I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed unanimously by the Guardians of the Oughterard Union, county Galway, in which they urge upon the Government in Ireland the necessity for bridging Lough Corrib at Knock Ferry; and whether he would recommend a free grant from the Treasury to the Congested Districts Board or to the Grand Jury of county Galway for the carrying out of this important and useful work?

I could not give an answer to this Question without making detailed inquiry respecting the projected work. As the hon. Member is doubtless aware, the matter was brought under the notice of my predecessor who did not see his way to recommend the Treasury to provide funds for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangements have been made to bring to the knowledge of the Native leaders in Matabeleland the promise that, if they surrender their arms before 10th August, they shall be treated with leniency; and whether Her Majesty's Government is now prepared to consider the suggestion that some agent or agents, not engaged in military operations against the Natives, shall be deputed to assure them that, if they submit themselves to the authority of the Crown, they will be equitably and humanely dealt with?

I gather from the newspaper reports that the local authorities are taking the best practical means of making known the amnesty proclamation to the insurgents—that is to say, they are releasing prisoners of war and sending them hack to their friends with the information. I am perfectly satisfied with the steps taken, and do not intend to interfere with the discretion of Sir F. Carrington and Sir R. Martin. In reply to Sir E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, (Sheffield, Ecclesall),

said he had received no further information as to the actual fighting beyond what had been published. The information as to the rebellion was given immediately to the Press, including that relating to the fighting under Sir F. Carrington on Monday. He had received a telegram which contained an account of the fighting by a column sent off under Captain Lang, which appears to have resulted successfully for the column and to have led to the death of 90 of the rebels.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in regard to the prospective dangers of famine in Matabeleland and Mashonaland, and of the future of that country, he will issue orders to prevent any unnecessary destruction of food?

I have to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on Tuesday last to similar questions put by him and by the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire; to that answer I have nothing to add.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied that there is no danger?

I have full confidence in my officers on the spot, and I do not intend to interfere with their discretion. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury with reference to the construction of a new pier and harbour works at Newcastle, in the County of Down, whether his attention has been called to a Resolution unanimously adopted by the County Down Grand Jury on the 11th instant, whereby they undertook to present for raising a sum not exceeding £8,000 from the county at large, to supplement the sum of £5,000 offered by the Treasury towards the work; whether the Treasury is satisfied with the Resolution; and, if every facility will be given for carrying out the work in accordance with the terms of the Resolution referred to?

With the permission of my hon. Friend, I will reply to this Question. The Resolution passed by the Grand Jury contains a proposal which differs in certain particulars from the offer made by the Treasury. The Irish Government is in communication with the Grand Jury on the subject, and I trust that a settlement will be arrived at which will enable the work to be proceeded with.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—(1) whether it is intended to secure the £10,000 a year promised to the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund by Act of Parliament; (2) whether the grant of £10,000 a year will render the Fund actuarially solvent, having regard alike to existing obligations and to future obligations to future teachers; and, if not, how the Treasury propose to make up the deficit; and, (3) whether it will he possible, out of the proposed grant to the Pension Fund, to make occasional compassionate allowances to the widows and children of teachers?

An answer cannot be given to the questions contained in the two first paragraphs of the Question until the inquiry now in progress has been completed, and the facts ascertained have been fully considered. So far as I am aware, the Teachers' Pension Fund is not, and will not be, liable for compassionate grants to widows or children. I may explain that the Government have recently offered to give some facilities to teachers who desire to effect life insurances on favourable terms

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) whether the Pension Fund of the Irish National Teachers is under the control of the Treasury; (2) whether the second quinquennial revision, long overdue, is completed; and (3), when the audit and report may be expected?

The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. If the hon. Member will kindly refer to my answers to the hon. Member for Londonderry on the 8th June and 21st July, he will see that the second quinquennial valuation has been received and has been submitted to the Government Actuary, who has furnished a confidential Report upon it, and that a Committee; has been appointed to consider the steps necessary to establish the solvency of the Fund but has not yet reported. As soon as that Report has been received and considered by the Government, a full explanation of the position of the Fund will be made to Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the proposed grant in aid of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund will to any extent benefit the teachers in Irish Convent National Schools; and, if not, how is it proposed to recoup those teachers for the loss they have sustained by the now admittedly insufficient amounts granted to Ireland in respect of the school grant for the last four years?

The proposed grant in aid of the Teachers Pension Fund cannot benefit the teachers of some 268 convent and monastery schools who have not adopted the principle of classification, and are paid accordingly by capitation allowance instead of by class salaries. The Inquiry in the second part of the Question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the fact that the teachers in convent schools, who were deprived of a portion of their residual grant out of the Irish Fee, Grant in the same way as other teachers, during the financial years ending March 1893, 1894, and 1895, will receive no benefit from the grant to the Pension Fund; and, whether, having regard to the fact that there is no difficulty in now apportioning the sum which they ought to have then received, he will propose to Parliament any scheme to repay to them that sum?

I am aware that there are differences in many respects between the position of the regular national teachers in Ireland, and that of the teachers in convent schools. But the hon. Member's Question is based on the assumption that the teachers have a right to be paid more than the grant which has been already paid by Parliament for the years in question, and as I cannot admit that assumption, I am not prepared to make the proposal suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what was the amount of the residual capitation grant under the Irish Fee Grant payable in the years ending March 1893, 1891, and 1895 respectively to convent schools and to teachers who have claims on the pension fund; and, whether there would be any difficulty in making up the deficit in the payment to convent schools by a distribution among those schools during the current year?

I have called for a report on this Question, but not having yet received it, must ask the hon. and learned Member to repeat the Question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish and Scotch Supplementary Fee Grants will be available for distribution among those teachers in Ireland or school managers in Scotland who would have received the money if it had been voted during the last financial year?

The intention of the Treasury is shown in the footnotes to the Supplementary Estimates now before the House. These Estimates are for the additional sums required in order to increase the amount of the grants included in the Scotch and Irish Education Estimates for 1895–6 by 11–80ths and 9–80ths respectively of the Supplementary Vote for English Education in 1805–6. I understand, therefore, that the money will be available for distribution, but the actual distribution is a matter for the Scotch and Irish Offices, not the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he has received copies of resolutions passed by the Corporation of Londonderry relating to the proposed asylum at Gransha; (2) whether his attention has been called to recent reports of the medical officer of the existing asylum calling attention to the overcrowding in the asylum, which seriously lessens the chance of the recovery of patients; (3) whether he can say what is the number of patients from the city of Derry, and what is the number from the rest of the county; and (4) whether he will press forward the erection of an adequate asylum on a site easily accessible from all parts of the country?

My attention has been directed to the resolutions referred to, and also to the recent report of the resident medical superintendent on the overcrowding of the existing asylum. The number of patients in the asylum from the city of Londonderry is 124, and from the county 314. As regards the last paragraph, the matter is still engaging the consideration of the Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the promises of successive Postmaster Generals, that in filling up vacancies in Ireland, special consideration should be paid to the claims of men on the Irish establishment, still regulate these appointments; and whether a second class assistant surveyor in England has recently been appointed to be a first class assistant surveyor in Ireland; and, if so, whether second class officers in Ireland may look for promotion to first class offices in England?

The claims of men on the Irish establishment to vacancies arising on that establishment are always specially considered by the Postmaster General as by his predecessors. A surveyor's clerk serving in an English district has recently—on promotion to the rank of assistant surveyor—been sent to the northern district of Ireland in the place of an assistant surveyor transferred to Scotland who was recently promoted to his present position from a surveyor's clerkship in Ireland. I must add, however, that there is only one surveying establishment for the three kingdoms, and any surveyor's clerk serving in any one of the three kingdoms is eligible for promotion to any vacancy in either of the other kingdoms, and in weighing the claims of these officers for promotion, the Postmaster General has regard to their respective claims from seniority, service and ability.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that 5 Geo. III., c. 20, provides that no patient shall be treated in the County Carlow Infirmary but on the written recommendation of a Governor except in cases of sudden accident, and that all such written authorities shall be carefully preserved as vouchers that the patients were admitted in accordance with law, will he state how many patients were treated during the last five years, and how many of that number on the written authority or recommendation of a Governor, as ascertained by reference to these written documents?

The hon. Member has already asked me a number of questions on this subject. I desire to make an appeal to the House, and to the hon. Member himself, whether it is not against the public interest, and also an abuse of the privileges of hon. Members, that questions in regard to minute details of the management of Carlow Infirmary should be constantly brought to the attention of Parliament. ["Hear, hear!"]

I wish to say that the only reason why I continue to ask the questions is because of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies.

I have already stated that the number of persons treated in the infirmary during the last five years was 4,647. Of these 1,043 were intern patients. I am informed that the provisions of the law as regards admission of patients by authority of a Governor are habitually complied with, though it appears that the orders of admission, where such are necessary, have not been carefully preserved in accordance with the terms of the Act quoted in the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will state the legal authority upon which the Governors of the County Carlow Infirmary receive into that institution, which is provided solely by law for the care and treatment of the poor and destitute, a large proportion of inmates who they acknowledge are not poor and destitute; and, will he further ascertain the amount paid to the credit of the general funds of the institution for each year during the last five years by those patients who are not poor and destitute?

I have already stated that 90 per cent. of the patients relieved in this infirmary belong to the poorer classes who are treated gratuitously, and that the remaining 10 per cent. comprise persons who pay for their maintenance. The circumstances under which it was deemed necessary to admit patients of the latter class are detailed in a Resolution passed by the Board of Governors in August 1894, with the terms of which the hon. Member, as one of the Governors, is doubtless acquainted. As to the second paragraph, I would refer the hon. Member to the Annual Reports of the Infirmary, which contain the information he desires.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the cabin which was said to have been maliciously burned down on the lands of Lieutenant-Colonel John James Eustace was situated at the junction of three townlands, Moyle, Kellistown, and Kyleballyhue; that the Grand Jury of county Carlow, in fixing the special area over which the amount of compensation and costs granted to Lieutenant-Colonel Eustace were to be levied, exempted the townlands of Moyle and Kellistown, and levied the entire amount on Kyle-ballyhue and Castletown, also that certain members of the Grand Jury have a large interest in the townlands of Moyle and Kellistown, while the townland of Castletown is some distance away, and the owner of that properly is not represented on the Grand Jury; and, if he will state, what law or precedent justifies the Grand Jury when fixing the area over which the compensation was to be levied in exempting two of the adjoining townlands, Moyle and Kellistown, and fixing the whole amount on Castletown and Kyleballyhue?

I have no information as to the position of the cottage that was maliciously destroyed, nor am I able to say that certain members of the Grand Jury have a large interest, or any interest, in the townlands exempted from the operation of the levy. The other two townlands adjoin one another, and the owner of Castletown is a lady who could not be. represented on the Grand Jury. The area of the levy is entirely discretionary with the Grand Jury, under Section 135 of the Act 6 & 7 William IV., cap. 116.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he will state upon what legal authority the county Carlow Grand Jury on the 13th instant passed a presentment for £12 to Mr. Charles H. Thorpe, solicitor, for preparing and registering the bonds of six barony constables appointed at the previous assizes, and pay. £24 a year to that gentleman for that service; and whether the cost of preparing these bonds should be borne by the barony constables themselves; under what authority and by whose instructions Mr. Thorpe performed this work, and, whether Mr. Thorpe also charges the, six barony constables £1 each for these bonds, in addition to the amount paid by the Grand Jury?

These bonds were prepared and registered by Mr. Thorpe by the authority and at the request of the Grand Jury, who passed a presentment for such sum as, I presume, they considered he was entitled to receive for his services. I do not know, and do not intend to inquire, whether Mr. Thorpe charged the barony constables any sum for the preparation of their bonds; and I have again to point out to the hon. Member, as I have frequently done before, that the Executive have no control over, or responsibility for, the action of the Grand Jury in the administration of their fiscal affairs.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Lord Chancellor has yet arranged for the more frequent sittings of Irish County Courts; whether he is aware that for 13 years past this question has been under consideration; and, whether special facilities in this respect will be given to Irish towns as at present accorded in Great Britain?

An Order in Council is now being prepared providing more frequent sittings for civil business by the Recorder of Dublin. This was the main topic pressed upon the attention of the Lord Chancellor by the important deputation he received, and, upon a close examination of the subject, it was not thought desirable at present to interfere with the general sittings of County Courts in Ireland, but the Lord Chancellor has his attention directed to the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the case of a poor woman, the wife of a ploughman, who had been severely bitten by a mad dog near Ballymena, whether he is aware that the Ballymena Board of Guardians, upon application being made on the 7th December last, unanimously decided to send her for treatment to Mr. Patrick M'Govern, of Glangenlin, county Cavan, by whom she was restored to health; that Mr. M'Govern, after having been successful in his treatment., was obliged to sue the, Guardians for payment of his bill; and that the Guardians took defence on the ground of illegality, or otherwise, and with what result; and, whether, considering the much higher per-centage of cures in the cases sent to Mr. M'Govern than in those sent to the Pasteur Institute in Paris, and considering the expense as well as the time and fatigue involved in sending such patients to Paris, he will make inquiry and arrange that the Boards of Guardians may pay Mr. M'Govern his bill when they send patients to him for treatment in such cases?

It is a fact that the Ballymena Guardians decided to send the wife of a labourer, who had been bitten by a dog pronounced to be mad, to Mr. M'Govern for treatment; but they were informed by the Local Government Board that any expenditure so incurred would be liable to disallowance by the auditor; and, subsequently, on application being made for payment of M'Govorn's fee, it was pointed out to the Guardians that as M'Govern's was not a hospital within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act 25 & 26 Vict., cap. 83, the Guardians could not legally expend the rates in this manner, and that the Board had no power to sanction the payment as requested. M'Govern then sued the Guardians for recovery of the fee, but the case was dismissed at Quarter Sessions, on the ground that he was not a medical practitioner, and could not recover fees. The Local Government Board can only recognise as hospitals such institutions as are under the professional control and management of duly qualified medical practitioners, and in which the treatment is openly avowed and subject to proper investigation.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the remedy of Mr. M'Govern, which is alleged to have been successful on so many occasions, has really the efficacy which is claimed for it?

It would be impossible for me to promise an inquiry into the efficacy of a remedy which is secret.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether it is the fact that the M'Governs have for centuries cured hydrophobia?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the estimate of the local surveyor as to the probable cost of removing the wreck of the ship Moresby from the entrance to Dungarvan Harbour; whether the Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have funds to, or is their credit sufficient to enable them to, undertake the task of removing the wreck; and, if not, what outlay are they at present in a position to incur; whether he is aware that the wreck constitutes a serious and increasing danger to life and property; and whether, in case the Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have not sufficient funds to enable them to act, the Board of Trade will take steps in the matter?

The Dungarvan Harbour Commissioners have been advised that the cost of removing the wreck in question would be considerable, but no reliable estimate has been made. I am not in a position to express an authoritative opinion as to the credit of the Commissioners. The wreck is probably to some extent a source of danger, but the Board of Trade have no funds or authority to remove it, and they are unable to do more than press that it should be properly lighted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) is he aware that, under Sections 33 to 35 of 58 Geo. III., c. 35, a sum of £15,000 was deposited with the Irish Government by the old Royal Canal Company for the purposes of the obligations of the Company; (2) can he state whether that fund is still available; and, if so, will the Irish Board of Works, to whom the powers of the Directors of Inland Navigation in Ireland were transferred by 1 & 2 Will. IV, c 33, now apply that sum, as authorised by Section 38 of the said Act of Geo. III., to the carrying out of whatever works may be necessary to put the canal in a proper navigable condition, the present owners, the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, as successors of the Royal Canal Company, having failed to do so, as proved by the Reports of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade; (3) can he state the purport of the quarterly Reports of the Midland Railway Company to the Lord Lieutenant as to the condition of the canal immediately before the inspections by Major General Hutchinson and Major Marindin; and (I) whether the representations of the Company were found to agree with the Reports of the Inspectors?

The answer to the first paragraph is Yes. The Act of 1818, to which the hon. Member refers, provided for the creation of the Board of Control and for setting aside a Reserve Fund of £15,000, applicable by the Board (with the consent of the Irish Government) towards works required for the maintenance and preservation of the canal, the Company being required to recoup any such expenditure. By an Act of 1845 the canal was transferred to the Midland Great Western Railway, subject to the existing control of the Board of Control and the Irish Government. By an Act of 1818 the fund, which had increased from £15,000 to £17,538, was mulcted of £12,000, which was transferred to the Railway Company for the purpose of making the railway; but the remaining £5,538 stock is still available. The Railway Company's Reports, I am informed, deal in considerable detail with ordinary maintenance and state the works done in the period to which they refer, but do not deal with the general state of the canal. The Reports of the Board of Trade Inspectors show that they were not satisfied with the sufficiency of the maintenance of the canal. I am informed that the Railway Company report that they are carrying out the Board of Trade recommendations, and have bought a steam dredger. Meanwhile, the Board of Control have arranged to make an inspection of the canal at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the condemned hair mattresses and the furniture supplied by a Belfast contractor to Purdysburn Asylum, Belfast, whether he will give the names of the five firms who were invited to tender for the contract; and if he will state who suggested the names of the firms so invited, and why a public invitation for tenders was not published in the Belfast daily papers; whether he is aware that some of the largest mattress manufacturers and dealers in Belfast were not given any opportunity of competing as to tenders; and if he will make inquiry into the matter and, in the public interest, take steps to secure open competition for asylum contracts by having advertisements for tenders published in the papers?

The names of the five firms which were suggested by the Resident Medical Superintendent are the Bank Building Company, Hanna and Browne, Mayers, Robert Hanna, and Wright and Hunter. It was thought that, five firms of repute having been selected, satisfactory competition would be secured. The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums have no information as to the second paragraph. I may add that tenders have been invited by public advertisement in the case of contracts for furniture required at the asylum, and that I am inquiring into the Question generally.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the diseased herds of Victoria and the dirty condition of many of the dairies there; whether he is aware that reports from the Dairymen's Association, the Perishable Products Committee, the Municipal Conference on Milk and Meat, and Dr. Springthorpe were some time ago submitted to the Premier of the Colony, and these reports all agree as to the disease among the herds, the want of ordinary cleanliness in many of the dairies, and the total want of inspection of the dairy herds of the Colony; and, whether, in the interest of the public health, he will make inquiry into the matter, with the view to take due precaution against the danger of receiving into this country butter from dirty dairies in Victoria?

I have been in communication with the Agent General for Victoria on the subject of this Question, and I have received from him a memorandum in which he states that there is no such thing as the "diseased herds of Victoria," and that no such reports as are referred to have been made. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy of this memorandum, and I propose to bring the subject under the notice of the Local Government Board with whom it rests to consider whether any further action in the interest of the public health is necessary and practicable.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what legal authority the Committee charged with the construction of the Mombasa-Uganda Railway possess of acquiring by compulsion the lands through which the proposed railway will pass, in the event of the present owners of the land required for the railway refusing to sell by agreement; (2) under what local ordnance or other legal instrument it is proposed to confer upon the Railway Committee the right to levy tolls and otherwise manage and control the railway; and (3) whether the British Government, through the Committee, will assume towards employees, sub-contractors, and others concerned in the construction of this line the obligations usually undertaken by a duly incorporated Railway Company?

The Indian Land Acquisition Act of 1894, has been brought into force by notification from Her Majesty's Commissioner and Consul General for British East Africa. The second question will be considered whenever any portion of the railway is approaching completion. The obligations of the British Government towards those employed in the construction of this line will be generally similar to those assumed by the Government of India in relation to the execution of public works.

asked whether there was a power of applying the Indian Act to any conquered territory?

said the Indian Act was applied in accordance with a Zanzibar Order in Council to British subjects and British Indian subjects.

desired to know whether the people along the route of the Uganda Railway were British subjects?

said the route of the railway was 650 miles long, and he did not know to what portion the hon. Gentleman referred. But if the hon. Member was drawing a distinction between the ten-miles strip which had previously been under the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the land in the interior, the answer to his question was that in regard to any subjects of the Sultan in the ten-miles strip powers of dealing with them had been obtained from the Zanzibar Government, so that whether the persons alluded to were subjects of the Sultan of Zanzibar or were the persons whom he had described, the cases were alike met.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a written application, dated 23rd June, was sent to the Under Secretary by Mr. W. Grove White, solicitor, on behalf of the Grand Jury of the county Kildare, asking for a copy of a resolution of the inhabitants of Newbridge, adopting the provisions of the Towns Improvement (Ireland) Act, 1854; will he explain on what grounds the Under Secretary refused to supply a copy, but stated that it could be produced in any court on subpoena, and afterwards, on the 9th July, wrote to Mr. White refusing an inspection of the documents; and whether, considering that the learned Queen's Counsel who acts for the Grand Jury requires to peruse this resolution for the purpose of advising them as to their powers, in the interests of the inhabitants of Newbridge, he will make inquiry, and direct a copy of the resolution to be supplied or an inspection to be granted?

It is the invariable practice of the Irish Executive not to furnish copies of official documents to private individuals, or to the officials of public bodies, or permit inspection of such documents by them, but to produce them in any court of justice under summons or subpoena, where this course can be followed without injury to the public service. Mr. White was informed that this practice would be followed in this particular case, and I see no reason to depart from it. It may, however, serve the purpose of the hon. Member to inform him that the resolution adopted all the sections of the Act, save those relating to the supply of water and to the borrowing of money.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the provisions relating to land purchase of the Irish Land Bill now before Parliament will apply in the case of pending sales where agreements have been lodged with the Land Commission prior to the passing of this Bill?

Clauses 18, 21, 22, and 23 are intended to apply in pending cases. The applicability of Clauses 25 to 29 is questionable, but it is intended to remove all doubts on the matter at a future stage of the Bill.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether he intends to take any action, as recommended by the Manning Committee, in relation to granting licences for supplying seamen through any qualified association and corporations whose members are individually entitled to engage seamen?

I have not had an opportunity of adequately studying the recommendation of the Manning Committee, but, as regards such of those recommendations as need legislation, I regret not to be in a position to hold out any hope of being able to deal with them at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether there is any foundation for the statement that French officers have recently visited Wadelai, or any part of the territory leased by Great Britain to the Sovereign of the Congo State, and not renounced by the latter at the time of his renunciation of the remainder of the leased sphere?

We have no information in support of the statement; and it is conceivable that Wadelai may be a misprint for Waday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, in consequence of the extreme heat of the weather, he will take into consideration the advisability of allowing the London police to wear temporarily a white cover to their helmets, and of issuing to them a serge frock or other light and cool dress, better adapted for the performance of their duties in an almost tropical temperature than their present heavy tunic, as is done in many boroughs in England and in New York and other cities in America?

I have already stated that this question of allowing the, London police to wear a cooler summer dress is engaging my attention, and though I cannot admit that the circumstances in the metropolis are altogether similar to those in the counties, by some of which the lighter clothing has been adopted, much less to those in the American cities to which the hon. Member alludes, I am making inquiries and considering whether it will be possible for me to do anything in the direction which the hon. Member and other Members of this House desire.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, having regard to the delay and expense of the procedure, and the obstacles caused by the absolute veto of the Lord of the Manor, which in the recent case of the Darwen Moor Provisional Order, and in other cases have been proved to exist under the existing law, the Government will next Session introduce a Bill to amend the law in order to facilitate the regulation of commons?

As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the difficulties which arose in the Darwen Moor case were successfully surmounted under the law as it stands; and in any case I am afraid it would not be possible for me at the present time to enter into any engagement with regard to legislation next Session on the subject to which he refers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether a soldier can be retained in the Service if he enlists when under the required age, and the authorities have been informed of the fact before he reaches the regulation age?

A soldier who was enlisted as a result of a false statement of age cannot claim his discharge as a right until the term for which he enlisted has expired; but, in practice, a soldier so enlisted when under 17 years of age is discharged as a matter of course; and if between 17 and 18 years of age when enlisted, the General Officer Commanding can discharge him if he thinks it desirable.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether he would be willing to consider the advisability of further augmenting the reserve of sailors and marines for Her Majesty's Fleet by recruiting each year 5,000 men for five years' service in the Fleet and 15 years in the Reserve, as suggested by Lord Charles Beresford in a speech recently delivered to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce; and, whether, in view of the large number of ships at present building, he will consider the necessity of adding these men to the number of long service men on the strength of the Navy.

In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that I am not prepared to proceed on the lines suggested in the first paragraph of the Question. With regard to reserves of soldiers and marine's, nothing has happened since I submitted the Navy Estimates in March to induce me to depart in either direction from that steady, continuous, proportionate increase in the number of men which is rendered necessary by the expansion of the Fleet. I asked the House for an increase of about 5,000 men when I submitted my last Estimate. I must decline to anticipate the statement which I shall have to mate next year as to the further increase which will be required.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether further inquiries have been made by the Chelsea Commissioners into the case of Thomas Bryson, a pensioner, residing at Newtowngore, county Leitrim, who is bedridden owing to diseases which he contracted as an engineer on active service; and, whether it is intended to increase the small allowance of 1s. per day of which he is at present in receipt?

Thomas Bryson served for less than six years in the Army. He was discharged in 1883 on account of chronic rheumatism incurred during his active service. At the time of his discharge he was granted a pension of 7d. a day, which was all his service entitled him to; but subsequently, in consideration of his helpless condition, the pension was raised to a shilling a day. The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, having carefully considered all the evidence produced, are unable to recommend any further increase of pension.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether he is aware that numerous seizures have been recently made on occupiers in the neighbourhood of the River Suck, in Roscommon and Galway, for drainage charges, from the expenditure of which they allege they received no benefit; and (2), whether, owing to the widespread complaints as to the wasteful proceedings of the Suck Drainage Board, he will direct a public inquiry into the entire matter, with a view to devising a remedy for these public grievances.

In all cases where decrees for non-payment of the rent charge payable under the award in the River Suck Drainage District have been obtained and the amount not paid, the decrees have been placed in the Sheriff's hands to realise, which he has succeeded in doing in a number of cases. The Board of Works are not aware of any such complaints against the present Drainage Board as are mentioned in the second paragraph, or of the necessity for any inquiry. If the present members of the Drainage Board, who have been elected by the proprietors and occupiers, do not give satisfaction to the majority of their constituents, these have the remedy in their own hands, as they can turn out the present Board and elect their own nominees in January next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that at the Petty Sessions held in Edenderry, King's County, on the 15th instant, charges were preferred against several persons by constables who were unable to attend in court to prosecute them; that in their absence the Head Constable of the district took upon himself the duty of acting as complainant, calling and examining witnesses; and, whether such a practice is sanctioned by the Constabulary Regulations; and, if not, what notice he intends taking in the matter?

I am consulting the Law Officers in reference to this question, and will thank the hon. and learned Gentleman to defer it until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether it has been brought to his notice that two youths, brothers, named Maguire, on trial for murder at the Omagh Assizes, have been twice daily escorted on foot, through the public streets, from the gaol to the courthouse, with large crowds of people collected on each side of the way to witness the procession; has it been the custom heretofore for the authorities at Omagh to convey prisoners charged with serious offences from the prison to the courthouse in a covered vehicle; and, what special reason, if any existed in this case, for a departure from that practice?

There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the prisoners referred to were marched through the streets to the gaol or courthouse. They were conveyed on each occasion in the prison van, a covered conveyance, in accordance with the usual practice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the strong feeling of dissatisfaction existing in Ireland respecting the proposed changes in the time table of the Dublin and London mail service; whether, considering that the Dublin Steam Packet Company have supplied boats that can easily save half an hour across channel on all four services, he will see that the London and North Western Railway Company will save, as it was understood they would, half an hour on the land part of the journey on all the services; whether he is aware that it would be a great convenience to passengers from either side, and no postal disadvantage, to make the hours of departure from Euston and Kingstown an hour later, with the exception of the 8.20 p.m. leaving Euston; whether he is aware that to bring passengers into Euston at 5.50 a.m. would be a grievance without any postal advantage; and, whether he will make inquiry, and consult the convenience of the people in Dublin and the provinces before finally making arrangements?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will give an undertaking that the proposed arrangement for the new postal service between Ireland and England will not be put in force without an opportunity being given for discussing the same in Parliament next Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with reference to the proposed changes in the mail service between Dublin and London, whether he will insist on the saving of an hour on all the four services between Euston and Kingstown; whether he will arrange that the time so saved will be utilised by making the hour of leaving one hour later in all the mail services except the night train from Euston; and, whether he will embrace the opportunity for providing third class accommodation for passengers on the mail trains between Holyhead and Euston?

The Postmaster General is aware that the proposed changes in the time table of the London and Dublin mail service do not meet with unanimous acceptance in Ireland. Whilst provision has been made in the new contract with the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company that the sea passage between Holyhead and Kingstown shall be performed half an hour quicker than at present on all the four daily services, the acceleration of half an hour on land will be confined to the two services in connection with the night mail. Neither the Postmaster General nor his predecessors ever contemplated an acceleration of the day mail trains, which would be of no postal importance, and which would be attended with very considerable additional expense. It might be a convenience to passengers if the departure of three of the mail trains were made an hour later as suggested, but this could not be done without postal disadvantage in every case. In regard to the up-night mail, which is specially mentioned by the hon. Member for South Down, an arrival at Euston at 5.50 a.m. instead of at 6.15 a.m. would be a distinct advantage to the postal service in London, and a later running of the train throughout from Holyhead would result in the failure of an important connection via. Chester and Warrington with the mail to the north by the 10 p.m. train from Euston. As stated on previous occasions, the railway company cannot see their way to provide third-class accommodation for passengers in the mail trains between London and Holyhead. It would not be possible to carry out the accelerated services between Ireland and England on 1st April next, if the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Kerry were adopted and the arrangements were to be left undecided till next Session. The time table framed for the service between London and Dublin, which has recently been made public, appears to the Postmaster General the only table compatible with all the conditions of the problem, and on the basis of this table, it is proposed to proceed with the necessary negotiations for carrying on the acceleration of the night mail into the Irish provinces.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether candidates from mining districts may receive marks for certificates they hold in agriculture but not for those in mining at the Queen's Scholarship Examination; and, if so, whether, in order to promote the teaching of the principles of mining to the children in elementary schools, which would tend to lessen the number of accidents in mines, he would consider the propriety of giving the same credit to teachers for their knowledge of mining as of agriculture?

The answer to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. The Committee of Council will consider the suggestions of the hon. Member; but they doubt the possibility of teaching the principles of mining as an elementary school subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a petition, signed by 258 ratepayers of the Union of Listowel, County Kerry, which was forwarded to the Local Goverment Board of Ireland on the 22nd of April 1896, praying for the appointment of paid guardians to that Union on the ground of the increase in the expenditure for outdoor relief which has risen from £8 in 1880 to £3,000 in 1895, has been received; and, what steps he intends to take in the matter?

The petition referred to has been received. There is no doubt the Listowel Guardians have been lavish in the administration of outdoor relief in recent years, though, speaking generally, they discharge their duties efficiently. The amount expended on outdoor relief has been somewhat reduced in the last two years, and a strong remonstrance was addressed to the Guardians at a recent audit which, it is hoped, will have the effect of still further curtailing this item of expense without suffering to the poor. The ratepayers will of course have a remedy in their own hands at the annual election of Guardians; but the matter will not be lost sight of by the Local Government Board, and the next report of their auditor will be carefully considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if, before the Report stage of the Irish Land Bill, he will circulate, for the information of Members, copies of the Schedule (commonly known as the Pink Schedule) used by the Land Commission in fixing judicial rents?

The copy of the Pink Schedule as now used by the Land Commission will be found on page 675 of the Appendix to the Report from the Select Committee on the Lands Act (Ireland), 1894. Since the issue of the Report the Assistant Commissioners have been required to set out, opposite paragraph 14, the capital value of any improvements found to be the property of the tenant, and the annual deduction made in respect thereof. I have caused a number of copies of the Pink Schedule to be placed in the library for the convenience of hon Members.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the observations of Mr. Justice Holmes, in the ease of perjury against Annie Barrett at the recent Cork Assizes, when it appeared that Barrett, in order to get her children into an industrial school, consulted the Head Constable at Queenstown; whether he is aware that the Head Constable told her that the children would have to be caught begging and followed them out of the barrack and gave the children some coppers, and then brought her before the petty sessions for begging; that the judge characterised the whole thing as collusion and fraud on the Act of Parliament, and directed the jury to acquit the woman as it was not Annie Parrett but somebody else who was to blame; and, whether a constabulary inquiry has been or will be held into the conduct of the Head Constable?

The facts of this case appear to be stated with substantial accuracy. It is not proposed to hold a Constabulary Court of Inquiry, as the facts are not in dispute, bur, the conduct of the Head Constable is now engaging consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, has any Return yet been furnished of the number and value of the postal parcels destroyed by the late burning of a mail van on the Great Northern Railway, Ireland; how many claims have been made in regard to those destroyed parcels; what compensation has been allowed; and, has the cost been borne by the Post Office or by the Railway Company?

No return of the number and value of the postal packets destroyed has yet been furnished, and it will be some time before the full particulars are known. The number of claims which up to the present has been made in respect of the destroyed parcels is 45. The claims are being investigated, and the amount of compensation which has already been paid is £5. The cost, so far, has been borne by the Post Office.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether an appeal is take place, and, if so, when, with reference to the trial of Major Lothaire for the murder of Mr. Stokes; whether such appeal will include an Inquiry as to the right to seize and confiscate Mr. Stokes' property; whether, in the event of an appeal, Her Majesty's Government will arrange to have adequate professional representation at the hearing; and, if no decision as to the course of action has been arrived at, when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to give information?

An appeal has been made, and the hearing has been fixed for the 3rd of August. As the Government of the Congo Free State is the appellant, the conduct of the appeal will be in the hands of its representatives before the Court. Her Majesty's Government must leave to that Government the entire responsibility for seeing that the investigation into the case and all material circumstances connected with it is complete. Her Majesty's Government have themselves no locus standi at the hearing of the appeal, any more than they had at the original trial at Boma. The question of Stokes' property did not come before the latter, and therefore is not involved in the appeal. Her Majesty's Government, of course, reserve to themselves the right of subsequently making any diplomatic representations to the Government of the Congo State, which the circumstances may seem to call for.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he is aware that, owing to the excessive drought, the wells in Essendon, in the county of Hertford, from which the inhabitants derive their sole supply of water, are becoming dry; and, whether he will take immediate steps to consider the Report of Colonel Hasted, the Government Inspector, respecting the scheme for providing an adequate supply of pure water for the village of Essendon, which has been before the Board for several months past?

I do not find that any communication has been received as to the effect of the present drought on the wells in Essendon, but I have no doubt as to the necessity of an improved water supply for the place. The Report of Colonel Hasted, the Board's Inspector, after his Inquiry has been received within the last few days. The matter will receive the Board's immediate attention, and a communication will be addressed to the authority without delay. As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the proposals of the authority have met with some opposition.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether, in view of the additional work created by the new applications under the Irish Land Act, he would recommend the suspension of the 65 Rule in the case of Sub-Commissioners; and, is it the advice of the English Law Officers that the Treasury have taken as to the applicability of the 65 Rule to Sub-Commissioners?

The Assistant Commissioners are permanent civil servants of the Crown, and I have no power to recommend in their favour the suspension of the Order in Council fixing an age for the compulsory retirement of all permanent civil servants. The second Question is obviously one that should be addressed to the Treasury

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether, in view of the great public interest that is taken both in this country and South Africa in the recent Board of Trade Inquiry into the loss of the Drummond Castle, he will direct that the shorthand writer's notes, taken at the Inquiry and presented to the Court, be printed and circulated to the Members of this House?

The shorthand writer's notes of evidence taken at the Inquiry into the loss of the Drummond Castle are very voluminous, and could not be printed and circulated except at considerable expense, which, as at present advised, I am not prepared to authorise.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the verdict of the jury on the railway accident at Preston, attributing it to the excessive speed at which the train was travelling, and allowing that the drivers were not entirely at fault, because they had to travel over too great a distance in a given time: and, whether he will issue a circular to the railway companies warning them against the practice of racing?

An Inspecting Officer of the Board of Trade has been engaged in holding an inquiry into the causes of the Preston accident, and when I receive his report I will determine what action, if any, should be taken. In coming to a conclusion, I shall, of course, have due regard to the finding of the coroner's jury.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, in view of the increase of rallies in London and the country, the Government, in the interest of and protection for the public will consider the advisability of adopting the system prevailing in France, Germany, and other continental countries of enforcing the muzzling order all the year round, more especially as a new humane muzzle has been invented which affords a dog the same freedom and comfort as though it were practically unmuzzled?

I am happy to say that the number of cases of rabies reported during the present year shows a distinct improvement as compared with the corresponding period of 1895, but the disease is still at a much higher point than it has ever been since it was first brought within the scope of the Diseases of Animals Acts, and I am afraid that it will give us much cause for anxiety for some time to come. In these circumstances it must be very doubtful whether the existing system under which the imposition of muzzling regulations is practically left to the local authorities is at all a satisfactory one, and I shall be glad to keep the suggestion of my hon. Friend in view, and to give it full consideration when I receive the report of the Departmental Committee, which is now taking evidence as to the working of the dog laws generally.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that in the counties of Cardigan, Carmarthen, Glamorgan, Merioneth, Montgomery, Pembroke, and Radnor, no property qualification is required for Commissioners of Land Tax, whereas in the other Welsh counties and in England a qualification of £100 is requisite; and whether he will take the necessary steps to abolish the property qualification in the counties of Anglesey, Brecknock, Carnarvon, Denbigh, and Flint, and in the English counties?

I am aware that in the counties first named by the hon. Member no property qualification is required for Commissioners of Land Tax. There seems to be no record of the reasons which led to an exception being made in these cases from the general rule that a qualification of £100 a year in land is required. I do not propose to alter that rule.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether, during the two years in which the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Act, 1893, has been in operation in nine counties, only one analysis has been made, and in 29 counties there have been no analyses; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the Act from being a dead letter in the counties referred to?

The facts are as stated in the Question. Since the passing of the Act we have addressed various circular letters to local authorities calling attention to its provisions, and making various suggestions with regard to its administration. We have also issued many thousand copies of a leaflet explanatory of the procedure to be adopted by buyers who wish to put the Act into force. I shall be happy to consider any further suggestions which may be made to me by which the Act can be made known, but it must rest with the buyers themselves to determine whether they will avail themselves of the machinery for sampling and analysis supplied by the Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that in some portions of the district served by the East London Water Company there was no water available for flushing closets at 9.30 in the morning yesterday (Wednesday) and that at the same time water was being freely used for watering the roads; and, whether he is in a position to state whether any, and, if so, what immediate steps can be taken to insure a sufficient water supply to houses in East London for sanitary purposes?

I have learnt with much regret that the East London Waterworks Company have found it necessary to restrict the supply of water to six hours a day in consequence of the extreme drought, and I have no reason to doubt the statement that in some portions of the district served by the company there was no water supply available at 9.30 in the morning yesterday. With regard to the statement that water, notwithstanding, was being used for watering the roads, I may say that on Tuesday I communicated with the company and with the several local authorities within the limits of supply by the company, stating that the Local Government Board considered that as far as possible the supply of water for street watering should be discontinued in the district of the company so long as the present drought continued, and expressing the Board's hope that the local authorities would concur in the adoption of this course. As I previously stated, I communicated with the East London Company and the New River Company, suggesting an arrangement by which assistance as regards the supply of water should be obtained from the latter company. Negotiations, I understand, are now proceeding, and I am inquiring what has been done in this matter. I am also urging upon the company the importance of at once fixing standpipes to such of the mains as are constantly charged with the view of diminishing the serious inconvenience arising from the direct supply to houses being limited to six hours a day. The company are pressing upon consumers the extreme importance of all waste being avoided, and that the use of water for gardens and other similar purposes should be discontinued, and from the information which I have received I am convinced of the necessity of husbanding the supply as far as possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the importance of the Ordnance Factories Vote, he will, for the convenience of the large number of Members interested, arrange to take it first upon the day which he has fixed, namely, 7th August.

I cannot give the hon. Member a promise that the Vote will be put first on August 7th, but I will endeavour as far as I can to arrange to take the Vote for the general convenience of Members.

asked what the business for next week would be after the termination of the Committee on the Irish Land Bill.

recognised the right of the right hon. Gentleman to ask the question, but he frankly told him the only doubt he had. There was first the Scotch Rating Bill, but whether that should not be put off till Tuesday and whether they should not take the Uganda Railway Bill on Monday and some other smaller Bills was doubtful. If the right hon. Gentleman would put a question to-morrow he should give him a definite answer then.

said it was understood that the Coal Mines Bill would be taken on Monday. So many people were interested in it that he hoped there would be an opportnnity of discussing it.

said that Bill should be taken on Monday in any case. In reply to Mr. GIBSON BOWLES,

said he wished he was able to fix a day for the Finance Bill, but he was not.

suggested that, as the clause was quite unnecessary, it should be negatived. This, like other clauses in the Bill, had been drafted by gentlemen of the Land Commission who did not know what they were about.

also condemned the clause as quite uncalled for, unless it was connected with Mr. Justice Ross.

explained the difference between the clause and the 29th section of the Act of 1891. The latter provided that the appeal, if on a question of law, should be to the Judicial Commission; and if on any other question, to three Commissioners, one of whom should be the Judicial Commissioner, one a Commissioner under the Land Purchase Act of 1885, and one a Commissioner under the Act of 1881. There was no such qualification in the present clause, which enacted that the tribunal should be the Judicial Commissioner and two other Commissioners.

said that until the passing of the Land Purchase Act of 1891, the Land Commission consisted of two watertight compartments—the Purchase Department and the Pair Rent Department. In 1891 the Government abolished that distinction. The Irish Members protested, and a compromise was arrived at which provided that the appeal should not be to the Commissioners miscellaneously, but should be to a tribunal which should, at any rate, have some part of the Land Purchase element of the Commission upon it. This clause was an insidious attempt on the part of the Land Commission to go behind the compromise of 1891.

said that since the passing of the Act of 1891 there was a tendency at headquarters to amalgamate, rearrange, and even to rig the Land Commission.

said the clause was really consequential on Clause 17, under which rules might be made enabling the Land Judge to act as an additional Judicial Commissioner of the Land Commission in any appeal or rehearing under the Land Law Acts as amended by this Act. If the question was to he raised at all, it had better be raised on the Report of Clause 17 itself.

protested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross. It was distinctly stated that he was not to occupy the position of an ordinary Land Commissioner, but was to be brought on in special circumstances, and if the object of the clause was to confer on Mr. Justice Ross the right so fully exercised by the present Land Commissioners to review the decision of the Purchase Commissioners, it was an extension of the law which ought to be strongly opposed. The two bodies of Commissioners had totally separate duties—one had to fix fair rents, the other had to see that the Treasury did not advance too much for the security offered. He protested against the introduction of Mr. Justice Ross for the purpose of interfering with this safeguard of the Treasury, and indirectly of the tenants, because it sometimes relieved them of the exorbitant prices which they agreed to pay. Mr. Justice Ross's duty would be to see that the Treasury did not advance too much money, but as a Land Judge his duty would he to see that his clients got the utmost price for their land.

could not agree with the view taken by the last speaker with regard to the position of Mr. Justice Ross. He dubbed the clause the "Anti - Murrough O' Brien clause." Under the old Act it was essential, when there was an appeal, that the tribunal should include one Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885. They could not always have Mr. Lynch, who was a strong landlord's advocate, and accordingly Mr. Murrough O' Brien, who was appointed by the Liberal Government, was bound sometimes to be called in. But under this clause there would be no need to call in Mr. Murrough O' Brien, because they could always call in Mr. Wrench, Mr. Fitzgerald, or Mr. Lynch. Thus they would have a packed jury. He had not the slightest objection to Mr. Justice Ross on a question of law. He did not see that it mattered whether the appeal, then, was to Mr. Justice Ross or to Confucius. But when the appeal was on the question, of value it was wholly different, and it was in this connection that the clause in the Act of 1891 was of value. If the object of this clause was to bring in Mr. Justice Ross, then he contended that that was already done under Clause 17, If Mr. Justice Ross were brought in to deal with questions of law he should have no objection to that, but if it was a question of value, he protested that this exclusion of the Commissioners appointed under the Act of 1885 was a matter of which they must take notice.

, interposing, said it would probably meet the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman if he consented to insert the words "to he determined by rota."

Who is to fix the rota? If the rota were to be decided by the Commissioners there would, perhaps, be no objection to that; but why was the bargain made in 1891 gone behind, and gone behind, apparently, without the knowledge of the Government? When a Parliamentary bargain was made it ought to be carried out, and the rota should be a rota in which the tenants had confidence.

said he did not think that any attempt had been made, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to go behind the bargain of 1891; but, even though a Parliamentary bargain was made, it was open to suggest openly to the House that a change should be made. In this particular case, however, the Government had no desire to go behind the bargain come to in 1891, and therefore he would suggest that words be inserted providing that one of the Commissioners must be a Commissioner appointed under the Act of 1885.

suggested that it would be better to leave the law as it now stood. If the object of including this clause was to enable Mr. Justice Ross to take part in appeals on value, that was, in his view, a great objection to the clause, and he would still press the Government to state for what purpose the clause was inserted.

said the clause was necessary in order to enable the Land Judge to sit on appeals. Unless the clause was passed as a corollary to Clause 17, it would be impossible for him to do so. The Committee had already decided that the Land Judge should be enabled to sit as an additional Judicial Commissioner.

asked what was the good of this clause, if the Committee had already decided that? He thought the object of the clause, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, was a very unfortunate one.

said that if the question of Mr. Justice Ross was to be raised, it ought to be raised hereafter on the Report stage of Clause 17. He thought his right hon. Friend had met hon. Gentlemen opposite very fairly by proposing words which would have the effect of causing the bargain of 1891 to be adhered to.

contended that the clause was absolutely unnecessary if the right hon. Gentleman was willing that the law should stand as it was now. All that was necessary to bring about the object of the Government had already been done under Clause 17.

said that the Act of 1891 abolished the distinction between Purchase Commissioners and Land Commissioners, and as the law stood at present under the Act of 1891 the Judicial Commissioner was the Commissioner named in that Act or his successor. Section 17 of this Bill enabled Mr. Justice Ross to do certain duties of the Judicial Commissioner, but it did not identify him with the Commissioner under the Act of 1891, and therefore this clause was necessary.

said that he accepted the statement of the First Lord of the Treasury. He thought he had met them very fairly. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, in order that the words he proposed might be inserted.

said he very strongly objected to the object of the clause as it had been stated by the Government.

thought it would not be in order now to withdraw the Motion that the clause stand part of the Bill, and therefore the House must come to a decision on the clause; but he would undertake that the Amendment should be made on Report.

said the Congested Districts Board existed for philanthropic purposes. It purchased estates with the direct intention of benefiting the tenants on those estates, and, as the Land Act of 1881 was passed to prevent undue oppression of the tenants by the landlords, it seemed absurd to suppose that this philanthropic body should be suspected of placing upon the tenants a higher rent than they could afford to pay. If the Board was so little to be trusted with the interests of the tenant, it was hardiy worth while that it should exist at all.

said that, from what he knew of Irish tenants, he thought they would rather pay a small rent than trust to the philanthropy of any body, whether the Congested Districts Board or another. [Nationalist cheers.] Any Board might have the best intentions, but the tenants should have some guarantee beyond mere philanthropic intentions before they were deprived of their rights.

said this was a water-tight clause in the interests of the Treasury. The Congested Districts Board might purchase from a private owner a certain estate, but he could not prevent tenants coming into Court because Parliament in its wisdom said, "We will not allow you to have these contracts with your tenants. We will interfere and fix a fair rent, and give every man the right to have a fair rent." Why should not this apply to the State? [Nationalist cheers.] If it was right in the one, it was right in the other. He detected the finger of the Treasury in the clause. ["Hear, hear!"] He did not see why, when the State became the proprietor of land, its tenants should not have a fair rent fixed as well as the tenants of private owners.

said the right of the tenant to apply to the Court to fix a fair rent for him was a vested right conferred upon him by statute, and, because thousands of tenants in Ireland might not have exercised their right, that did not justify the Committee by a stroke of the pen in depriving them of it. He considered it an appalling proposal. He reminded the Committee that philanthropic boards acted through their officers, and backed them up through thick and thin, and it would be in the power of these officers to deprive the tenants of the right that had been given them by Act of Parliament.

said that, as time was precious, he would consent to the omission of the sub-section.

remarked that, if time were precious so were the rights of the tenants under the Congested Districts Board.

hoped that next Session the Government would introduce a Bill to increase the powers of the Congested Districts Board in regard to the development of fisheries and the enlargement of holdings in the West of Ireland. There was a growing feeling that these were the chief agencies by which the people in the western districts of Ireland could be lifted out of the slough of terrible poverty in which they existed.

thought the landlords would be wise in their own interest to accept the Amendment.

We do not object to the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

I desire to offer an expression of thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for that statement. ["Hear, hear!"]

objected to the Amendment because the landlord, owing to circumstances over which he had no control—such as absence from the country—might have no knowledge of this application on the part of the tenant, and also because it brought in the element of compulsion. The landlords had no objection to tenants, who left their farms against their will, and, in obedience to a conspiracy with which they had no sympathy, getting back again; but he could not support this Amendment, because it proposed that the owner of the property should be compelled within a certain time to lodge his objection to the tenant's application.

said the supporters of the Amendment would have no objection to every precaution being provided that this transaction was not carried on behind the back of the landlord. He therefore hoped the hon. and gallant Member would withdraw his objection.

thought the clause went far enough in accepting the principle of arbitration, and he objected to its being further extended.

said that all the Amendment aimed at was to avoid putting on the landlord the necessity of formally assenting, or placing him in a position which his pride would not consent to. There was more than hard cash at the bottom of these unhappy disputes. He could quite understand a landlord in the position of the hon. Member for South Hunts refusing to write down a formal assent in these cases and resolving not to appear one way or the other. This was a point on which a concession by the landlords would do much to advance a settlement of these cases.

desired to do everything that could reasonably be done to promote voluntary arrangements, but in his opinion the Amendment really departed from the principles on which this part of the Measure was founded. In order to secure that every means should be availed of to bring the parties together, the Land Commission was brought in as an intermediary, but the Amendment appeared to be a departure from that principle.

stated that if his objection could be met in some way he should be glad, because he had every wish to blot out an unhappy page in Irish history. [Nationalist Cheers.]

pointed out that if the Amendment were accepted it would apply, not only to the plan-of-campaign tenants, but to all evicted tenants, even those evicted yesterday. He was afraid they were going a great deal too far.

suggested that, both sides being in substantial agreement, it should be left to the Government to bring up words on Report.

thought the words had better be settled now. The success of the clause depended on both parties proceeding in a friendly spirit; and, in his opinion, the Government would make a great mistake if they introduced into these voluntary arrangements anything to which the landlords took exception.

thought it should be sufficient if the landlord or his agent wrote a letter saying that he objected—["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist Member.]—and accordingly suggested that the words "in the prescribed manner" should be struck out of the Amendment. Words "in the prescribed manner" omitted from the proposed Amendment; Amendment, as thus altered, agreed to. Sub-heads (a) and (b) Sub-section (4) struck out.