rose to move

"to leave out the word 'now' and at the en I of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"

He asked whether the subject of the Bill was such that it ought to be dealt with in a private Bill. The Bill was not promoted by any body constituted under the public Acts, but by the Corporation of the City of London, a body not subject to any municipal corporation Act or to the general Acts relating to boroughs or urban sanitary districts, and under it the Corporation sought to have transferred to it the powers vested in the City Commissioners of Sewers under a, certain Act of Parliament. The Corporation of the City of London had no governing statutes or Acts of Parliament settling its constitution or regulating its election of officers or the constituent members of the body and it now proposed to deal with an area having a rateable value of live millions sterling and extending over 112 parishes. It sought the repeal of no less than 23 public Acts of Parliament, amongst which was the Valuation of the Metropolis Act, 1869. The administration of that Act was entrusted to the Commissioner," of Sewers and not to the Corporation, but the Corporation proposed to transfer the powers and duties of that Act to themselves. They also proposed to transfer from the Commissioners to themselves the rights and powers under the Local Loans Act, which referred to the borrowing and repayment of money. The Corporation was not now subject to the Local Loans Act, but could borrow as much money as it pleased on its own corporate property, unrestricted by the provisions that applied in this respect to every municipal borough under the Municipal Corporations Act. In addition to this a Public Health Bill was passed specially for London in 1891, and Parliament, by public statute, conferred the administration of those powers as regarded the City area upon the City Commissioners of Sewers. Those powers likewise it was proposed to transfer to the Corporation. Having regard to the enormous area affected, and to the fact that legislation dealing with this great area, had hitherto been undertaken by public, or by Government, Bills, he asked whether it was right or reasonable that the House should assent in this case to the large changes proposed being effected by means of a private Bill. He submitted that such huge changes should only be brought forward in a public Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The practical effect of the Bill would be to remove by private Bill legislation the whole question of the Local Government of London, as regarded the City area, from public discussion and treatment in that House, and he urged that that was not a wise or desirable thing to do. ["Hear, hear!"] Under the Act of 1848, when the City Commissioners of Sewers for London was created, that body was constituted the sole authority for executing certain municipal powers within the City area, and it was stipulated that the members should be nominees of the Corporation, though the Corporation, as he understood, were not bound under any Act to confine their nominations to members of their own body. Under that Act the Commissioners could only be deprived of their powers through the appointment of a new Commission. That being so, the Commissioners of Sewers was not, in fact, a statutory body of the Corporation, but a separate and independent body. This had been proved by the fact that in many public Acts certain powers and duties had been entrusted distinctively to the Commissioners of Sewers. Attempts had been made to alter the constitution of the Corporation of London, and it was curious that the Corporation had no rating powers beyond those connected with the City Police. But all these efforts had been made by way of public legislation. In 1888 the City of London and area was settled by a public Bill. Its position was then defined, and the late President of the Local Government Board, in discussing the Bill, stated that it was the intention of the Government to deal with that area according to their own proposals, showing that it was contemplated that any legislation affecting the City area of London should be undertaken by public or by a Government Bill, and certainly not by a private Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He submitted that a. Bill dealing with such important changes as those proposed, and affecting such a large area, should be a public and not a private Measure, and accordingly, he moved that the present Bill be read a Second time that day six months.

in seconding the Amendment, said he thought that the House was in rather an extraordinary position in regard to the question. No explanation had been given of the reasons why this far-reaching proposal had been brought forward in such a sudden and unexpected manner. ["Hear, hear!"] The object of the Bill, as had been staled, was to transfer to the Corporation the powers now exercised by the Commissioners of Sewers. He had searched through the papers that had been issued on the matter, and he could not find in them any reason at all why the change should not be made. No allegation of improper discharge of duty, no reflection whatever in this regard was made against the Commissioners. ["Hear, hear!"] The Commissioners were nominated by the Corporation, and it appeared to him that the Corporation had made the great mistake of supposing that because they nominated the Commissioners of Sewers—who, it must not, be forgotten, were charged with certain duties under Act of Parliament— they could abolish that body and take their duties upon themselves. Moreover, no assurance was given that, if the proposed transfer of powers and duties was made, the Corporation would carry out the duties now discharged by the Commissioners, and he doubted whether the inhabitants of London would have the power to enforce them to do so. Let the House look at these duties, as they were specified in Clauses 6, 7, and 8, and which were to be repealed. In one clause the Commissioners were required to meet at certain times and to hold weekly meetings. In another clause their powers were restricted, they were compelled to keep books, and there were restrictions about contracts, they being obliged to give notice of contracts above a certain amount, and they were obliged to obtain estimates before undertaking work; and in other clauses very important duties were imposed on this body nominated by the Corporation. Now all these were to be repealed, and no one could enforce against the Corporation the duty of attending to these necessities of the inhabitants of the City. So much for the body to be suppressed, and then he invited attention to the Bill. It was a very short Bill, with a long preamble; but within that preamble there would not be found a single statement of any reason why this step should be taken. There was no allegation that the existing authority had failed to discharge their duty. The preamble simply stated: "Whereas it is expedient that the Commission of Sewers should be dissolved." There was no reason or argument in support of that, and it was just this expediency that he called in question. The object of the Bill was to abolish a statutory body by Parliament, and to put in its stead an old body exercising powers under an old charter that no one understood. ["Oh, oh!"] Certainly no one understood the charter, no one understood the rights, powers, and duties of the Corporation of the City of London. He viewed that Corporation himself with the greatest interest. [Laughter.] It was the noblest relic of bygone days we possessed; but nobody knew what duties it owed to the people, no one could point to any Act of Parliament under which it exercised its powers, and the House was asked to lay violent hands on a body which had a statutory position, and to transfer its powers to an old Corporation the duties and liabilities of which no one understood. Clauses from 11 to 16 dealt with offices to be abolished and compensation to be given to those persons holding such offices, and the pensions those deprived of employment were to enjoy. But why deprive them of employment? No charge of failure to discharge their duties had been made against them. Why lay on the inhabitants of London the expenses of these compensations? It was not necessary at all, and there had been melancholy experience of the abolition of offices. If there was one strong reproach which even the friends of the Corporation would admit, it was that of extravagance. The high salaries paid by the Corporation rivalled in some cases the excessive salaries enjoyed by right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. He believed something like £50,000 a year were paid to officers of the Corporation, and now the House was asked to sanction a proposal to provide a large sum for compensation for the taxation of the City. This important Bill should be introduced as a public Bill, and ample time should be given by the House to its discussion. In every Act dealing with municipalities up to the present time, the House had been reforming these Corporations, constituting them statutory bodies with defined duties; but to-day the House was asked to do something else, to destroy a reformed Corporation, and to substitute for it one that had no definite shape or defined duties. There was no precedent for the step they were asked to take, and he invited hon. Members who were responsible for the Bill to reconsider their position, to withdraw the Bill, and introduce it in another Session as a public Measure.

took the opportunity to enter his protest against a Bill of this far-reaching and extended nature being dealt with as private Bill legislation. This very question of legislation dealing with the metropolis had been matter of consideration in the House on more than one occasion in recent years. It was incidentally mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade in 1888, when he introduced the Local Government Bill of that year, that it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of London reform by—presumably—a public Bill recognising, as the House would recognise, that, in dealing with so important a constituency as the City of London, the duty should devolve upon a responsible Government rather than upon private Members. That was in 1888; but in 1895 this very question was brought before the House by his hon. and learned Friend now Lord James of Hereford, who, upon the Second Reading of a Bill promoted by the London County Council, objected to the introduction of such a Bill as a private Bill, and appealed for the Speaker's ruling. The reasons he gave for his objection were as follows. He said:—

"I desire to ask your judgment, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order affecting this Bill, whether this Bill is a fit subject to be introduced into this House as a private Bill? I do not now ask yon to fix any definite rule as to what constitutes a private Bill—it is difficult to form an exact rule—but I respectfully suggest to you that this Bill clearly goes beyond the line which divides private from public Bills. In the first place, although without doubt it only refers to London, it affects 5,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects. It is moreover stated in the preamble that it is introduced for the purpose of forming a common basis of Imperial and local taxation; it also proceeds to change entirely the law as to the mode of assessment for rating and taxation, and it abolishes the jurisdiction of a Court which has hitherto administered the law, and creates a new tribunal of an entirely different character."

Upon this point of order the Speaker gave a ruling at length, in which he said that a Bill affecting the metropolis should as a rule be introduced as a public rather than as a private Bill, and finally said:—

"I have no doubt upon the matter. I am of opinion that the Bill ought to be introduced as a public Bill."

The opinion expressed by the Speaker on that occasion was summed up on page 634 of the tenth edition of Sir Erskine May's "Parliamentary Practice," in the following words:—

"Bills concerning the metropolis have been dealt with as public Bills, as the large area, the number of parishes, the vast population, and the variety of interests concerned, constitute them Measures of public policy rather than of local interest."

Surely, if that test be applied to this Bill—the importance and scope of which had been indicated—it must be apparent that it was a matter for public and not for private Bill legislation. Some hon. Members took exception to the remark of the seconder of the Amendment when he said that the charter of the City of London could not be understood; but they would probably accept the Report of a Royal Commission, when it said that the Corporation had no governing charter and no Acts of Parliament defining its constitution. Therefore his hon. Friend was perfectly right. They were not animated by any hostility to the Corporation in taking the course they were doing. It was rather because they had such a high appreciation of the importance of the City of London—[ironical Ministerial laughter]—that they said this should be a matter of public rather than of private legislation. The mover of the Amendment pointed out how it was proposed by this private Bill to repeal public statutes. Some of them realty appeared to him to be very salutary Acts, which it would be very well to preserve. There was, for instance, the one referred to in the Second Schedule as "Estimates to be obtained for commencement of works to the amount of £100." There was a public Act directed against jobbery, and here, by a private Bill, they were going to repeal it. Then there was "Previous notice to be given of contracts for the amount of £200 and upwards." ["Hear, hear!"] There was, again, a public Act directed against jobbery, and they were going to repeal that by a private Bill.

was understood to say that both those sections were in private and not in public Acts.

asked whether it was right, even so, that those important sections, dealing with such important subjects as the manner in which large sums of public money ought to be spent, should be got rid of by private Bill legislation. This Amendment was moved in no spirit of hostility to the promoters of the Bill. It was regarded as being a Measure which the House should keep before it in all its stages. There was no question here of any intricate examination into plans or documents such as could only be conveniently dealt with by the machinery provided for private Bill legislation. There was here a simple question of policy as to whether or no the City of London was to have transferred to it powers, duties, and responsibilities which it had never yet exercised, and whether or no a wide-reaching reform of that kind was to be undertaken by private Members when they had the clearest intimation from the Government of 1885 that it was in contemplation to deal with this matter by a public Bill.

pointed out that the Bill which constituted the Commissioners of Sewers in 1848 was a private Bill. As he understood, all the present Bill sought was to give the Corporation of the City of London power to deal with the particular acts and duties which at present were discharged by the Commissioners of Sewers. For all practical purposes, the Commissioners of Sewers was a Grand Committee of the Corporation of the City of London. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] For all practical purposes it was, and they had this anomaly that they had the Commissioners of Sowers exercising authority in the City of London, and the only power which the Corporation had to veto any of the decisions come to by the Commissioners of Sewers was by creating a fresh Commission. This Bill, as he understood, was to prevent that necessity. It was to provide that the Commissioners of Sewers should be in deed and in, fact one of the Grand Committees of London. They had heard a great deal about the Corporation of London being an unreformed corporation. Well, he was a member of it, and he was a member of it because he believed it was one of the most democratic corporations that could be found in the United Kingdom. He supported the Bill because he thought it was simply a. Measure intended to give to the Corporation power to deal with its own household. It was not intended to create new duties. The hon. Member for Islington said that they proposed to deprive the officers of the Commissioners of Sewers of their duties and to lay upon the citizens of London a heavy expense for such pensions as might be voted to them. If the Bill passed, several of the officers, such as the engineer and certain inspectors who had experience in the duties which devolved upon the Commissioners, would, automatically, go over to the Corporation, and clauses were, or would be, inserted in the Bill for that purpose. The hon. Member for Plymouth in the statement which had been circulated, said "The Corporation is unrestricted in its powers of borrowing or redeeming its debt." The Corporation was just in the same position as any other borrower. Its stock stood well in the market, and it looked well to see that there was always a safe margin in connection with any of its loans or in dealing with Corporation money. It was further set out in the statement, that

"the only power of rating that the Corporation exercised is in connection with the City police. All other duties relating to the provisions of municipal government and functions now classed under the comprehensive title are carried on by the said Commission of Sewers under public statutes."

He ventured to traverse that statement. As a matter of fact, there was a rate levied called the Militia rate. The rates which were necessary to be imposed in connection with, the requirements of the City were also levied and, therefore, the statement was quite misleading. He hoped that if the Speaker's ruling was asked he would rule that, as a private Bill constituted the Commission of Sewers, by a private Bill the Corporation might resume its exercise of those duties, and have control over its own committee.

said this Bill dealt with a purely domestic matter concerning the arrangements of the Corporation of London. The Corporation thought, that as in these days so many duties were cast upon local authorities it would be better that these particular duties should be discharged by themselves, instead of as they were now by a body not elected by them, and whose nomination was revocable at will, so that they might be more directly responsible. The hon. Member for Islington said that certain duties were imposed upon these Commissioners by statute, and that if this Bill passed the Corporation would have no duties. If he would turn to Section 6 he would see that in every Act of Parliament giving any power or authority to either impose any duty or liability to the Commissioners it was provided that the Acts should be read and have effect as if the words "Common Council" were substituted for the words "Commissioners." He asked the House to pass this Bill, and then it could be examined by a Committee upstairs.

said he had always abstained from taking part in discussing private Bills in this House except when they had seemed to him to be matters really of public importance. There was, he thought, nothing more important to that House than to discriminate between the subjects of private Bill and public Bill legislation. He did not wish to regard the particular character of the Corporation of London except so far as it was necessary in considering the transfer of these powers. What was it this Bill proposed to do? Here was a body, the Corporation of London, which was under no statutory regulation. For the security of the ratepayers all other municipal bodies were regulated by Acts of Parliament, but the Corporation of London was not so regulated. It was now proposed to confer upon this body a number of powers it did not at present exercise, therefore those powers were not under the regulations which they would be under if they were given to the ordinary Corporation. That was all he wished to say upon the distinctive character of the Corporation of London. His hon. and learned Friend had referred to one of the most important of the regulations, that was to say, with reference to the making of contracts. They knew that of all things in the world that which was most liable to abuse by bodies of this character was the dealing with contracts. The right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees said that the Commission of Sewers was created by a private Act. How did that affect the question? When the Commissioners of Sewers were constituted by a private Act they were placed under express restrictions for obvious public reasons. But they were now going to hand over this power to the Corporation of London without the restrictions which would be placed on any public body if it was under a statutory enactment. Could they conceive a more unfair, injudicious, and impolitic proceeding as regarded the public? They were going, in point of fact, to take away from the ratepayers, in a district of which the rateable value was £5,000,000, a security which existed in the body which now exercised those powers, restricted by the condition in question. They were about to give a premium upon these very trans- actions which had proved a scandal to bodies of this kind, by granting powers without the restrictions which were imposed upon every other municipal corporation. The fact that they were given by a private Act did not affect the question at all. If they were going to give these new powers to the Corporation of London, they should give them under the same public securities that were provided in the case of every municipal corporation. What they were about to do now was to convert the Corporation of London into a municipal corporation with all its powers but with none of its restrictions. The effect would be, by a side wind, in a private Bill—to give to a body dealing with this important area, all the powers of a municipal corporation, while absolving it from all the restrictions. This was a very serious matter, and it would not stop there. It was not a question of dealing with Corporations alone; it was dealing with a most fundamental principle of local government, and this would be a precedent to open the door to loose dealing with matters of this description. He would take it, if they liked, that the Commissioners of Sewers were a private body regulated by a private Act. That was perfectly true, but if they were going to take over these powers, which were regulated when in the hands of the Commissioners of Sewers, and hand them over to a body which would not be governed by a public Act, he did not know how far the regulation with reference to loans would go. The Corporation of London was not restrained at all by the rules which applied to other corporations with regard to the spending of public money. They were not under the Borough Funds clause, which required the consent of the ratepayers and so forth. The Commissioners of Sewers were acting under the Public Loans Act, under the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, under the Sanitary Acts, and the various Metropolitan Acts for local government, and they were going to transfer the powers of the Commissioner's of Sewers to the Corporation without any of the securities which would be given in the case of every municipal corporation. It was said that, after all, the Commissioners of Sewers were merely a deputation from the Corporation, and that was thought to be a valid argument. But was not the Watch Committee of a municipal corporation much more distinctly a deputation, because they could not appoint anybody on the Watch Committee who was not a, member of the Corporation, whilst here they might have the whole Commissioners of Sewers non-members of the Corporation. He thought it was an extremely improper thing to give the power asked for by a private Bill, and he did not sea why the Corporation of London should have any reason to fear the action of this House dealing with the matter by a public Bill. He submitted that it would be much better that in matters of this kind the Corporation should proceed by a public rather than a private Bill.

said the argument of the hon. and learned Member for York, that this Bill should be a public Bill, was not illustrated by the case quoted, for the private Bill introduced some years since by the London County Council to amend the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869, was held to be wrong, because the Act of 18G9 was a public Act, whereas the Act now sought to be amended was a private Act. If the Commissioners of Sewers were agreeable to the transfer, as they were, and the Corporation of London preferred to take the responsibility, the amalgamation should be allowed. Every vestry transacted such business through a committee, and the Corporation should be allowed to do so, instead of as now leaving control of its business to a delegate authority. If any particular clause were objected to, that would be for the Committee of the House. The proposal was perfectly reasonable, and, although some Members, from hostility to the City, might raise objections, he trusted the Bill would be read a Second time, and the City thus be given the opportunity of proving the expediency of the change stated in the preamble. The House divided:—Ayes, 204; Noes, 95.—[Division List, No. 23.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state how much of the annual grant of £12,000 to Scottish Universities is distributed to each University, and who determines how the money should be allocated to each University?

The grant of £42,000 is distributed to the Scottish Universities by ordinances of the Commissioners which have all been laid on the Table of this House and are therefore open to the hon. Member to refer to. The proportions of the grant are: St. Andrews (including the University College of Dundee), £6,300; Glasgow, £12,180; Aberdeen, £8,400; Edinburgh, £15,120; making a total of £42,000.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has yet considered the advisability of making provision in the Military Works (Money) Bill for the constructions of works for the protection of the northwest coast of Scotland?

When the whole question of the defence of the United Kingdom was considered by the Joint Naval and Military Committee no proposal was made for the construction of works on the north-west coast of Scotland.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the Lee-Metford rifle has been issued to the Royal Naval Reserve; and, if so, to what stations?

The Lee-Motford rifle has only been issued to Her Majesty's drill ships Medea and Medusa, on board which Officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve drill. This rifle will probably be issued to the remaining seven drill ships and all the Royal Naval Reserve batteries between June and December 1897.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the West Indian Sugar Commission contains among its members or commands the services of any person competent, by knowledge of modern improvements in manufacture, to advise upon the extent to which the machinery and the processes of manufacture prevailing in the British West Indian Islands are out of date?

in the absence of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Commission has no such actual specialist in machinery attached to it, but the question is one upon which the Commissioners will have no difficulty in obtaining expert evidence.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will inquire from the Government of India why no reply has been sent to a memorial, dated 29th November 1895, from Mr. E. R. Jardine, Deputy Postmaster of Bombay, regarding his claim to exchange compensation; and whether he is aware that Mr. Jardine, on the ground of his English domicile, drew compensation up to 30th November 1894; that the compensation was then stopped without any reason being assigned; that Mr. Jardine's father possessed an English domicile, as holding Her Majesty's commission; and that his brother Mr. A. J. A. Jardine, District Police Superintendent in Burma, and Mr. W. E. Jardine, Assistant Collector of Salt in Bombay, whoso status is exactly the same as his, are allowed, without objection, to draw their compensation allowance?

The subject of the grant of exchange compensation is, as stated by me on the 26th January, now under the consideration of the Secretary of State in Council. Until the Government of India receive his decision, which I hope, will be communicated very soon, on the many points that have been raised, they are not in a position to reply to individual memorials

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the additional evidence adduced in the appeal of the Desai of Jalihal, in the Bombay Presidency, including as it does the original title deeds and accounts of the Peishwa, has induced the Government to alter their original decision of resuming the estate; and whether he will Jay all the Papers upon the Table of the House;

The Government of Bombay, having considered the evidence to which the hon. Member refers, reported to me that they saw no reason why the previous decisions should be reversed. In this opinion, after considering the memorial which they forwarded, I concurred. If the hon. Member wishes to move for the Papers, I shall not oppose the Motion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in the year 1884 the Viceroy in Council submitted to the India Office a proposal for the establishment of an agricultural bank near Poona, as an effective means of relieving the heavily indebted ryots, which proposal received the hearty sup-part of both ryots and money-lenders; that the Bombay Government was willing to conduct the experiment; that the Manchester Chamber of Commerce memorialised the Secretary of State in its favour; but that the Secretary of State, after long delay, ultimately withheld his sanction; and whether he will state for what reasons and upon what expertadvice he refused to permit an experiment, unanimously recommended by the Government of India, as being advocated on purely disinterested grounds, and as likely to be of incalculable benefit to the whole country?

I am aware of the discussions to which the Question draws attention. The reasons which induced the then Secretary of State to withhold sanction from the scheme to which the hon. Member refers are stated at length at pages 55–58 of the Papers presented to Parliament on the subject in 1887. When the Poona scheme was negatived the Government of India were invited to bring forward a revised scheme that would not be open to the same objection. A valuable report on agricultural banks in different parts of the world, with suggestions for action in India, has recently been prepared by an officer of the Madras Government. I am in hopes that a practical scheme for making a beginning with such banks may before long be brought forward. The question how best to mitigate and prevent the indebtedness of the Indian peasantry is one of the most, important that the Governments in India could, in ordinary times, possibly consider.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Leitrim (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Banbridge and Rathdrum Boards of Guardians have passed Resolutions calling on the Local Government Board of Ireland to institute an inquiry into the merits of the treatment of rabies by Mr. M'Govern, of Cavan; and, will he, as official head of the Local Government Board, and in view of the importance attached to this matter in Ireland, advise the Board to grant the inquiry asked for?

Copies of the Resolution referred to have been received. In the year 1888 the Local Government Board were pressed to grant an inquiry similar to the one now asked for, and the Board stated that if Mr. M'Govern was willing to submit to the Medical Inspectors of Board the particulars of his alleged cure, together with a recipe of the medicine or preparation given to his patients the Board would direct such inquiry to be held. In reply, the Board were informed that the M'Governs could not disclose their remedy, which they declared they were bound to hold from father to son in their family. The Board then pointed out that no advantage could, under the circumstances, be obtained by holding such inquiry. It is obviously impossible for the Local Government Board for Ireland in any way to recognise the pre- tensions of persons who have no professional knowledge, but lay claim to the exclusive possession of medical secrets, and are unwilling to submit their methods of treatment to the examination of competent judges.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin, St. Patrick's (Mr. W. FIELD), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in a letter from the secretary of the Irish Lights Commissioners addressed to the Chairman of the Committee of Inquiry into the Mercantile Marine Fund, it is stated that, their Board has had the advice of three retired Naval Officers and of their Inspector, who is a master mariner of long standing, on all nautical points; whether he can furnish the names of the retired naval officers referred to, stating their rank when on the active list of the Royal Navy; and, whether he can state what grade is the certificate of competency held by their inspector, and what date he was examined for such certificate?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the names of the retired naval officers mentioned in the letter referred to in the Question are as follows: Captain the Hon. F. G. Crofton, R.N., Commander Riall, R.N., Mr. Maurice Knight, R.N. Captain Crofton held the rank of Commander, and the other two the rank of Lieutenant when on the active list of the Royal Navy. The Commissioners state that, their Inspector holds a certificate of competency as first mate granted in 1867.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the contract for the conveyance of the mails to India, China, and Australia has now been arranged; and, if so, what rates of speed have been fixed, and what saving in time will be effected to Bombay, Hong Kong, and Melbourne?

The tenders which have been accepted contemplate a speed of 14½ knots on the line to and from India, 131 knots on the line to and from China, and 1¼ knots on the line to and from Australia. The time-table has not yet been settled, but it is anticipated that under the now con-tract, as compared with the old, the following will be the approximate saving in the time of transit of the mails from London: to Bombay, nearly two days; to Hong Kong, four days; to Melbourne, four days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the Land Commission are going to hold a Court in the County of Kildare to hear applications for the fixing of fair rents?

A list of cases arising in the County Kildare will, it is expected, be, issued in the course of a week, but the date on which the hearing of those cases will be commenced has not yet been definitely fixed.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will agree to the Return as to the sums spent on Royal Barracks (Dublin), which stands on this day's Paper?

said that a Return could be given showing the sums spent on the Royal Barracks, but that he could not pledge himself as to the details to be included in it.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. VESEY KNOX), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any proposal was placed before the London and North Western Railway Company by the Post Office for a night mail from Euston to Dublin, leaving at 8.20 and arriving in Dublin 25 minutes sooner than now proposed; whether he is aware that the usefulness of the largely increased expenditure on the service, so far as the Irish provincial towns are concerned, will be greatly lessened by the fact that the mail will leave London 25 minutes later than hitherto, a change for which there has been no public demand; and, whether, if the main obstacle in the way of the dispatch of the mails at 8.20 is the want of adequate sorting facilities at the Post Office, such facilities will be provided?

No such proposal as that suggested by the hon. Member was placed before the Railway Company. Though the Irish Mail nominally leaves Euston at 8.20 p.m., it is necessarily detained at Crewe till after the arrival of the Special Post Office Train which carries the letters which it is impossible to dispatch from Euston at 8.20. Though, therefore, the Irish Mail Train leaves Euston at 8.20, a large part of the Irish Mail is not even now dispatched till 8.30 p.m. As the Special Post Office Train leaves Euston at 8.30 p.m., it is impossible to start the Irish Mail until after a sufficient interval for safety, and the London and North Western Railway Company consider that the interval should not be less than 15 minutes. Unless the hours of posting in London are modified, the latest dispatch with extra fee is 7.45 p.m. for the Eastern Central District and about 7.0 p.m. for the rest of London. No addition to the Sorting Force would admit of an earlier dispatch than 8.30.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under the contract made in 1860 for the conveyance of the Irish day mails between London and Holyhead, the Government took power to limit the use of those trains to the conveyance of mails and first and second class passengers to and from Ireland; is he aware that the London and North Western Railway Company use those trains for the carriage of third class passengers to and from London to Scotland, viâ Crewe, and from Chester and intermediate stations to London, and was the consent of the Post Office authorities asked and obtained by the Company to this practice; and, if so, at what date; whether the Post Office, authorities have powers under the old mail contract and the new contract now being arranged to prohibit the London and North Western Railway Company using the Irish mail trains for the carriage of third class passengers other than passengers to and from Ireland; and, if so, will they in the new contract compel the Company either to afford Irish passengers facilities for travelling third class on the Irish mail trains between London and Holyhead or else discontinue the carriage of third class passengers altogether on those trains; and, whether, before giving final sanction to the new mail time table, he will reconsider the question with the view of meeting the wishes of the Irish people who are most concerned?

The Government took no power in the contract of 1859, which is, I presume, the one to which the hon. Member refers, to exclude third class passengers from or to convey them in the trains referred to between London and Holyhead. It is understood that the London and North Western Railway Company use the down day mail train for the conveyance of third class passengers for Scotland between London and Crewe, and the up day mail train for third class passengers for London from Chester and certain intermediate stations. It was not necessary for the Company to obtain the consent of the Post Office to this practice, and they did not apply for it. The Postmaster General's statutory powers for dealing with railway companies are confined to making arrangements for the conveyance of mails, and do not extend to making provision for the carriage of any particular class of passengers. In these circumstances, it is not expedient to attempt to introduce any provision into the new contract binding the Company in the manner suggested. The new mail time table, which has already been laid before the House, was drawn up with the view of meeting, as far as possible, the wishes of the Irish people, and it is regretted that the concession now asked is not practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to a Resolution, proposed by Mr. Stubbs, D.L., and seconded by Mr. R. Sweeny, J.P., unanimously passed at a public meeting held in the Court House, Ballyshannon, on the 3rd of February, Mr. John Daly, Chairman of the Town Commissioners, presiding, complaining of the inconvenience accruing to the inhabitants of Ballyshanuon and the surrounding districts from the inadequate mail service, and urging that the present system of transmission of the mails by car between Bundoran Junction and Ballyshannon, a distance of upwards of forty miles is wholly inadequate; whether he is aware that letters for the night mail must be posted in Ballyshannon before 4.25 p.m., whereas the residents of other towns of minor importance can post letters up to 6 p.m., and 6.30 p.m. in some cases; and, whether regard being had to the fact that the agitation for an improved postal service in this district has been made the subject of repeated complaints to the postal authorities, and that the recent establishment by the Government of a rifle range and military camp for 2,000 men in the immediate locality will increase the mails, the Postmaster General will be able to take any steps for the establishment of a postal service by rail between Bundoran Junction and Ballyshannon?

The Postmaster General has received a copy of the Resolution referred to. It is the case that, under existing arrangements, the latest hour of posting in Ballyshannon for the night mail is 4.25 p.m. The question of establishing a night mail service by railway to Ballyshannon has been considered more than once, but it has been found that the expense would be altogether disproportionate to the revenue available. The matter, however, is again being inquired into.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Veterinary Department has the power to order the slaughter of cattle as diseased without a thorough examination; whether his attention has been called to a case of a tenant farmer, named Patrick Frawley, Lisgriffin, Buttevant, County Cork, who sold a cow on 28th October 1896, at, Mallow, which was shipped with cattle from other districts, some of these cattle being found to be diseased; whether, upon an official from the Veterinary Department calling on Mr. Frawley a few days ago, the latter offered to pay the expense of an independent veterinary surgeon with the object of thorough and reliable inspection; and has the Veterinary Department power to authorise the wholesale slaughter of cattle in cases where independent inspection is called for.

The Veterinary Department has power to slaughter not only cattle known to be affected with pleuro-pneumonia, or suspected of being so affected, but also any cattle ascertained to have been in contact with affected cattle. In consequence of the occurrence recently of a serious outbreak of pleuro-pneumonia in London, the affected cattle, it is stated, having been imported from Cork, the Inspectors of the Irish Veterinary Department were at once instructed to restrict the movement in Ireland of cattle which were ascertained to have been associated with the animals shipped to London and among which disease was found to have existed. Among the cattle so traced and restricted are those belonging to Patrick Frawley, and in the event of the slaughter of his cattle compensation will be paid to him out of the moneys voted by Parliament for the suppression of pleuro-pneumonia. The diagnosis of this disease cannot with safety be allowed to depend exclusively on veterinary inspection of the living animal, as experience has shown that a conclusive decision in regard to the existence of disease in cattle exposed to infection can only be arrived at after slaughter and post-mortem examination. Ireland has happily been entirely free from pleuro-pneumonia since 1892, and it is obviously essential in the best interests of the Irish cattle trade that any ground for suspicion as to the existence of the disease should be promptly removed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Foreigners can, by taking out a patent in England, prevent a process from being carried out in this country by others without any obligation on their part to exercise it here themselves so long as they keep the market supplied from abroad; whether he is aware that, in all other European countries, a patentee is bound to exercise his patent within those countries; whether he is aware that trades amounting to very large sums, amongst others in certain dyes, the product of coal tar, are foreign monopolies, prejudicial to British industries, in consequence of this state of the law; and if he will take steps in the interests of Home industries and Home labour to bring the Patent Laws of the United Kingdom into conformity with those of every other European country?

In reply to the hon and gallant Member I would refer him to Section 22 of the Patent Act 1883. He will see that that section prescribes a course of procedure where (inter alia) a patent is not being worked in the United Kingdom by reason of the default of a patentee to grant licences, and in the absence of any decision to the contrary. I am not satisfied that the law is not effectual as it now stands to meet the cases suggested in the Question.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would answer the last paragraph of the question?

said he was satisfied that the law as it now stood was sufficient for his hon. and gallant Friend's purpose, and, therefore, he did not propose to do anything in the matter.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the letter addressed by the Department to Mr. Matthews, of the Castleton Wesleyan School, dated 23rd December last, has been with-drawn?

No, Sir. The Committee of Council are still awaiting the plans asked for by their letter of the 7th of January.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether there is any intention of modifying the Code so as to allow teachers holding the Irish certificate to accept positions in English schools?

Yes, Sir. Several modifications to that effect will be introduced into the new Code.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the skilled shipwrights of the Navy are at present considerably below their proper strength, although special efforts have been made during the past few months at all the naval ports to induce entries; would he state what has been the result of these efforts; and whether, in consequence of the scarcity, a circular has recently been issued ordering the entry of a number of carpenters' crews, although that class was abolished a few years since?

The Question of the hon. Member alludes, of course, to shipwrights who go on board ship, and has nothing to do with shipwrights employed in the dockyards. The large dimensions of the increase in the Navy have naturally occasioned an increased demand for almost every branch of the personnal, and here and then; in very special branches it very naturally is difficult to bring up the numbers at once to the desired strength. In the case of the shipwrights, the temporary difficulty is in part due to the general and striking activity in the shipbuilding trade. It has been considered desirable to enter a limited number of carpenters' crews while shipwrights are not being entered in satisfactory numbers, and orders have been issued accordingly. The rating of carpenters' crews, although allowed to lapse in May, was re-established in June, 1891.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in the case of a Voluntary School having been closed and the building rented by the managers to a School Board, the managers can then give notice to the Board to quit, and prevent them providing additional accommodation for the scholars accustomed to attend a Board School?

I cannot answer hypothetical questions; but if the facts of any specific case are submitted to the Committee of Concil they will be considered.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Leitrim, N. (Mr. PATRICK M'HUGH), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of reducing the price of the daily issues of the Parliamentary Debates, or of furnishing same gratis to Members applying for them?

The contract binds the contractor not to charge more than a shilling for each daily part, but it, does not give the Government any power to interfere with the prices charged for the separate parts within that limit. As regards the proposal to supply the parts gratis to Members, I can only repeat what I said last August, when the same question was raised in Supply. There have already been several Debates as to the heavy expenditure incurred for printing, and, in view of the two Committees of 1888 and 1893, I do not think that the Government would be justified in making any further outlay in that direction.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the death of a prisoner, John Nelson, which occurred in Carlisle Prison on Tuesday, 2nd instant; whether, previous to Nelson's decease, the prison surgeon had made a report upon his condition, advising his immediate release on account of the serious state of his health; and, will he explain on what grounds the Prison Commissioners refused to grant his release?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of the death of this prisoner. A report was received by me five days before it happened from the prison doctor, not, as the Question suggests, advising his immediate release, but stating that he was suffering from pernicious anæmia and might die soon. The prisoner was too ill to be removed to his home, which was thirty miles away; and as the workhouse infirmary was the only other place which could receive him, and death was in all probability inevitable, I came to the conclusion that it was better he should remain undisturbed in the prison infirmary should add that the prisoner had been received in prison only three weeks before under a long sentence for a serious offence and that the disease was in no way due to or aggravated by his confinement.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the land required to supply the deficiency of school accommodation at Wimbledon has yet been bought, and the building plans approved by, or submitted to, the Education Department; (2) whether he is aware that, as the result of appeals extending over several months, only £2,136 has been promised towards the estimated expenditure of, £7,150; and (3) whether, in view of this fact, and of the continued rapid increase of the population, the Department will, without further delay, give effect to the notice which expired on the 30th of November last?

I am informed that the conveyance of the site for the new school is in course of completion, and that plans of the buildings will be submitted as soon as it is executed. I understand that the statement in paragraph 2 is correct; but the Schools' Committee have arranged to borrow £3,500 of the total sum required, and are confident that they will raise the remaining £2,000 without any difficulty. Under these circumstances, the Committee of Council see no reason at present to order the formation of a School Board.

on behalf of the hon. Member for East Tyrone (Mr. P. C. DOOGAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that at a largely attended meeting of the members of the Belfast National Teachers' Association, which was held in Rosemary Street Hall, Belfast, on Saturday last, under the chairmanship of Mr. Erskine, President of the Association, a resolution was adopted expressing their opinion that two or more practical teachers should occupy seats on the Board of National Education in Ireland, and urge on the Central Committee to give this question a prominent place at the next congress; and whether he will take any steps to have the views of this body of teachers carried into effect?

Copies of the Resolution have been received. The question is not one on which I should like to express an opinion without further consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a letter weighing under half an ounce enclosed in a registered envelope, not registered properly in the office at Thomastown, Kilkenny, but posted in an ordinary letter box, and bearing a penny stamp, was made liable to a charge of fourpence on delivery; whether the Postmaster General is liable for the loss of valuable property if sent in an official registered letter envelope without the sender obtaining a receipt; and if not, on what grounds is a charge of fourpence made for a letter because it happens to be sent, duly stamped, in an envelope issued by the Department; and whether he will alter this rule?

The Postmaster General has made inquiry into the particular case referred to by the hon. Member, and he finds that the envelope was posted almost immediately after the publication of the new regulations, and improperly charged through an oversight. The hon. Member is probably aware that prior to the issue of recent regulations the envelope improperly posted would be liable to a charge of 6d. viz., four times the registration fee less the 2d. paid on the envelope. The clerk dealing with the case seems actually to have made this charge in the first instance and corrected it, writing 4d. over the 6d. He should, as a matter of fact, have written 2d. The Postmaster General is not legally liable for the loss of any article sent by post, but he voluntarily undertakes to grant compensation in the case of letters, etc., which have been posted and registered in accordance with the rules. A line is levied on letters marked "Registered" butimproperly posted, to make the public careful to avoid placing temptation in the way of servants of the Department, and the Postmaster General is not prepared to abolish the rule.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. HENNIKER HEA-TON), I beg to ask the. Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a person having no stamp, but having a registered letter envelope for which he has paid twopence, and which bears a twopenny embossed stamp, may send a circular, or other bookpost matter of the prescribed weight, in such envelope, provided the envelope be left unfastened, without rendering the addressee liable to a line of fourpence on delivery; and, if a fine is thereby incurred, whether he will explain what offence has been committed, or how the Department can be injured or defrauded by the use of an unfastened registered envelope as a cover for bookpost matter?

Registered letter envelopes are sold for the convenience of the public in sending registered letters, and must not be used for any other purpose. If a registered letter envelope therefore is dropped into a letter box instead of being handed over a counter it must be assumed, whatever its contents, that it is intended for registration, and the ordinary fine will be exacted for its irregular posting. Regulations of this kind are made to facilitate the work of the Department, and if such suggestions as he puts forward in the Question were adopted, the work of the Department would be proportionately delayed with the effect of arresting the mails and casting indirectly inconvenience on the general public.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Government of the Dominion of Canada has offered a subsidy of £3,000, and the Government of Jamaica £2,000, towards the cost of the direct telegraph cable from Bermuda to Jamaica, via Turk's Island, and as he stilted in April 1896 that he had no reason to think there are any insuperable constructive difficulties affecting such communication, whether the delay in granting the sanction of Her Majesty's Government is on account of inadequate financial support given, or whether there is any difficulty in consequence of the prior occupation of the West Indies by any other Company which controls the service between Jamaica and the other Islands; and whether he is aware that this Company has announced its intention to give up the service between the Islands if the direct cable to Jamaica should be laid, and that the Company proposing to lay and work the; direct cable has expressed its willingness at once to connect the several Islands by cable, and maintain a satisfactory service at a much reduced rate. In putting his question General Laurie said he believed there was a slight error for which he was responsible. It was stated that the Government of Canada had offered a subsidy. He was informed they had the matter under consideration only.

I believe that what the hon. Member states is the case. The Government of Canada are prepared to consider the matter; they have not got further than that. I have reason to beilive that the Government of Canada are disposed to contribute to the cost of providing direct telegraphic communication between Bermuda and Jamaica, but I am not aware that they have offered a subsidy of £3,000 for that purpose. The Government of Jamaica have expressed their willingness to transfer to a company providing such communication the subsidy of £2,000 a year, which they now pay to the Company which now provides telegraphic communication between that colony and the United Kingdom, viâ the United States and Cuba and Panama. In dealing with proposals which have been made for the construction and working of a cable between Bermuda and Jamaica Her Majesty's Government have been obliged to take into consideration not only financial questions, but the provision of communication between Jamaica and Her Majesty's other West Indian possessions. These questions have presented considerable difficulties, which have not yet been surmounted. I am not aware that the Companies to which I understand the hon. and gallant Member to refer in his last Question have committed themselves to the statements which he attributes to them.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. HENNIKER HEATON), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, under what authority the transmission of samples of rubber by British firms by pattern post has been absolutely prohibited within the last few days, on the ground that the odour of it is injurious to other correspondence or annoying to the officials, although such samples have been transmitted by post for 30 years without injury to the mails, and are still freely introduced from abroad and delivered in this country by the British postal authorities; is he aware that the rubber trade of Liverpool exceeds six millions sterling per annum, and that the fact that the prohibition of the posting of British samples has been to transfer that trade bodily into the hands of foreign manufacturers; whether he has been informed that by certain processes the odour of crude rubber is now largely got rid of, and that by packing the substance in a tin canister any remaining odour is entirely suppressed; and whether he will at once give directions that the said prohibition shall not apply to samples packed in air-tight canisters?

The exclusion of crude rubber from the sample post was decided upon on the ground that it is the duty of the Post Office to protect the contents of the mails. By 47 and 48 Vict. c. 76 articles such as crude rubber which are likely to injure the other contents of the mails cannot be admitted to the Sample post. It is a necessary condition that samples must be packed in such a manner as to be easily withdrawn for examination, and this would of course be impossible in the samples packed in air-tight canisters. The prohibition applies equally to samples of crude rubber received from places abroad as to those posted in this country, and my hon. Friend is mistaken as to his facts. Neither is it the fact that such samples have been transmitted for 30 years without injury to the mails. In 1894 parcels containing crude rubber were forbidden to pass through the post, unless so packed as to render the smell imperceptible, but continued trouble has been given by the dispatch of these substances.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, with regard to the experiment carried out at Woolwich Arsenal, on the 2nd instant, with cordite, what were the exact weights of cordite, used, how were the packages constructed, and of what material or materials; how were the cases arranged, and at what distances apart; who suggested the experiment, and who authorised it; what was it intended to prove, what did it prove, and what were the exact results; and whether, in any of Her Majesty's ships having guns especially constructed for the use of cordite, any cordite is carried?

It is neither desirable nor usual to give the details of experiments which are carried out for special purposes with warlike stores. The experiments on the 2nd instant were a series made at Woolwich with different amounts of cordite packed in wooden boxes, in metal-lined boxes, and metal cases. These experiments were made under the authority of the Inspector-General of Ordnance at the suggestion of the Committee on Dangerous Buildings, and were carried on under the supervision of the Ordnance Committee. The object was to ascertain what would be the result of cordite becoming ignited when stored under different conditions. The results of the experiments have so far afforded valuable information—[laughter]—and further experiments will take place with a view of determining points that have arisen in connection with the safe storage of cordite. Her Majesty's ships carry cordite charges.

inquired whether the hon. Gentleman could tell them what the results of the experiments showed except the blowing up of a church. [Laughter.]

was informed that that was not one of the results. Perhaps it might be arranged that the hon. Member should be present at the next explosion. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that boards of guardians in various parts of the country are just now more than usually energetic in prosecuting persons who, having conscientious objections to vaccination, naturally conclude that some regard will be had to the recommendations of a Royal Commission, and are causing the homes of such persons to be broken up for the recovery of penalties; and if, in view of his declaration that no legislation on the subject can be attempted during the present Session, he will advise boards of guardians to suspend prosecutions under the Vaccination Law for the present?

It is the duty of boards of guardians to enforce the existing law in regard to vaccination, and the report of a Royal Commission in no way relieves them of that duty. I have no dispensing power, and I should not be justified in advising boards of guardians to take the course suggested by the hon. Member, namely, to advise boards of guardians to suspend prosecutions under the Vaccination Law for the present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any accounts have been made out between the War Office and the Chartered Company (in payment of Imperial troops lent to the Chartered Company); what sums have been paid by the Company, and what amount is still owing in account by them; and, whether any payments made and sums due or estimated, or both, will appear in the Estimates; if not, in what Statement or accounts can they be found?

It is known that considerable payments have been made in South Africa to the War Office account, but details cannot yet be given. In addition the Company have provided for the subsistence of the Imperial troops employed, besides meeting heavy charges for transport. The whole question of the claim to be preferred against the British South Africa Company is under consideration, but it is expected to be settled on this years' accounts, so that no provision in next year's Estimates was necessary.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman could state the total amount that had been paid up to the present time?

said he could not do so, because the final accounts had not yet been received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government has taken or intend to take any steps to procure the attendance for the purpose of examination before the South African Committee of this House of Messrs. Sampson and Davis, now imprisoned in Pretoria?

replying in the absence of Mr. CHAMBEKRLAIN, said that the Question of the attendance of witnesses was in the hands of the Committee.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, considering that the Prince Consort was the originator of the South Kensington Museum, and that the front of the building has never been completed, although numerous plans have been prepared, he will endeavour to induce the Treasury to provide the necessary funds by a supplementary Estimate to complete the front in commemoration of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee?

This question was carefully considered by the Treasury within the last few weeks in connection with the Estimates for 1807–08, when it was decided that the necessary funds could not be found. I do not think that under these circumstances it is of any use my applying to them to do so by means of a supplementary Estimate.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) how many magistrates there are in the Newbliss Petty Sessions; (2) have those magistrates held any meetings to consider the wisdom of holding their Court of Petty Sessions in an Orange Lodge; (3) what are the names of those magistrates, and how did they individually vote in this matter; (4) was there a majority of them in favour of removing the Petty Sessions Court from the Orange Lodge; and (5) what prevented the carrying out of their decision?

There are twelve magistrates appointed to attend the Newbliss Petty Sessions. The Court of Petty Sessions is not held in an Orange Lodge as alleged in the second paragraph, but in one room of many, in a building which is private property, and this room is rented by the Grand Jury as a Public Justice Room. On Thursday last I informed the hon. Member that the occupation of this room on a certain date in July 1896, by the members of an Orange Lodge has been brought under the notice of the magistrates by the Lord Chancellor, and I also stated the views of the magistrates in reference to the occurrence. I have no information regarding the third and fourth paragraphs and as to the last paragraph I can only repeat what I have again and again explained, that the question of providing accommodation for the use of the Justices in Petty Sessions rests entirely with the Grand Jury over whose action the Government exercise no control.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office are in possession of authentic information respecting the position of the Vali in Crete; whether his authority as Governor General of the island has been practically superseded and the Turkish troops act under the sole command of the Military Governor; and what steps, if any, have been taken by the representatives of the Powers to restore the authority of the Vali?

Under the scheme of reforms sanctioned by the Sultan in August last, the Turkish troops were placed at the disposal of the Vali, in the event of disturbance. His power in this respect does not appear to have been questioned since; and no steps accordingly have been taken to restore an authority which has not, so far as we are aware, been impaired.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information the Foreign Office can give the House regarding the position of the Christian population in and around Halepa; and, whether the Mussulman population have been armed and encouraged to acts of lawlessness by the Turkish authorities?

A few days ago Her Majesty's Consul reported that 700 armed Christians were on the heights above Halepa, and an unknown number of Christians to the westward. The embarkation of Christians from Halepa does not seem to have met with any interference on the part of the Mussulmans. The general tenour of the reports indicate that in this neighbourhood the Christians were rather the assailants than the attacked, and the British Naval Commander reported on the 7th of February that an agreement had been made that they should not advance further. No information has been received showing that the Turkish authorities have armed the Mussulmans or encouraged them to lawless acts. A Mussulman mob attacked the Arsenal at Candia and possessed themselves forcibly of 2,000 rifles; two Turkish soldiers were killed and live wounded during the assault. But the town has since been reported to be quiet.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the fact that at the public elementary school of St. Andrew's, Willesden, another assistant master is threatened with dismissal by the vicar, because the assistant master declines to relinquish his post of organist at another parish church in order to attend the church of St. Andrew; whether in view of the fact that the managers of the said school received some £1,200 of public money during the year last reported on by the Education Department, any steps can be taken by the Department to prevent the threatened dismissal; and, whether if the Department does not at present possess the requisite powers to redress abuses of management, he will take the necessary steps to obtain them?

The Committee of Council have received no information on the subject; but, as I have frequently stated, the Committee of Council have no power to interfere in the contracts made by the managers and teachers of elementary schools, and do not see how if would be possible for them to exercise such a power.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will request the Viceroy, in his usual weekly telegram stating the number of persons on relief, also to include the number of deaths due to the famine in each of the affected districts; and, whether he has ascertained by telegraph the number of deaths due to famine in the Central Provinces?

As I informed the hon. Member on the 5th inst., it is not possible to associate with the telegrams describing the weekly progress of relief operations and the numbers receiving relief any statistics relating to mortality for the same period. An interval of time must elapse between the period to which vital statistics in India refer and their receipt in this country. In a Dispatch (seepage 176 of the Blue-book on Famine) I anticipated the hon. Member's request by asking for:—

"The earliest possible information of my considerable rise of the death-rate above normal, and also a periodical report of continued mortality of an unusually high rate in any province."

I have also requested the Government of India to let me know the total number of deaths from all causes in the Central Provinces in 1896 as soon as the statistics are available.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the sum represented by 5s per head for every child in average attendance in Voluntary Schools will be paid for the whole of the financial year 1897–8; whether such sum will be paid in respect of every school, whether its school year ends before or after the Bill receives Royal Assent, and the necessary machinery for distribution is set up; and whether it will be possible to pay the aid grant quarterly, as is now done in the case of the fee grant?

said the sum represented by 5s. per head for every child in average attendance in Voluntary Schools would be paid for the whole of the financial year 1897–98. The dale of the school year would not affect the distribution of the grant. It would probably not be possible to pay the aid grant quarterly (certainly not during this first year), but the question would be further considered after the necessary machinery had been set up.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Rating Commission has begun its sittings: and, what progress has been made in its work?

I am informed that the Commission met in the autumn, and decided upon the character of the information it was desirable to secure from certain public departments and public bodies. They appointed a Committee to arrange the precise form in which the information should be obtained, and to communicate with the public departments and public bodies concerned. The information required being largely composed of statistics, has taken the various Government departments a considerable time to prepare, but it is nearly complete; and regular sittings to hear witnesses have been arranged, and will commence at an early date.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the "Supplementary Civil Service Estimates will be issued?

The usual date for sending in these Estimates to the Treasury is the middle of February, and whether Parliament meets early or late the Departments cannot be expected to ascertain their requirements before that date, as even then there are six weeks left of the current financial year. I hope to issue them next week.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the failure on the part of the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, as disclosed by the Report of the Select Committee, to administer the "Soldiers' Effects Fund," formed from the unclaimed balances of soldiers' effects transferred by the War Office to the Patriotic Fund Commissioners from time to time; whether he is aware that since 1884 the funds in the hands of the Commisioners have been allowed to accumulate from £44,182 to £134,333, and that from the income of £4,830 in 1895 the Commissioneis expended in relief £1,060 only, although the corpus of the fund is being added to continuously by further sums arising from soldiers' unclaimed effects; and, whether, in view of the fact that urgent cases of destitution among widows, children, and dependent relatives of soldiers who have lost their lives in performance of Military duty are frequently brought to the attention of the War Department, he will consider the advisability of recommending to Her Majesty that the Soldiers' Effects Fund for the future should remain under the control and be distributed as formerly by the War Department?

When the balance of the "Soldiers' Effects Fund" was transferred in 1881 to the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, it was anticipated that, with short service, the source whence it is replenished would be much diminished, and in that view the Commissioners were informed that the fund should not be appropriated to provide allowances for widows other than those of men on war service, actual campaigns being at that time in progress. The remainder of the fund was to be kept in hand to meet any extraordinary demand which might arise. Further instructions were issued in 1887 modifying this restriction, and it is believed that in consequence all the widows of men who have lost their lives in the performance of military duty have been relieved by the Commissioners. Instructions conveying further modifications in the same direction are being issued to the Commissioners, but there is no intention of removing the distribution of the fund from them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will cause an official inquiry to be made into the allegation that William Walden, who was tried and acquitted at the last Essex Assizes, was nearly starved in prison while awaiting his trial, and that, during his detention he was not allowed to see any newspaper with an account of his case in it?

I have not seen or heard of any such allegation. The prisoner received the ordinary diet of prisoners awaiting trial, and when asked if he wished to spend on food any of the money he received from his friends replied "No." Nor were any of the newspapers sent to him withheld, with the exception of two which contained an account of the inquest on his brother, and the comments in which might, if was thought, be painful to him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to amend the Compulsory Education Act, 1892, and whether it is intended to make the Act effectual to insure attendance, and to provide primary, technical and agricultural education in Ireland, especially in view of the fact that the United States Senate has passed a law against the admission of illiterate immigrants into the United States?

I introduced a Bill last year with the object of amending the Irish Education Act of 1892, and I am ready to introduce a Bill this year embodying those clauses of last year's Bill which were intended to remedy the acknowledged defects in the Act of 1892, provided I receive an assurance that such a Bill would be treated as non-contentious. If, however, it were treated as a contentious Measure and made the battleground for fighting the questions connected with the exclusion of the Christian Brothers' and other schools from the benefits of the national system, it would be impossible for the Government to ask the House to spend over it the time that would be necessary to pass it into law.

asked whether the Government had definitely abandoned the intention of settling the claims of the Christian Brothers?

Oh, no Sir.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state at what time it is intended to bring in the Bill to amend the existing system of Private Bill Legislation; and whether he is aware that there is a practical unanimity amongst all classes of Irishmen asking for its immediate amendment.

I believe there is a considerable volume of opinion entertained among the various classes in Ireland in favour of an amendment of the existing system of Private Bill legislation. On the general question, however, I cannot add anything to the statement in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the present Session of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a considerable number of land cases were heard before the Sub-Commission Court in Ballymena on 5th November 1896, and that no decisions have yet been given; and if he can explain the reason why these decisions have been so long delayed?

The Land Commissioners report that the decisions in the cases referred to will be given at an early date.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, what is the amount of money paid to the Local Taxation (Ireland) Account under the Local Taxation (Ireland) Estate Duty Act of 1896; and to what purposes the Government intend that this money shall be devoted?

It is not possible at the present time to make an exact statement of the amount payable to Ireland, and I am not yet in a position to state the purposes to which the Government propose to allocate the money in Ireland.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, as a Charity Commissioner, why the Charity Commissioners do not proceed to apportion Marshall's Charity, at Welney, Norfolk, in accordance with the application of the parish council, who desire to appoint trustees?

This Charity is applicable to purposes partly ecclesiastical, partly eleemosynary, and partly those of an Elementary School. The Commissioners could apportion between the ecclesiastical part and the rest of the Charity, if that would give effect to the Local Government Act 1894, and enable the parish council to appoint trustees, but this is not the case. Before they can do so it is necessary, having regard to Section 66 of the Parish Councils Act, to separate eleemosynary from the educational part of the Charity, and the Act gives no power to do this. I understand that a Bill will be introduced by Members on both sides to remedy this state of things, which has caused disappointment in many parishes. Until that Bill is passed the Commissioners cannot give the parish councils representation on any part of these mixed trusts—except by way of scheme, and the trustees in this case have not made the necessary application.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now able to state approximately what is the amount of the additional grant proposed to be given for educational purposes in Scotland?

I have nothing, and shall not have anything, to add to the statements I have already made on this subject. I have said that in my opinion it cannot be dealt with on the basis of an equivalent grant, but that, if the Voluntary Schools Bill becomes law, fair consideration will be given to providing for the educational requirements of Scotland. Any questions as to the nature of that provision should be addressed not to me, but to the Lord Advocate; but I do not suppose they could be answered until the consideration of the English Bill is completed.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether the limit imposed by the Treasury on the amount of the just equivalent under Article 978 xiii. of the Royal Warrant of the 18th June 1884 affected Engineer Officers of the regimental rank of Lieutenant Colonel; and, if so how many; and, if only one, what was his name?

The limit referred to affected thirty-one regimental Lieutenant-Colonels of Royal Engineers.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when is it likely a Sub-commission will sit in. Edenderry, King's County, for the hearing of the land cases listed in the district; and, is he aware that a Commission has not sat there for two years, and that there is a considerable nnmber of cases awaiting a hearing?

It is probable that a list containing cases arising in the district referred to will be issued in the course of the coming month. A Commission last sat for the disposal of cases in the Edenderry Union in March 1895. All cases then outstanding were disposed of. There are now 36 cases awaiting a hearing.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is now in a position to state to the House the terms of reference to the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ireland which the Government propose to appoint?

The Resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was necessarily passed in ignorance of the terms of the reference to the proposed Commission, and, though I should not like to question its authority, it is a decision come to on very imperfect information. The actual terms of reference which we propose are as follows: (1.) To inquire and report how much of the total expenditure which the State provides may properly be considered to be expenditure common to England, Scotland, and Ireland, and what share of such common expenditure each country is contributing after the amount expended on local service has been deducted from its true revenue, (2.) How the expenditure on Irish local services which the State wholly or in part provides compares with the corresponding expenditure in England and in Scotland—[Cheers]—and whether such Irish expenditure may with advantage he readjusted or reduced. (3.) Whether when regard is had to the nature of the taxes now in force, to the existing exemptions, and to the amount of expenditure by the State on local services, the provision in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland with regard to particular exemptions or abatements calls for any modification in the financial system of the United Kingdom. [Cheers]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he is aware that the sugar refining business of this country has dwindled to such an extent that the output in 1896 was only 712,000 tons compared with 916,000 tons in 1888, whilst the import of foreign refined sugar has risen during the same period from 344,000 tons to 729,000 tons; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of causing an inquiry to be made into the operation of the bounties granted by Foreign Powers with the view, if possible, of arresting the further decline of the refining industry in this country, simultaneously with the separate investigation which is now being made with regard to the sugar growing interests of the West Indies?

In answer to my hon. Friend I have to say that the figures supplied to me by the Board of Trade do not quite agree with those in the question, but there, is, I believe, no doubt that the industry referred to is in a very depressed condition. I think, however, any special inquiry into it, if it should be decided that such inquiry should ever take place, should at all events be reserved until we know the results of the inquiry of the Commission now sitting.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to compensate Mr. Ivory (alias Bell), a citizen of the United States of America, who was recently imprisoned for four months in London; have the Government received any communications from the United States Government relative to the question of compensation to Mr. Ivory; and, what amount of compensation is claimed, and what amount do the Government propose to give?

No communication on this subject has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the United States, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it would be entirely contrary to the established practice to admit any claim for compensation in such a case as this.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government would take into consideration the desirability of establishing a National holiday in commemoration of Her Majesty's long and auspicious reign?

I believe that in 1887, the year of the Jubilee, there was a Bank Holiday provided under the existing statute, and we should propose to follow the precedent then set, in the present year. [Cheers.]

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will not consider whether they should continue that holiday in the future and make, it, a permanent, holiday. [Cries of "No!"]

That opens a very difficult and much larger question. I hardly think that would be desirable. [" Hear, hear."]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Bill authorising an aid grant to necessitous Board Schools is drafted; and whether he will introduce this Bill with a view to its being lead a First time and in the hands of Members befere a division is taken on the Second Beading of the Voluntary Schools Bill, in order that Members may be in possession at once of the contemplated intentions of the Government both in regard to Voluntary Schools and of Board Schools?

I do not think any advantage would be gained by introducing this Bill before we have disposed of the Measure dealing with the Voluntary Schools now before the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the first part of ray question.

The Bill is quite ready to be brought in as soon as a proper opportunity offers. (Opposition laughter.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to move the Second Reading of the Law of Evidence (Criminal Cases) Bill before they take the Committee stage of the Education Bill?

I can give no definite answer to this question, but in view of the immediate business before the House I do not think it very likely that an opportunity will be found in the course of next week, but I should not like to pledge myself on the point.

replying to Mr. GRANT LAWSON said: The Land Tax Commissioners, in distributing the fixed quota among the unexonerated properties in a parish, are not bound to take the Income-Tax assessment, or the ratable value, or any other particular valuation as the basis of distribution. They are free to take any basis, as long as they distribute the charge, in the words of the original Land Tax Acts, "with as much equality and indifference as possible." [Laughter.] But, where relief is claimed under Section 31 of the Finance Act 1896, which provides that the land-tax in any parish shall not exceed is. in the pound on the annual value of the unexonerated lands in that parish, the "annual value" referred to is, as defined by the interpretation clause of the Act, the Income-Tax assessment. As there seems to be much misapprehension on the subject, I have instructed the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, before the next land-tax assessments are made, to issue a circular to the land-tax-authorities explaining the provisions of the law. [" Hear, hear."]