raised objections, but it is hoped that their adhesion may yet be secured without it being necessary to have recourse to arbitration. When the rules are established, steps will be taken for the adequate inspection of the works with a view to their enforcement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will provide for the exemption from service on juries of certificated managers and under-managers in cases in which daily personal supervision of mines is required under Section 21 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887?

I have considered this question, but do not think there are sufficient reasons for proposing an amendment of the Juries Act. It is possible that some difficulty might be caused in cases where the certificated manager is not assisted by an under-manager in the supervision of the mine. In such cases an application should be made to the judge to excuse the manager's attendance on the ground that daily supervision on his part is a statutory duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he can announce the names of the Commissioners of the second Royal Commission on Tuberculosis?

No, Sir; the names of the Commissioners have not yet reached me.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the Committee of Experts, to whom the further consideration of the Report of the Commission on Tuberculosis will be referred, have been yet appointed; and whether he can give their names and state the terms of reference?

I hope to be able to announce the names of the Commissioners in the course of a very few days.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received a communication from the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture asking him to place upon the Commission some practical Scotchman familiar with the subject.

said he had received such a communication, but he had no doubt that the Scottish Chamber would find that they had no reason to be dissatisfied with the composition of the Commission.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, what is at present the official position of Mr. Rhodes in the territory of the British South Africa Company; whether he is managing director of that Company under a power of attorney, which authorises him to do all acts and exercise all authority in South Africa in like manner as if done by the Company itself, the Company therein expressly undertaking to ratify his action; whether under this authority he is empowered to control and reverse the action of Earl Grey as Administrator, as the Company might do by the terms of the Order in Council of 27th July 1894, which provides that the Company may reverse any action of the Administrator; and, whether the principal authority in the civil administration of the territory of the Chartered Company is at present legally vested in Mr. Rhodes?

Mr. Rhodes has for some years acted as managing director of the British South Africa Company in South Africa, and is so described in the Reports issued by the directors. He also holds a power of attorney from the Board of Directors substantially in the terms stated in the Question. I am, however, advised that the Company cannot delegate to a managing director or attorney the power of reversing or controlling the action of the Administrator of the territory given or reserved to the Company by the Order in Council of July 18th 1894; and that consequently, Mr. Rhodes has no power to control or reverse the action of Earl Grey as Administrator. The principal authority in the civil administration of the territory of the Chartered Company is not, therefore, at present legally vested in Mr. Rhodes.

asked whether the Chartered Company shared that view?

Notice of that Question must be given. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to a resolution unanimously adopted by the magistrates and cesspayers assembled at the County Cork Presentment Sessions, held upon the 30th ultimo, protesting against the payment of expenses for extra constabulary; and, whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the county Cork, he will consider the desirability of withdrawing this extra police force, and thus relieve the ratepayers from the heavy burthen which this tax entails upon them?

I have seen the resolution referred to. The strength of the extra force of police at present assigned to the county Cork is only 45 men as compared with 65 men at the corresponding period of 1894, and I hope very shortly to be able to carry out a substantial reduction in the number now chargeable to the county owing to its generally peaceable condition; though, unfortunately, there are still a large number of police engaged in affording special personal protection in the county.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the police tax still imposed on a peaceful county amounts to close upon £2,000 a year?

I have not the figures with me. I will endeavour to reduce it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the state of affairs disclosed in Consul Fitzmaurice's recent Reports, Her Majesty's Government will propose to the French and Italian Governments the desirability of increasing, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government, the number of European Consulates in Asia Minor, especially in those provinces where massacres have principally occurred, and where the forced conversions of Armenian Christians to Islam has caused widespread dismay amongst all classes of the non-Mohammedan, population?

The steps which are suggested by the hon. Member have already been taken. Upon the recommendation of Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, new Vice Consulates have been established in the course of the last year at Van, Sivas, Adana, Kharput, and Mush, and a salaried officer has been appointed in place of an unpaid Vice Consul at Diarbekir. There is no intention of making any further appointments.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether there is any information at the War Office to show whether the School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot has been one of the causes of the increased efficiency of the Yeomanry during recent years; whether it is proposed to abolish the school, and to revert to the long discarded system of attaching Yeomanry officers temporarily to Cavalry regiments; and, if so, upon what grounds; and, whether the opinion of officers commanding Yeomanry regiments will be ascertained by the authorities before arriving at a final decision?

It is not found that the School for Auxiliary Cavalry at Aldershot is altogether successful in imparting to the Yeomanry cavalry the instruction they most require, and other arrangements are under consideration. They have not yet, however, reached a stage at which it would be desirable to consult the commanding officers of the force, but their views will be ascertained before any final step is taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Consul General of the Niger Coast Protectorate has in his possession papers drawn up by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company which would give the Brass natives free access to their customary markets; and, if he can state to the House the reason why a proclamation to that effect has not been issued?

Yes, Sir, the Commissioner has in his possession a plan prepared by the Chairman of the Royal Niger Company for admitting the Brass men into markets hitherto closed to them on the Niger. He published it by proclamation on the 1st of April last. It was, however, subject to acceptance by King Koko, which it has been impossible to obtain, as, since the attack on Akassa, and subsequent cannibalism of captives in his capital, he has declined to meet any of the British authorities, including Sir John Kirk. In consequence of this behaviour he has been deposed. The settlement is now dependent upon the organisation of a new native Government in Brass, and will it is hoped very soon be arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether Irish is removed from the course for assistant inspectors of National Schools; whether, in view of the fact that the study of Irish has for some years shown a continuous increase, especially in the National Schools; that the number of teachers seeking certificates in Irish has also annually increased; and that the Teachers' Congress has recently made a unanimous request for increased facilities for teaching Irish, he will reconsider the decision which has been arrived at in the matter?

Irish is not included in the new programme adopted last year for examination of candidates for the office of Inspectors' Assistant. The Commissioners, however, in view of the desire expressed in some quarters to have Irish re-introduced into the programme, have decided to communicate with the Civil Service Commissioners and to recommend that Irish be again added as an optional subject.

Is Greek included in the programme?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will put down a Question on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that the Board of Governors of the Richmond Asylum, on 6th May, dismissed James Duffy and Frederick Brunton because they refused to give up membership of a trades union which had been established in connection with their employment, and registered on the 20th April; and (2) whether he will have an Inquiry instituted into this matter?

The fact is as stated in the first paragraph. The appointments and dismissals of Asylum attendants devolve by law upon the Board of Governors alone, and I see no sufficient reason for instituting an Inquiry into the matter, as suggested.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been received at the Post Office from the inhabitants of Newtown Cunningham, in county Donegal, praying for an improvement of the postal arrangements in that centre; and whether the Post Office authorities will arrange for a further service of letters and the extension of the telegraph service to this centre?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a memorial has been sent from Newtown Cunningham, county Donegal, to the Postmaster General, relative to the defective postal and telegraph service there; and whether any, and what, answer has been given?

:A memorial from the inhabitants of Newtown Cunningham, asking for the facilities mentioned, has been received, and inquiry is now being made on the subject. A decision will be arrived at as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he has any further information on the subject of the Amir's action in Kafiristan?

I have received a letter from the Government of India on the subject referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and I shall be happy to lay the correspondence upon the Table if the hon. Member will move for it.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether, in the case of the miner evicted from Langmuir Rows, Kirkintillock, on 29th ultimo, a warrant of ejection had been granted by the sheriff or any duly authorised judge, and what is the date of such warrant?

I have made further inquiry into this matter, and am informed that there having been no petition for ejection, there was no warrant in this case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, what are the rules regulating the appointment to second in command of infantry battalions; whether officers who in due course of seniority succeed to this position are required to rejoin their battalions; and, whether, if they hold staff or other appointments, they are permitted to retain them; if so, whether the next senior officer, it qualified, receivers the appointment as second in command?

As laid down in Article 18 of Section IV. of the Queen's Regulations, majors succeed by seniority to the position or second in command as a general rule, but subject to exceptions in the interest of the service, and to special arrangements in the case of majors employed extra-regimentally. These rules are, however, at present under revision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury that the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland were responsible for the fact that the sums voted for the Irish Education Fee Grant were less than nine-eightieths of the English grant, he is aware that the Commissioners in 1884–85 and 1885–86 made demands which were refused by the Treasury; and, whether he will consent to a Return of the correspondence between the Treasury and the Irish Government relating to this matter, prior to the statement of the Secretary to the Treasury?

who replied, said: The words attributed to me in the Question are not a quotation of anything I have said, but as a rough paraphrase of my statement, I am quite ready to adopt them. The Act of 1892 fixes the annual fee-grant at £210,000, or such other sum as Parliament may determine, having regard to the amount of the English fee-grant. For the year 1892–93 the Education Commissioners asked—and they received—a grant for three-quarters of a year at the rate of £210,000 a year. For the year 1893–94 they asked—and received—£210,000. For the year 1894–95 they asked—and received—£210,000. For the year 1895–96 they, for the first time, asked nine-eightieths of the English estimate, and it has been granted in full. In all these cases the Commissioners were, of course, responsible for the sum which, through the Irish Office, they demanded from the Treasury. In other words, like all other Departments, they were responsible for asking for what they wanted. The hon. Member asks whether in 1894–95 and 1895–96 they made demands which were not granted. In the last half of 1894–95, or in 1895–96, they made two requests to the Treasury—(1) For nine-eightieths of the English estimate for 1895–96—a request partially granted by the late, and fully satisfied by the present Government; and (2) for alleged "arrears" for the years 1893–94 and 1894–95. In the case of both these years, the request was three times refused by the late Board of Treasury, though 1894–95 was then not completed, and a supplementary estimate for that year might, no doubt, have been presented. The request was repeated to the present Board of Treasury, but by that time the year 1894–95, as well, of course, as 1893–94, had become a year which had closed, and Parliament had already definitely made the provision for the annual grant. It is therefore correct to say that, for the years 1892–93, 1893–94, and 1895–96, the Commissioners were responsible for the amounts received, having received each year all they asked for. In 1894–95, however, and before Parliament had finally determined the amount to be received for that year, the then Treasury did grant less than the Commissioners asked for that year. It is, of course, not the practice to lay upon the Table Departmental correspondence of this nature.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government have decided what steps they intend taking with regard to the recommendation made by the Inspectors of Lunatics and Commissioners of Control in the Report dated Lunacy Offices, Dublin Castle, 8th January 1896, as to the great want existing in Ireland of a National Institution for the training and education of idiot and imbecile children, in order that these classes might be removed from what the Report of the Commission describes as the neglect and poverty of their own homes and from the contaminating influence of association with the adult inmates of asylums and workhouses?

I am aware of the views expressed by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums on the subject of providing State aid towards the establishment of an institution for the training and education of idiots and imbeciles in Ireland. The matter is one which has my sympathetic consideration and I hope to be able at some time to introduce legislation dealing with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether steps will be taken to accelerate the London night mails to Inverness in connection with the projected acceleration to Aberdeen?

The question of accelerating the London night mails to Inverness in connection with the proposed acceleration to Aberdeen is now under consideration, but the Postmaster General hopes to be in a position shortly to continue the acceleration to Inverness.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been called to the statements of various inspectors (in the recent Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops) that proper precautions are still not taken in India-rubber works to protect the workers, often women and girls, from the pernicious effects of sulphurous fumes, which cause various illnesses, nausea, and even paralysis; and also to the statement in the same Report as to the absence in some manufactories of hats of suitable fans and other means of ventilation to prevent the entry into the lungs of the workers of particles of fur and dust given off in the fur-blowing processes; and, whether he has power, and will exercise it with renewed energy, to cause the proprietors in both industries to take every precaution to obviate the highly deleterious effects of these operations?

Yes, Sir; I have seen the statements of Her Majesty's Inspectors. Both points are now under the consideration of the Committees on Dangerous Trades, and when I receive their Reports I will consider what further precautions may be necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether his attention has been drawn to the statement by Her Majesty's Inspector in Preston (in the Annual Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops issued during this week) that a large number of accidents have happened through shuttles flying out of looms; and to a further statement by Mr. Birtwistle that he has had considerable difficulty in obtaining the adoption of shuttle-guards, only a few hundreds probably being affixed out of about 170,000 looms in the Blackburn district; and to the further statement by Mr. Tucker (of Bolton) that notwithstanding the prominence given to the necessity of shuttle-guards during the last twelve years, there are to-day thousands of looms running without guards; and, whether, in view of the cheapness of various forms of guards, he will put pressure on the inspectors in the districts concerned to enforce the adequate protection of the workers by insisting on guards being applied to all looms?

I have seen the statements referred to in the Question. The inspectors fully recognise the importance of shuttle-guards, and have done their best to secure their adoption by employers—in some districts with considerable success. Further progress is stopped for the present by a recent decision of the Recorder of Blackburn, quashing a conviction obtained against certain manufacturers for neglecting to fence the shuttles in their looms. The decision has been appealed against, but the appeal has not yet come before the High Court.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether he has now received the police reports in reference to the disorderdy proceedings in Hyde Park last Sunday afternoon, resulting from the renewed exhibition of sacred emblems by an anti-Roman Catholic lecturer; and (2), what steps are in contemplation to suppress what has been characterised by the presiding magistrate at the Marlborough Street Police Court as a crying and intolerable nuisance?

I have received a report from the police. All I can say at present is that proceedings have been instituted by them against two persons for a contravention of No. 12 of the rules of the Park, and that the magistrate has adjourned the hearing for a week in order that legal aid may be given to the police for the further arguing of the case before him. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, certain draft rules, to which I referred in my answer on Tuesday, have reached me this morning, and no time shall be lost in considering them.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1), whether his attention has been called to the operations of a money lender in Birmingham, who, under an assumed Scotch name, and with an office in Scotland, induces unwary persons needing money to give promissory notes for much larger sums than he advances, while stipulating for 25 per cent. interest on the full amount; and (2), whether the Law sanctions usurious operations of this kind; and, if so, whether any amendment of the Law is contemplated?

I am aware that certain cases of the nature referred to in the first part of the hon. Member's Question have recently occurred. In reply to the second part, I would refer him to the answer given by my predecessor on the 16th of April to a Question asked by the hon. Member for the Kilmarnock Burghs, and also to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury last Monday in reply to a Question asked by the hon. Member for Chester.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, (1) whether his attention has been called to a recent meeting of Irishmen resident in the Transvaal, appealing to Her Majesty's Government to extend to the Irish treason-felony prisoners the same measure of clemency as that shown by President Kruger to the Johannesburg leaders who were convicted of treason; and, (2) whether he can hold out any hopes of an early reconsideration of this question?

I have seen a telegram in the newspapers stating that such a meeting was held, and a copy of the telegram has also been sent to me privately, but no communication from the meeting has as yet been received by me. As regards the second paragraph of the question, I am afraid I can add nothing to the statements I have already made in the House.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government has any objection to President Kruger detaining in prison raiders convicted of treason, and now confined in Pretoria until the Government decide to release the Irish political prisoners now thirteen years in penal servitude.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Land Commission appointed by Her Majesty's Government in 1892 to deal with the disputes of the Matabele in regard to their land and cattle has reported; and, if so, has it been approved by the Secretary of State; and, will he lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commission.

The Matabeleland Commission was appointed in 1894, not 1892, and reported in the same year. The report was approved by the Secretary of State. I have already, on the 4th inst., in answer to the hon. Member for West Denbighshire, stated that the Papers will be presented.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in order to avoid further bloodshed, he will instruct Sir Frederick Carrington to enter into negotiations with the rebels now concentrated in the Matoppo Mountains, in order if possible to effect a peaceful settlement before any further military operations in the nature of reprisals are entered upon?

The information before me would not justify me in taking the course suggested in this Question, but I will make it my care to see that considerations of humanity are not lost sight of so far as is consistent with the suppression of the rebellion, the punishment of murderers, and the prevention of a recurrence of the present troubles. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is aware that hides of animals which have died of rinderpest are being sold to hide merchants in the Bechuanaland Protectorate; and whether he will direct, that the carcases of the dead animals should be burnt, so far as possible, in order to prevent the spread of disease?

I have no information as to the hides of animals which have died of rinderpest being sold, but I have directed that, so far as possible, the carcases should be either burnt or buried, the hide being first slashed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, what are the regulations concerning the importation of hides from Africa; and what steps he is taking to prevent the introduction of rinderpest in this form into the United Kingdom?

It has not hitherto been found necessary to impose any special regulations with reference to hides imported from countries affected with cattle plague, and in the case of Africa I am advised that, owing to the treatment to which the hides are subjected, the length of time which must necessarily elapse between their removal from the animal and their arrival in this country, and the fact that when landed they are not brought into contact with living animals or handled by persons likely to come into such contact, there is practically no risk attached to their importation. The subject is one, however, which naturally causes anxiety, and the hon. Member may rely upon my taking immediate action should any necessity arise.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether it would be practicable to prevent the importation into this country of hides from these affected areas?

said it would be practicable, but he did not think it would be necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that, contrary to the 38th Section of the Loan Fund Act, the Derrygonnelly Loan Fund, County Fermanagh, transacts its business in a public house, and whether he will have the certificate cancelled and the penalty of £10 enforced against the responsible officers for every such offence; (2) whether he will inquire why the Loan Fund Board's secretary and inspector have not brought this violation of the Act under the notice of their Board, particularly after the late inspections of 8th December 1894 and 5th December 1895; (3) how many of the loan funds operating in the counties of Donegal, Fermanagh, and Tyrone have their business transacted in places prohibited by the 38th Section of the Loan Fund Act; (4) has it come under his notice that it is notorious to the police and local magistrates that loan funds under present working are the occasion of much loss of time to borrowers and bailsmen, and an unusual amount of intoxication, resulting in prosecutions at petty sessions; and, (5) will he cause inquiry to be made through the police where loan fund offices are held?

It appears to be a fact that the business of the loan fund mentioned in the first paragraph has been transacted on licensed premises, though I am informed that there is a separate entrance to the office rented by the society, so that persons passing in and out need not pass through the shop or bar. This seems to me to be in direct contravention of the requirements of Section 38 of the Act of 1843, and I am making further inquiries into the matter. In 1892, and again last year, the Inspector of the Loan Fund Board reported to the Board that the office of the Derrygonnelly loan fund was over a public bar, but apparently no action was taken in the matter. I am making inquiry into the points touched upon in the the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether it is lawful for a loan fund to make to any one person a second loan until the previous loan has been repaid; whether he is aware that there has grown up in Ireland a system of renewal of loans on failure of repayment in whole or in part; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that in many cases a loan, instead of being repaid in five months, in compliance with the Act, has been allowed to run on for years under this system of renewal with attendant fines?

It is not lawful for a Loan Fund Society working under the Act of 1843 to make to any one person a second loan until the first one has been repaid. I am informed that it is the fact that in several loan funds a system has prevailed of renewing loans which are altogether or partly in arrear as to repayment. The Loan Fund Board were advised, in 1893, that this system was illegal; and the Board so informed the managers of each loan fund at which the renewal system prevailed, and pointed out that the abuse must be abandoned. In April last, the Board's Inspector reported that he had found hardly any abatement of the illegal system at the offices where it had prevailed, and the Board have now under consideration the question as to the best course to be taken by them in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table the Return for which a Notice of Motion appears on the Paper, relating to Charitable Loan Funds in Ireland?

I see no objection to the proposed Return.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the amount of the net profit of the Ballyshannon Loan Fund for the past ten years; whether one-tenth of such net profit was, as required by the forty-fourth section of the Loan Fund Act of 1843, set aside as a reserve for the security of the debenture holders; how much of the residue was expended for useful local purposes, in accordance with the same section; and, what has become of the balance?

The total net profit of Ballyshannon Loan Fund in the past ten years amounted to £750 17s. 6d. The 44th Section of the Act of 1843 prescribes that not less than one-tenth of the net profit is to be annually allocated as a reserve fund for the security of the Debenture holders, and I am informed that more than one-tenth of the net profit of this particular society has been set aside yearly for this purpose. As regards the optional appropriation of portion of the residue of the net annual profits towards a local useful purpose, the only grant of the kind given from the Ballyshannon Loan Fund during the past ten years was a sum of £20 which was voted from the profits of 1895 for the poor of the locality. I am informed that net profits not allocated under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act are used as portion of the working capital of the Society.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether the Ballyshannon Loan Fund was established in 1883 for the districts of Ballyshannon, Belleek, Ballintra, and Bundoran; (2) whether a few years later the Loan Fund Board gave a certificate for another Loan Fund at Bundoran, and in 1894 a similar certificate for a Loan Fund in Belleek; and, (3) what precautions the Loan Fund Board take against simultaneous indebtedness to all three funds?

The facts are correctly stated in the first and second paragraphs, except that the establishment of the Loan Fund at Belleek was authorised in 1885, not 1894. To guard against simultaneous indebtedness by the same persons to different Loan Funds in the same neighbourhood, the Board, some years ago, issued instructions to managers requiring them to have their lists of borrowers and sureties compared three or four times yearly.

inquired how it was the Loan Fund Board had permitted such a state of things to arise?

said he was making inquiries as to whether the instructions had really been carried out.

asked if it was not the duty of the Loan Fund Board to see that their instructions were carried out?

thought that it was.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will lay upon the Table a copy of the rules of the Ballyshannon Loan Fund?

I shall be prepared to lay upon the Table a copy of the rules of this Loan Fund if the hon. and learned Gentleman will move for the rules in the usual way. Perhaps the object he has in view would be equally attained if I were to supply him privately with a copy.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) will he explain why 11 male telegraphists, who originally entered the Post Office service on the understanding that they would be appointed to vacancies as they arose, and, after having been trained in the school of telegraphy, have been employed in the Belfast Post Office for a period varying from two to three years pending their being placed on the regular establishment as vacancies should arise, were last year for the first time asked to sign a document acknowledging that they had no claim on the Department for employment; and, if so, what the reason for this requirement is; (2) whether it is the case that, in consequence of the Report of a Departmental Commission, a number of females have been admitted to the school of telegraphy, and are being trained to fill the vacancies which the male employees would otherwise have been appointed to; (3) whether these female telegraphists are required to sign a similar document to that referred to; and (4) whether, in view of the fact that the men referred to entered the service before the Report in question, and with a reasonable expectation of being permanently employed, and that their adoption of the employment of telegraphist has made it difficult for them to now obtain other employment, provision will be made for them as vacancies arise before any new comers are appointed?

The telegraph learners referred to were asked to sign the document after admission to employment because, owing to an oversight on the part of the local authorities at Belfast, they had not been asked to do so on first admission to the telegraph school. It is a stringent rule of the Department that all learners should in the first instance sign an acknowledgment that they have no claim on the Department for employment; and, although no document was signed in this case, the Postmaster General is assured, as was stated in the House on the 23rd April last, that the learners in question were admitted to the school on the usual condition that their admission as learners gave them no claim on the Department for appointment to the Establishment or for fixed employment in any capacity. It is the case that a certain number of women are being trained for service in the telegraph branch at Belfast. According to rule, they are required to sign the document referred to. As regards the last part of the hon. Member's Question it has already been stated in the House that the youths have been offered and have refused employment on the postal side of the office at Belfast; and I must repeat what I said in the House on 23rd April, viz.—that 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 has to offer them.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Intermediate Education Board for Ireland have, in their programme just issued, reduced the number of marks assigned to the Irish language in the preparatory grade from 600 to 500, as against 1,200 each for Greek and Latin and 700 each for French and German, Irish being now placed on a lower grade than any other language except Italian, with which it is now placed on an equality; what is the object of this action of the Board; and, whether, in view of the fact that the number of scholars presented for examination in Irish has steadily increased for some years past, and that there were more scholars presented for examination in Irish last year than in German, Italian, and Spanish put together, the Board will reconsider their decision in the matter?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that, under the new regulations relating to the Intermediate Education Examinations in Ireland for 1897, the marks assigned to the Celtic language and literature have been reduced from 600 to 500, although the number of students taking up Irish has more than trebled during the past three years; and whether, in view of the fact that 700 marks are assigned to French and German respectively, he will suggest to the Board the desirability of placing Irish upon an equality with these two foreign languages?

In reply to this Question and that standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork, I am informed that the marks assigned to Celtic in the preparatory grade have been reduced from 600 to 500 in the programme for 1897, but that no reduction has been made in the marks in any of the other three grades of Celtic. The marks assigned to Greek, Latin, French, and German are as stated. The reduction in the preparatory grade in Celtic is represented by the Board as being in the interest of students selecting Celtic as one of their subjects. Taking into account girls as well as boys, it is not the fact that in 1895 a larger number of students presented themselves for examination in Irish than in German, Italian, and Spanish put together.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he would ascertain the number of warders and attendants employed in District Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and how many of that number are tradesmen, with a view to drawing the attention of the several Boards of Governors to the great benefit to be gained by the employment of tradesmen as warders and attendants, and thus facilitate the useful employment of the patients, which would be so much to their advantage?

The inspectors have from time to time drawn the attention of Boards of Governors to the great importance of adding tradesmen attendants to the asylum staffs with the view of increasing the employment of patients, and at present out of 722 attendants employed in the various asylums in Ireland, 176 are tradesmen.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether a farmer is liable to pay taxes under Schedule B if he is making no profits out of his farm; and if a tenant can be made to pay house duty on more than the actual rental?

If a farmer assessed under Schedule B can prove, on appeal to the Income Tax Commissioners for the district, that he has made no profit during the year, the assessment is discharged. Assessments to the inhabited house duty are made on the full annual value of the premises, as determined by the Commissioners of Taxes for the district, who are, of course, quite independent of the Government. It may be that the money rent passing from the tenant to landlord does not represent the full annual value, and in these cases the house duty is charged on an assessment in excess of the actual money rent.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether he can give any further information as to the progress of negotiations with the United States for the settlement by arbitration of the Venezuelan boundary disputes?

Negotiations are still proceeding, but I regret that I cannot, in the public interest, make any further statement upon the matter at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) will he state how many police are engaged in protecting Dwyer Brothers at Cragrae Tulla, County Clare; (2) whether John Dwyer, Caher, County Clare, has also police protection, and what is the cost, and are the police so engaged charged to the county as extra police; (3) whether he is aware that Patrick Dwyer bought the Caher Estate recently, at a time that the tenants had almost agreed with their landlord Robert O'Hara, Ontario, Canada, to purchase at 13 years' purchase on judicial rents; (4) whether he can state how many years purchase on judicial rents Dwyer gave for the property; and (5) whether, in view of the fact that the delay of negotiations and final settlement between these tenants and their landlords was owing to dilatory proceedings on the part of the Land Commission, he will take any steps to give the tenants now in possession an opportunity of purchasing their holdings?

There are five policemen engaged in protecting the Dwyer Brothers, and Mr. John Dwyer, their brother-in-law, is also protected by three constables. The estimated annual cost of the two parties of police, who form part of the extra force in the county, is about £550, one-half of which is chargeable to the county at large. I am aware that Mr. Patrick Dwyer bought the estate in November 1894; the tenants, I believe, were anxious to purchase, but I have no knowledge of their having made an offer of thirteen years' purchase, or any definite offer. The sale to Mr. Patrick Dwyer was a private one and the amount paid is not known to the police. With regard to the last paragraph, I am informed that no purchase agreements between the late owner of the estate and the tenants have ever been lodged in the office of the Land Commission under the Land Purchase Acts.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether in large parishes with more than one village the parish council may by agreement acquire more than 20 acres for grazing ground; and, if not, whether the Government will initiate or assist in legislation giving parish councils, where there are several villages in the parish, power to acquire grazing grounds for each parish?

Having regard to the terms of Section 26 of the Land Government Act, 1894, the answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative—but I may state that a County Council is empowered to provide common pasture for a parish, without limitation to any specific amount by Section 12 of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, 1892. The Secretary for Scotland will be glad to consider any proposal the hon. Member may make.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has now received any authoritative information of the causes of the recent destructive riots in the Island of St. Kitts; whether he has been able to fix responsibility for the delay in taking effective measures for the protection of life and property; and, whether compensation will be paid out of the Imperial or Colonial Revenues to the owners of plantations whose sugar crops were wilfully destroyed by incendiary fires during the riots?

In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have received very full information as to the circumstances of the plantation fires in St. Kitts and of the disturbances which took place at Basseterre and other places in that island in February last. As regards the second part of the Question, I am not at present in a position to assign such responsibility. As regards the third part of the Question, it is not proposed to grant compensation in these cases, which, it may be observed, occurred previously to the riots in question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1), whether he is aware that a resolution for the appointment of a Select Committee, consisting exclusively of Members of the Cape Legislative Assembly alone, has been adopted by that Assembly for the investigation of the affairs of the South Africa Company in their bearing on the interests of Cape Colony; (2) whether that Select Committee is to communicate by resolutions or otherwise with any Committee of the Cape Legislative Council; (3) has any Committee of the Cape Legislative Council, to inquire into the affairs of the South Africa Chartered Company, been appointed; and (4), whether there is any exact precedent for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman for the investigation of the affairs of the South Africa Chartered Company by a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons?

I have not had any official information as to the proposed proceedings of the Cape Legislature in this matter. In answer to the hon. Member's last Question, I would refer to my answers to the hon. Member for Dundee on the 19th ultimo.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, why in Form 9, on which claims for grants are made, there is no item for entry of claims under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, whereas there are items for entry of claims of £10 or £15, as the case may be, under Section 19 of the Education Act of 1876, and Section 2 of the Education Code Act of 1890; and, whether, seeing that Form 9 has given no opportunity of making claims under Section 97 of the Act of 1870, he will modify his reply as to the payment of previously unclaimed arrears of supplementary grants payable under Section 97 for more than the present and the immediately preceding year?

The reason is because Form 9 deals with claims for grant by individual schools, and not by School Boards. The Committee of Council have no power to pay unclaimed arrears of the grant under Section 97 of the Act of 1870.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what action the Government have decided to take in connection with the charge brought against Dr. Lavan, J.P., of having shot and seriously wounded a woman named Mrs. Barratt, at Bangor Erris, county Mayo, on Thursday, 7th May; whether any official notice has been taken of the fact that on this occasion of the wounding of Mrs. Barratt by a shot fired from the public street, immediately outside the police barrack door, Police Sergeant Lewis formed one the firing party; and, whether any steps have been taken to bring his conduct, as well as that of any other policeman who may have been present with him when Mrs. Barratt was shot, under the notice of the proper constabulary authorities?

The police were instructed to institute proceedings against Dr. Lavan on the charge of wounding Mrs. Barratt on the occasion referred to, and at Petty Sessions, held at Belmullet on Saturday last, the magistrates unanimously refused informations in the case. Upon the information before me, when the prosecution was ordered, it did not appear that the police were to blame in the matter. I have called for a full report of the facts adduced in evidence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that Patrick M'Ginn, Corryagan, parish of Donomoyne, South Monaghan, who purchased his holding under the Ashbourne Act, is processed by the Irish Land Commission for half a year's rent; that M'Ginn sold his farm by public auction in January last, and that the sale fell through owing to the Irish Land Commission refusing to return the deed of M'Ginn's farm when requested to do so; and that the Irish Land Commission hold the deed of M'Ginn's farm since 1894; whether he will direct the Irish Land Commission not to charge M'Ginn any law costs under the circumstances; and whether, if M'Ginn again puts up his farm for sale, and it does not realize so much as in January last, he will direct the Irish Land Commission to make up the difference to M'Ginn, owing to their not returning the deed?

The proceedings taken by the Land Commission in this case are for the recovery of three instalments, not one only as alleged in the Question. The statement that the Commissioners refused to return the title-deed of M'Ginn's farm is made under a misapprehension, as the deed was a conveyance under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and, as such, was retained, in accordance with the invariable rule, pending the repayment of the advance to M'Ginn under that Act. The deed would be of no use in carrying out the sale of his holding, which should be completed, pursuant to the Local Registration of Title Act, by transfer on the Register. The Commissioners do not consider this purchaser has any claim to be relieved of the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings taken against him for recovery of the instalments in arrear, and I cannot give any directions such as are suggested at the end of the Question.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether the Government is aware that dissatisfaction exists in the police force in Scotland on the ground of the inferiority of the Scotch to that of the English police pension scale; whether the Government intend to propose legislation in the direction of assimilating the scale of pensions for the police in Scotland to that which is enjoyed by the police in England; and, when any Bill on this subject may be expected?

The Secretary for Scotland, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the member for North Ayrshire in August last, promised to give this matter his attention. He has done so, but it will not be possible in the present state of business to propose any legislation this session.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether he can state the amount of the cash balance at present in the Treasury Chest; (2) whether it is in accordance with the Treasury Chest Regulations to make, out of that chest, advances to the Indian Government for the ordinary or extraordinary expenses of Indian troops, or for the direct payment of such expenses; (3) whether he proposes to submit to this House a Vote to provide the money for repayment to the Treasury Chest of any sums he may expend out of that chest for the expedition to Suakin of Indian troops; and (4), whether there is any precedent for paying the expense of a military expedition out of the Treasury Chest without such expedition having previously been sanctioned by Parliament?

The exact cash balance in the Treasury Chest Fund at any particular moment cannot be stated, as it depends on the balances in the hands of several accounting officers in the various parts of the world. The answer to the second paragraph of the question is "Yes." The Act of 1877 authorises the Treasury to employ the fund in making temporary advances for any public service, to be repaid out of moneys appropriated by Parliament to such service, or "out of any other moneys applicable thereto." Any advance out of the chest on account of the expedition at Suakin must therefore be repaid either by a Vote of this House or by the Egyptian Government. The answer to the, last paragraph of the question is "Yes."

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether there is any legal authority to enable the master of a workhouse to detain parents of the vagrant class on account of the sickness of their children, when the result of their not being detained is, in the opinion of the workhouse medical officer, likely to cause, not only unnecessary suffering and injury to the children's health, but even to jeopardise their lives; whether his attention has been called to a case of this kind in connection with the Staines Union Workhouse; and whether he will take steps to enable the masters of workhouses to deal with such cases?

The attention of the Local Government Board has been drawn to the case mentioned in the Question, and they have stated that they are not aware that the master of a workhouse has any legal authority to detain parents on account of the sickness of their children. If the result of discharging the children would be to jeopardise their lives, they might be detained; but the Local Government Board have no power to enable the master to detain the parents also.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has considered the statement of the standing committee of the Catholic Bishops of Ireland with reference to the Irish Education Bill; and whether he is now in a position to state what course the Government intend to take in regard to the Bill?

I stated on the introduction of this Bill, that it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with it if it should prove contentious. Up to the present time, no intimation has reached me from hon. Members for Ireland as to the view they take of the Bill; but, since the recent announcement of the Roman Catholic Bishops, I have taken it for granted that the Measure, as it stands, would be opposed. I should still be willing to drop the particular clause to which exception is taken, and proceed with the other clauses of the Bill, if there was a general desire that this course should be adopted.

asked whether it was intended to maintain the 10s. 6d. limit, because that part of the clause would never be accepted without opposition?

That is a part of the clause to which, I understand, exception is taken.

asked whether it was the intention of the Government not to accept the conscience clause?

I think I ought to receive some intimation from hon. Gentlemen opposite whether, if that is done, the Bill will be regarded as an unopposed Bill.

said that unless the 10s. 6d. limit was abandoned he should oppose the Bill for one.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will move the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Regulation Amendment Bill at Eleven o'clock tonight instead of at Midnight?

I cannot under present circumstances, with any prospect of success, ask my right hon. Friend to grant facilities of the kind indicated.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to bring on this Bill with a view to passing it this Session?

Perhaps that Question should be addressed to me. I understand that my right hon. Friend has dropped the only portions of the Bill which are regarded in any part of the House as contentious, and under those circumstances there is no reason why it should not be passed after 12 o'clock. I am afraid there is no immediate prospect of time before 12 o'clock being found.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the coalowners in this House intend to block the Bill?

I have received no information to that effect.

May I ask the Home Secretary whether he has ascertained that all parties have acquiesced in the dropping of particular clauses?

I understood that there was a general desire that the safety clauses of the Bill should be discussed by the Grand Committee on Trade. One particular clause contained rather debateable matter, and I intended in Committee to propose to omit that clause.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether any representation has been made to the Italian Government in respect to matters contained in the recently published Green-book; and, if so, what explanation has been received?

Her Majesty's Government have made a friendly representation to the Italian Government on the subject of the publication of Dispatches in the Green-book without previous consultation with them. They have no intention of entering into a discussion or criticism of the Dispatches. The Italian Government have explained that the publication was made in exceptional circumstances.

asked whether, in view of the fact that these exceptional circumstances had been the subject of a Debate in the Italian Chamber, it was possible to have the full text of the Dispatch.

said he did not know to what Dispatch the hon. Member alluded.

presumed there had been some communication. Could they have that communication?

The hon. Member had better give notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can now state when the correspondence in regard to prison-made goods will be circulated; and, what is the cause of the delay?

I am unable to name a date. We are waiting for a reply from Germany.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he can now see his way to translating the sympathy frequently expressed by him on behalf of the Government in favour of the Importation of Prison Goods Bill into action, enabling it to be brought forward?

I have to say, in answer to my hon. Friend, that the prospects of public business do not seem to have improved since I last gave him an answer on this Question, and I am therefore afraid that my answer to-day will not be of a more favourable character.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, and having regard to the emphatic declarations of Her Majesty's Ministers on this subject both in the House and the country [Opposition cheers], especially the election, address of the President of the Board of Trade—[Opposition cheers and Ministerial laughter]—he will undertake, on behalf of the Government, to introduce a Bill on this important subject early next Session, instead of leaving it to the accident of the ballot of a private Member?

I am not aware of any obstacle to this House carrying out every single pledge given by every Minister, except the conversational powers of the House itself. [Laughter].

I beg to give notice that I shall raise the question on a future occasion. [Opposition cheers.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of Treasury, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view to the prevention of the recurrence of massacres of the Christians in Crete by Turkish troops, will, in concert with the other protecting Powers, take into consideration the desirability of recommending to the Ottoman Porte the cession of the Island of Crete to Greece on the payment of an indemnity or of an annual tribute?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask whether the Government have any evidence that there has been a massacre by Turkish troops in Crete?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer his Question. No such proposal has been made to Her Majesty's Government, and they have no intention of making it themselves.

I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will put down the Diplomatic Vote for an early Friday, in order that an opportunity may be given for discussing the matter?

I do not like to give any pledge with regard to the disposal of Fridays in the future, and I am not aware that from any quarter of the House a sufficient demand has arisen for discussing recent events in Crete.

May I ask the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have evidence that there has been any massacre by Turkish troops in Crete?

We have heard of warlike operations [laughter] between the Turkish troops and the insurgents in Crete, but I do not know that the information we have received is precisely covered by the word "massacre."

Has the right hon. Gentleman not received information that a number of Mussulmans have been massacred by Christians in Crete?

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Her Majesty's Government have any reason to suppose that the people of Crete are desirous of being ceded to Greece?

That does not arise out of the Question.

May I ask whether Her Majesty's Government has entered into agreement with the French Government in order to press on the Porte the importance of giving due concessions to the Cretan people?

That does not arise out of this Question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will move to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on Friday night, so as to enable the Committee on the Irish Land Bill to be proceeded with after that hour?

In the somewhat exceptional and unexpected circumstances that took place last Monday, I think it would be desirable to suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on Friday. [Cries of "Oh!"] But of course it must not be understood from that that I think it is either possible or desirable to have a very prolonged sitting of the House, and the object of suspending the Rule would be to get through the business under discussion at that hour and to prevent any undue delay in the discussion of the Bill.

I should like to know whether the First Lord contemplates anything in the nature of an all-night sitting, or whether it is only with the object of concluding any business that may be actually under discussion at 12 o'clock. I should also like to ask whether he would not consider it a more effective way of giving an opportunity for the consideration of this Bill by proposing a few Saturday sittings. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Irish cheers.]

I think I did answer the first part of the hon. Member's Question before he put it. I have no idea whatever, so far as I am concerned, of aiding or permitting a prolonged sitting of the House on Friday. With regard to Saturday sittings, as the House is aware, they put a great strain, and if very often repeated, an undue strain, both on the Members of the House and the officers. I hope the Bill may be satisfactorily disposed of in the course of the present Session without having recourse to such exceptional methods. [Cheers]

asked whether it was not the general understanding, when the so-called Twelve o'clock Rule was adopted and the House undertook to meet an hour earlier, that the Rule should not be suspended except under very exceptional circumstances and with the general assent of all parts of the House?

No, Sir; I do not think there was that understanding, and if it had been the understanding that "the consent of all parties" meant practically a unanimous consent, I think I am not wrong in saying that under no Party which has been in power would the Twelve o'clock Rule have been suspended. But I agree with my right hon. Friend that the seldomer we suspend the Twelve o'clock Rule on the whole the better. [Cheers.]

I will take the sense of the House on that question to-morrow. [Cheers.]

asked whether there was any precedent for suspending the Twelve o'clock Rule on the first day of the Committee stage of an important Bill?

asked whether, as the Benefices Bill had already taken two Wednesdays, the First Lord of the Treasury would give them next Wednesday for the Land Bill?

I think I have stated to the House that when we begin the Education Bill it will be better that we should make steady and continuous progress with it. It is necessarily interrupted on Fridays by the discussions in Supply, and I think it would not be right to give next Wednesday to it. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman I am extremely desirous that the Bill should be passed, and everything I can do to further that object shall be done.

asked whether the First Lord intended to give next Wednesday to the Benefices Bill?

Order, Order!

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted before Her Majesty's Government advised the Egyptian Government to use the reserve funds held by the Mixed Tribunal in payment of the present war expenses.

The general reserve fund is not held by the Mixed Tribunal, as it would appear from the Question, but is under the control of the Caisse of the Public Debt. The vote to which the Caisse came was taken on their own responsibility, and accordingly there was no occasion for consulting the Law Officers of the Crown.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the great number of Amendments to the Education Bill, it is possible, either by arrangement, or by the intervention of the Speaker, or by the Committee of Selection, or by an Amendment Committee, to give priority to those Amendments upon each clause or upon each line which are deemed to be the most important, and thus to insure that they receive due and adequate discussion?

I am afraid that no arrangement is possible on this subject, as it would require, not only the assent of the Government, but also the assent of the Gentlemen who have put down Amendments to the Bill, which assent is not likely to be given. I hope that all the important Amendments to the Bill will receive adequate discussion. With regard to any change of our procedure in Committee, I do not say that such change is not desirable, and that it may not some day become necessary; but I do not think that on the present occasion, or in the present Session, it would be possible to make any large alteration in the Rules to which the House is accustomed.

Is the First Lord aware that the Amendments to the Bill already on the Paper number 1,335? [Laughter.]

I do not quite know how that Question arises out of my answer; but I have no doubt the calculation of my hon. friend is correct, though I have not made it myself. [Laughter.]

I have received a telegram this afternoon, dated 11th June, from the British Agent to the South African Republic:—

"Four prisoners released on payment of £25,000 each—[exclamations of surprise]—and subscribing to same undertaking as other prisoners relative to taking part in politics of the country. Otherwise, banishment for life."

presented a petition from the Birmingham City Council approving of Clause 26 of the Government Education Bill, by which it is provided that School Boards shall not, without the consent of the Council of the Borough or Urban District, or of the County Council, as the case may be, receive from the rates a sum in excess of the amount at present being received by them, or a sum equal to 20s. per scholar.

To move—

(1.) That the Committee have power to insert provisions authorising the education authority for each county to supplement the special aid grants payable to voluntary elementary schools, out of moneys provided by Parliament, by grants out of money derived from local rates; such grants to be deemed to form a part of the expenses of the education authority acting as a school board.

To move—

(2.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert provision in the Bill for abolishing the cumulative voting at elections for school boards, and that all elections for school boards shall be conducted on the same lines as are the elections held under the Local Government Acts, 1888 and 1894.

To move—

(3.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into two Bills, the one dealing with elementary education and the other with secondary education, and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the other is proceeded with.

To move—

(4.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for giving to women the right of becoming members of an education authority upon the same terms as those upon which men are eligible.

To move—

(5.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for women to be members of the education authority.

To move—

(6.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee to make such provision in the Bill as will secure that the appointment of teachers in public elementary schools, or their retention of any such appointment, shall not depend on the, performance of, or the abstention from, any duties wholly unconnected with the office of a school teacher; and also that any teacher dismissed from such schools may have the right of appeal against such dismissal to some competent authority.

To move—

(7.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee to provide that the Education Authority in the Bill named be empowered, should it deem fit, to aid out of the local rates the annual maintenance of the voluntary elementary schools within its district to such an amount and in such manner as by the said Committee shall be decided.

To move—

(8.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide for relieving the pressure of the school rate upon heavily burdened districts, for which an education authority acts as school board, by such adjustment of the incidence of the school rates as shall tend to equalise the local burdens in all districts for which the education authority so acts.

To move—

(9.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for separate treatment for the County of London and for every county borough, and for adequate representation of the Voluntary Elementary Schools upon the Education Authority under the Bill.

To move—

(10.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to provide that women may be eligible to be members of the education authority.

To move—

(11.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision in the Bill for the special aid grant to voluntary schools being made out of local rates levied in the educational area in which the schools thus aided are situated.

To move—

(12.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for the representation upon the county governing bodies constituted by schemes made in pursuance of the Welsh Intermediate Education Act, 1889, and referred to in Clause 1, sub-section 6 (b) of this Bill, of classes of persons concerned in public elementary education not now represented or not adequately represented upon such bodies.

To move—

(13.) That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to divide the Bill into three parts; the first dealing only with the provision and payment of the special aid grant, the second dealing with the educational authority and the remaining provisions concerning elementary education, and the third dealing with secondary education; and that the first Bill be reported to the House before the others are proceeded with.

Before the House proceeds to Committee, it will be necessary for me to call attention to the Instructions on the Paper. The first Instruction is in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division, and proposes to give power to supplement the Special-aid Grant to Voluntary Elementary Schools by grants from local rates. That Instruction is not in order, because it will be competent for the right hon. Gentleman in Committee to move an Amendment to that effect, and it will be open for him to propose that a grant shall be supplemented from local sources. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Tavistock Division of Devonshire, and proposes that the Committee shall have power to insert clauses abolishing cumulative voting in connection with School Boards. I have had considerable difficulty in dealing with this Instruction, but upon the whole I am of opinion that it is out of order, on the ground that an Amendment to that effect may be moved. The School Board is referred to frequently in the Bill, which is a general Bill, dealing very largely with the reform of the Education Laws, and proposing to affect the duties of School Boards and the control of them by a new education authority. It also proposes to grant money to them in certain cases, and under these circumstances I think it will be in order to propose an Amendment to abolish cumulative voting. The next Instruction, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr, proposes to divide the Bill into two parts—one dealing with elementary education, and the other with secondary education; and that, I think, is out of order. The Bill does not naturally divide itself into two such parts and secondary education, it is to be observed, is not mentioned by name in it. I think there is one clause—Clause 12—which deals solely with non-elementary education, but all else that relates to non-elementary education or the machinery in connection with it would have to be picked out of the various clauses of the Bill. I think, therefore, it is not divisible into two parts, and that the Instruction is out of order. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea. I ought to point out to him that he has another Instruction on the Paper; that no Member is entitled to move more than one, and probably, as this one is substantially to be moved by other hon. Members, he will wish to forego his right to move it. [Laughter.] The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for Devonport. This is an Instruction to the Committee which gives them power to make provision in the Bill for women to be members of the education authority. Now, the education authority is to consist partly of a Committee comprising the members of the County Councils or Borough Councils, and partly of members who are to be selected by these councils. It would be out of order to move an Instruction to this Committee to alter the provisions of the Municipal Corporations Act or of the Local Government Act 1888 constituting Borough and County Councils, and therefore it would be out of order to move any Amendment or Instruction empowering the Committee to alter the constitution of these bodies. But as regards the members who are for the first time to be chosen to be added to that committee it would be in order to move an Amendment that those elected members might be women; therefore, the Instruction is out of order. The next Instruction is in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham. That is out of order because it is a mandatory Instruction to a Committee of the Whole House. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Abercromby Division of Liverpool, and that is substantially the same as the Instruction which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Ormskirk Division, and the same ruling applies to it. The next Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, and that is out of order as an Instruction, because an Amendment to the same effect will be in order. The next Instruction is one in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft. It will be quite competent in Committee to propose separate treatment for the County of London, and to propose the representation of the Voluntary Schools upon the education authority under the Bill; therefore, the Instruction is unnecessary and out of order. The next Instruction, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Mansfield Division of Nottingham, I have already practically dealt with in dealing with that of the hon. Member for Devonport. The next Instruction, in the name of the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire is out of order for the same reason which applies to the Instruction of the right hon. Member for the Ormskirk Division. The next Instruction, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Swansea, proposes that it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to make provision for representation upon the county governing bodies constituted under the Welsh Intermediate Education Act of classes of persons concerned in public elementary education not now represented or not adequately represented upon such bodies. In the form in which it stands upon the Paper, I think this would not be in order unless it were altered to the extent of providing that it should only apply to representation for the purposes of this Act. It is not, however, necessary for me to deal with the question whether it could be so amended without notice, because an Amendment to the effect of the Instruction so altered would be in order in Committee, and therefore it would as an Instruction be out of order altogether. [Laughter.] The last Instruction stands in the name of the hon. Member for the Holm-firth Division of Yorkshire, and proposes that the Bill should be divided into three parts, dealing, the first with the provision and payment of the Special Aid Grant, the second with the educational authority and the remaining provisions concerning elementary education, and the third dealing with secondary education. The same reasons apply in this case which I gave when dealing with the Instruction of the hon. Member for Merthyr. I am of opinion that this Instruction is bad, because the Bill does not divide itself into three parts naturally. For these reasons, therefore, I am of opinion that all the Instructions on the Paper are out of order, and the House is in a position to go at once into Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

moved that the consideration of the clause be postponed. His object, he said, was to assist the Government in passing the more useful portions of the Measure, as it was perfectly obvious that in the time at their disposal it would be impossible for the Bill as a whole to become law. If his Amendment were successful he intended to move the postponement of Clauses 2 and 3, so that they might at once proceed to the consideration of Clause 4, which dealt with the special aid grant. This was the portion of the Bill which was mentioned in the Queen's Speech and which it was important to deal with. If the grant were increased from 4s. to 6s. or 8s., the authority under which that grant was to be administered would have much more important duties imposed upon it than if it was kept at its present limit of 4s. The argument for an authority to administer the grant would be stronger if the grant was increased. They would have more important duties to deal with. In view of these facts and not at all with the view of delaying the Bill or doing anything likely to harass the Government, he begged to move his Amendment.

The Government are extremely obliged to the hon. Member for his benevolent intentions but they do not take the same view of this matter as he does. They do not think the postponement of the clause is likely to advance the discussion of the Bill. In the opinion of the Government Clause 1 is the most important clause in the Bill. I said so when I introduced the Bill, when the Bill was read a Second time. It was read a Second time by a large majority of the House and I hope the Committee will allow us to proceed to the discussion of this important clause.

said that when the Bill was introduced they understood that the most important part was that relating to the relief of Voluntary Schools, now they were told that the most important clauses were Clause 1 and the two following clauses, which sought to tear to pieces our present educational system and substitute a new one. If that was the attitude of the Government, they must expect not only from the Liberal but from other parts of the House unmitigated and continual opposition to every word of the Bill.

said that he would not have intervened in the discussion but for the extraordinary statement of the Vice President of the Council. He denied that Clause 1 was the most important in the Bill. It did nothing for Voluntary Schools. In the opinion of the Catholic body of this country Clause 1 was a very minor part of the Bill. What the Catholics of this country wanted—and he was authorised to speak for them was—equal and fair treatment for their schools, and Clause 1 gave no such fair treatment. The declaration of the Vice President would carry dismay and alarm to the advocates and defenders of Voluntary Schools. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] As regarded these Schools Clause 1 was a minor matter. His attitude towards the clause would depend on what he learned of the intentions of the Government as to Clause 4. Catholics were willing to give a large measure of popular local control over the Catholic Schools of this country, if Catholic parents were not fined for I sending their children to schools in accordance with their religious convictions. They were prepared in the words of the letter of Cardinal Vaughan published on Wednesday, so far as it was consistent with the maintenance of the religious character of the schools to "trust the people," and invite the inspection and control of the ratepayers of the country. But they demanded, and trusted that they might be able to enforce that demand, that the Catholic parents of the country should not be fined.

The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question, which is a narrow one—whether Clause 1 should be postponed or not.

said he was only giving reasons why he thought it might be a reasonable course to postpone the clause until they had learned the definite intentions of the Government, as regarded the financial aid they were going to give to the Voluntary Schools—a subject which was now involved in the densest fog.

said the statement of the Vice President would have an important effect on the Debates on the Bill. The view of the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of Clause 1 was not, he submitted, the view of the Government at the commencement of the Session. It was said that the Bill was to be for the relief of Voluntary Schools. No mention whatever was made of the proposed uprooting of an educational system. While the Government had practically declared that they were going to stand by Clause 4, the Committee might alter materially the provisions of the clause. They were setting up machinery without knowing what power they were going to give under Clause 4. It was only right that they should know what the power of the local authority was to be before that local authority was set up. The whole Bill would not be passed. Then, which part was to be passed and which postponed? He submitted that this clause should be postponed, and that there should be time to pass the clauses that really were important.

My hon. Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme was well warranted in making this Motion, and in making it he was only following well-established Parliamentary precedents of which one, perhaps the most recent, was set on the occasion of our going into Committee on the Home Rule Bill, when, I remember, the present Secretary of State for the Colonies moved the postponement of the first eight clauses that we might come at once to the retention of the Irish Members, and the right hon. Gentleman proceeded on the same principle on which my hon. Friend has proceeded to-night—that it is desirable with a Measure of great complexity to get at once to the kernel of the Bill, and not occupy, and possibly squander, precious time in the discussion of provisions which are subsidiary and may turn out to be superfluous. I regret very much the perfunctory and somewhat contemptuous manner in which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt with this Motion, although my hon. Friend may congratulate himself upon having elicited, in the name of the Government, a most remarkable and, up to this moment, unexpected declaration.

It is exactly what I said on the Second Reading of the Bill.

My recollection does not exactly tally with that of the right hon. Gentleman. If he said so on the Second Reading it is clear he was expressing his own individual opinion and not the opinion of the Government. What was the language of the Queen's Speech? We are entitled to treat that as the authentic mouthpiece of the Government, the authoritative exposition of the intentions of the Government. The Queen's Speech said that—

"Elementary schools under Voluntary management are a valuable portion of the educational system, and their condition, which in many places is precarious, requires further assistance from public sources."

The next three Amendments are not in order, because they propose to amend words which are not enactive but descriptive. The next Amendment, that of the hon. Member for Carnarvon, is really the substitution of a fresh clause for Clause 1, and cannot be raised here. If Clause 1 is negatived, then the hon. Member may bring his clause up as a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Shoreditch, I have pointed out to him that his Amendment is in the wrong place. With regard to the series of Amendments by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, they raise a scheme alternative to that contained in the first clause, and an Amendment which raises an alternative scheme is not properly an Amendment. Therefore, the proper course for the hon. Member to take would be, if this clause is negatived, to bring forward a new clause.

I would ask, on the point of Order, whether, under those circumstances, it will be now competent for any Member to move to omit Clause 1, Sub-section 1, and, if not, what is the proper place at which to make that Motion?

May I ask on that point whether, if that Motion were made at the present time, it would not exclude a number of Amendments?

That would be so, no doubt If that Motion were made now, Amendments would be excluded.

On the point of Order, Sir, before the Amendments which you refer to are dealt with, I would ask whether I should be in order in moving to insert after the words "County Council" the words "unless two-thirds of its members otherwise decide"?

We have not yet reached that point. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tavistock, that should properly come in as a proviso to the clause, as I pointed out to the hon. Member. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee also stands in the wrong place; there is a clause in this Bill dealing with the date at which the Act is to come into force, and that is the proper place to bring in that Amendment. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Lowestoft making an exception in regard to the county of London, that should be raised as an Amendment to Clause 31, where the exceptions to the Act are dealt with. The Amendment of the hon. Member for South Islington, as I have pointed out to him, should also more properly be raised later. The Amendment of the hon. Member for West Islington is also really a new clause. The same remark applies to the Amendments of the hon. Members for Ipswich, for West Nottingham, and for the Cambridge University.

On the point of Order, Sir, ought not the omission of Clause 1, Sub-section 1, to be moved now?

The purpose of the hon. Member is, I understand, to omit the sub-section with a view of subsequently omitting the whole clause; the proper way is to negative the clause—then it would be open to the hon. Member to move a substitution.

Are we to understand your ruling, Mr. Lowther, as excluding any and every form of alternative proposal to the county authority proposed in the Bill? As I understand your ruling it excludes several Amendments which were expected to be brought before the House, and I should like to know how far we are to interpret your ruling.

I do not like to speak with regard to any Amendments except those I have seen on the Paper. ["Hear, hear!"] In my opinion the Amendments which are now on the Paper before me, and to which I have referred, are of such a character as not to be Amendments to the clause, but suggestions for wholly different machinery. Those matters cannot be introduced as Amendments to a clause because they practically destroy the whole clause by substituting machinery of a totally different character. That can only be done by introducing a new clause.

asked whether this applied to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb), which proposed to submit a scheme to the Education Department.

said that so far as submitting a scheme to the Education Department was concerned that was an Amendment, but he understood the hon. Member did not intend to move it.

hoped that in the long discussions which they would have on this Bill, Members of the Committee would not mistake brevity on his part for discourtesy; he was most desirous of treating every suggestion made by the Committee with proper consideration—["hear, hear!"]—but he should endeavour to make his remarks as terse and brief as he could. This was an Amendment which the Government could not possibly accept, as it would destroy the whole intention and scope of the Bill. The hon. Member had carefully abstained from telling the Committee how many of these District Councils there were. There were upwards of 1,000 rural district councils, to say nothing of the number of urban District Councils, while the number of County Councils dealt with by the Bill was 120 or 130. He confessed he should be glad if out of all the numerous areas they had been able to find a more satisfactory one than, the county, but under the circumstances the only educational area was the county. They therefore had adopted the recommendation made that the county should be the unit for educational purposes. The suggestion that the duties of the Education Department should devolve on District Councils of five members was a proposal so monstrous—if the Committee would forgive him for saying so—["hear, hear!"]—that he did not think he should be justified in taking up the time of the Committee further on the subject. This was an Amendment which he was sorry to say he could not accept.

said no one could be more opposed to this clause than he was. He differed from the view of making the county the authority—of placing the county in the position of the Education Department; but he did not see how they could substitute the District Council unless his hon. Friend produced a series of other Amendments. Unless that was done it would not be workable. There were a good many School Boards which were not confined to one district, and he knew of one Board which extended into two counties, and if they substituted district for county without proper arrangements to deal with the case the whole thing would be unworkable. The same objection applied, in a certain degree, to the Government Bill. He did not know whether that point had met with attention. He did not know whether there were many School Boards of the kind he had referred to—Boards which extended to more than one county. He regarded this as a difficulty in the way of the Amendment which applied to the Government Bill itself. No provision had been put in dealing with a school authority which had to deal with more than one district. This was a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Government. If his hon. Friend would deal in some way with this difficulty he should support him.

said that the points referred to by the right hon. Baronet would be revised by subsequent Amendments and this proposal if combined with other proposals appearing on the Paper—if it got rid of the utterly preposterous and premature devolution powers of the Education Department—if it got rid of the small School Boards—he thought the Amendment was one of first class importance and they were quite entitled to deal with the arguments which bore on the elementary education part of the question, and leave secondary education, whether the question of devolution was to be included or not. They contended that in that district they got the necessary authority. The county authority would not be able to deal with local wants. In the District Councils they would get men to go about and see what the actual features of school work were and form their own impression, and see whether they were to be carried out or not. That was an important issue to be raised. They were entitled to contend that the county authority was entirely too large to carry out administrative work. He spoke as the representative of a rural district. The first object of an Education Bill should be to organise and perfect the case of isolated schools that they had in those districts. He thought that the Bill, as he recognised and admitted on the First Reading, was an attempt to go in that direction, a stroke of real Statesmanship. He gave the Amendment his hearty support.