I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Mr. Mullick, a native of India resident in this country, after having been proposed and seconded as an eligible member of the Inns of Court Rifles, was informed by the Commanding Officer that, although he was personally unexceptionable, Indians being objected to by some members of the corps, the nomination must be withdrawn, the Officer writing to the effect that, being an Indian native gentleman, Mr. Mullick is not eligible for an English volunteer corps; whether natives of India belong to the University corps in Oxford and Cambridge and to many other corps; whether he is aware that an opinion has been expressed by the Benchers of the Inns of Court that the exclusion of Indians as a class is regrettable, and the Commanding Officer has stated publicly that there is a War Office memorandum which prohibits the enrolment of native Indians in English volunteer corps; whether there is any foundation for the statement of the Commanding Officer as to the order of the War Office; and, whether a correspondence has taken place between the Benchers of Gray's Inn and the Commanding Officer of the regiment, in which they state that the grounds on which Mr. Mullick has been declared ineligible are erroneous?

The admission of any subject of Her Majesty to a volunteer corps rests solely with the Commanding Officer. In Mr. Mullick's case it is understood that the Commanding Officer did not accept his nomination. There are natives of India serving in volunteer corps, and there is no War Office document prohibiting their enrolment. Owing to a misapprehension caused by some unofficial correspondence, the Commanding Officer of the Inns of Court Volunteers was led to believe that natives of India could not be enrolled, but this has been corrected. It is understood that there has been some correspondence between the Commanding Officer and the Benchers; but the Officer Commanding is the only authority as to persons to be enrolled in volunteer corps who can be recognised.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now state the consideration to be given to the police force of the Metropolis for their arduous and most successful efforts in keeping order during the recent Jubilee rejoicings; and if it is intended to give a medal to the police on this special occasion?

Yes, Sir, a medal will be issued to the police, and I have sanctioned, in addition, the grant of four days' extra pay.

asked whether it was to be understood that the medals would be issued to all the police of the Metropolis?

Yes, Sir, to the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to certain allegations in the Press that dissatisfaction exists among the Colonial troops as to their treatment by the Military authorities; and whether he can make a statement on the subject?

In reference to this Question the following letter was voluntarily addressed to the War Office on the 18th June by the officers commanding the various Colonial detachments, all of whose signatures are attached to it,—

"Having, seen in some of the daily papers that dissatisfaction exists amongst the Colonial troops stationed at Chelsea Barracks with reference to the treatment they have received from the military authorities, we have the honour to inform you that the report is entirely devoid of foundation.

"The officers in command of every detachment from the colonies are unanimous in their opinion that the accommodation provided and arrangements made for the comfort of their troops reflect the greatest credit on the military authorities, enhanced as the difficulty is by having to deal with so many units of different nationalities."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury who was responsible for the arrangements connected with the reception of the House of Commons at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday last; and whether any explanation of the circumstances has been received?

In answer to the hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the persons responsible for the arrangements connected with the reception of the Houses of Parliament at Buckingham Palace are the Palace officials. I have received a communication from the Lord Chamberlain this morning in which he states that—

"it had been the earnest wish of the officers of the Household to show the utmost respect to the Speaker and the Members of the House of Commons."

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an opportunity, in connection with some Vote on the Estimates, at an early date, to express its opinion. ["Oh!" and cheers.]

No, Sir; I do not think it will be possible in the first place; and, in the second place, I do not think it desirable that the House should express an opinion upon the discretion exercised by the officials at the Palace.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that abnormal fares have been charged to the public during the last few days by the London General Omnibus Company, the Road Car Company, and some other omnibus proprietors, whereas cab proprietors were expressly warned that they must not make any difference in the scale of fares; and whether he can take steps in the interest of the poorer classes to prevent the recurrence of such a proceeding?

I believe it is the case that very high fares were charged by omnibus proprietors on one or two days last week. This, however, was no violation of the Acts, which leave it to the proprietors to fix their own fares, and only require that the fares fixed shall be distinctly painted in a conspicuous place in the inside of the omnibus. Cab fares stand on an entirely different footing, being regulated, under statute, by a Home Office Order. I very much doubt whether it would be to the public advantage that omnibus fares should be similarly regulated.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had heard that the police were dissatisfied with the arrangement by which the extra fares were painted inside the omnibuses?

No, Sir; I have heard nothing from the Police on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he is aware that a woman named Mrs. Fitzsimmons died from injuries received in a police baton charge on the 22nd inst., while Her Majesty's Jubilee was being celebrated in Dublin; whether he is aware that nearly 300 persons were treated in the hospitals of Dublin for injuries resulting from the baton charges of the police, and whether he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held with the view of fixing the responsibility for these outrages inflicted on the citizens of Dublin while exercising their legal rights?

There is no doubt that Mrs. Fitzsimmons met her death in consequence of injuries received by her during the disturbances that took place on Tuesday, the 22nd inst.; but whether death was actually caused by her being trampled upon by the crowd, or by her afterwards falling from the car on which she was being transported to the hospital, is uncertain. The fall from the car took place in consequence of the policeman in charge of the car being struck down by a blow from a stick or stone while in the act of discharging this office of humanity. I have no certain information of the number of persons who have been treated in the hospital for injuries received in the course of the disturbances, but I should imagine the number given by the hon. Member is in excess of the facts. It would be altogether premature to state whether any inquiry may be considered desirable.

asked whether in case the Coroner's jury brought in a verdict declaring that the police were responsible for Mrs. Fitzsimmons' death, would the Government accept it?

Order, order ! That is a hypothetical question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that on Saturday last, on board the Campania, at the naval review, there were 1,800 persons; that out of that number the Members of the House of Commons and their friends only amounted to 800; and how it arises that so large a percentage of those on board were members of the outside public, when the ship had been placed at the disposal, as understood, of the Members of the House of Commons? I also wish to ask into whose coffers the five guineas charge went for the accommodation of bed, breakfast, and dinner on board—whether to the Admiralty, or to the Cunard Company?

not being present, no answer was given.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the detriment to the public service resulting from there being no central range suitable for the new rifle now at the disposal of the Gloucestershire Volunteers; and whether he will consider favourably the desirability of allotting a portion of the money voted by Parliament for rifle ranges to provide a suitable range near Gloucester to replace the one recently condemned?

The money voted by Parliament for rifle ranges was primarily intended for the establishment of central ranges for the Regulars and Militia. There has been, however, every desire to find accommodation as far as possible for the Volunteers, and the position of the County of Gloucester will be considered.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the west division of the County of Wicklow is an almost entirely mountainous country, whose inhabitants live mainly by sheep farming; and that the Muzzling Order to be issued on the 1st of July will seriously interfere with the business of the sheep farmers; and whether, in view of the losses which will be caused to sheep owners by the Muzzling Order, he will make the exception in favour of sheep dogs which is to be made in regard to sporting dogs?

The exception made by the Muzzling Order in favour of sporting dogs applies only when such dogs are being exercised or used for sporting purposes, and in charge of competent persons. It must also be observed that the Order requires that all dogs, except sporting dogs on these special occasions, shall be muzzled in or on any public place which includes garden or pleasure ground or other place to which the public have access. No exemption in favour of sheep dogs has been made in the Muzzling Orders issued by the English Board of Agriculture, and my right hon. Friend the President of that Board, who was recently questioned on the subject, stated that the result of inquiries made by him went to show that no really serious inconvenience is caused by requiring sheep dogs to be muzzled in districts where such a measure is necessary, and that the exemption of such dogs from the operation of the Orders would seriously impair the efficiency of the Orders, and render necessary their continuance for a longer period than, it was hoped, would otherwise be requisite. I see no sufficient ground for making an exemption from the Order in favour of sheep dogs in Ireland.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there were more sporting dogs than sheep dogs in the County of Wick-low, and whether, in that case, he did not think that it would be more dangerous to leave the majority of the dogs un-muzzled than to leave the minority unmuzzled?

Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that sheep dogs could not do their work unless they were able to bite the sheep?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether appeals for the remission of their sentences of exile have lately been received from some of the Egyptian political prisoners at present detained at Ceylon; and, if so, whether there is any objection to having copies of these appeals laid upon the Table of the House?

The Governor of Ceylon has forwarded memorials from certain of the Egyptian exiles in that island to the Queen and to Lord Salisbury, praying for the exercise of Her Majesty's influence towards obtaining for them permission to leave Ceylon and to take up their abode in Cyprus. There would be no objection to laying copies of these Papers on the Table if it was so desired. But the matter is one primarily for the consideration of the Egyptian Ministry, who are reported by Lord Cromer to be much averse to granting the application.

desired to ask, in connection with this Question, whether Lord Cromer was not in a position to decide the Egyptian Ministry in one way or the other in this as in all other matters?

No, Sir. That is not at all a correct description of the attitude or position of Lord Cromer. He reports to us the views of the Egyptian Ministry in the matter, which I have already stated to the House.

asked if he understood that Papers were to be laid on the Table?

If it is the desire of hon. Members they shall be laid.

There is such a desire, and I trust they will be forthcoming.

They shall be.

asked whether, in laying on the Table the Papers promised, the right hon. Gentleman would also lay such Papers as would show in virtue of what authority and under what law, international or municipal, these prisoners are detained?

No, Sir; it is quite unnecessary.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say now by what authority they are detained?

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Demand Note for the General District Hate of the Urban District Council of Withington, Manchester, contains the item: Didsbury Voluntary School Rate, at 1d. in the pound, optional; and whether he will take steps to procure the omission of the item in future?

At present I can only state that I am in communication with the Urban District Council on the subject. The Question is to be considered by them at a meeting to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Church Catechism is still taught, wholly or in part, in the North Mundham Board School; whether he is aware that on Ascension Day the scholars were taken to church in the morning, and had a holiday in the afternoon, though they were to be examined by the Government Inspector the next day; and whether the Department will take steps to insure the due observance by the Board of the provisions of the Education Act of 1870?

I believe parts of the Church Catechism not distinctive of any particular denomination are still taught in North Mundham Board School. I have no information as to the proceedings of the school on Ascension Day, but if they were such as are suggested in the Question they seem unobjectionable. The Committee of Council have no reason to suppose that the North Mundham School Board will fail to observe the provisions of the Education Act of 1870.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is true that the new scale of allowances to sub-postmasters for delivery of telegrams has been reduced as follows: from 1 mile to 1½ miles, 33 per cent.; from 2 miles to 3 miles, 25 per cent.; from 3 miles to 4 miles, 25 per cent.; and from 4 miles to 5 miles, 25 per cent.; and whether it is intended that any part of the cost of the proposed reduction in porterage of telegrams should be paid by sub-postmasters?

No new scale of allowances to sub-postmasters for the delivery of telegrams has been definitely fixed. The Postmaster General, however, hopes that, by the extended use of the cycle and in other ways, it will be possible to effect some economy in the arrangements for delivery, and he has asked for a report from his local officers on the expediency of adopting a scale which at some points involves the reductions stated by the hon. Member. The Postmaster General will, however, see that the allowances are adequate for the services performed, and it is certainly not his intention that any part of the cost of the proposed reduction in porterage of telegrams should be paid out of the remuneration of the sub-postmasters, whose duty it is to pay the allowance whatever it may be to the person delivering the message.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McCARTAN), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the evidence of the head constable giver at the coroner's inquest on Catherine Steele, who died in Belfast workhouse on the 12th instant, and to the effect that a yearly average of 10,000 prisoners pas through Belfast Police Court cells; whether he can state the greatest number of prisoners put into the largest of these cells at one time; whether he will give the dimensions of the cell and say what lavatory accommodation it contains, and if there are any restoratives provided or available in case of persons being taken ill there; whether, notwithstanding the number of female prisoners, there is no woman appointed to look after them; and whether he will consider the desirability of having some woman appointed to assist the constabulary in caring for the female prisoners?

My attention has been directed to the evidence given by the head constable of police in the case referred to, which sets forth the facts with substantial accuracy. The dimensions of the largest of the cells are 20 feet 8 inches by 15 feet 6 inches by 11 feet. The maximum number of persons placed in this cell, at one time, was 20. It contains only one w.c., of a very defective kind, and no restoratives are provided or available for persons taken suddenly ill. There is no female attendant to look after the female prisoners, though there is a female searcher who is sent for when required, to search female prisoners. I may observe that in November, 1895, Mr. Seddall, the district inspector of police, at the request of the Lord Mayor and members of the Police Committee of the Belfast Corporation, made a written report to the Committee on the subject of the condition of the cells, and that subsequently two members of the Committee, accompanied by the Commissioners of Police, visited and inspected the police stations of a number of towns in England and Scotland. The result of that inspection was a report recommending the erection of new cells in substitution of the existing ones, which were strongly condemned. I understand that application has been made by the Corporation to the Local Government Board for a loan to enable the Corporation to proceed with the construction of new cells, and I may add that one of the proposals in connection with the new cells is that there should be one or more female attendants appointed to look after female prisoners.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not do something to hurry up the Corporation in this matter, as he understood that the cells had been condemned for a long time, and that the coroner's jury had severely censured the Corporation in delaying to take action?

said that he had no power over the Corporation, but probably the asking this Question would call their attention to the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that of the detachment of the West African Constabulary now attached to the depôt of the Royal Irish Constabulary, in the Phœnix Park, Dublin, for the purpose of instruction in Irish police methods, the sergeants are admitted to the membership of the sergeants' mess of the Royal Irish Constabulary, while the officer is not admitted to the privileges of the Royal Irish Constabulary officers' mess; and whether, having regard to the desire for promoting unity amongst various nationalities in the British Empire, any steps will be taken to admit this gentleman to the officers' mess of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

The sergeants of the West African Police, to whom reference is made, have access to the Royal Irish Constabulary sergeants' mess room at the depot, though they do not take their meals there. The Assistant Superintendent of the West African detachment does not mess with the depôt officers, nor do I think, having regard to the amount of his pay, which is comparatively very small, that he would consider it a privilege to have to defray the cost of messing with the officers.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that this unfortunate man had to leave the depôt and to go two miles to get his dinner?

He resides a little over a quarter of a mile from the depôt.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to the arrest and prosecution of Mrs. Birdie Butler and Mr. James O'Dea, a graduate and scholar of Trinity College, Dublin, and to their frequent remands, bail being refused on one occasion in the case of Mr. O'Dea, on a charge which the authorities now admit to have been absolutely groundless, of stealing a bag containing money at the Limerick Junction, which Mr. O'Dea, who was travelling up to Dublin with Mrs. Butler, believed with other luggage to have belonged to that lady, but which had been left carelessly near that luggage by a bank clerk in whose charge it was; and whether, having regard to the expense, grievous personal inconvenience, and anxiety of mind to which Mr. O'Dea and Mrs. Butler have been subjected, the Government intend to take any steps to make any compensation to them?

The accused were found in possession of this bag, of small dimensions, but weighing 35lbs., and containing a large sum in gold, under circumstances which required thorough investigation, and completely justified the action of the police. The accused parties were not put to unnecessary inconvenience, and though they have, on the full examination of the facts, been entirely exculpated, it is not a case calling for compensation by the Crown.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was aware that this lady and graduate of Trinity College were kept in prison five days on this charge?

was understood to say that he was not aware of the fact mentioned by the hon. Member.

I recommend them to consult a solicitor.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what has been the amount of charge on Indian Revenues over the receipts from railway working on State railways and on guaranteed railways in the last 10 years?

further asked the Secretary of State for India (1) what was the original estimate of loss on the working of the Indian railway system for last year, and what is the amount of the revised estimate; (2) what is the amount of capital required for carrying out the programme of railway extension in India during each of the three years 1897,1898, and 1899; and what will be the estimated amount of interest payable thereupon during each year of the period of construction; and (3) what arc the several dates at which the contracts with the Guaranteed Indian Railway Companies, now involving loss to the State, can be terminated or modified?

The State and Guaranteed Railways of India have been worked, during the ten years 1887–97, at an average profit of 5¼ per cent.; but, owing to the fall in exchange, a total net loss of Rx.7,781,914 on the State and Rx.8,679,557 on the guaranteed lines has accrued within that period. The net loss in 1896–97 was estimated at Rx.2,274,300; the revised estimate was Rx.2,810,200, but, according to the latest information in my possession, it is likely to be Rx.2,665,800. The amount of capital expenditure sanctioned for each of the three years 1896–97, 1897–98, and 1898–99 is Rx.10,174,700, Rx.10,130,000, and Rx.9,360,000 respectively; and the amount payable by way of interest in each of those years may be estimated at Rx.153,000, Rx.457,000, and Rx.750,000, against which must be set the profits to be received from such portions of the new lines as may be opened within three years. The only two contracts with guaranteed companies, which in 1895–96 involved a net loss to the State, are those with the Great Indian Peninsula and the Madras Railway Companies. They terminate on June 30, 1900, and December 31, 1907, respectively.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Hawick Burghs (Mr. THOMAS SHAW), I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether Her Majesty's Government will be willing to grant a Return giving the names of the necessitous School Boards in Scotland which will obtain relief under the Bill now introduced into this House?

I have no objection to the Return asked for. It will be prepared without delay.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, as the organisation of a cavalry corps has been altered to three service squadrons, commanded by Majors, in the event of one Major being seconded a Captain should be promoted to take his place, so that each service squadron may be commanded by a Field Officer, as in the case of batteries of artillery?

Majors are not now seconded on being employed extra-regimentally. The question of seconding them, under certain circumstances, is at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the reports of extensive fever and famine in the Belmullet Union; whether he has received any special report from the officials of the Local Government Board; and what steps, if any, the Government propose to take to meet the exceptional distress existing in the Belmullet Union?

The attention of the Government has been drawn to the account published in the Freeman's Journal of the 24th inst., respecting the state of affairs in the Union of Belmullet. This account, in which an outbreak of fever on the Inniskea Islands in this Union, is attributed to the extraordinary neglect of the Government, seems to have been written in complete ignorance of the facts, which are as follows: On the 12th May, Dr. Lavan, the Dispensary Medical Officer, reported that 16 cases of fever had occurred on the islands, and he attributed the cause of the outbreak to the islanders' habit of keeping cattle and sheep in their houses and having cesspools at their doors. The Local Government Board thereupon directed the Medical Officer to furnish weekly reports as to the progress of the sick, and as to the precautions taken to prevent the spread of the disease. On the 30th May he reported that the 16 cases were those of people in good circumstances and not fit subjects for poor relief. The Board informed him that whether they were subjects for relief or not, he should visit the houses and see that all necessaries were supplied, and that disinfection was properly carried out. On the 3rd instant Dr. Lavan reported the type of fever to be very mild, that the disease appeared to be on the decline, and that he had thoroughly disinfected the houses. During the same week he disinfected the houses a second time. On the 7th instant he reported that with the exception of a few people on the islands who were destitute, the rest were in fairly good circumstances, but that they laboured under the impression, which it was difficult to remove, that fever patients should be given nothing but cold water. The destitute were provided with all necessary nourishment and stimulants, and the services of two trained nurses from Dublin were requisitioned in addition to two local nurses. Three of the patients had died, and removal of the sick to hospital on the manlaind was out of the question. The trained nurses were landed on the 11th instant. On the 22nd instant the Medical Inspector of the Local Government Board visited the Islands, in company with Dr. Lavan. He states that there are, in all, 13 cases of fever of different kinds on the South Island, but that the North Island is free from fever. The Inspector considers that the attendance on, and nursing of the sick, have been sufficient up to the present. He also attended a meeting of the Board of Guardians, and pointed out to them that it was imperative on them to enforce measures for lime-washing, cleansing, and disinfection of all infected houses, and that the remedies must be continued until satisfactory results are attained. The Guardians recognise their responsibilities as the sanitary authority, and are taking measures to comply with the Inspector's recommendation. I am not aware of any famine on the island, nor can the outbreak of fever be attributable to any want of food.

In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, is he prepared to maintain that it is an exaggeration to say that on Monday last—that is this day week—out of the 60 families which comprise the whole population of the Island of Inniskea, which forms part of the Union of Belmullet, no less than 45 persons were lying ill with fever?

I should say that was an exaggerated statement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what was the decision given by the Irish Land Commission on the question of the Ulster custom raised before it at its recent sitting at Armagh; whether it was held to be an interest of the tenant, in addition to his interest in the improvements made by him on his holding; whether the Sub-Commissioners have in many instances expressly remarked on the "Pink Paper" that the holding was subject to the Ulster custom, but that they had made no allowance to the tenant in respect of same; whether the Ulster custom has been held to be a right of the Ulster tenant, as something in excess of the right belonging to a tenant of a holding in any other part of Ireland; whether he is aware that this custom entitled the tenant to sell his holding in the open market, even where no improvement had been made by him on the holding; and why, up to the present, no allowance by way of reduced rent has been made to the tenant in Ulster in respect of this right?

The judgments of the Irish Land Commission in the 'cases referred to were delivered in open Court, and have been extensively published in the Irish newspapers. These judgments are as accessible to the hon. Member as they are to me, and it is not for me to place an interpretation upon them. The matters to which this Question refers are the subject of an appeal, and pending the result of this appeal it is obviously undesirable that the operation of the judgments of the Commissioners should be discussed by way of Questions across the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether the gunboat Redwing and the cutter Active are the only Government vessels at present protecting the fisheries of Orkney and Shetland from illegal trawilng; and (2) whether the average rate of speed at which the Redwing can steam exceeds nine knots an hour?

The answer to the first paragraph is yes. I believe that the speed of the Redwing is correctly stated, but I have not had time to ascertain the exact figure.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Irish Education Estimates will be taken?

I understand it will be convenient to gentlemen from Ireland that the Irish Estimates should be taken on Friday next, and I propose to make that arrangement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to his statement made on Friday night as to "authorisation issued by the British Administrator at Mombasa with reference to the restoration of fugitive slaves"—which "documents," he said,

"were entirely new to Her Majesty's Government. We were quite unaware of their existence. We have never seen them—"

"Her Majesty's representatives" "giving to the bearers permission to….search for slaves, on which permits they have levied a fee",

"runaway slaves, fetched by soldiers in British employ, as wanted by the Commissioner, with letters registered by the Commissioner, have been taken before British Courts for proof of ownership, and after proof, handed over to their masters ";

"British subjects had been compelled to surrender fugitive slaves by the British authorities, and had, in fact, surrendered great numbers of such slaves."

The answer to all the statements in the Question of the right hon. Baronet as to the contents of certain questions that have been put in this House is in the affirmative, and the explanation is as follows: —The documents to which the right hon. Member for Honiton alluded in his Question of May 28 were believed in the Foreign Office to relate to the process which I described in my speech of Thursday last and which, as I stated in the House on May 28, was in operation on the mainland until December last, when fresh instructions were sent to the British Administrator not to employ force and to exercise his discretion in each case as it occurred. The Government have never seen the actual documents which were before that date in use, and were not at the time that the Question of the right hon. Baronet appeared upon the Paper aware that there was anything in them that might be of an illegal character. Since then the documents have been produced and read in the House, though I have not yet been furnished with any copies of them; and the Attorney General, who also has not seen them, has given an opinion that if they authorise the detention of slaves by British subjects, even on foreign territory, that is not in accordance with the law. ["Hear, hear!"] Under these circumstances instructions have been sent by telegraph to Her Majesty's Commissioner at Mombasa informing him that a British subject is breaking the law if he takes part in restoring to his master or otherwise depriving of his liberty any fugitive slave, and instructing him to conform his conduct to the law thus laid down. ["Hear, hear!"]

May I inform the House that I am prepared to hand over the documents in the course of the afternoon?

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman who has just made that statement asked a Question of the Attorney General, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman replied that he had not seen the documents, upon which the hon. Gentleman produced them?

The documents have never been shown to me either directly or indirectly. I never knew of their contents until they were read by the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries on Thursday night.

I personally informed Members of the Government six weeks ago that these documents were at their disposal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the fact that, on June 26, Mussulmans to the number of 1,200 made a sortie from the town of Candia and surprised the Christian insurgents at Kanli Kastelli, when a desperate combat ensued, entailing serious loss of life; whether it is the fact that, on June 26, the Turkish troops attacked Kanli Kastelli and massacred the garrison, and then entered the village of Rocca, where they murdered nine men; and what steps have been taken by the Great Powers for the preservation of life and property in peace now that the Greek forces have been withdrawn?

The following telegrams have been received from Sir Herbert Chermside:—

"June 26.— Grazing question has developed incidents on June 22 at Aitania, and on 24th near Voutes with mutual losses. On 24th Governor owing to administrative difficulties informed the rationed irregulars rations must cease. On 25th Christians laid ambuscade near Turkish outpost Ghazi on west, killed three Moslems, wounded three, carried off lad and over 20 beasts. Another Christian ambuscade near Spelea was unsuccessful. These incidents precipitated a Moslem raid on Kanli Kastelli, 11 miles south, a mixed village with a Moslem majority, now in the hands of the Christians with Moslem houses destroyed, it is alleged. Cavalry orderlies were sent last night to the outposts, nevertheless a considerable raid occurred, accompanied by burning, fighting, and cattle-lifting. The Moslem loss was over ten killed. Total casualties not ascertained. It is alleged that seven Christian guards were killed; that others were killed in village and 17 houses burnt; cannot yet confirm." "June 28.—The bulk of the property around Kanli Kastelli is Moslem. Total houses in village 70, of which some 20 Moslem. These, with mosque, had been previously destroyed. Moslem losses, 14 killed and 16 wounded. Raiders believed to have numbered over 200."

I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consequence of the almost total destruction of every kind of crop over an area of seven miles in the county of Essex last Thursday, the Government are prepared to send down a Commissioner to advise as to the necessity of some measures of exceptional relief?

I received my hon. Friend's notice of this Question only after I came into the House, and, of course, I am not prepared to give him an answer upon the very tragic state of circumstances which his Question reveals to the House. If he will put a Question to the President of the Board of Agriculture either tomorrow or on Thursday, the matter will before then have come under the consideration of the Government.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury when he intended to take the Public Health (Scotland) Bill?

replied it would not be taken that night, nor was he in a position to fix a date on which it could be taken. On Monday next the Report stage of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill would be considered.

said he had no doubt the words "sitting at Bow Street" were put in with some object, but as there appeared to be reason in the Amendment he would accept it subject to revision on Report.

, rising immediately, said: It is evident that the attempt to carry on business during the Jubilee celebration is not wholly unattended with difficulties. In these circumstances, I beg to move "That this House do now adjourn." [Ministerial cheers, laughter, and Opposition cries of "No!"]

asked the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposed to take this Bill?

Not now. [Loud laughter.]

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that on a former occasion he had referred to the Bill as a non-contentious Measure.

There are differences between that occasion and the present of a most important character. [Laughter.] Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

expressed the hope that his hon. Friend would not persist in his Motion. The Bill was a simple Measure; it had been fully discussed in Ireland, and there was nothing in it to call for a long discussion in Committee.

said he could not accept the statement that this was a simple Bill. When the Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Louth the general principle of it was accepted by the Government; that was to say, the Government were prepared to allow the Second Reading to pass, but they did not pledge themselves to support the further stages of the Bill. That made it incumbent on the Government to put down such Amendments as would make the Bill a satisfactory Measure. The Government, however, had been unable to do that. He was, therefore, entirely unable to accept the statement of the hon. Member opposite that the Bill was a simple one, and he should support, and ask the House to support, the Motion of his hon. Friend.

desired to appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were now the provisional Government of the country—[laughter]—not to push their advantage too far. Hon. Gentlemen had proved that for the moment they held the Government in the hollow of their hand, and he would therefore appeal to them to allow hon. Members on the Government side, who were not sufficiently informed on the subject of the Bill to take up its consideration now, to go away and instruct themselves, to go over to Ireland if necessary—[laughter]—and gather information there, and then come back to the consideration of the Bill. He trusted that the majority were not going to be so unreasonable as to refuse to listen to the voice of reason. The Measure dealt with the future of the education of every child in Ireland, and with the future position of every teacher. [Laughter.]

, on a point of order, suggested that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant.

, held that the hon. Member was in order.

, continuing, said he was urging in favour of the Motion to report progress, on the ground that hon. Members were insufficiently furnished with information on the subject of the Bill. This was the 29th Order of the Day. Who would have supposed that morning that the House would have hurried through 28 Orders of the Day while the Irish Members were away attending to their superior social duties? [Laughter.] How could they do justice to Ireland in a Bill of this sort at a time when the House was almost empty? [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] The House was not adequately furnished with Members to take into consideration a Bill like this. He thought he had given adequate reasons why the Bill should not be proceeded with now, and if the hon. Member opposite went to a Division he should undoubtedly give his vote against him. ["Hear, hear!"]

opposed the clause. He said that the object of the promoters of the Bill was to amend the Educational Endowments (Ireland) Act 1885, in such a way as to bring about an alteration in the administration of the Erasmus Smith Endowments. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth and his Friends wanted to throw open to Roman Catholics endowments which were intended exclusively for the Protestants of Ireland. The Erasmus Smith endowments were intended to benefit Protestants and to encourage the conversion of Roman Catholic children to a better faith. [Cries of "Oh!"] There was no reason why in the year of the Queen's Jubilee the intentions of the founder of these endowments should be set aside. He might remind the Committee that Her Majesty had taken an oath to maintain the Protestant form of religion. [Nationalist cries of "Oh!" and laughter].

called attention to the purport of the clause, and pointed out that the hon. Member was going into matters which were hardly relevant to the section.

said that he was aware of the purport of the clause, but there was a good deal behind it. [Laughter.] He trusted that the clause would be negatived.

asked whether, in view of the numbers in the recent Division, and the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be an abuse of the Rules of the House to move again that progress be reported?

did not think that it would be quite seemly to put a Motion of that kind so soon after the recent decision of the Committee. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked for an explanation of the clause, and said that it would only be fair to the Committee to explain it. He doubted whether any Members on his side of the House understood the clause correctly. Apparently it was proposed to make a totally new departure in legislation and to give an appeal from an Irish judicial body to an English tribunal in matters relating to the appointment of Education Commissioners. Why was it that the Members who were constantly asking that the jurisdiction of Irish authorities might be extended desired in this particular case that special jurisdiction should in effect be given to English officials? Such a change of front naturally created some suspicion, and it was hardly treating the Committee with respect to make proposals of this kind without explanation.

expressed astonishment that the appeal of the hon. Member had not met with a response. [Derisive laughter, and an HON. MEMBER: "The Chief Secretary responds!"] The hon. Member was right in saying that this clause as it stood was almost unintelligible—nay, he might go further and say that it was not fully understood even by the hon. Member at present in charge of the Bill. He thought that, in the absence of the hon. Member who introduced the Bill, the hon. Member for Derry might at least have done the House the compliment of telling it what was really meant by the proposal. If a question like that contained in the Bill was to be submitted afresh to another tribunal, he ventured to say that the tribunal chosen should not be two new Commissioners, but that it should be the Appeal Court in Ireland itself, and that there should be a further appeal to the House of Lords. This was a matter in which the Protestants of Ireland had the deepest interest; and he did not think it would be fair or right to them that the decision of this matter should be placed in the hands of two new Commissioners, who, so far as the Bill was concerned, need not even be Judges. He therefore opposed the clause.

said that the Protestants of the North of Ireland took the strongest interest in this Question, and they relied on the Government not to sanction the alteration contemplated by the Bill. They would do their best to prevent the Bill from passing, and at present he opposed the clause.

now understood that after strenuous efforts the Government had been enabled to regain their mastery in the House. [Laughter.] He found, however, that the Government had been placed, not for the first time, in the position of opposing in June what they had supported in January. He did not wish to press too far the advantage he and his hon. Friends had gained, and, therefore, he moved "That the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again." [Laughter.]

said he understood that a change, not less substantial because it had no manifestation in the Division Lobby, had taken place in the affairs of the House—[Opposition laughter]—and he moved, "That the House do now adjourn."

appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to allow the Motion for the Steam Engines and Boilers (Persons in Charge) Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee on Trade to be proceeded with now, the Debate having been adjourned on February 17.

hoped that the Leader of the House would respond to this appeal. The Measure was of importance industrially, and it had been Read a Second time this Session. A strong feeling existed in favour of it among the working classes of the country, because it affected the lives and the limbs of workmen employed under dangerous conditions. What advantage was to be gained by adjourning the House at that early hour? Was there any reason of State? The right hon. Gentleman had not adduced a single reason in favour of his Motion. Hon. Members had enjoyed their holiday over the Jubilee, and other persons in the community had returned to work. [Cries of "Divide," and "Order!"] The Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended repeatedly in order to force measures through this Session, but now with five hours ahead of them for work the Government proposed to adjourn rather than deal with a Bill affecting the working classes. He hoped that this fact would be remembered by the constituents of hon. Members opposite, and especially by the constituents of the hon. Member for Haggerston. [Cheers.] They would not, he hoped, also forget to remember that with such a Bill before them the Leader of the House got up and contemptuously moved the adjournment without an argument being adduced in favour of the Motion. Thus, when the interests of the Church were concerned, and when there was an opportunity of passing a Bill reforming the administration of the Church in London, the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, "No, let us go to a theatre or a dinner party," instead of legislating for the Church and the working man. He opposed the adjournment.

said that he thought the right hon. Gentleman might look favourably on the suggestion which had been thrown out, and take the next two Orders, both of which were practically unopposed. They had been before the House frequently, and were agreed to in principle by both Parties.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider that private Members had had very few opportunities this Session. At the very commencement of the Session, for reasons that were considered satisfactory by the House, the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to take Tuesday evening, and at a later period he took Wednesday. During the last few weeks there had been practically no opportunity of moving a private Member's Bill, and he appealed to the right hon. Member whether he would not in this matter make a slight concession to the Opposition. He was sure he would agree that they had paid every deference to the wishes of the Government in the course of to-night; and he hoped, as the right hon. Gentleman was anxious to get away, and they were also anxious to get away, provided they could get the Bills they were anxious to see passed, he would be willing to consider the suggestion which had been put before him. He wished to point out that the two next Bills were practically non-contentious. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could allow the Archdeaconry of London Bill to be read a Second time. It was a Bill promoted by Members of his own side of the House as well as on the opposite side, and there were special and urgent reasons why it should be passed in the course of the present year. It was a Bill which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman himself would support if he was made acquainted with its provisions. With regard to the Bill of his hon. Friend, it had been accepted by the House, and all they asked was that it should be committed to the Standing Committee upstairs. If the right hon. Gentleman would make these small concessions, he would not be detained long.

said if the right hon. Gentleman was in the mood for making concessions, he hoped he would consider the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act (1886) Amendment Bill, and the School Board Electorate (Scotland) Bill. He had endeavoured for the last two Sessions to get these Bills through, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would concede either the one or the other, or, better still, both. [Laughter.]

trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not make any concessions. [Cheers.] As for saying that he had given no reason for the adjournment, he had given the best possible reason, namely, that there were now more Members on his side of the House than there were some time ago. [Laughter.] He would remind hon. Gentlemen that in the hour of their triumph they exercised their power without mercy. The measure of their iniquity was now full. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman should remember their misdeeds in the past when a contrary state of things obtained. He certainly ought not to give way on a Bill which he was informed was most highly contentious. If the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite had been just, not to say generous, he might have given way on a non-contentious Bill; but he could not allow their appeal to be made without making an appeal in a contrary direction. [Cheers.]

said the two Bills in question were very important Bills, and they were practically non-contentious. ["No, no!"] They had been before the House for years, and had been modified, the one by Members on one side of the House and the other by Members on the other side. Both Bills had been discussed and approved; but the half-past five o'clock Rule prevented their being sent to Committee; and now there was time to do it, the right hon. Gentleman refused, in a congested House, to send these two Bills forward for further consideration—for that was all they asked. He could understand the Government feeling a little sore after being three times defeated, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give way.

suggested that the Government and their friends, if they were tired, should go home and Leave Members on that side of the House to do the work. [Laughter.]