I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will state the number of postal telegraph offices in Ross and Cromarty, including the island of Lewis, at which money order business is not conducted; and will he state the number of money order offices in that county at which telegraph business is not transacted?

The number of postal telegraphic offices in Ross and Cromarty, including the island of Lewis, at which money order business is not conducted is 13. The number of money order offices in that county at which telegraphic business is not transacted is five.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will grant a Return showing the places in the counties of Inverness, Argyll, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Caithness, and Orkney and Shetland for which telegraph guarantees were asked during the years 1894, 1895, and 1896 respectively; also the amount of the guarantee in each case; and indicating the name of any such place at which a telegraph office has been established?

The information asked for by the lion. Member was furnished to him as regards the year I893 in a letter dated the 31st March 1896, Statements for the years 1894 and 1896 can be prepared and sent to the hon. Member, but they will take some time to prepare seeing that tile information has to be picked out of a mass of correspondence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the fact that the Secretary to the Post Office issued a circular in the name of the Postmaster General, in November last, urging that, in the interests of the service, and in order to afford a proper flow of promotion to persons engaged in it, it is desirable that retirements should take place at the age of 60; whether he is aware that at the present time two messengers are employed on the staff of adult messengers attached to the Secretary's Office of the General Post Office each of whom is 65 years of age; and whether he will in this instance consider the expediency of enforcing the provisions of the circular referred to?

The circular in question granted a year of grace which was to expire on the 1st January 1898. None of the messengers in the Secretary's Office of the General Post Office have yet reached the age of 65. The question of enforcing the provisions of the circular will be considered when the proper time arrives.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, (1) whether he is aware that although the late Financial Secretary to the Post Office retired on a pension prior to the 30th November 1896, the office has not been filled up, and has in fact been abolished; and (2) will he state why the salary, £1,500, appears in the Post Office Estimates, 1897–8; and to whom it is paid?

The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is "Yes." As to the second, the explanation is that the Estimates were prepared before a decision had been arrived at to abolish the office referred to. The salary has not been paid to any one since the retirement of the lute Financial Secretary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why it is that the charge for a re-directed telegram has to be paid by the receiver before the message is delivered at an hotel; and, on the other hand, if a re-directed message is sent from the hotel, why the charge has: to be paid before the message can be accepted by the Post Office; and whether the rule is uniformly followed in the case of hotels and boarding-houses?

The Postmaster General is not aware that a distinction is made between an hotel and any other house in the delivery of a re-directed telegram. If the charge for re-direction has not been prepaid, it is the duty of the messenger to endeavour to obtain it from the addressee. On the other hand, the rule requiring the charge for a telegram re-directed from an hotel or boardinghouse to be prepaid was adopted because of the loss the Department had sustained from being unable to obtain payment of the re-direction fee in such cases, and so far as the Postmaster General is aware this rule is uniformly applied.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the case of Arthur Blow and the Sculcoates Union; and, whether he will grant an immediate official inquiry into all the circumstances of the case?

The facts of the case with regard to the boy referred to in the Question have been the subject of considerable correspondence, and it is not necessary that there should be an inquiry as suggested for the purpose of ascertaining them. The mother of the boy was deserted by her husband, and in order that she might go out to work she placed the child with a Mrs. Stamp, paying for his maintenance with her. The mother died in 1889, and Mrs. Stamp then applied to the Guardians for relief for the child, and this relief was granted to her by the Guardians. The religion of the boy at that time was stated to be Primitive Methodist, but there appears to be no doubt that the religion of the father and mother was Roman Catholic. For some time the boy was sent to a Roman Catholic day and Sunday School, but he was afterwards apparently sent to a Board School. The Local Government Board regret that this should have been done, but they have no authority under which they could require that the child should be taken from the charge of Mrs. Stamp. Subsequently when the boy was over 12 years of age he was received into the workhouse, and according to the statements which have been made to the Board, he wished to be brought up as a Primitive Methodist, and the Statute does not confer on the Board any power of interfering in such a case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government will, during the Jubilee year, recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the bestowal of some recognition upon those officers, soldiers, and sailors who served in the Crimea or Indian Mutiny, the two leading campaigns of Her Majesty's reign?

All who served in the campaigns have had the medal and clasps. The services of a great number of officers engaged have been recognised by promotion and other distinctions, and of the men by the recent grant of compassionate campaign pensions, but it is not contemplated to make any general distribution of honours to the survivors at the Jubilee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a holiday, with Bay, will be given on Jubilee Day to all persons employed in the public service, though they may not be technically "public servants," such as mechanics, labourers, and others employed at Her Majesty's prisons, and who in most cases have to take a compulsory holiday?

The only persons in the prison service to whom the question would apply are men employed temporarily only, and I can hardly see how as a whole they can be treated as public servants for this purpose. My hon. Friend is not correct in his supposition that the majority of them will have to take a compulsory holiday on that day. I am quite prepared to consider any individual cases of hardship.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether lie is yet in a position to say if he will be able to provide seats for t he attendants of the House of Commons to witness the Jubilee Procession?

said that he was not sure, but lie thought that he should be able to make arrangements for the accommodation of, at any rate, most of the attendants of the House of Commons to witness the Jubilee procession.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether lie will make arrangements with the Trustees of the National Gallery so that occupants of the seats reserved for the Members of the House of Lords and their friends on the coming Jubilee Day may have access to the National Gallery during the time of the pageant?

said that the question of opening the National Gallery to the Members of the House of Lords and their friends on Jubilee Day was nut one for him to decide, it rested with the trustees of the Gallery. He should certainly hesitate to ask, that the Gallery should be opened, because it would give the attendants unnecessary work on a day which ought to be a holiday. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the consent of the General Officer Commanding the District is necessary before local Volunteers eon parade or take part in a procession; and, if so, whether the rule will be relaxed, so as to allow Commanding Officers to arrange for parade and marches out of local Volunteers on Jubilee Day?

All General Officers Commanding Districts have been authorised to sanction any arrangements they may think desirable to assist local celebrations of the Jubilee. This will in- clude the employment of Volunteers. Volunteers cannot be employed on public occasions without the authority of the General Officer Commanding.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether Army pensioners can under any circumstances, and, if so, what, commute their pensions; and whether the Government will consider the desirability of providing that all Army pensioners may commute their pensions when they desire to do so, either for the purpose of investing the sum in the purchase of a house to avoid the cost of rent, a business in which to train and support their families, or to otherwise invest the amount for the benefit of their children after death?

also asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the Government will consider the desirability of allowing Army pensioners in Great Britain and Ireland to commute their pensions where they might desire to do so; and whether Army pensioners arc under any circumstances allowed to commute their pensions?

A pensioner in good health', between the ages of 50 and 80 years, is allowed to commute his pension for the purpose of residing in a colony or abroad if he can show, to the Secretary of State's satisfaction, that commutation will be a distinct and permanent advantage to him. It is not considered desirable to allow pensioners residing in the United Kingdom to commute their pensions, nor is it in their own interests desirable for pensioners to commute their pensions except in very special cases.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there are some 2,000 veterans, who have served either in the Crimean War or the Indian. Mutiny, now inmates of workhouses; and whether he will consider the advisability of granting a small pension to all those in this position who are over 70 years of age?

From a Return presented this Session, it appears that in May 1896 there were in workhouses in the United Kingdom 352 men over the age of 60 and without pension who could substantiate their claim to be discharged soldiers, although there is no evidence that they had served in the campaigns mentioned, and there is no reason to suppose that the number is now essentially different. Special campaign pensions have been awarded to Crimean and Indian Mutiny veterans of I0 years' service in 2,737 cases, at a yearly cost of£36,390. In some of these cases the pensioners remain in the workhouse by their own choice, where they are allowed to receive 2s. a week to spend. It is not intended to extend these pensions to men of less than 10 years' Army service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the quinquennial reports to 1st January 1891, and 1st January 1896, respectively, on the state of the. National School Teachers (Ireland) Fund, have been presented in compliance with the terms of the Irish National School Teachers' Pension Act; and, if not, whether, pending the presentation of the Reports, further action will be stayed on the recommendations of the Treasury Departmental Committee's Report on the state of the Pension Fund?

There is no statutory obligation to present the Quinquennial Reports on the Teachers Pension Fund; such Reports are not even referred to in the Act to which the hon. Member refers (42 and 43 Vict. cap 74). The annual accounts of the Fund are, however, duly presented as required by Section 5 of the Act. The last (that for 1896) was presented on the 7th May.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture (1) whether he is aware that I he number of cattle sold by live weight at the auction mart at Falkirk is very large as compared with the majority of the markets named in the Schedule to the Markets and Fairs (Weighing of Cattle) Act of 1891; and (2) whether he will consider the propriety of including Falkirk in the list of places in respect of which Returns of the number of animals weighed and sold either by live weight or otherwise are obtained and published?

Yes, I am aware that special efforts have been made to encourage the practice of selling cattle by live weight at the mart referred to, and from the fact that, as I am informed, the number of cattle so sold at Falkirk during the year 1896–7 exceeds the number priced and weighed at the majority of the towns from which statutory returns are received, it is clear that those efforts have been attended with a considerable measure of success. I think the suggestion made in the second paragraph of the Question is a good one, and I will endeavour to give effect to it so soon as a convenient opportunity presents itself.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at an early hour on Monday morning last, near Inniskeen, a station on the Great Northern Railway, a distance of six miles from Dundalk, the night watchman discovered a large stone upon one of the rails, and had barely time to remove the obstruction before a goods train came past; and has any investigation been made into this occurrence, and with what result?

No, Sir; fortunately no accident happened, and the Company are therefore not under any obligation to report to the Board of Trade. The occurrence is obviously one which should be investigated by the Police authorities.

Said that he should have to consider the question or these appeals very carefully before tile Report stage, and lie would not overlook the point raised by the hon. Member's Amendment.

thanked the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.

, on behalf of the hon. Member for Northampton (ME. LABOUCHERE), moved at the end of Section (4), after the word "court," to insert the words:—

"in any proceedings under this Act no party or other person shall appear or be attended by counsel or solicitor."

was perfectly certain the adoption of the Amendment would not be in the interest of the workmen. There was no necessity for counsel to appear before the Committee, but when a case was taken before the County Court Judge or the Court of Appeal, it was absolutely necessary there should be some one who was able to put the matter in a way which would command respect and attention.

could not agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. The main object of the Bill was to put an end to expense, but as every one knew when solicitors were employed considerable costs were run up. It was in the interest of working men that this Amendment should be accepted, and as it stood in his name he should go to a Division.

said that he was no particular friend of lawyers, but he recognised they were necessary evils in certain cases, and if ever they were necessary they were in these cases. if this Amendment were adopted a workman, or his widow, or children would be deprived of the opportunity of putting the case in a proper fashion. Again, why should an employer be obliged to attend every one of the arbitrations or trials?

said the lion. Member for King's Lynn had said he was no friend of the lawyers, but many Members were under the impression that the hon. Gentleman had been specially retained to speak on behalf of the legal profession throughout these Debates. The Attorney General had accepted the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for Monmouthshire. This Amendment was in complete harmony with his hon. Friend's proposal, and ought to be accepted.

said they were all animated by the desire to do the best they could for the workman as well as the employer. It was perfectly clear there might be cases in which the refusal toy the less educated of the right to appear by counsel would be a hardship. It would be much more of a hardship to the working man who was not accustomed to this kind of discussion than it would be to a richer man—say, the employer. At the same time, the Government were as strongly persuaded as any one could be that the constant interference of the lawyer would be an absolute injury— ["hear, hear!"]—and they were anxious to do everything they could to keep him out. Special cases, however, must be provided for, and he suggested they should add to the Amendment "except by the leave of the Court or arbitrator or in any action in the Court of Appeal.' ["Hear, hear!"]

expressed his readiness to accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

maintained that the object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was to bring in trade union secretaries, who would be retained at large salaries specially in order to argue cases of this kind. [Mr. BROADHURST: "Not a bit!"] Were they to admit the trade union secretary and exclude the solicitor?

thanked the Colonial Secretary for his suggestion.

said that the workman might appear through the trade union secretary. What was the employer to do? Was he to attend in person?

He would have the same choice.

He has not got a trade union secretary. [A. laugh.]

said he did not accept the general statement that in every case the workmen would appear by a. trade union official. He thought that in a great majority of cases the men would be perfectly content 10 appear before the arbitrator and make a plain statement. ["Hear, hear!"] And if a small employer could not state the facts of the case himself he must be very unfortunate if he had not a. friend who would do it for him.

said lie could not understand anybody who had experience of working men Moving such an Amendment. What would happen? He would undertake to say that in 99 cases out of 100, where 'any award was made, the arbitrator would as a matter of course give the costs to the workman, and. lie could not understand why when a workman was successful and an award was made in his favour he should lose his costs. The only case he could conceive in which the arbitrator would say he should not have his costs would lie where an offer hail been made before by the master of a sum equally as large as the County Court. Judge was going to give to the workman. He was satisfied the practice all through would be for the County Court Judge and the arbitrator to award the costs whenever an allowance was made, and to insert these words would be to deprive the workman of all his costs.

accepted the Amendment, though he was not quite certain what form of words would be best. That might be reserved to the Report stage. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether there would be a practitioner regularly fixed in each district, or whether the arbitrator might from time to time appoint whoever he thought proper?

said lie should like to have ft little information about the operation of the Act before he said definitely what would be done. He thought that in all probability it would be better to appoint a special officer for each district, or it might be possible to use an officer who was already available.

said he had considered the Amendment, and in his opinion what the hon. Gentleman desired to arrive at was on the whole met by an Amendment which had been already inserted. He quite agreed with its object. He thought it extremely desirable that so far as practicable the Government and Parliament should be made aware of what was done under the Act. When the Bill was recast he would consider how far this was provided for, and how far it might be desirable to make still further provision in this direction.

remarked that in regard to what the right lion. Gentleman had stated about legal agents, he should certainly like to make inquiries, because his impression was otherwise. At the same time, he acknowledged that the right hon. Gentleman had greater experience than himself. He must say that he regarded the Court as a sort of informal tribunal, and he should like to see the County Court Judge or the Sheriff, as the case might be, treat the thing exactly as a Joint Committee would treat it, and make the inquiry himself in an informal way. Of course that was a matter they could not settle at present, it must be dealt with on Report. As regarded the rest, he was extremely pleased to hear what the Lord Advocate had said. His proposals were very fair and liberal. ''The Sheriff," he supposed, would mean the Sheriff Substitute. [The LORD ADVOCATE: "Yes!"] There was one other point, the importance of which the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to appreciate. He had not said so, but it ought to he set out that proceedings were to be initiated "at the request or on the communication of any person interested." He should be glad if the learned Lord Advocate would consider that before Report. In a similar way it was provided in the Amendment of which he (the speaker) gave notice, that either person might send a memorandum to the County Court Judge, who, on being satisfied of the genuineness of the case, would authorise the commencement of proceedings. He noticed also that the' Sheriff only might state a. case. He supposed it was meant that the arbitrator; also might state a case. But that was a minor point. He thanked the Lord Advocate very much for stating that cases stated only were to be heard by the Court of Appeal.

was very pleased to hear the Lord Advocate say he retained his own right to make this Bill more sensible and more reasonable as regarded Scotland upon the Report. In reference to the matter of appearance by solicitors or with the assistance of solicitors, he (the speaker) was only sorry that he did not take up the cause of England; but he was extremely glad to find that the stronger common sense that always marked Scotchmen would not be lost sight of in the Bill, and that the Bill would be rational and reasonable in Scotland even if it was not in England. [Laughter.] He was glad that the Lord Advocate, after consulting Her Majesty's Government, was to be permitted to make the proper alterations in this respect upon Report; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government, under the circumstances, would not put the English Members in a much worse position than the Scotch, and would also consider on Report the matter of employing solicitors in the English Court. [Cries of "No, no!"] Then he thought it was extremely hard that he was not born in Scotland. [Laughter.] It seemed to him that Scotchmen would have far greater advantages and a far more reasonable Act than Englishmen. With regard to the Court of Appeal, he did not quite see how the Court was to decide whether the point they were to decide upon was one of general interest when they had not heard the facts.

said that in a special case stated all the facts and everything that was required for forming a decision appeared on the face of it. No fact could be added by counsel; and if they chose, the Court could settle it in two or three hours without counsel.

The right hon. Gentleman has added another cause for gratification. I see now that in Scotland you may understand a case before you have heard it. [Laughter.]

said he understood the procedure before the Sheriff was to be in accordance with the second Section of the Sheriffs' Courts Act. The effect of this would be that only the parties themselves or their solicitor or counsel could appear. Thus, a miner's agent, for instance, could not appear before the Sheriff. He understood an arrangement was to be made in cases dealt with in the English County Court, whereby some non-professional person might appear on behalf of the party. He presumed if that was to be so in the case in England, a similar proviso ought to be made in the case of Scotland. [Cries of "Agreed, agreed!]

said the proposal of the Lord Advocate seemed for the moment to be satisfactory. But he thought it would be very carefully scrutinised in Scotland before the Report stage, because in Scotland they had suffered far more than in England in the matter of employers' liability from the extravagant cost of the law, which for reasons he would not now enter into was very much more expensive in Scotland than in England. People would therefore pay much attention to this matter, and he hoped the scheme of the Lord Advocate would pass the scrutiny satisfactorily.

said he should like to know if the position with regard to representation by a friend and other matters would be like that in the Small Debts Court. If so, he thought it would be satisfactory to their friends in Scotland.

said it was not altogether like the Small Debts Court, because in that Court there was no appeal on a case of law stated. That was one difference. Of course the matter as to appearing by next friend would have to be considered on Report. This was not the time to go into it, but, obviously, if the parties were to be debarred from what really in Scotland was every man's next friend, the solicitor—[laughter]— a serious grievance would be established.

said he had to thank the Lord Advocate for his suggestion as to the Court of Appeal, and he could only hope that the Government would do something of the kind for this country.

stated that the Report stage would be put down pro forma for Thursday 17th June.

said it would be for the general convenience of those interested in the Bill if some idea could be given as to when the Report stage would be really taken.

replied that the Report stage would not be taken until early in July.

put the question, and declared the Resolution agreed to.

protested against the Motion being passed in that way, observing that he had intended to make some observations, but was waiting in the expectation that an explanation would be given by the Lord Advocate, who had in fact risen for that purpose at the moment the Resolution was put from the Chair.

said there was no desire whatever on the part of the Government to prevent any explanation of the Resolution. Such explanation, however, could be given by the Lord Advocate on the Report stage.

asked for some explanation of the Measure.

thought the hon. Gentleman could not have been present on the Second Reading when he gave an explanation to the House of the object of the Bill. The object was to remove a misapprehension which existed at the present time, and which had tended to alter what was the unquestionable intention of Parliament when the last Act was passed in I886. The object of the Measure was two-fold. In the first place whereas extraordinary tithe had been payable up to that date only in respect of that portion of the farm or parcel of land which was then under cultivation for extraordinary purposes, and whereas at the same time any one bringing land under cultivation of an extraordinary character became at once liable to pay extraordinary tithe, it was urged that there was a difficulty in the way of the tithe owner, inasmuch as he could not identify the particular parcel of land. liable to the extraordinary tithe. On the other hand there was a difficulty in the way of the cultivator, as he became liable to extraordinary payment so soon as he had brought the land under cultivation, even if it might not be remunerative for the first few years. This led to the compromise which existed at the time of the passing of the Extraordinary Tithe Act of 1886. The extraordinary tithe so taken as existing was capitalised at so many years' purchase, and interest at 4 per cent. on the capitalised value was fixed as the sum payable in respect of the extraordinary tithe on that particular parcel of land. On the other hand the tithe owner was given the increased advantages of being able to claim this sum of extraordinary tithe upon the whole farm and not upon that portion of it which up to 1886 had been liable. The arrangement advantaged both tithe owner and tithe payers, and the Bill had met with no opposition in that House, there being no Amendment on the Paper. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would deem this explanation satisfactory.

could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there was no opposition at all in the districts concerned about this matter.

I said in this House.

said it was rather difficult to understand the exact bearing of this clause, owing to the great changes which might have taken place since the Act of 1886 was passed. He did not in any way wish to delay the passing of the Bill, because the right hon. Gentleman had assured him that it was absolutely necessary to the proper carrying out of the compromise so arrived at; but he could not allow the clause to go through Committee without expressing his doubt whether it might not in its terms cause new difficulties in connection with this particular charge.

said the right hon. Gentleman had not explained to the House the meaning of extraordinary tithe. As some hon. Members knew, it was leviable on land upon which hops were grown—[Mr. LONG: "Not hops alone!"]—and the Act to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred was the result of an inquiry by a Select Committee. He understood this Measure made no alteration in the substance of the law, but simply met a technical difficulty which had occurred in the administration of the law. He thought, therefore, the Bill ought to be allowed to pass through.