I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the reasons which induced the Government to grant police protection to Mr. Maxwell Boyle, J.P., County Cavan?

The local police authorities, in the exercise of their discretion, and for reasons which appeared to them to be sufficient, afforded protection by patrol to Mr. Boyle for a brief interval. No directions were given by Government in the matter.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could state the reasons?

was understood to say that he had already stated the reasons.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the promise made by the Prison Commissioners in July 1895, that, if he should concur, they would take steps to bring about, if possible, a revival of the old annual conferences of the Visiting Committees of Prisons and of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies; whether he has discouraged this project; and what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter; and whether there is a prospect of such a conference being held?

The suggestion of the Commissioners to which the hon. Member refers has certainly not been discouraged by me; on the contrary, it is one which I heartily approve. But, as the printed observations of the Commissioners and the recent report of Mr. Merrick, both of which have been laid on the Table of the House, have no doubt made the hon. Member aware, certain important questions have been and are under discussion with regard to the duties of Visiting Committees and the organisation of Prisoners' Aid Societies. When these are settled, the contemplated conferences will, I hope, be held again.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in any English prison the practice obtains of punishing warders for offences against discipline by placing them on what is called special probation, namely, requiring them to be on duty seven days a week for three months consecutively, without any time off even on Sundays?

In the event of serious misconduct an officer may be placed on special probation for a period varying from one to three months according to the gravity of the offence; and during that period he forfeits all privileges in the way of leave, with the one exception that he is allowed an alternate Sunday off duty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the inconveniences arising out of the existing system under which the publications of the Historical Manuscripts Commission are issued, he will consider what, if any, improvements may be made, and, if necessary, appoint a Departmental Committee to report on the subject?

I agree with my hon. Friend as to the inconvenience caused by the irregular periods at which these reports are issued and the difficulty of placing the sets in any intelligible order in a library, the appendix to a report being sometimes issued a year or two before the report itself. The cost is at present largely increased by the gratis delivery to the two Houses of these valuable reports, and that expense again is due to the fact that they have to be treated as being technically the reports of a Royal Commission. As, however, that Commission seldom, if ever, meets, and the work is likely to be permanent and is practically in the hands of the Record Office, it is quite possible that it might be to the public advantage to formally recognise these facts and deal with these historical records, whether private or public, upon one system. The suggestion of my hon. Friend as to the appointment of a small departmental committee seems to be a good one.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state approximately the number of Volunteer officers who could have entered in 1896 for the examination in tactics, field fortification, military topography, organisation and equipment, and military law, in accordance with paragraph 356 in the Volunteer Regulations, 1896, of which only three officers passed that year; whether, in future, he will give instructions that the Return of Volunteer officers who pass this examination shall each year appear in the Army Orders; and whether, according to the Regulations referred to, a Volunteer officer who has passed in all the subjects of the examination named in 1896, but has failed in any one of the subjects on a previous occasion, is disqualified from holding the distinction conferred upon him by such merit; and, if so, whether, in view of the desirability of encouraging Volunteer officers to become efficient, he will advise the Amendment of the paragraph in the Regulations which imposes this disability?

The examination under paragraph 356 is open to all officers of Volunteers. As the names of Army officers who pass are not published in Army Orders, there does not seem to be any sufficient reason for publishing those of Volunteer officers. With regard to the point raised in the last paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, a proposal somewhat to the same effect is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether it is the intention of the Government to concede the principle that all Government property shall for the payment of rates, be placed on the same footing as other property; and, if so, whether they would be willing that the assessment committee of a union should appoint a valuer to meet the Government valuer, and confer together as to a basis of valuation?

The principle which the Treasury valuer has recently been instructed strictly to observe, is to treat Government property for rating purposes on precisely the same basis as private property, with the result of a very large increase in the contributions paid by Government; and he always confers directly with the local assessment committees.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland how many voters are on the burgess roll of Aughnacloy; when was this roll last revised, and by whom; how many names then on the roll were disqualified and struck off, and how many claimants were admitted to the municipal franchise; where did the revising officer hold his court, and was any public notice given of the date of its sitting; and when will the next court for the revision of this burgess roll be held?

There are 72 names on the list of voters for Aughnacloy. The list was revised on the 24th September last by the town clerk. Nine names were struck off at the revision and twelve claimants admitted. The revision was conducted in the office of the town commissioners. No notice of the date of revision was given, as none is required by statute. The next revision will be held in September 1897.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether in view of the fact that, exclusive of the two subjects of mechanics for boys and domestic economy for girls, only eight per cent. (or 11,824) out of the 134,855 children in Board Schools who during the five years 1889–94 commenced the study of the other specific subjects of the Code continued it to the third stage, the Department would be prepared to exclude these latter 13 subjects: algebra, Euclid, mensuration, Latin, French or German, animal physiology, botany, chemistry, agriculture, sound, light and heat, magnetism and electricity, shorthand, etc., from the Free Elementary Day Schools Code?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he would be prepared to reconsider the regulation, Art. 101 b, on page 21 of the New Code, by which the higher grant for discipline and organisation, i.e., for good conduct, good manners and language, cleanliness, and neatness to be withheld in future unless provision is made in the time table for instruction in Swedish or other drill, or in suitable physical exercises?

The Committee of Council do not propose to reconsider this regulation, which has been in the Code since 1895.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education with reference to the statements in the Report for 1895 of the Chief Inspector of Schools for the Metropolitan Division, that (page 9) out of 485,060 children in London Board Schools only seven per cent., or 33,172, were above the fifth standard, and that (page 7) out of the total number of children at ten years of age in the London Board Schools only 25 per cent. continue there until 12 years of age, what would be the corresponding figures for England and Wales in 1896 under both those heads?

The Committee of Council have no information as to standards. As regards the question of the age at which children leave school, I am unable to find in the report of the Chief Inspector the statement attributed to him. The latest official records show that, in the whole of England and Wales, about 82 per cent. of the children of ten years of age stay till twelve, and in the London Board Schools about 92 per cent.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the attention of the Land Commissioners has been directed to the action of Mr. Johnstone, agent for the Countess of Morley, whose tenants in the parish of Killinagh, County Cavan, had made application to have fair rents fixed; (2) whether he is aware that the tenants were compelled to withdraw their applications by pressure for arrears and costs due to the landlord; and that James M'Govern, of Corlispannon, who got a fair rent fixed at £5 5s. per annum, was compelled to forego his rights under the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1881, and accept a lease at £8 15s. instead, by reason of similar pressure; have any of these tenants been given the benefit of the evicted tenants' clauses of the Act of 1896; and (3) whether under that Act the Commissioners will take steps to see that the power of the landlord to enforce payment of impossible arrears is curtailed?

Four tenants on the estate mentioned have served applications to have fair rents fixed. So far as I am aware these applications have not been withdrawn. As to the case of James M'Govern, his rent was fixed by the county court judge at £5 15s. (not £5 5s.) per annum, but on appeal to the Land Commission was fixed at £8 15s. on the written consent of both parties. It does not appear, therefore, that he was compelled to forego his rights under the Act of 1881 and to accept a lease.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would answer the third paragraph of the Question?

said he had not any information on the point.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that in several cases when the Irish Land Commission have purported to fix fair rents, copies of the schedule required by the Land Act of 1896 have not been supplied or obtainable by the parties until after the time limited for appealing; and whether there is any difficulty in arranging that the details required to be inserted in the schedule should be announced at the same time that the fair rent as fixed is declared?

The Commissioners are not aware that in any cases, as suggested by the Question, copies of the schedules referred to have not been obtainable to enable parties to appeal. To announce in Court details of the schedule, would, in the opinion of the Commissioners, be both impracticable and useless.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Land Commissioners report that the particulars in the schedule "are procurable" at the same time as the announcement of the fair rent?

I have not been informed of that fact. It may be so, but I am not sure.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can now state in how many cases the Irish Land Commission have purported to fix rents without specifying in a schedule the details required by the Land Act of 1896; (2) whether it is the intention of the Land Commission to take any steps to have these omissions rectified; and (3) whether pending such rectifications, any copies of the orders purporting to fix such fair rents will be issued?

The number of cases referred to is 295. The second and third paragraphs refer to matters which may come before the Land Commission in a judicial capacity, and they are precluded from expressing an opinion upon them until they have been submitted to the Commission for determination.

Is the result of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that orders remain in the same condition as they have hitherto been?

That I presume is one of the points to be determined.

Are we to understand, as is assumed in the Question, that the Land Commissioners purport to fix fair rents, or are they supposed to actually fix fair rents?

The rents are actually fixed by the Land Commissioners?

Yes, but they purport to be fair rents.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether it is a fact that originating notices for the second statutory term are rejected if the record number of the case, as stated in the order or agreement fixing the fair rent for the first statutory term is not entered on the notice; (2) and where a second tenant not having the record number in his possession applies to the Land Commission for leave, and owing to the Land Commission not having replied the tenant's case has been dismissed by the Sub-Commission Court on the ground of insufficient information to identify Ids case, what steps can such tenant take to enable him to get his judical rent revised?

The fact is correctly stated in the first paragraph, and the reasons for the rejection were set forth in my reply to the similar Question put to me on the 25th January by the hon. Member for South Down. The second paragraph contemplates a case, which, I am informed, cannot arise, as the Land Commission do not remit such defective applications to Sub-Commissioners for adjudication. Every possible assistance is afforded from the office of the Land Commission to the parties, or their solicitors, to enable them to fill up these applications correctly before they are served.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the unfortunate tenant who cannot discover his record number has any remedy?

I presume that there ought to be no difficulty. I am not aware that any case has arisen in which it is impossible to ascertain the record number.

What remedy is there when a tenant has already written to the Land Commission and has received no reply?

I should think the best remedy is to write again.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware if the Sub-Commissioners who sat at Ballybay over five weeks since have given their decisions in cases heard; and (2) whether he can state when the remaining cases from the estate of R. C. Leslie, entered last October, will be tried, and if they will be tried in Ballybay, and if not, can he state the reason?

The Sub-Commission Court hopes toannounce its decisions in a number of the cases referred to in the first paragraph in the course of next week. The same Court will commence the hearing of a list of 68 cases from Carrickmacross Union on the 18th instant, and this list will be followed by one from Castleblayney Union. The latter list will include the cases to which reference is made in the second paragraph, but the date of hearing cannot he fixed at present.

asked if the Sub-Commissionern4 would sit at Ballybay?

I have no information on that point. If the hon. Member desires information on the subject I will make inquiry. Perhaps he would put down a question.

I will.

asked if the decisions were announced in court?

Perhaps my right hon. Friend will put the question down.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the Special Campaign Pension of 9d. a day for all men who joined the Army before 1860 cannot be obtained by any man absolutely in employment, no matter how old or how broken in health he may be, he will consider the advisability of having the conditions altered so as to save respectable old soldiers from the necessity of becoming destitute in order to become eligible for the pension; and whether he can state how many destitutes have received the pension, and how many applicants have been debarred in consequence of having employment?

The Special Campaign Pensions, being of a compassionate character, are not given to men who are fully able to maintain themselves; but since August, 1895, necessitous circumstances have been accepted as a qualification instead of destitution. Therefore an old soldier, otherwise eligible, is not debarred from a pension by the mere fact of having employment, if his earnings are insufficient for his maintenance.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if it is in contemplation to include a parade of old soldiers in the Diamond Jubilee pageant of 22nd June, seeing that a parade of Crimean veterans took place on the occasion of Her Majesty's Jubilee in 1887, and was much appreciated by the public?

I can only reply, as on other recent occasions, that the suggestion will be considered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the practicability of associating some representatives of men who served in the Navy during the Crimean War with the celebration of the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign?

The general arrangements for the celebration of the sixtieth year of Her Majesty's reign are not in my hands, and I am unable to answer the hon. Member's question beyond saying that if men who served in the Army during the Crimean War should take part, naturally the men from the Navy would also do so. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an absolute order for the sale of the White Estate, in the county of Cork, has been made; and, if so, whether he can state approximately when the sale will take place?

The property referred to cannot be identified upon the information given in the Question. If the hon. Member will mention the name, in full, of the owner, and the locality in which the estate is situated, further inquiry will be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an Inquiry has been held relating to trawling in Bantry Bay; and, if so, with what result?

An Inquiry into the question of trawling in Bantry Bay has been held by the Inspectors of Fisheries, who will give their decision with as little delay as possible.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Lanark, Govan (Mr. JOHN WILSON), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he has received from the Commissioners of the Burgh of Govan a communication in reference to the want of a telegraph office in Ibrox district; and whether he is aware that the opening up of the New Cessnock Docks in the immediate neighbourhood would be largely benefited by giving effect to the requisition of the authorities?

There is already a telegraph office at Ibrox. The Postmaster General has received from the Commissioners of Govan a communication relating to Alma Street, and has intimated that a case has not at present been made out for the opening of an office there, the Govan branch office being only about 500 yards distant and the Govan Road office being quite close to the docks on their eastern side.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) with regard to the case of Arthur Sturrock, solicitor and bank agent in Kilmarnock, who absconded in the month of August or September last, after having embezzled upwards of £40,000, whether the fact of the embezzlement was known about a month before he absconded; (2) will he explain why proceedings for his apprehension were not taken at once; (3) whether it is the case that the Crown authorities refused to institute proceedings without a guarantee for their expenses; and (4) what steps the authorities propose to take in the case.

I ought to say that I have already been in communication on this subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock Burghs (Colonel Denny). The answer to the first and second parts of the question is that it is not the fact that the embezzlement was known a month, or any time, before Sturrock absconded. He remained in good credit until he absconded on the 23rd October. The answer to the third part is in the negative. To the last part of the question, the answer is that photograph's and descriptions of Sturrock have been extensively circulated, but that hitherto no reliable information has been obtained.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the reason why the pension awarded to Mrs. Keogh, of Woolwich (whose husband was killed in the Crimea), 43 years since, has recently been stopped by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund?

I am informed that Mrs. Keogh, who is the widow of a soldier who died at Varna (he did not reach the Crimea), is now the wife of an army pensioner. On her re-marriage her pension was reduced to 2s. 6d. a week; and, lately, this pension has been stopped in consequence of her continued intemperate habits.

asked whether pensions of this character were liable to be forfeited through moral indiscretion?

These pensions are dealt with by the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund, and I cannot interfere with their discretion in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for War whether the Cold-stream and Scots Guards will have their respective bands augmented in proportion to the increase in these regiments, or whether it is intended to reduce the bands of the Grenadiers to the present lower establishments of the other two regiments?

also asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is in contemplation to reduce the number of officers in any of the existing battalions of Guards; and, if so, what will be the extent of the reduction; and whether the establishment of officers of the proposed new battalions of Guards will be the same as that of existing battalions?

There is no intention to reduce the number of officers in any existing battalion of Guards. The establishment of officers for the two new battalions and for the depot is under consideration. This and other matters, such as that referred to in the first of the Questions, form the subject of correspondence still in progress between the Adjutant General and the General Officer commanding the brigade of Guards.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has approached the various railway companies upon the subject of wagons and trucks being labelled on both sides, and provided with brake levers on each side, as favoured by him in reply to a deputation in November last?

Yes, Sir, the Board of Trade attach importance to the labelling of wagons and trucks on both sides, and also to the provision of brake levers. They have directed the attention of railway companies to these subjects in the past, and will do so again as opportunity offers. The companies make little difficulty in putting such labels on their own wagons, but they are not responsible for private owners' wagons. The information in possession of the Board shows that many companies have adopted, and that others are adopting, levers on both sides of their wagons.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to recommend the introduction of a short Act authorising the appointment of a Valuation Commission to re-value the land in Ireland or, in case such a task could not at present be undertaken, will he assent to the introduction of a short Bill fixing the valuation of a tenant's holding at the fair rent fixed thereon by the Irish Land Commission?

As I stated a day or two ago, the question of a re-valuation of Ireland is, in my judgment, well worthy of consideration. I am not prepared at present, however, to give an undertaking on the subject. The suggestion that a short Bill should be introduced fixing the valuation of a tenant's holding at the fair rent fixed thereon by the Land Commission could not be entertained. It is of the essence of any good valuation for rating purposes that the valuation should be uniform throughout each area of taxation, and this quality would be conspicuously absent if the proposal of the hon. Member were adopted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is prepared to grant an Inquiry into the system of management and distribution of the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund; whether he is aware of the fears of contributors to this fund that it is at present in an insolvent position; and whether, in the event of being unable to assent to an Inquiry, he will cause Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House showing actuarial vouchers for the present state of the accounts?

I have no evidence before me that any inquiry is called for into the system of management and distribution of the Fund. The Fund was placed in a solvent position by the grant of £150,000 made to it by the Parliamentary Vote of 1891. An actuarial investigation into the position of the Fund, as at the 31st March 1893, showed that it was then in possession of a surplus of assets, and the progress of the receipts and expenditure since that date tends to show, to the satisfaction of the National Debt Commissioners, that it remains in a solvent position.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Norfolk, N. (Mr. H. COZENS-HARDY), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Departmental Committee, appointed last year to visit the colleges sharing in the grant made to universities and colleges in Great Britain, and to investigate the character and quality of university work done, have yet made their report; and whether their report will be laid upon the Table of the House at an early date?

This report has been received. It is intended to appoint a committee, as on former occasions, to allocate the grant to universities colleges, and when the report of that committee and the Treasury minute upon it are presented to the House, the report of the Departmental Committee will be presented at the same time. ["Hear, hear."]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the intended Committee has been appointed to allocate the proposed increased grant to university colleges in Great Britain; can he state who are the members of the Committee; and whether the sums proposed to be allocated to the several colleges will be intimated before the Estimate is submitted in Committee of Supply?

The Committee has not yet been appointed; but their work is not likely to take long, and I see no reason why it should not be completed before the Estimate is taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the reports which are being persistently circulated of the importation of large quantities of warlike stores into South Africa from French and German sources. Whether he is aware that the late Mr. Stokes was hanged by an officer of the Congo Free State for a similar offence on a minor scale, and what action, if any, he proposes to take to prevent this serious menace to the maintenance of peace in South Africa?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask him whether, even assuming that the statements in the question of the hon. Member are true, he has any power to prevent the circulation of mischievous reports either by persons in South Africa or Members of this House?

I have no power whatever to prevent the circulation of mischievous reports. I wish I had. [Laughter.] I confess I am not quite certain that I understand the Question of my hon. Friend. I presume he refers to the importation of warlike stores into the South African Republic, of which I am fully aware. The late Mr. Stokes was, as I understand, accused of an offence against the laws of the Congo Free State which do not apply to South Africa. I am not aware that there is any breach of local or international law in the importation of warlike stores into the Colonies and States of South Africa.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether Head Inspector Sullivan, of the National Board, who had been removed from Dublin to Galway, was removed by the Board of Commissioners or by the Resident Commissioner; (2) how long had he been in charge of the Dublin district when he was removed; (3) if it was stated to the Board that he was re-transferred to Galway because his appointment to Dublin would cause friction; (4) did the Board ever inquire who made the allegation, or from what source the friction was likely to arise; (5) whether any charge was ever made against Mr. Sullivan during his time in the Board's service?

The Board of National Education State that the removal of Mr. Sullivan, Head Inspector, from Dublin to Galway was in pursuance of Order of the Resident Commissioner in the ordinary exercise of his functions. Mr. Sullivan was twenty days in Dublin. The Minute of the Board, dated 17th November, 1896, which is the only official record of the Acts of the Commissioners is as follows—

"Ordered that Mr. Sullivan be informed that his letter of the 30th October has been before the Board and has been duly considered, but that the Commissioners see no reason to interfere with the arrangements already made, by which, after he had declined to take charge of the Belfast Circuit, he was reappointed to Galway."

Arising out of that answer, may I ask whether any answer has been given as to the complaint and friction which arose out of the appointment. Have the National Board declined to answer that?

I have given to the House all the information at my disposal, and I have read the Minute of the Commissioners on the subject. Any private representations that have been made are not within my knowledge.

If we move for the letter of Mr. Sullivan to be laid on the Table as a Return will the right hon. Gentleman agree to give it?

I cannot answer that without communicating with the Commissioners.

Might I ask why this Gentleman declined to take charge of the Belfast circuit?

I am not aware.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to a letter in The Times, of the 13th instant, in which it is alleged that an inspector of the South Western Railway Company at Clapham Junction, whilst a train was in motion, forced a man into the compartment of a carriage labelled "Ladies' carriage," in spite of the protests of the sole lady occupant, with the consequence that the lady, in her dread, jumped out of the moving train; and whether he has taken any steps to obtain from the Railway Company explanations of this alleged act on the part of one of their superior servants, especially in the light of a recent notorious occurrence on the same Company's line?

Before my hon. Friend's Question appeared on the Paper I had communicated with the Railway Company, and I have received a reply from Sir Charles Scotter to the following effect—

"The letter which appeared in The Times of the 13th instant is, I much regret to say, substantially correct, and the only explanation which the inspector complained of has to offer for his misconduct is, 'that it was raining very hard at the time, and he did not notice that the compartment referred to was labelled as reserved for ladies.' I send you herewith a specimen of the label pasted on both ends of the carriage. The inspector was, therefore, without any excuse in allowing a male passenger to enter the compartment. When the case was brought under our notice, the inspector was immediately suspended from duty, end the directors are now considering how such a serious breach of the Company's regulations shall be dealt with. I may say that the inspector will not be allowed in any case to resume duty on a passenger platform."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can give any information as to the decision of the Government relative to the recent raising of the commission on post office orders for all sums of £1 and under to three pence, a charge which presses very heavily on Friendly Societies of working men?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that members of the Hearts of Oak Benefit Society, with headquarters in London, and half of its members resident in the country, using for greater security post office orders rather than postal orders in transmission of quarterly contributions and sick pay, and having by a rule of the Society all incidental expenses deducted out of the moneys due to each member, suffer serious loss in consequence of the new charge (1st February, 1897) of 3d. on all orders, however small, not exceeding £3, instead of the 2d. formerly charged on orders not exceeding 20s.; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made with a view to the consideration of some relief to the Friendly Societies generally in this respect?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has come to any determination on the question of reducing the charges on money orders under £1 to the old amount of 2d., and so meeting the wishes of the members of the Friendly Societies and others?

It is no doubt the case that, owing to the fact of persons without banking accounts not being able to make use of crossed postal orders, the increased cost of money orders, which are regarded as safer than uncrossed postal orders for the transmission of small amounts, has caused inconvenience. The Government has decided to revert to the old rate of 2d. on money orders not exceeding £1, and this will be done without any condition as to the abolition of the advice note or otherwise.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, under Sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the Friendly Societies Act, it, is compulsory to notify members by written or printed notice sent by post delivered at the last known address of members before non-forfeiture of their interests therein, and whether such notices are allowed to be sent through the post under the cover of a halfpenny stamp In wrapper; and whether, in the case of such notices not being delivered, they have from 1876 until recently been returned to the sender through the Dead Letter Department free of charge; why the charge of a half-penny is now demanded for the return of such notices sent under the above-mentioned section; and whether the Postmaster General will resort to the old practice, and not charge for the return of such notices?

The Friendly Societies Act referred to seems to have been repealed, but the Collecting Societies and Industrial Assurance Companies Act, 1896, provides for the issue of notices such as the hon. Member describes. These notices are allowed to be sent by the halfpenny post. Prior to the 1st January, 1895, any which could not be delivered were returned to the senders free of charge, but since that date all undeliverable packets prepaid halfpenny only have been liable to a return postage of one halfpenny, and the Postmaster General regrets that he cannot see his way to make an exception in favour of Friendly Societies. It may be added that on the 1st January, 1895, the charge for redirection previously made on all halfpenny postal matter was abolished, and in connection with this change it was considered necessary to revise the practice in regard to the free return of such packets when undeliverable.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Department have yet come to any decision with regard to the proposed alteration in the manner of making the statutory declaration now necessary in the case of a lodge of any Friendly Society desiring an alteration or amendment of their rules?

An additional Treasury Regulation is in preparation and will, I hope, shortly be issued, by which, as an alternative to the statutory declaration, a document will be provided giving formal information as to the amendments made in the society's rules, to be signed by two officers of the society. This it is hoped will meet the wishes of the Friendly Societies and remove the inconvenience that has been complained of.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Visitors of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, that a swimming bath should be provided for the cadets; and whether provision for this will be made in next year's Estimates?

The question of providing a swimming bath at the Royal Military College will be considered when the Estimates for 1898–9 come under discussion.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an assistant teacher, serving five years in a workhouse National School and getting his second-class certificate, is entitled to the same rights as to bonus on getting appointed to an ordinary National School as if his whole service as assistant had been in the latter school?

The service rendered as assistant teacher in a workhouse National School, if rendered under the provisions of the rules as to average daily attendance and classification that warrant the recognition of assistant teachers in ordinary National Schools, would entitle the assistant to the Same rights as to bonus under the Irish Education Act, 1892, inn being appointed to an ordinary National School, as if his whole service as assistant had been in the latter school.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return asked for in connection with the Intermediate Examinations (Ireland) 1896?

I am informed by the Commissioners of Intermediate Education that they will furnish the hon. Member with a Return containing the information indicated, so far as they are in a position to provide such information, on his making application to the office of the Commissioners in Dublin. Under these circumstances it is not considered necessary to grant the Return as a Parliamentary Paper.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not lay the Return on the Table of the House for general information?

I don't see that there is sufficient ground for going to that expense. The hon. Member, as I have said, can have the Return by applying for it to the Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government has any information as to the progress made by the Government of India in arranging that the Behar Opium Agency should deal directly with the cultivators of opium instead of dealing through middlemen?

The subject to which the hon. Member refers has not been lost sight of by the Government of India, but I have received no information about it beyond what is contained in the Annual Report on the Administration of the opium Department for 1895–6. I shall be glad to place a copy of this Report at the disposal of the hon. Member for perusal if he wishes it.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is in the contemplation of the Government to substitute or build a new post office in Clonmel in lieu of the present building, and whether a site has been selected by the surveyors of the Department situate at the extreme end of the lower portion of the town, and opposite the gates of the military barracks; whether he is aware that such site is objected to by the inhabitants of the town as being unsuitable and inconvenient, especially to ladies; whether the wishes of the townspeople or of the Corporation were in any way consulted as to the choice of a site; whether any advertisement was issued applying for a site; and, if not, what steps did the surveyors take to ascertain whether more suitable sites could be obtained from persons other than the owners of unoccupied premises?

It is in contemplation to provide a new post office at Clonmel, but no premises or site have as yet been selected. Several sites are under consideration, and before a definite choice is made the views of the local authorities on the subject will, as usual, be ascertained.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that the delay in the delivery of the mails in several towns in the North of Ireland causes very serious inconvenience and considerable loss to the inhabitants of these towns; whether he is aware that the forenoon delivery which leaves the Belfast post office at 10.20 a.m. only reaches the office of the Irish News, a distance of less than half it mile, at 12.15 p.m., a delay of almost two hours; and if, when making arrangements to accelerate the carriage of mails to and from Ireland, he will also provide for their speedy delivery?

The Postmaster General is not aware that there is delay in the delivery of the mails in several towns in the North of Ireland, causing serious inconvenience to the public, but he has ordered an inquiry into the matter. As regards Belfast, it is true that the forenoon delivery at the office of the Irish News has lately been made after the proper time, and this appear to have arisen from the temporary employment as substitute for the regular postman of a man less acquainted with the route. Arrangements will at once be made for restoring punctuality.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if any communications have been addressed by the Post Office authorities to the Irish Railway Companies in reference to the acceleration of the mail service; if so, to what companies; and whether he can state when the proposed new mail arrangements will be effected?

The Secretary of the Post Office in Dublin has been instructed to enter into communication on the subject in question with the Irish Railway Companies owning the lines from Dublin to Belfast and Derry, Galway, Cork, and Wexford, and to make arrangements for carrying out the necessary alterations on those lines on the 1st of May; and he is now engaged in this matter. Most of the towns on the Waterford and Limerick Railway will also be provided for by the same date; but it will not be possible to extend the arrangements to the remoter districts of Ireland until after the alterations on the main lines have been carried out.

Have these instructions been sent to the Railway Company?

Yes; they were sent some days ago.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what additional interval will be gained under the new arrangement?

I think the mails to Cork will arrive 40 minutes earlier and leave 50 minutes later.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state if the Poor Law divisions of Woodford, Derrylaur and Loughatorick, in the Loughrea Union, and the division of Coose, in the Portumna Union, are scheduled under the Congested Districts Board; and, if so, how long, and what, actual benefit they have derived under same?

The electoral divisions named in the Question are scheduled as congested areas. The cattle-breeding improvement scheme has been extended to one of these divisions, and the Board have also offered a grant of £500 towards the construction of a road from Woodford to Derrygoolin, provided the Grand Jury would contribute the balance of the sum required for its completion. So far, however, it does not appear that the Grand Jury have accepted the Board's offer, and if there be a generally-expressed wish that the sum of £500 should be otherwise expended in the locality, the Board will be prepared to consider any suggestions that may be made to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of his Department has been called to the sufferings of the Black Watch at Sabathu, in the Punjab, from the deficient and contaminated water supply, and consequent prevalence of enteric fever; whether any steps are being taken to improve the water supply at that station and Dagshai; and whether Kasauli, Solon and Jutogh, where the water supply has been improved, are now completely free from enteric fever?

It appears from the monthly returns, which have been received up to November last, that enteric fever prevailed in the regiment of the Black Watch at Sabathu, in the Punjab, during April, May and June, increased in.July, August September, but diminished greatly in October, while no cases were reported in November. The report as to the health of British troops for the year 1896 has not yet reached me; but I will ask the Government of India to expedite it, and also to furnish information as to the water supply at Sabathu, Dagshai, Kasauli, Solon and Jutogh.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why the Customs Return of Coal, Cinders and Patent Fuel shipped from the several ports of England, Scotland and Ireland for the year 1895, was only issued on 20th February 1897; when the Return for 1896 may be expected, and if anything can be done to secure the publication of these Returns early in the year following the year of export?

A Return is issued by the Board of Trade early in January each year, giving the exports of coal, coke, cinders and fuel for the preceding calendar year (page 54 of Board of Trade Returns). These figures are obtained from the Customs, and so far as the exports are concerned there would be no reason for not furnishing this information in the Return mentioned by the right hon. Member during the month of January, though it gives the facts in much greater detail, both as to the countries to which the exports go and the ports of the United Kingdom from which they are exported. But the Return also gives the coastwise traffic, which the Board of Trade Return does not give, and this would take at least a fortnight to prepare, as the Customs have to obtain the information specially from all the ports of the Kingdom. The fact is, however, that this is not an annual Government Return, but is moved for by a private Member, and last year it was not moved for at all. This year the Returns for both 1895 and 1896 were ordered by the House of Commons on 4th February, 1897, and no urgency was intimated.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to establish a coaling station and a torpedo depôt in Lough Swilly, county Donegal; at which side east or west of the Lough it is proposed to establish the coaling station and torpedo depot; and what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the forts on the west side of Lough Swilly, and are they to be repaired or utilised for Naval purposes?

There is no present intention of establishing a depôt at Lough Swilly such as suggested in the hon. Member's Question. It is not desirable that I should enter into details with regard to any defence works which may be contemplated.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Captain PIRIE), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now able to state the approximate date when the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Health of the Army in India will be placed in the hands of Members; and if he can state the reasons for the delay in its publication?

I am laying the Report on the Table today, and hope that it will be distributed to-morrow.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Health of the British troops in India, the Government will give facilities for its discussion?

In answer to my right hon. Friend, I have to ask him if he will defer his Question until he has had an opportunity of reading the Blue Book, which will be in his hands in a few days.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the authorities have come to any decision with regard to the occupation of the Hulme Cavalry Barracks; and, if not, whether there is any likelihood of a decision being arrived at in the immediate future?

As there are no facilities at Manchester for the training of a cavalry regiment, it is not proposed to re-occupy Hulme Barracks with cavalry; but they are used at present for infantry purposes.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that a regular postman is not appointed for the Norwood-under-Southall district; and whether he is aware that the district has been left to casual service only for now nearly six months past?

The case to which the hon. Member refers has been delayed in consequence of a revision of the post having been found necessary. The work had grown too heavy for one man, and other arrangements had to be made. A postman is, however, now under nomination for the establishment, and, if he succeeds in obtaining the necessary Civil Service certificate, he will be appointed without further delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that for some months past persons representing railway companies, and other persons, are daily touting for cab-drivers for a particular cab company or companies in the offices or building of the Chief Commissioner of Police at the new Police Offices, New Scotland Yard, and if so, will he explain on what grounds this special favour is granted to some persons, whilst refused to others equally interested in the cab trade; and will he consider the advisability of putting a stop to the practice in question?

So far as I am aware, there is no such practice.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he has received from the Dublin Trades Council, representing a membership of 15,000, a resolution requesting the Government to take immediate steps to assimilate the different Poor Law and Municipal franchises in Ireland to the Parliamentary franchise; and (2) whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce legislation on the subject at an early date?

The reply to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. As I have already intimated, it is not in contemplation to introduce legislation this Session dealing with the Municipal and Poor Law franchise.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will inform the House the original cost of Her Majesty's yacht Victoria and Albert, and the amount of money since expended annually upon refits, decorations, and repairs, and also upon the reconstruction of the hull and machinery; and will he also state to what use the Victoria and Albert is to be relegated when the proposed new yacht is ready for sea?

The hon. Member has already the information he asks for prior to 1883, when he obtained a return of expenditure upon Her Majesty s yachts. Since 1883 the average annual expenditure has been £8,847. It is not possible at short notice to distinguish between the various items of expenditure, as requested by the hon. Member, nor could there be any object in doing so. The use to which the Victoria and Albert may be put, when relieved by the new yacht, will depend upon the result of the thorough survey of the hull and machinery, which will then be made.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Cambridge, Wisbech (Mr. C. T. GILES), I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Truck Act 1896 has any application to contracts of employment made before the Act came into operation; and whether the scale of deductions and fines under such contracts can still be enforced?

The Act makes it illegal to impose any fine or make any deduction, after the date of its coming into operation, except in pursuance of or in accordance with such a contract as is required by the Act. If, therefore, a contract made before that date is not such a contract as is required by the Act, no fines or deductions can be imposed under it; and though not itself made illegal, it becomes inoperative so far as fines or deductions are concerned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the present alarming condition of the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin; whether he is aware that, with accommodation available for only 1,000 patients, 1,714 were housed there in October last; and that, in consequence of this overcrowding, beri-beri, a loathsome disease hitherto confined to the densely and filthy quarters of Chinese and other Eastern cities, has appeared, and of 113 patients attacked last year, seven died up to December last; will he explain why, notwithstanding the repeated protests of two of the members of the Board of Control against overcrowding, no practical steps have been taken by that body to stamp out the disease; and whether, in the circumstances, the Government will see that immediate precautions are taken to prevent its spreading.

The Irish Government has been giving close and constant attention to the accommodation at the Richmond District Asylum and the outbreak of the beri-beri there. The number of patients on the asylum register at the end of 1896 was 1,728, of whom, 29 were at Portrane. The present accommodation of the Richmond Asylum is for 1,398 patients, in addition to which provision has been made for 80 patients at Portrane, and for 40 in the residence of the resident medical superintendent (surrendered for that purpose), thus bringing up the present accommodation to 1,518. Further temporary accommodation for 220 patients is now being provided at Portrane. The number of deaths at Richmond from beri-beri during 1896 was eight, as against 123 deaths from various other causes. I may observe that the general death rates in this asylum for 1895 and 1896 were the lowest recorded since the opening of the asylum. In 1895 the percentage of deaths from all causes was only 7·1, and in 1896, 7·8, and, comparing these rates with the death rates in the principal English asylums during 1896, I find that with two exceptions the rates in the English asylums were much higher than at Richmond. Every effort has been and is being made by the Board of Control to stamp out the disease known as beri-beri, and to provide adequate accommodation for the patients.

Is it proposed to make any permanent enlargement of the asylum? The right hon. Gentleman spoke of a "temporary arrangement."

I understand that a private Bill is in course of preparation or of being passed through the House for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to make any statement with respect to the probable date when the scheme of reforms agreed to by the representatives of the Six Great Powers will be presented to the Sultan?

I am afraid that I cannot, at present, make any statement as to the probable date when the scheme of reforms will be presented to the Sultan.

Has that scheme of reforms been agreed to now by the six Governments as well as by the six representatives?

No, Sir, it is still under discussion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether looting goes on daily unchecked in Canea; whether the Turkish police in the town are intrusted with any police duties; and, whether the only police force in the town is the force which recently mutinied and murdered its commanding officer?

On the 6th inst. her Majesty's Consul telegraphed that pillage was taking place in Canea. The Turkish police continue to discharge police duties there. It is not correct to say that this force recently mutinied. The mutiny was confined, as I have twice previously stated in the House, to 40 Albanian gendarmes.

Has anything been done to stop the pillage?

Oh, yes, Sir, of course it has, because, as I have often had to state in this House, peace and order in the town are looked after by the detachments from the ships of the Powers.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State of State for War whether the Government are dispatching any Highland regiments to Crete; and, if so, whether such troops have been selected with a view to the possibility of hill fighting?

Six hundred men of the Seaforth Highlanders are under orders for Crete, having been selected by the Commander-in-Chief as being in all respects admirably fitted for the service.

Arising out of that I should like to ask whether this country is supposed to be at war with any Power in Crete? [Ministerial Cries of "Order."]

asked what was the peculiarity of the service referred to?

I do not know that it is in any respect peculiar.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision to send Highlanders out to Crete and send some other regiment? [Laughter.] [No answer was given.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether any declaration of blockade has been issued and notified in connection with the present proceedings of the Great Powers; and whether Her Majesty's Government have consented, while the German Government have declined, to employ land forces for operations in the interior of the Island of Crete?

Before the First Lord of the Treasury answers this, perhaps it would be convenient, in regard to the first half of the question, to answer a question of mine, of which I have given him private notice, at the same time—whether he can inform the House, in view of the statement of M. Méline in the French Chamber on Monday last (and Parliament has been referred to that speech by the British Prime Minister)—(Cheers)—that "Greece would once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers," and further "Crete would be blockaded and the contingent of European troops increased," whether—this is the question—Greece was in fact, according to M. Méline's words, "invited to accede to the Note of the Powers" before the blockade was instituted

I believe information has been sent to the British Minister at Athens for notification to the Greek Government of the blockade which will be established in connection with Crete. In regard to the Question on the Paper, think the first paragraph is answered by what I have just said. In regard to the second paragraph—

I may say I used the legal words of international law, "issued and notified." The words have a technical meaning.

I fancy that is in process of being done. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, it is not accurate—as far as I know—to say that the German Government have declined to send any troops to the island. They thoroughly agree with the general policy of the Powers.

But are they sending any troops?

I do not know.

Will technical notification be made to the Greek Government as to what M. Méline meant when he said "Greece would once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers"?

I really do not know. ["Hear, hear!"] I have not much satisfaction in answering the questions of the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of an Opposition who try to embarrass the Government as much as they can—[cheers, and Opposition, cries of "Oh!"]—by their speeches out of doors, though they dare not move a Vote of Censure. [Loud and prolonged Ministerial cheers.]

, who was received with Opposition cheers, said: Before we move a Vote of Censure—[Ministerial laughter]—we must ask whether we shall be allowed to debate it in this House. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!" and Opposition cheers.] I must again ask, as we have been referred to the speech of M. Méline, for an answer as to that speech. It is the only information which has been given to this House or to the country—[it Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—and I ask again whether, M. Méline, having stated that Greece would again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers, and that Crete would not be blockaded, and the contingent of European troops increased until that invitation had been given—

He did not say that. [Opposition cries of "Order!" and Ministerial laughter.]

You are laughing too soon. Greece, he says, will once again be invited to accede to the Note of the Powers, then Crete will be blockaded and the contingent of troops disembarked there will be increased. What does the word "then" mean? Does it mean before or after? [Ministerial cries of "Order!"] I have a right to ask that question because this is the explanation of the English Government—[Opposition cheers.]

I do not, as I have already said, feel myself bound to explain M. Méline's speech. [Opposition laughter and Ministerial cheers.] I understand the right hon. Gentleman to refer to a speech made by the Prime Minister in another place. The right hon. Gentleman has colleagues in another place; let them ask the Prime Minister. [Ministerial cheers and Opposition laughter.] With regard to the observation that fell from the right hon. Gentleman before that, I do not know whether he means to suggest that we desire to prevent him moving a Vote of Censure in this House. I can assure him he is greatly mistaken, and he has only got to name his day. [Loud and prolonged Ministerial cheers, and cries of "Name it."]

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Jubilee Procession of Her Majesty the Queen will pass the Houses of Parliament; if so, whether it is the intention of his Department to make suitable arrangements for Members to view it?

(Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's: Suitable arrangements will be made for Members to view Her Majesty's Procession on the day of the celebration in June; but it is not yet in my power to state what they will be.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the total number of torpedo boats having a speed of from 15 to 25 knots in Her Majesty's Navy; where are they lying; and what is the number in each of the respective dockyard basins or creeks?

There are 98 first-class torpedo boats distributed between the home and foreign stations. Fifty of these are abroad, 24 are at Portsmouth, 14 at Devonport, and 10 at Chatham.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the list of mussel beds referred to in Section 11 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act,1895 has been prepared, and if it will be presented to Parliament?

Yes, the list referred to by the hon. Member has been prepared, and it will be presented to Parliament so soon as it can be printed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, at the Derby Hunt Steeplechases held at Derby on Tuesday last, betting was carried on in Tattersall's Ring by bookmakers in the manner recently decided by the Queen's Bench Division to be unlawful, and that, although the police were present in force, they did not interfere; and whether, in virtue of the powers conferred upon him by No. 1 of the Regulations made under the authority of the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1884, he will order the Director of Public Prosecutions to institute criminal proceedings where evidence is available in cases in which the law appears to have been broken?

further asked the Secretary of State for the Home. Department whether, with a view to secure uniformity throughout the country in the due execution of the law, the Director of Public Prosecutions will, by a requisition in virtue of the Regulations under the Prosecution of Offences Acts, 1879 and 1881, require the chief officer of every police district to furnish him with such information as the Regulations prescribe respecting the offence of unlawful betting on racecourses and similar places within his district?

asked whether the Home Secretary was aware that further legal proceedings were pending arising out of the decision in the Queen's Bench Division referred to?

I am not aware whether further proceedings are possible with the exception of those involved by the remission of this case to the magistrates. I will answer both Questions of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green at the same time. My attention has not been called to the case he mentions, and the decision of the High Court is of so recent a date and involves so many questions requiring serious consideration that it is quite impossible for me to give him a complete answer at present. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to postpone his question for a few days.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate (1) whether his attention has been called to the continued and widespread dissatisfaction existing in Scotland in connection with the method of auditing Parish Council accounts; and (2) whether he can hold out any hope that the system will be changed?

The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is in the affirmative. The representations made are being carefully considered. A number of appeals against the charges made by the auditors have been received and are being dealt with. Until this procedure has been completed it is impossible to decide what change, if any, should be made. I may add that, as the hon. Member is aware, no important change in the system can be effected without legislation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Post Office officials will make any separate Return, actual or approximate, of the enormous sums, amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds, which they have expended in the construction and maintenance of telephone exchanges, and of the amounts earned by the exchanges?

The sum expended upon the construction of telephone exchanges is £107,000, of which about three-fourths has been spent on the exchange at Newcastle, and a large portion of the remainder in Cardiff and the neighbourhood. It is not possible to give either the amounts earned by the telephone exchanges in the hands of the Government or the amounts spent on their maintenance. The telephones and the telegraphs have the same headquarters charges, and the same offices, the same clerks, the same mechanics, the same engineering staff. And even if the accounts of the telephones could be separated, it would not be desirable to furnish information as to the details of our working to the National Telephone Company, who are in competition with the Post Office in the very district concerned.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it will be possible for a scheme of allotment, made under Sub-section (3), Clause 1, of the Voluntary Schools Bill, to include (in addition to grants to individual schools) provisions for the expenditure of part of the share allotted to the association upon central classes for pupil teachers or scholars, or upon visiting teachers and apparatus for the common use and benefit of the schools included in the association?

I understand that it would be contrary to the views of the Department that money should be given, except to individual schools. There is no reason why the money so given should not be devoted to the purposes suggested by my hon. Friend's Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps have been taken by the Board to bring about a settlement of the dispute in the Engineering Trade; and, if not, whether he will endeavour to induce both parties to refer the dispute to arbitration before engaging in a protracted and wasteful struggle?

No application has been made to the Board of Trade in this matter. I understand that the parties to the dispute have been in direct communication with each other. It does not seem to me that the Board can at present usefully intervene.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can fix Monday 29th March for the Debate on the Report of the Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland?

Subject to this hypothetical Vote of Censure, I think it will be probably convenient to discuss the financial relations on the day named by the hon. Gentleman—namely, on Monday week.

moved as an Amendment to substitute the words "nine hundred" for the words "eight hundred and ninety-seven." The hon. Member explained that his object was to defer the operation of this clause for three years, in order that they might ascertain how the first clause worked with regard to subscriptions.

said he trusted the effect of the clause would not be to diminish the voluntary subscriptions; but whatever its effect might be, no case could be made out for any further retention of the 17s. 6d. limit. ["Hear, hear!"] The 17s. 6d. limit was open to a great many objections; it certainly was a great temptation to the manipulation of accounts; and it fined poor but efficient schools in a manner highly detrimental to the interests of education. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, so far as he was concerned, he would not defer even for a month, the operation of this clause. ["Hear, hear!"]

agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury that there was not much to be gained by the retention of the 17s. 6d. limit. It had already been abolished in the case of necessitous schools in the Highlands of Scotland; and now it was proposed to abolish it in regard to all schools, Voluntary and Board, in England and Wales. Therefore, when the Bill was passed the only part of Great Britain in which the 17s. 6d. limit would exist would be the non-Highland portions of Scotland. There could be no case for retaining it in that limited area, when it was done away with in every other part of Great Britain; and he trusted some assurance would be given by the Government that it would be abolished also in the case of the non-Highland portions of Scotland.

said that, while the consensus of public opinion was in favour of the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit, it was undoubtedly the fact that the teachers considered it ought to be retained. A deputation of the teachers of Yorkshire which had waited on him had said they anticipated that if the limit was done away with the managers of the schools would put pressure on the teachers to induce them by additional work, and even by additional cramming, to earn more money in fees for the schools. ["Hear, hear!"]

agreed with the First Lord that the 17s. 6d. limit was a fine on poverty, and if there was a division he should certainly vote for its abolition. But after that abolition the children of Nonconformist parents should no longer be driven into schools over which the Church of England retained control, though it paid no part of the cost of maintaining them.

said he would not discuss whether or not it was wise to abolish the 17s. 6d. limit. But he desired to emphasise the fact that, unless it was followed up by making the grant to all schools a fixed capitation grant, and not a grant dependent on the number of subjects taught, education would be sacrificed to the earning of Government grants. ["Hear, hear!"] He had always felt that the educational training of a child did not depend on the number of subjects in which instruction was given, but on the adequate teaching of a limited number of subjects. ["Hear, hear!"] The operation of the 17s. 6d. limit had been to reduce the number of subjects, and he trusted its abolition would not act as an inducement to managers to take up the maximum number of subjects and to think more of turning the children into grant-earning machines than of properly training their moral and mental faculties. ["Hear, hear!"] There was too much grant-grabbing already in the schools; but he trusted that in future the efficiency of education and not the earning of grants would be the aim of managers. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that if, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, no case could be made out for the retention of the 17s. 6d. limit, it ought to be abolished for evening schools as well as for day schools. Again, when this limit was instituted by the Act of 1876, it was applied to England, Wales and Scotland at the same time, and therefore, in order to be perfectly logical they ought to repeal it in this Bill for Scotland as well as for England and Wales. ["Hear, hear!"] The 17s. 6d. limit was introduced by a Conservative Government in 1876 in order to secure the principle of local contributions. If general expenditure on education and the demands of the Department had increased since 1876, those difficulties could have been met by raising the 17s. 6d. limit; but the Government were now abolishing all limits; and the result would be largely to lessen the efforts which produced voluntary contributions; and those contributions many of the best supporters of Voluntary Schools believed to be almost vital to the schools' existence. There was also this consideration—what would be the effect of the removal of the limit on the teachers? There were many poor schools—both Board and Voluntary—where the managers would put great pressure on the teachers to teach more subjects in order to earn a larger grant. The 17s. 6d. limit had hitherto prevented this undue pressure; but what was to prevent it now in schools where the managers were only bent on getting money?

said that he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee of Council were quite alive to the possibility of over-pressure being put on teachers in order to earn larger grants. The abolition of the limit created that danger; but it would be very carefully watched by the Department, and, if necessary, alterations would be made in the Code to prevent any such abuse. There were several ways in which that could be done. One was to make the grant a capitation grant, and not a grant for the teaching of special subjects; and another was to put restrictions on the teaching of special subjects, by requiring that there should be an adequate staff of teachers. The vigilance of the Department would be quite enough to prevent abuse of the abolition of the limit.

said that, whatever might be the case in respect of day schools, there was a general consensus in favour of the abolition of the 17s. 6d. limit for evening schools. He urged the Vice President to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consent to this extension of the proposal of the Bill.

said that the Government was now doing away with the last shred of guarantee for any local contributions at all. It was very hard that children should be taught a large number of subjects, not in order to improve their chance in the world, but merely to earn a larger grant for the school. The only ground for maintaining the Voluntary Schools was that they were voluntary; but there would in future be no guarantee that the amount of local contributions now secured would be maintained. No sooner was the grant raised to 17s. 6d. in 1876 than the voluntary subscriptions began to diminish. They were 8s. 8d. per head in 1876; in 1894 they were only 6s. 6d. He believed that the repeal of the limit was proposed with the sole object of still further relieving voluntary subscriptions. He should certainly vote for the omission of the clause.

thought that the answer of the Vice President was satisfactory as to the prevention of over-pressure on the teachers, but he should like to know what was going to be done to secure the maintenance of local contributions. He was enamoured of the 17s. 7d. limit as it stood, but it was the sole remaining safeguard for the maintenance of subscriptions. Why was the 17s. 6d. limit to be abolished in England and Wales, where it affected the Voluntary Schools, and not in Scotland, where it affected the Board Schools?

replied that it would be out of place to deal with Scotland in a Bill which applied only to England and Wales.

expressed the hope that the Government, having regard to the peculiar position in which Scotland would be placed by the passage of this Bill as it stool, would during the present Session bring forward legislation to deal with the case of Scotland.

did not think it would be quite regular to discuss the case of Scotland on the present clause. Scotch Members had always been jealous, and rightly jealous, of mixing up English and Scotch questions of education, the two systems being so diverse. He agreed, however, that the position of the Lowland counties of Scotland after the passage of this Bill would be more or less anomalous, and the matter would be carefully considered.