I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that Mr. Joseph Huartson and Mr. Walter Cooper, who have been for many years resident in Barrow-in-Furness, their residences being near the post office and the former being well-known as the secretary of the Agricultural Society, who are the only persons on the Burgess Roll holding their respective names, and who have for several years received telegrams addressed "Joseph Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness," and "Walter Cooper, Barrow-in-Furness," have recently received notice from the Post Office that telegrams so addressed will not be delivered owing to insufficient address, the Post Office notice saying they cannot deliver the telegram owing to being insufficiently addressed with their names, designation, and correct address; will he explain why the Post Office are declining to deliver telegrams in which only the Christian name and surname of the addressee and the name of the town are given, with the object of securing payment of £1 1s. per annum for registering an address; and whether he will instruct the Post Office officials at Barrow-in-Furness to take the same steps to deliver telegrams as they do in the case of letters?

These gentlemen have for several years received telegrams addressed "Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness (not Joseph Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness), and "Walter Cooper, Barrow-in-Furness." This, however was done without the knowledge of the Department in London, and as soon as the attention of the London Office was drawn to it, directions were given to stop the practice. Mr. Huartson and Mr. Cooper accordingly received notice on the 1st October last, and were given until the 1st of January to effect registration. The Department takes some trouble to deliver telegrams the addresses of which appear to be defective by accident and not by design; but it would be contrary to the interests of the public that it should allow its officers' time to be spent in procuring the delivery of telegrams which are systematically sent with insufficient addresses. Mr. Joseph Huartson has a notification printed on his letter paper that his telegraphic address is "Huartson, Barrow-in-Furness," and Mr. Cooper has a notification that his telegraphic address is "Walter Cooper, Barrow." These eases, therefore, are not cases of addresses defective by any accident. These gentlemen seek to obtain for nothing the advantage of an abbreviated address, for which other people have to pay one guinea a year, and the Postmaster General does not think he would be acting fairly if he did not require them to pay the prescribed fee.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will state what increase or decrease (if any) has taken place in the number of Telephone Exchanges which the Post Office has in the United Kingdom; what increase or decrease (if any) has taken place in the total number of subscribers to such Exchanges; what are the new Exchanges (if any) which have been opened; and what are the Exchanges (if any) which have been abandoned since the period dealt with in the Return, No. 119, of the present Session, showing particulars regarding such Exchanges for the year 1894?

There has been an increase of one in the number of Post Office Telephone Exchanges in the United Kingdom, while the total number of subscribers to such Exchanges has decreased by 102. The new Exchange which has been opened is at Abergavenny. No Exchanges have been abandoned since the date of the Returns.

I beg to ask the, Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the Board School of North Mundham, Sussex, the Church Catechism is regularly taught to children, and that Nye's "Popular History of the Church of England" is also given for home reading and for examination; and whether steps will be taken to compel the discontinuance of these practices?

I am aware of the facts stated. The Committee of Council are in communication with the School Board as to the alleged teaching of the Church Catechism. Nye's History is not a religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination, and seems to me to be written in a spirit of moderation and tolerance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he can state on what grounds the application of an evicted tenant on the Ormathwaite property, named Thomas Walsh, for reinstatement, was refused; (2) whether the estate is under the direct control of the landlord, or have receivers been appointed over the property; and, if so, who are they; (3) whether he can state the annual cost to the ratepayers of the police barrack which is on the farm; and (4) whether, in view of the peaceable condition of the district, which is in the Listowel police division, steps will be taken to remove the extra police?

I am unable to answer the first question. The estate is under the direct control of the landlord and a trustee. A protection post was established on the farm shortly after the murder, in 1888, of John Foran, who had taken the farm from which Walsh was evicted, and the post, is still necessary for the protection of the caretaker in charge of the farm. The annual cost to the ratepayers of the two constables employed at the post is about £69.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the other evicted tenants on this property have been reinstated, and will he say why an exception is made in this tenant's case?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will consider the advisability of enabling county councils to lake over the roads and footpaths of urban district councils in cases where both authorities are desirous this should be done; and whether he will bring in a Bill for that purpose?

I do not myself contemplate bringing in a Bill for the purpose referred to, but there is a Bill now before the House dealing with a cognate matter, and when that Bill comes on for discussion, I shall be very glad to consider this Question in connection with it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Scots law agents (i.e. duly qualified Scots solicitors) who do not happen to be also members of the small private Edinburgh body known as Writers to the Signet are admitted to practice in Rhodesia as attorneys without further examination on producing proof of their admission as solicitors in Scotland; and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?

I understand that the answer is in the affirmative. According to Sub-section (b)of Section 1 of the High Commissioner's Proclamation of 8th April 1892, "Solicitors or Attorneys-at Law, or Scottish Writers to the Signet, duly admitted and enrolled and under no disability to practice in England, Ireland, Scotland, or the Cape Colony, may be admitted and enrolled to practice as Attomeys-at-Law."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department is he aware that the large English Gas Companies are now making large quantities of water gas and turning it into the mains with coal gas, so that some cases of gas poisoning have already occurred; and, will any means be taken to protect the public against the admixture of this most poisonous substance with coal gas?

No, Sir. I am not aware that cases of gas poisoning have occurred from the cause, suggested by the hon. and learned Member, but if he will be good enough to favour me with any instance I will cause inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether arrangements are completed for the presence, of Indian troops on the occasion of Her Majesty's Diamond Jubilee; and, if so, will he state how many officers and how many men are expected; whether he will ask the Government of India to arrange that of the officers as many as possible should be native officers; and, whether it is proposed to include in the contingent any representatives of the Volunteer regiments in India, as well as of the Parsees who are enrolled in some of those regiments?

Twenty-one native officers of Indian cavalry and 20 representatives of the Imperial service troops are expected from India in order to take part in the celebration of the 60th year of Her Majesty's reign. I have received no proposals from India for the deputation of any Volunteers from that country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the systems of anti-plague inoculation which are being tried in India by Dr. Haffkine and Dr. Yersin, and the statement contained in a recent official dispatch from Bombay that 3,296 persons have already been inoculated by Dr. Haffkine; and whether, with a view of securing a prompt test of the protective and curative value of the procedures referred to, he would take steps to secure an independent official registration of all anti-plague inoculations, so as to enable the practical efficacy of the systems to be tested by subsequent comparison between the disease and death rates among inoculated and non-inoculated persons?

I have been in frequent telegraphic correspondence with the Bombay Government regarding inoculations against plague. I have requested the Bombay Government to report periodically the number and the results of inoculations under Dr. Haffkine's and Dr. Yersin's systems separately. As yet I have received no report regarding Dr. Yersin's work beyond the telegram on page 15 of the Plague Papers distributed to hon. Members on Tuesday last. The results of inoculation are ascertained and reported as far as possible, as will be seen from the telegrams on pages 15 and 109 of the Blue Book, and from the Bombay Government plague telegram of March 29 published in yesterday's newspapers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether an auctioneer, who advertises and sells cattle by public auction, and whose mart has not been exempted from the provisions of the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act, 1891, is bound to weigh and deliver a ticket specifying the true weight of cattle, whenever required by a buyer to do so, or is entitled to keep the buyer waiting until the end of the sale (sometimes two or three hours) on the ground that the weighing machine is being used as a collecting pen for holding cattle previous to sale, and that the machine must be balanced and the cattle weighed afterwards; and whether a buyer is entitled to have his cattle weighed in hundredweights and pounds, in the same way that coals are weighed under the Third Schedule of the Weights and Measures Act, 1889?

The law provides that in every auction mart at which cattle are habitually or periodically sold there shall be some person appointed to have charge of the weighing machine which is required to be provided, and if any such person refuses or neglects to weigh cattle when required, or to deliver a ticket specifying the true weight of the cattle weighed, he is liable to be fined. Whether it would be held that such liability would be incurred under circumstances such as those suggested is a hypothetical question with regard to which I do not feel that I could with advantage express an opinion. I am advised that a buyer of cattle is only entitled to require such information as to their weight to be given to him as is afforded by the particular machine provided at the market or mart at which they are sold.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Local Government Board can empower parish councils to make a special allowance to recipients of parochial relief and poorhouse inmates; and, if so, will the Board give parish councils permission to make such special allowance in June next during the time of national rejoicing on the occasion of Her Gracious Majesty's Diamond Jubilee?

The Local Government Board has no power to sanction, nor have parish councils power to incur, illegal expenditure, and expenditure in excess of necessary maintenance would he clearly illegal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether inquiry has been made as to the possibility of acquiring a sufficient area for a camp of exercise in Scotland at a reasonable price and at a convenient centre; or if, in the absence of such a report, instructions will now be sent to the General Officer commanding in Scotland to make such preliminary investigation as may be necessary to decide the question of whether this acquisition, if desired, could be made by Government?

The Secretary of State is fully alive to the desirability of a training camp for Scotland, but no information is before him to show that a suitable area could be procured in Lanarkshire or in any other convenient part of the country. Barry Links has recently been acquired at large cost for camping purposes. It has an area of 3,461 acres; and will, it is hoped, be used largely by the regular and auxiliary forces in Scotland. It is, however, to he observed that the troops in Scotland belong, for the must part, to the auxiliary forces; and the military authorities hold that they derive great advantage by being brought in detachments to train with the regulars in the southern camps.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when the case of Adams v. Dunseath was heard on the second statutory application, and what was the result?

The application to fix a fair rent for a second statutory term in this case was heard on February 10th, and it is expected that the decision will be announced next week.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could explain how it was that these gentlemen had taken two months to make up their minds in reference to this case.

No, Sir. I am unable to give any explanation on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will make inquiries as to the correspondence which has passed between William Livingstone, of Annsborough House, Lurgan, and the Land Commission respecting the purchase of a farm of land on the estate of Mary Leney, in the town-land of Drumnakelly, conveyed by a vesting order as 30a. 2r. 10p. by the Land Commission; whether he is aware that, on a survey being made since by a highly qualified surveyor, the farm has been found to contain only 29a. 2r. 5p. 0r 1a. 0r. 5p. less than Mr. Livingstone has been charged for as conveyed to him; and whether he will communicate with the Land Commission with the view of having Mr. Livingstone recouped out of the balance of the purchase money still in the hands of the Land Commission?

An agreement for purchase of the holding referred to was signed by Mary Livingstone who subsequently conveyed her interest to William Livingstone. The agreement was for the purchase of the holding therein described as containing 30a. 2r. l0p. The Land Commission Inspector reported that the area appeared correct and the boundaries correctly marked on the map, and the holding was accordingly described in the vesting order as containing 30a. 2r. 10p. or thereabouts. The Land Commission has no reason to believe that this description is inaccurate, but it should be borne in mind that what is vested in the purchaser is the holding as in the occupation of the purchasing tenant. What was agreed to be purchased was the holding; the purchase money was arrived at by agreement between the parties, and would not be affected by such an error in the description of the area, if such had been made. The holding which he contracted to buy has been vested in the purchaser, and he does not appear to have suffered any injury for which he should be recouped.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the important question as to the Ulster custom raised by Mr. Hume, B.L., before the Chief Land Commission at its recent sitting in Belfast, as published in the Belfast papers of Saturday last: whether the Sub-Commissioners and Court valuers have been in the habit of making no allowance in rent in respect of rights under the Ulster custon over and above the exemptions given for improvements made by the tenant: and whether considering this serious infringement of the Ulster custom, some steps will be taken to protect the tenant farmers of Ulster in the full enjoyment of that custom which Parliament has already' recognised as their light?

Questions as to allowance from rent in respect of the Ulster Tenant-right custom were raised in several cases before the Land Commission at their recent sittings at Armagh and Belfast. The questions referred to were so raised on the re-hearing of cases by way of appeal from the decisions of Sub-Commission Courts. Judgment has not yet been given and the Land Commission are unable to make any statement in reference to these cases which are still sub judice

May I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is not a single Ulster man a member of that Sub-Commission?

That does not arise out of the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, considering that according to the recent Return it appears that out of 73 Lay Sub-Commissioners in connection with the Irish Land Commissioners, 43 of them have been appointed by the present Government temporarily only, and that their period of appointment will expire on the 31st December next, he will make a statement to prevent them from being in any way influenced against the tenants in their decisions by reason of their present appointment being only temporary?

I altogether decline to accept the assumption made in the question that these Assistant Commissioners will be influenced against the tenants by reason of their present appointment being only temporary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the feeling of deep dissatisfaction prevailing among the farmers of the North of Ireland, owing to the insufficiency of the reductions of rent for the second statutory term given by the Sub-Commissions now administering the fair rent provisions of the Land Acts there?

I am aware that there are complaints amongst, the tenant-farmers in the North of Ireland that the rents are not being sufficiently reduced for the second statutory term. There are corresponding complaints amongst the landlords that the reductions are too great. [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that out of 60 cases of appeal by the landlords on the Colclough and other estates in Wexford, the rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners were nearly all increased; and (2) will the schedules to be filled by the Chief Commissioners under the new Land Act, showing the ground of increase in each case, be available for inspection; and how can they be obtained?

It is the fact, I am informed, that nearly all the rents referred to in the first paragraph were increased by the Land Commission. The Schedules under Section 1, Sub-section 1, of the Act of 1896, are being prepared in these cases and will shortly be ready. Copies may be obtained in the ordinary way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many estates have so far been referred by the Land Judge to the Land Commission for valuation under section 40 of the recent Land Act; whether the valuation by the Land Commission is made by persons appointed as Sub-Commissioners, and whether by one or by two; how many Sub-Commissioners the Land Commission have at their disposal for this work; whether Sub-Commissioners are withdrawn for the purpose from the work of fixing fair rents; and whether the Land Commission propose to make arrangements to allocate Sub-Commissioners for this special work?

Fourteen estates have, so far, been referred to the Land Commission by the Land judge under Section 40 of the Act of 1896. The holdings in all cases under the Land Purchase Acts, as well as eases coining under Section 40, are inspected and valued by the Resident Inspector or by one Assistant Commissioner out of a number of eight who are now employed on this work. Two of these Assistant Commissioners were recently withdrawn from fair-rent work, their places in the latter department being filled. The six remaining Assistant Commissioners have not been employed on fair-rent work for some years past.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, a reserve of £200,000 having been formed under the provisions of the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891, the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 annually has been, or is about to be, devoted to providing labourers' cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; and whether the county percentage paid from 1891 until its abolition by the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1896, has been, or is about to be, devoted to carrying out the Labourers (Ireland) Acts in accordance with the enactment contained in the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891?

With the permission of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. As regards the Exchequer contribution of £40,000 a year, the regulations respecting it, have been settled and the necessary steps are about to be taken with a view to the early distribution of the grant for the financial year ended yesterday. With regard to the county percentage, the final certificate of Transfer to the Local Taxation (Ireland) account was received by the Irish Government on March 29th, and the Government is in communication with the Local Government Board with a view to its application to carrying out the Labourers Acts.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether £10,000,000 of Guaranteed Land Stock have yet been issued under the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1891; and, if so, whether the Treasury have availed themselves of the provision contained in section three of that Act to give notice that the Guaranteed Land Stock issued thereafter shall yield dividends only at the rate of 2½ per cent., so that the purchase annuities may be reduced as provided to £3 17s. 6d. per cent.?

Only £2,800,000 stock has at present been created.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) whether the making of a grant in aid of technical education by a local authority in Ireland is a condition precedent to the making of a similar grant by the Science and Art Department; and (2) whether the same rule applies to England, Scotland and Wales; if so, how many local authorities in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland respectively made, grants in aid of technical education in the years 1895 and 1896, and what were the aggregates of the corresponding sums allocated by the Science and Art Department to England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland respectively?

The answer to the first question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second question is, that in England, Scotland and Wales no grant in aid of technical education is made by the Science and Art Department.

I. beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the actual rates of interest at which the Treasury borrowed the money issued as Local Loans stock; whether any Local Loans stock has been issued, what is the aggregate of repayments of Local Loans, and what is the aggregate of borrowings since 1890; and, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to fix the rate of interest charged to local authorities at a sum which will cover the actual cost to the Treasury?

The original Local Loans stock (amounting to £36,526,056, and issued at par on August 16th, 1887,) was raised at 3 per cent. Local Loans stock amounting to £1,927,710, and issued at 103¾ on August 20th, 1888, was raised at about £2 17s. 10d. per cent. Local Loans stock amounting to £2,500,000, and issued at about 100⅜ on February 21st, 1889, was raised at about £2 18s. per cent. (a) No Local Loans stock has been issued since 1890. (b) The principal repaid between March 31st, 1890, and March 31st, 1897, was £15,876,852. (c) The advances to lending departments between March 31st, 1890, and March 31st, 1897, for loans to borrowers were £15,764,269. I hope to introduce a Bill this year to reduce the rate of interest in future cases, but I doubt if it will be possible to apply it to existing loans.

asked whether that sum had been obtained by tenders in the open market?

I believe so, but, as the hon. Member will see, nothing has been issued since 1890.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether the Local Government Board have received complaints from labourers in various parts of Ireland, whose names were given as the "specific instances" in representations under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts, as to the letting of the cottages built on these representations to other persons; (2) whether, where a labourer named as "specific instance" seeks the erection of a new house to replace his existing unsanitary house, the Board of Guardians are entitled, having regard to Section 17 of the Labourers Act 1885, to let the new house erected to other than the labourer named as "specific instance" if the latter continues to reside in the house condemned as unfit for habitation; and (3) whether the Inspectors of the Local Government Board have specially reported the unsanitary houses of which evidence was given to them at local inquiries under the Labourers Acts; and, if so, whether steps will be taken to compel the Boards of Guardians, which disregard the law in this matter, to carry out the provisions of Section 17 already mentioned?

The reply to the first paragraph is, Yes. As regards the second paragraph, the Local Government Board are of opinion, to which they have frequently given expression, that the Labourers Acts contemplate that the cottages authorised in pursuance of representations based on the ground of the unfitness of existing houses for human habitation should, when built, be lot to the occupants of the condemned houses. Reports of the nature mentioned in the third paragraph have been furnished by the Board's Inspectors, and have, in every instance, been communicated to the Board of Guardians concerned; but the Local Government Board have no power to compel the local authority to let the cottages to the labourers whose houses were mentioned in the original representations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that James Donohue, the owner of a farm at Ballina, county Clare, refuses to give possession of a plot of land upon which a labourer's cottage was built by the Kildysart Board of Guardians for a labourer named Thomas Ayres, although Donohue contracted to have the cottage completed last November; that it is still unfinished; and that he has been paid for the plot; and whether the Local Government Board will take steps to compel him to complete the cottage and give possession of the land at once, so that Thomas Ayers may do his spring sowing?

A complaint of the nature referred to in the first paragraph has been received by the Local Government Board, who have called for the observations of the Board of Guardians thereon. Pending the receipt of these observations, I am not in a position to reply to the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the recent election of two Poor Law Guardians for the electoral division of Mitchelstown (Mitchelstown Union), at which it appears that the voting papers issued were marked "Election" for one guardian only; that a number of proxy and occupation votes were unduly credited to two candidates on behalf of a landlord and his agent in respect of six evicted farms on the Kingston Estate, that occupation votes in respect of property held upon mortgage were improperly allowed to a Mr. Roche, and that in consequence of general irregularity about one-third of the voting papers were returned unfilled; and (2) whether he will direct an inquiry to be made into these allegations, and into the way this election has been conducted by the Returning Officer, and order another election to be held?

The fact is as stated in the first Question. The Local Government Board are now investigating the matters in connection with this election, and will, if necessary, direct an inquiry to be held into the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the magistrates of the Bailieborough Petty Sessions District, in the county of Cavan, have acted legally in electing by a majority of one Mr. J. Butler Stopford, of Oristown, county Meath, a licensed publican, and a man in his 41st year, to the office of petty sessions clerk for said district, contrary to the Lord Lieutenant's circular in that behalf addressed to them by the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks in Ireland, containing instructions for their guidance and direction; whether the said magistrates were advised by the Chairman, Mr. Starkie, R.M. (who voted against the eligibility of the said J. B. Stopford on the ground of age) to adhere to and observe the rules laid down for their guidance by the Law Officers of the Crown; and whether His Excellency will, in the circumstances, fiat an election held in disregard to his directions, and contrary to the advice of the resident magistrate as contained in said circular; and if in future licensed publicans are to be included in the list of privileged persons, such as retired district inspectors and head constables, in whose favour the limit of age for the office is to be extended?

The election of Mr. Stopford under the circumstances stated in the Question was invalid, and the Lord Lieutenant informed the Registrar of Petty Session clerks some days ago that there must, be a fresh election. A licensed publican is debarred by Statute from being appointed to a Petty Sessions clerkship.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he will explain why it is that Protestant jurors are summoned more frequently to the Cork Assizes and County Courts than Catholic jurors; whether the Crown officials have received remonstrances from Protestant jurors who are constantly taken away from their business at great inconvenience; and whether he will direct that in future all jurors shall be summoned in rotation?

The jurors are summoned in due rotation as provided by the Statute, and no selection of any kind is made. I am informed that there is no foundation for the statement that Protestant jurors have in fact been summoned more frequently than Catholic jurors, or that any remonstrance has been addressed by the former to any official. I must decline to give any direction such as is mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General would consent to and recommend the Midland Great Western Railway Company to run one third-class carriage on the Irish Limited Mail day trains?

The Postmaster General would have no objection to a third-class carriage being run in the Limited Day Mail trains on the Midland Great Western Railway provided punctuality in the working be maintained, and the hon. Member's suggestion shall be brought under the notice of the Company. The matter, however, is one upon which the Company alone can decide.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that at a meeting of the Bawnboy Guardians on 22nd March a letter, dated 19th March, was read from Mr. Henry Pleus, secretary to the Great Northern Railway Company, stating that up to that date no representations had reached the Great Northern Railway Company on the subject of an acceleration of the morning mails from Dundalk to Enniskillen and Cavan; and whether these representations have since been made; if not, when will they be made?

The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the letter stated to have been read at the meeting of the Bawnboy Guardians. His Department is, however, in communication with the Railway Company, and special attention is being directed to the strong desire which has been expressed for an acceleration of the morning mail train from Dundalk to Enniskillen end Cavan.

asked when the Postmaster General entered into communications with the Railway Company.

said he had not the information.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, in consequence of the present arrangement of carrying the mails by car from Clones to Cavan and Belturbet, the mails for districts west of Belturbet are generally half an hour late in being delivered; whether he is aware that on Saturday morning last they were 1½ hours late; and, can he undertake to bring this matter, as well as the generally unsatisfactory carriage of mails in Cavan, to the notice of the Great Northern Railway Company, with a view to making proposals for a change?

The Postmaster General is not aware that in consequence of the present arrangements the mails for places west of Belturbet are generally half an hour late, but he has called for a full report on the subject. He is aware of the exceptional delay on the morning of Saturday, the 27th ultimo, which was due to the late arrival of the mail train at Clones. The railway company, who were communicated with on the subject, have explained that the delay on the 27th ultimo arose from an accident to their signalling apparatus. It would be of no use to approach the company in reference to the conveyance of the night mail by train, unless the Postmaster General were prepared to pay the cost of an additional train, which would certainly not be warranted; but, as I have informed the hon. Member in reply to another question, the Department is in communication with the railway company relative to the desire which exists for an acceleration of the day mail.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any decision has yet been arrived at respecting the arrival and dispatch of mails between Enniskillen and Bundoran and the intervening districts by rail, instead of, as at present, by car?

As already explained in answer to previous questions in the House, the Post Office would not be justified in calling upon the railway company to run a special train at the public cost from Dundalk to Enniskillen in connection with the day mail train from Dublin, and the same remark applies with even greater force to places beyond Enniskillen, such as Bundoran. The Secretary in Dublin has, however, been instructed to bring before the railway company the strong desire expressed by the inhabitants of the district for an improvement of their day mail service, in the hope that they may see their way to run a suitable train, but the Department has not yet been made acquainted with the decision of the company.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, although the Stamp Act fixes the duty payable on agreements at sixpence, the Inland Revenue authorities in Dublin imposed stamp duty amounting to ten shillings in each case on the forms of agreement entered into with the Board of Guardians of the Clonakilty Union for the erection of cottages under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts; whether he will direct that in future sixpence only will be charged; and whether he will refund the excessive duty paid on application being made therefor?

The agreements, which, under the Stamp Act of 1891, are charged with the duty of sixpence, are agreements under hand only. The agreements to which the hon. Member refers are presumably executed by the Board of Guardians under their Common Seal, and, for that reason, are regarded by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as chargeable with the general deed duty of ten shillings. It is, of course, open to anyone, who desires to contest the assessment of the Commissioners, to bring a case before the Courts, but I have no power to order abatements or repayments of duty in the particular cases to which the hon. Member refers.

Would the right hon. Gentleman permit the Irish Boards of Guardians to enter into agreements executed by members of the boards, as is done in the case of the town councils?

That is hardly a question for me to answer.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of James Cummins, who served 40 years in the Army, having the medal and clasps, was with General Lord Roberts in the campaign of 1868, was for several years foreman in the Ordnance Store Yard, and finally was suspended and afterwards dismissed owing to his being reported by an officer for wearing a shamrock on St. Patrick's Day; whether the recommendation of the Duke of Connaught that a gratuity be given to James Cummins was carried out; and whether, seeing that this soldier committed suicide in the river Thames and was buried in Aldershot on the 17th November 1896, steps will be taken with a view of allowing the national emblem to be worn in the Army on the several commemoration days in the United Kingdom?

This man was discharged from the Army with a pension in 1878. He was subsequently employed as a civilian artificer in the Ordnance Store Department. A year ago he was suspended from duty for being drunk and negligent while in charge of the workshops. While under suspension his accounts were examined, and considerable discrepancies were discovered. He was consequently discharged, and no gratuity was awarded him. There is no record of any question having arisen as regards his wearing the shamrock, and the above were the sole grounds of his discharge.

asked whether a recommendation was not made by the Duke of Connaught that a gratuity should be given to this man?

said it was the fact that the Duke of Connaught asked that, in consideration of his long services, a gratuity should be given to him, but the regulations which governed such gratuities made it impossible to comply with that recommendation.

Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the separate nationalities of the Army when not, on parade to wear the national emblem?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the fact that Sub Lieutenant Hollingshed-Blundell, of the King's Royal Rifles, now stationed at Aldershot, on seeing a private soldier, an Irishman named Grindle, with a shamrock in his cap on St. Patrick's Day, ordered him to take that dirty bit of greenstuff out of his cap: and on Grindle telling him that Irish soldiers were allowed to wear the shamrock on St. Patrick's Day, ordered Grindle to be confined in the guard room; and that Grindle was subsequently punished with seven days' imprisonment and hard labour; whether, in view of the fact that an assurance was given by the late right hon Edward Stanhope, on the 10th June 1892, that if an Irish soldier intimated his desire to his Commanding Officer to wear a shamrock, he thought the Commanding Officer would be willing to grant his wish, some distinct regulation will be established for the guidance of Commanding Officers with respect to the wearing of the shamrock by their men; and whether the conduct of Sub-Lieutenant Blundell and the Commanding Officer will be brought under the notice of the Commander-in-Chief?

The facts seem to have been substantially as stated in the Question. The late Mr. Stanhope stated that the sanction of the Commanding Officer must first be obtained for the wearing of emblems or any addition to the uniform, and this was not done by the private in question. The particulars of this case, however, were only brought yesterday to the notice of the General Officer commanding at Aldershot, who investigated them. I may add that there is a strong desire on the part of the authorities that all consideration, consistent with discipline, should be shown by Commanding Officers to legitimate national feeling. [Irish cheers.]

Is it the fact that this man was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, and that the Commanding Officer was not communicated with? By whose order was this man sentenced to seven days' imprisonment?

I presume by the Commanding Officer. As I said, the facts are now being investigated.

This is a very important matter. [Laughter.] Is the Commanding Officer to investigate the facts after he has sentenced the man to seven days' imprisonment?

Order, order! The hon. Member is replying to the answer which has been given and arguing upon it.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman as an Irishman approves of that sentence?

Order, order! The hon. Member must know that that is an improper question to ask.

Arising out of that, I would ask whether the private was on parade at the time in uniform, in the ranks, and whether he was punished, not for wearing the shamrock, but for disobeying an order——

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the matter is the subject of inquiry now.

May I ask whether, if any Irish soldiers are to be sent to Crete—[Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!]—they will be allowed to wear the shamrock there? [Cries of "Order!"]

Order, order! If the hon. Member persists so frequently in continuing to ask questions after I have risen and ruled them out of order, I shall have to call the attention of the House to the matter. [Ministerial cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will say what proportion of the estimated cost of the changes contemplated in carrying out the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee is on behalf of the Telegraph Department of the Post Office in offices where the staffs are not amalgamated, and also the amount involved in improving the position of head postmasters who are receiving less than £500 per annum?

The estimated average annual cost of giving effect to the recommendations of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee is (1) on Telegraph Account as regards officers where the staff is not amalgamated, £26,480; (2) for improving the position of Head Postmasters receiving less than £500 a year, £3,929.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General (1) on what principle of classification the city of Cork postmen are placed only in the fourth scale under the new classification; (2) whether the second class sorting clerks in Dublin, Belfast, Limerick, and Cork are in receipt of a uniform scale of pay, and why a different practice is to prevail as regards postmen; (3) whether within the last 15 years the maximum pay of second class sorting clerks has increased from 24s. to 40s., and now, by the removal of the barrier between first and second class, to 52s., i.e., by 28s. per week, whereas, in the same period, the maximum salary of postmen in Cork has only increased by 4s., i.e., from 20s. to 24s., and is not at all increased by the recommendations of the Tweedmouth Committee; and(4) whether the position of the Cork postmen under the new arrangements will be reconsidered?

The classification of postmen under the new system, as under the old, is based upon the size of the town in which the men work, the cost of living and the value of outdoor labour in the locality, and the postmen at Cork fall into the fourth class under this system. Thus Cork comes within the same category as Limerick and other towns of like character. The pay of sorting clerks is regulated by the amount and character of the work performed, which varies greatly according to the size and importance of the, place. The pay of second class sorting clerks at all offices where the staff was divided into classes rose under the old system to 40s. a week. The pay of the first class, however, which at Dublin and Belfast rose to 56s. and 54s. respectively—is at Cork and Limerick only 52s. and 50s. a week. As regards the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, the facts are, substantially, as stated as regards the maximum of the scales, but it must be remembered that the postmen will receive the benefit of an increased number of good conduct stripes, each carrying extra pay of 1s. a week, as well as an improved increment of 1s. 6d. instead of 1s. a week. It is not proposed to reconsider the case of the Cork postmen.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies her Major General Carrington, when commanding the British forces in Rhodesia, received (in addition to his full pay and allowances from the War Office) any allowances from the Chartered Company; if so, what; and whether Major-General Carrington sent any Reports to the Colonial Secretary in regard to occurrences in Rhodesia, amongst them one headed "Obstruction from interested parties," and whether these Reports can be laid upon the Table of the House?

I am informed that Sir F. Carrington, like other Army officers, drew a special field allowance from the funds of the British South Africa Company, but I am unable to say the amount. Sir F. Carrington has furnished a general report on the operations under several different heads, none of which answer the description of the hon. Member. These reports are chiefly concerned with military matters, and I do not think that there would be any advantage in presenting them to Parliament.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, in addition to Major General Carrington s full pay and allowance paid by the War Department, he also accepted from the British South Africa Company a daily allowance of two guineas and a ration allowance of 2s. 6d., and had all his hotel expenses paid to him while at Salisbury by the same Company?

I have already said I do not know what was the amount of the payment by the South Africa Company.

May I ask whether it is in accordance with the regulations for the general officer in command to take money from both parties?

Notice must be given of that Question.

That is a question for the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a joint memorandum from the Incorporated Association of Head Masters and Mr. Lawrie on matters of public interest connected with the Report of the Royal Commission on Secondary Education; and, if so, whether the memorandum can be printed and laid upon the Table of the House?

I have received the two memoranda referred to, and if my hon. Friend will move for an address for the Papers, the Government will have no objection to laying them on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War will he explain why the Officer commanding the First Volunteer Battalion Hants Regiment, having upon the rolls five in excess of the authorised establishment, has been directed by the War Office to strike off five efficient volunteers in preference to five non-efficients?

A commanding officer is not entitled to enrol volunteers in excess of his establishment. If he does so, when his roll is received, he is ordered to strike off those last enrolled as the men for whom there was no proper vacancy.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say if he has conferred with the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the President of the Local Government Board, as promised in the Queen's Speech, with the view to preventing the deportation of paupers from Scotland and England to Ireland?

The Queen's Speech contained no promise of the nature indicated. I have been in conference with the Secretary for Scotland and the President of the Local Government Board, and the subject is still under consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that the Guardians of the Uppingham Union have, within a period of four and a-half years, caused 16 summonses to be served upon, one parent for noncompliance with the Vaccination Law; and if he will direct the attention of the Guardians of that and other unions in which parents are being similarly prosecuted to the letter of the Local Government Board, issued in 1875, in which guardians were warned that when in a particular case repeated prosecutions have failed in their object, it becomes necessary to carefully consider the question whether the continuance of a fruitless contest with the parent may not have a tendency to produce mischievous results, by exciting sympathy with the person prosecuted, and thus creating a more extended opposition to the law?

I have no information as to the number of summonses served in the case referred to in the Question, but a copy of the letter issued in 1875 was sent to the Guardians of the Uppingham Union upon this subject, and at their request, as recently as the 15th of January last.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the police on duty at the sales of goods of persons who refused to comply with the Vaccination Law at Maidenhead acted as bidders and partisans generally; that three men who were committed to prison in default of payment of fines under the same law were conducted through the streets of Maidenhead handcuffed, and were roughly handled by the police; and if he proposes taking any action in the matter?

I have made inquiry and am informed that some of the police did bid for some of the things at the public auction; also that the three men referred to were handcuffed, this step being necessary, in the judgment of the police, in order to prevent a rescue. The police, however, emphatically deny that the men were roughly handled, and I see no grounds for believing that such was the case. I propose making further inquiry as to the bidding by the police at the auction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that the British Admiral in Cretan waters has asked for the dispatch to Crete of an additional battalion of 600 men; and if it is intended to comply with the request, whether he will urge upon the Government to send an English battalion and not another Schottish one? The HON. MEMBER added: May I also ask whether it was owing to an exaggerated feeling of modesty that the right hon. Gentleman could not give the House any information? [Cheers.]

Order, order! Questions put merely for the purpose of satire are not in order.

Yes, Sir. The British Admiral asked for more troops on the ground that the number already supplied was insufficient for the garrison of Candia, where there is gathered together a very large population. His request has been agreed to, and the requisite number of troops will be drawn from the Seaforth Highlanders and the Royal Welsh Fusiliers at Malta.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a Welsh regiment should be selected for this work? [Cheers.]

Can the hon. Member tell me any reason why a Welsh regiment should not be selected? [Loud Ministerial cheers.] I imagine that Welshmen are as willing to do their duty as any other subjects of the Queen. [Renewed cheers.]

Because the work they are asked to do is wholly repugnant to the feelings of the Welsh people. [Ministerial laughter and Opposition cheers.]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Cretan Insurgent Chiefs, who were summoned under a flag of truce to the village outside Retimo by the Consuls, were fired at three times when acting in obedience to the summons by the Turkish troops; whether, notwithstanding the urgent remonstrance of the Russian Consul to one Hushni Pasha, the Governor, who told the Turkish soldiers to stop firing, the Turkish soldiers continued to fire; whether the object of the proposed conference was the explanation by the Consul to the Cretan Chiefs of the meaning of the promised autonomy; and whether the Concert of Europe still maintain that the presence of Turkish troops in Crete are essential to preserve law and order?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give the House any information regarding two statements contained in The Times of 31st March, from its correspondents at Canea and Athens respectively, viz., that on Monday last eight delegates from the Cretan insurgents, who were coming to Koube with a flag of truce to confer with the Russian Consul at his request, were attacked by the Turkish troops in the entrenchments, with the consequence that fighting took place, and the conference could not be held; that on Monday last the officers of the Foreign fleets at Retimo, who failed to convey the proclamation of autonomy to the insurgents in consequence of an attack made upon the latter by Turkish troops and Bashi-Bazouks, again endeavoured to carry out their mission, but, owing to the threatening attitude of the Bashi-Bazouks, were compelled to return to the town; and whether, having regard to these incidents (if correctly stated), and to other similar incidents, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to have steps taken to accelerate the complete removal of the Turkish troops from Crete?

Her Majesty's Consul reported on the 29th that the Russian Consul, who was engaged at Rethymo in preparing for the installation of the Russian troops, invited the insurgents to meet him and the Commander of the Russian troops. Fifty Christians came from the village of Azipopoulo, and sent a deputation of eight to the appointed place twenty minutes from the town; and although carrying a white flag, they were fired upon by Turkish troops from their entrenchments. [Opposition cheers.] The Christians abstained from firing—[Opposition cheers]—but as the Turks continued, 200 insurgents came down, and fighting continued till evening; the losses were not yet known. The Russian Consul is said to have made strong remonstrances to the Governor, stating that he would report his want of good faith. He subsequently succeeded in interviewing the insurgents at Azipopoulo, and they are reported to have refused autonomy and insisted on union with Greece. [Opposition cheers.] As I have previously informed the House, the Government are taking every step in their power to accelerate the withdrawal of the Turkish troops—[general cheering]—though it must be clear that until the Powers are in a position to replace the garrisons withdrawn, which they are endeavouring by the dispatch of additional reinforcements to do, they are not justified in exposing to the risk of successful attack the refugee population in the seaport towns. [Ministerial cheers.]

Arising out of that question, I should like to ask the Under Secretary why the foreign the troops did not exercise the same punitive powers and the same amount of force to prevent the Turkish troops from acting in the scandalous way the right hon. Gentleman has just described as they exercised against the insurgents. ["Hear, hear!"]

Order, order! That does not arise out of this Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there has been a fierce fight at Spinalonga; and did the insurgents, having taken a fort on the mainland, swim out to a small island near the fort and sink a Turkish sailing boat filled with arms?

We have received no information to that effect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for information?

No, Sir. I am not going to bother our officials about that. [Ministerial cheers.] They have enough to do without being plagued by incessant telegrams. [Ministerial cheers.]

On behalf of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Ecclesall (Sir ELLIS ASH-MEAD-BARTLETT), I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement by Baron Pinter, and quoted in the Standard of 31st March, that the worst atrocities have been committed by the Cretan insurgents upon the Turks of both sexes and all ages, and that the dead bodies of Mussulmans, fearfully mutilated, are to be seen lying everywhere in the interior of Crete; and whether Her Majesty's Government will insist upon the appointment of an International Commission, with efficient interpreters, to examine into and report upon the expropriation and massacre of the Mussulmans of Crete.

We have heard nothing of the statement quoted in the Standard. Pending the restoration of order in the island, I am afraid it would be premature to discuss the appointment of any such Commission as the hon. Member suggests.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what respect the object of the Government to restore peace to Crete is served by permitting the importation by the Turks of ammunition into that island?

The Turkish troops still form a considerable portion of the garrison of the towns, and so long as this is the case it is necessary that they should be able to defend the posts held by them against attack. Otherwise the Mussulman population, which is congregated in large numbers in the towns, and which the contingents of the Great Powers have hitherto been insufficient to protect, would be in imminent danger.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—whether his attention has been drawn to the report in the Standard newspaper from Canea, dated yesterday, that Her Majesty's ship Camperdown, having shelled the forces of the insurgents at a distance of about four miles, the insurgent flag having been lowered, and the Christians being in full retreat, the Turkish soldiers sallied out of the fort, and established themselves in the insurgents' position, hoisting the Ottoman flag; that about 11.30 the Turks were still engaged in pouring in a rolling fire on the retreating mass of the insurgents; that the latter replied with great spirit, and that until the Camperdown took to her heavy shells they rather gained ground than lost it, in spite of a tremendous fire from the Russian and Austrian vessels; and I will ask him whether it is in accordance with the policy of Her Majesty's Government that Turkish troops should be employed under cover of British guns in order to hoist the Ottoman flag as a symbol of Turkish rule in Crete? [Opposition cheers.]

We have as yet received no information about the incidents in question. But I do not gather from the Report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, and which I have read, either that Turkish troops were employed under cover of British guns fur an attack on the Cretan insurgents—on the contrary, they appear to have been engaged in repelling an attack—nor that the Ottoman flag was hoisted as the symbol of Turkish rule in Crete. I imagine that wherever the Turkish troops fight they fight tinder the Turkish flag, and that this is a common place of all military proceedings. [Ministerial laughter.]

asked, with reference to the statement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that further forces are being sent to Crete, as he understood, by the Powers, whether Germany was taking part in that action?

I should prefer notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Chairman of the Derbyshire Quarter Sessions has been advised from tile Home Office that magistrates for that county who are shareholders either for their own benefit, or as trustees only, or debenture holders in the Midland Railway Company, are disqualified front acting as Justices under Section 60 of the Licensing Act of 1872, in consequence of that company being licensed to sell excisable liquors in its refreshment rooms in that county?

It is the case that Mr. Barker, the late Chairman, was advised by the Home office that Justices holding shares in railway companies which retailed intoxicating liquors were disqualified from acting under the Licensing Act of 1872, except in the cases specified in Section 60. I think there can be no doubt the same rule would apply to trustees for shareholders or debenture holders.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the Local Government Board, in administer- ing the Agricultural Rates Act of last Session, have decided that no grant can be made thereunder in respect of sums required for the service of loans raised by spending authorities, but not actually expended before 25th March 1896; whether in making such decision the Local Government Board have given due effect to the provisions contained in. Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the said Act; and whether, if the Local Government Board are not empowered to equitably adjust the amount of the grant to be awarded in each case, the President will introduce or support a Bill conferring upon the Board the necessary power?

The Local Government Board have considered that, in determining the grant to be paid to a spending authority under the Agricultural Rates Act, they could not take into account prospective expenditure in years subsequent to that ending on the 31st March 1896, and the Board are not prepared to make exceptions to this rule.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that in the case of the East Suffolk County Council, when the Department found they could effect a saving, they did not—

Notice must be given of that Question.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War office whether his attention has been directed to a memorial signed by the magistrates, clergymen, and principal inhabitants of Boyle, and also by the Boyle Board of Guardians, in favour of a Crimean veteran, John Brennan, formerly of the 41st Regiment, who was wounded at Sebastopol; whether the local medical men have sent certificates that Brennan bears the marks of wounds received in action; and whether, in view of his age and his poverty, being in receipt of outdoor relief, he will recommend that a compassionate allowance be granted to this veteran soldier?

The memorial of John Brennan has been received and considered. Medical certificates that he was wounded in action have not been received. I can only repeat the reply I made to the hon. Member on the 28th January last, namely, that there is no record of Brennan being wounded while in the Army, and that his short service of two and a-half years does not qualify him for a special campaign pension.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, having regard to the fact that the Congested Districts Board agreed last June to advance a sum not exceeding £200 for the drainage of the Eslin River and its tributaries in Breandrum Division, in South Leitrim, one of the scheduled districts under that Board, whether he can state what steps have been taken to carry out this undertaking?

The Congested Districts Board have no information as to the steps taken by the Drainage Board in consequence of the grant of £200 offered as a contribution towards the proposed works.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that orders have been issued to fill only every second vacancy occurring in the Royal Naval Reserve at the port of Wexford; (2) if like orders have been issued to any other Irish port; and (3) if he can state any reasons for reducing the Wexford Naval Reserve force?

The answer to the first Question is in the affirmative. The orders apply also to Galway, Limerick, Kinsale, and Youghal. This restriction on enrolment was necessitated by the force being in excess of numbers voted.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether the first Return of Estates to which Section 40 of the Land Law (Ireland) Act 1890, is to be applied as directed by the Rules under that section is now ready, and whether it will be printed and presented to the House?

The first Return is now ready. There is nothing in the Statute or Rules requiring that it should be laid upon the Table of the House, but having regard to the general interest taken in the subject at present, the Irish Government are willing that the Return should be laid upon the Table of the House, reserving to themselves the right to decline to do so in the case of future Returns, should it be found undesirable to publish, them.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the annual revenue raised by the light dues charged on shipping is in excess of the annual expenditure on lighting the coast; whether the only European nations which charge the shipping industry with the cost of maintaining lighthouses are the United Kingdom and Turkey, and whether the United States and Canada have abolished the light dues charged on shipping; and whether, having regard to the importance of the shipping trade of the country, the Government will consider the desirability of abolishing the light dues on shipping?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Mercantile Marine Fund he will see that, taking the years from 1883–84 to 1894–95, the excess of light revenue over light expenditure was for that period £675,000. The average annual excess for the five years ending March 3, 1896, was £130,955. It must, however, be borne in mind that the Legislature has provided that the fund to which light dues are paid shall bear many charges. As stated in my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool on the 19th ult., it is not a fact that the United Kingdom and Turkey are the only European nations which charge the shipping industry with the cost of maintaining lighthouses. In some cases dues, though not levied under the name of light dues, are applied to the maintenance of lights and other works connected with harbours and navigation; but it is impossible in a reply to a question to state the exact circumstances of each country. I am unable to hold any hope of introducing a Bill for the abolition of light dues.

asked whether it was not the fact that an enormous amount of money was spent for the benefit of the shipping trade of the country?

asked how the charge of t he present light dues was justified, seeing that the receipts exceeded the expenditure?

I am not aware to what particular assistance the hon. Member for Roscommon refers. As to the other Question, there is no doubt that within the last three or four years there has been a considerable excess in the dues collected over the moneys expended on the lights. On the other hand, for a series of years the fund was in great financial straits, and a considerable amount of money had to be borrowed at various times—as much as £300,000 in all—to provide for the necessary expenditure on lights. That money has now been entirely repaid, but I have already undertaken that, if time can be found, I shall be glad to introduce a Bill for the purpose of rearranging the light dues; and, of course, if it be possible at a future time to reduce the contribution, we shall be glad to do so. But we are proposing to spend considerably more on the light service than has been spent in the past.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will secure that rural auxiliary postmen in Ireland doing four or four and a half hours' duty will be allowed twelve week days' holiday, two-thirds pay when sick, and 15s. yearly boot money; and will men doing four hours' duty be classed as assistant postmen; and, if not, what is meant by the statement in the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee that it is impossible the duties of assistant postmen should occupy exactly six hours, but that the great majority of assistant postmen should have six hours, and that none should have less than four hours?

In accordance with the recommendation of Lord Tweed-mouth's Committee, rural auxiliary postmen doing five hours' work and upwards will in future be entitled to the privileges described. But there is no intention of extending these privileges to men doing only four or four and a half hours' duty. Auxiliary postmen will not, under the recommendation of the Committee, be classed as assistant postmen, unless they have been telegraph messengers, or have served in the Army or Navy, and are, waiting for established appointments. Assistant postmen will be entitled to an annual holiday of twelve week days, two-thirds pay when sick, and a boot allowance of 15s. a year, provided their days work is not less than four hours.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the undertaking to bring Irish savings in expenditure to a separate Irish account is confined to retrenchments in the Irish judicial system, or covers savings made in the entire Irish establishment; and, in the former event only, could he explain what is the ground of distinction between different classes of savings?

As I explained the other day, I referred to the salaries of Judges, which, in the event of the abolition of Judgeships, would permanently cease. I do not see how a temporary saving, which might be turned into an increase of expenditure by the next year's Estimates, or even by a Supplementary Estimate in the same year, could be treated in the same way.

Are no other savings except the savings on the Judges' salaries to be credited to the Irish account?

I should like to begin with that, and see what we can do.

Did not the words of the right hon. Gentleman apply to legal and judicial establishments in Ireland?

If we can find any other salaries I should be delighted to deal with them in the same way.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the refusal of Captain Higginson to act as high sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus, (1) whether Captain Higginson has any lands within the county; and, if not, why he was nominated as high sheriff for that county; (2) whether he is aware that in 1893 Mr. Standish Grady Parkes-Hutchinson, who was under warrant appointed by the then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland as high sheriff of Queen's County, refused to accept and take on himself the office of sheriff, notwithstanding that he had sufficient lands to answer the Queen and her people, and that the Attorney General having proceeded against Mr. Hutchinson by way of criminal information, the jury disagreed, and Mr. Hutchinson was discharged; and (3) whether, considering that a number of business gentlemen living in Carrickfergus are fit and able to serve, if nominated, he will consider the desirability of relieving Captain Higginson of the costs and inconveniences of a fruitless prosecution?

With the permission of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. Captain Higginson's case comes on for trial at the end of this month. The first paragraph refers to matters in issue in the suit, and the last paragraph to its possible result; I must decline, therefore, to answer them. The facts as to Mr. Hutchinson's case are not accurately stated. One of the questions in issue in that case was as to the sufficiency of the lands owned by Mr. Hutchinson, and another question in issue was, who was to be the judge of that sufficiency, whether the Crown or the person required to serve? After the jury had disagreed Mr. Hutchinson pleaded guilty, and served as sheriff for the year 1894.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the evidence given recently in London before the Irish Horse Breeding Commission, the whole weight of which was against the introduction of Hackney blood into Ireland as being ruinous to it as a hunter producing or high class harness-horse country, the services of the Hackney stallions belonging to the Congested Districts Board will be withheld pending the finding of the Commission?

I have referred this Question to the Congested Districts Board, but I hardly think it likely they will take any action pending the Report of the Commission.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recommendations made by the Prison Commissioners last year concerning the warders in prisons, to which he made reference on 10th August 1896 in a speech in this House, had received the assent of the Treasury; and whether he was in a position to hold out hope of some amelioration of their terms of superannuation?

No, Sir; the Treasury declined to assent to the recommendations of the Commissioners. A further communication from the Commissioners is under consideration, but I cannot go so far as to hold out much hope of the improvement which the warders desire.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he is aware of the difficulties that have arisen, particularly of recent years, in Wales, in consequence of the liability of a gift of land as a site for a public school to be defeated by the death of the donor within 12 months after the execution of the deed of conveyance; and whether the Government will introduce a Measure enabling limited owners to make indefeasible gifts of real property for the purpose of education and recreation?

I am not aware that the provisions of the Mortmain Acts have given rise to any difficulty. In my opinion they are salutary provisions, and I do not think that any sufficient case is made out to justify an amendment of the law.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if he was consulted by the Home Office before the Petroleum Acts, 1871 to 1881, were declared applicable to carbide of calcium; if so, was it on the ground that these Acts apply only to a liquid and not a solid that Section 7 of the Act of 1871 was declared non-applicable to carbide, and the public are forbidden to have the smallest quantity without licence of an admittedly non-inflammable solid; and what means exist for testing the legality of applying by Order in Council (published in The Gazette of 2nd March) Acts dealing with a particular liquid substance, to a solid body not then in the contemplation of Parliament?

I must decline to answer the Question whether I was consulted by the Home Office, or the grounds of any opinion which I may have, given, but I looked into the Act, and, assuming carbide of calcium to be of a like nature from the point of view of danger and liability to explosion, I am of opinion that an Order in Council may properly be made to apply the Petroleum Acts thereto. The legality of the Order can be raised in any proceedings taken to recover a penalty under the Act. The information in the possession of the Home Office, and the accidents which have occurred, do not support the view that the substance is non-inflammable solid. I may add that, the information given me at the Home Office with regard to the substance itself, and the accidents which happen, dues nut confirm the view suggested in the Question. In answer to a further question by Mr. T. M. HEALY,

said: I do not think that the Act dues apply only to liquids.

I beg to give notice that as soon as the Home Office Vote and the salary of the Attorney General come on, I shall raise this Question again.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that a Royal Commission in 1836 declared in favour of the view that Irish railways should be worked as one system and under one management; and whether, having regard to the multitude of railway systems and railway directors in Ireland, and the disastrous effect of high railway rates on an agricultural country, the Government will consider the advisability of asking for the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee to inquire whether the purchase and management of Irish railways by the State is desirable and practicable?

My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary requests me to say that the Government do not propose to appoint a further Royal Commission on the suggested State purchase of Irish railways. That principle was condemned by a Royal Commission appointed in 1865, and again by another Royal Commission appointed in 1886. The condition of affairs upon which those decisions were based does not seem subsequently to have been altered.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that the Prime Minister is also one of the principal Secretaries of State, and that the duties of any one of the five principal Secretaries of State can be constitutionally discharged by the other principal Secretaries of State, any arrangement, and, if so, what arrangement has been made, having regard to the critical aspect of foreign relations, for the discharge of duties relating to the department of Foreign Affairs heretofore discharged by Lord Salisbury al the Foreign Office, in his absence from this country; on whom do the duties and responsibilities of Lord Salisbury, in his capacity of Prime Minister and chief of the Cabinet, devolve in his absence from this country; what is the nature of the responsibility of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, having regard to the fact that he is not a Minister of the Crown?

There is no change in the duties or responsibilities of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary at the present time—[laughter]—and, as regards the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, his position is precisely the same as that of all his predecessors in that office. [Laughter and cheers.]

Were all his predecessors Ministers of the Crown, or were they appointed by letter of the gentlemen who were Secretaries of State for the time? That is an easy Question. [Laughter.]

If the hon. Gentleman is making researches in constitutional law, I think he had better address his Question to the Attorney General. [Ministerial laughter and cheers.]

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, for the convenience of Members, lie can now state when it is proposed to adjourn for and reassemble after Easter?

I cannot now give a definite or final reply to this question; but my hope in that after a morning sitting on Tuesday week, the 13th, the House will adjourn for the Easter holidays. The precise length of the holidays is not finally settled; but I hope it will not be necessary to meet until the Monday following the Easter Monday.

Do the government intend to take the morning on the Tuesday for Government business?

My present idea—but it is not a fixed one—is to have a morning sitting as usual, and that at that sitting nothing should be settled but the adjournment for the holidays, and the introduction by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of the Bill relating to the Irish Agricultural Board.

How soon after the holidays will the Budget be taken?

Either on the Thursday after we meet or on the following Monday, I should think. But I am not sure.

Do the Government intend to take the Employers' Liability Bill on this side of Easter or the other?

Probably not till after Easter.

If we forego an Irish Debate on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the consideration of the Budget, or on the first. Resolution when the Chairman is in the Chair, will the Government devote a reasonable amount of time on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill, or on some other stage, for the discussions of outstanding Irish questions?

I believe that it is on the Second Heading that the occasion would arise for continuing the discussion on which, we have already spent some little Parliamentary time. The Government would have no desire unduly to curtail the Debate on that stage of the Bill; but I am unwilling to say that we would give a "reasonable" time until I know what the lion, and learned Member's view of a "reasonable" time is.

When will the Bill dealing with the Board of Agriculture in Ireland be introduced?

I am anxious to get the Bill printed, if possible, before Easter, in order that it may be discussed in Ireland during the Easter recess. It will be introduced on the Tuesday—the day on which the House adjourns for the holidays.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether he was aware that in addition to the Irish question, an intention existed to raise the important question of the general fiscal policy of the country on the Budget, and whether he would take care, in making arrangements for the Budget, that the latter question was not excluded?

I do not think that, even if I had the desire, I should have the power to prevent discussion on the Second Reading of the Budget Bill.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, when appointing the new Royal Commission on the financial relations between Great Britain and Ireland, the Government have any objection to the appointment, or intend to appoint on the Commission the Lord Chief Justice of England or Lord Morris, both of whom are eminent English Judges?

I am not in a position at the present time to make any announcement as to the names to be proposed for the Commission to inquire into the financial relations.

asked why the Bill did not consolidate all the law relating to public health in Scotland. It consolidated, nearly all the law, but the provisions of the Act of 1891 were left out. It would be obviously for the great convenience of those who had to refer to the Bill that there should be a complete consolidation, and that no part of the provisions regarding public health should be left out.

said the Bill might more properly be discussed in Committee than in the House, but he desired to raise the question how far it ought to apply to burghs as well as to counties, and what the effect would be of the provisions of the Bill which were applied to burghs as well as to counties. It had been the view of many persons that it would be more convenient to have a separate measure of public health for burghs and counties. It was clear, however, that those who represented burghs would not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the Bill passing, and it was desired to have the benefit of the Bill for burghs and not to delay it by raising any difficulty on the point in the passing of this Bill. There was one difficulty in regard to the application of the Bill to burghs, which was raised in the Memorandum of the burgh officials. He should like to know whether the Lord Advocate was prepared to give his attention to that Memorandum, and whether in Committee they might have the satisfaction of hearing the Lord Advocate on that point. Would the Lord Advocate give his consideration to the question of overlapping in the provisions of the Bill with the provisions of the Burgh Police Act, and the question how far the Act of 1867 applied? In the case of sewers and water the provisions of the Bill would overlap in the burghs the provisions of the Act of 1892; and if the matter was not put into much clearer and more specific form, than at present in the Bill, there would be a great deal of confusion and complication in the future.

said that when the discussion took place the other day several hon. Members complained that he had not introduced the Bill by a preliminary statement to explain what was exactly being done. He thought perhaps the best justification of what he did was to be found in the Debate which ensued. He thought that a Minister in charge of n Bill who had the advantage of the courtesy of the House in being allowed to choose his own time to speak, was bound not to trouble the House unless he had something In say. If would have been surplusage on his part if he had prefaced this Bill with any long statement, because everything he could have said was said in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill. As to the material with which the House had to deal, it was clearly explained in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill, and hon. Members would find in the Bill itself that there was a marginal note opposite each clause showing the source whence it was derived and bow far the old legislation of 1867 had been altered and departed from. As to the reasons why the Government had adopted this or that in the Bill, he thought the hon. Member forgot that the Bill had been discussed at considerable length last year in another place, and that it represented therefore the outcome of very careful consideration before a very competent Committee. He could not doubt therefore that hon. Members would think that the Government had acted wisely in beginning at least with the Public Health Bill as it left the House of Lords last year. The only alteration they had made had cropped up in one or two matters which had occurred in the meantime, like the scandal connected with the interment of a body in Aberdeen. The Government had tried to meet that case; but there was no alteration in the principle of the Bill as it left the House of Lords. In the discussions there were no Second Reading considerations advanced at all. The hon. Member for Banffshire made a speech, not on the Bill before the House, but on a Bill of some years ago, on a matter outside the scope of public health, which was introduced by Mr. Seymour Keay. The hon. Member for Dundee drew special attention to Clause 57, with the object of calling attention to the position in which Dundee was at present with regard to a private Bill which was at present before a Committee upstairs. The hon. Baronet rather indicated in the discussion which arose on this Bill that the Lord Advocate constituted himself responsible for the counties as against the burghs. He disclaimed any such intention. The view of the Govern- ment as to Dundee was that it ought not to be allowed in a controversial question to go ahead of the general law. He assured the Member for Dundee that the Government had a perfectly open mind with regard to the clause in question, and they were perfectly willing and anxious that it should be fully discussed when the Bill was sent to Committee. The points rinsed by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Caldwell) also were each and all strictly Committee points. He called attention to the question of a special drainage district. On that he would only say this, that no doubt there was in the Bill a distinction made between burghs and counties. There was at least a reason for that distinction, for, although it was quite right that, if a special drainage scheme was inaugurated in a part of a burgh, the inhabitants in that part should not be called upon to pay for drainage elsewhere, yet that would not he always just in the counties, because a part of a county might be constituted into a special drainage district, and then, by executing some minute works at very small cost, might obtain exemption from the burden in the other parts of the county towards which they ought to contribute. But upon that point, as upon others, the Government had not absolutely made up its mind, and would be very glad to listen to any representations and arguments in Committee. With regard to recreation grounds, the hon. Member forgot that since the passing of the Public Health Act of 1867 there had been a Public Parks Act, and the provisions of that Statute really gave him what he wanted, and it would be unnecessary to go any further in a Bill of this sort. The hon. Member also reverted to the matter of the Standing Joint Committee. Well, the Government did not think it advisable to disturb the settlement made in the Act of 1889, but all these points were Committee points, and not proper subjects for Second Beading discussion. [Cheers.] The only other point was that on which the hon. Member founded his Amendment, which had been put and negatived. He (the Lord Advocate) did not wish to take advantage of that fact, and, in courtesy to the hon. Member, he would say a few words on the subject. It raised the question of rating. In burghs, the option was given to rate either Upon the occupier or the owner and the occupier. Again, he must disclaim any intention to stop discussion on that subject in the proper place—the Committee. The hon. Member made a slight slip in stating what the law was, for he said there could be no levying in a burgh half upon the owner and half upon the occupier, unless there was de facto a prison assessment. He could not but think that the hon. Member had not had his attention called to the 63rd section of the Prisons Act of 1877. That Act abolished prison assessment altogether, because it put the maintenance of the prisons on the State Imperial funds. But in Section 63 there was a general provision which said that in any Act of Parliament where an assessment might be levied in the manner of the prison assessment, then it should be legal for the assessing body, whoever they were, to put that assessment half upon the owner and half upon the occupier.

I said so.

replied that he did not think so, for the hon. Member said that it had been decided by the Court of Session that they could not put the assessment half on the owner and half on the occupier.

Order, order! The question of the division of rates has been disposed of by the decision of the House on the Amendment, and that cannot be discussed again.