I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a Resolution unanimously passed at a meeting of landowners and farmers at Ellesmere representing to the Board the inconvenience and loss caused by the present regulations in respect to the removal of swine in that neighbourhood, especially in the case of smaller farmers and freeholders; and whether he will consider the expediency of affording some relief by confining the area of restriction to a radius of one mile from the infected place, or otherwise?

Yes, Sir. I have received the Resolution to which my hon. Friend refers, but, inasmuch as outbreaks of swine fever continue from time to time to occur in the district around Ellesmere, I regret that it is not possible for me to give the relief asked for. If local authorities and the owners of stock would co-operate with us by accepting and enforcing to the fullest possible extent the regulations which we feel it incumbent upon us to make if swine fever is to be stamped out in the same way as other diseases have been, I cannot but believe that success would be soon attained, and I would earnestly appeal for such co-operation to those interested in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Memorial of J. T. Carrington and T. Saunders, forwarded by the Postmaster of Nottingham on or before 14th October, 1897, was duly received; can he now explain why no reply to the Memorial has been forwarded; and can a reply now be sent?

The original Memorial from these postmen seems, unfortunately, to have been lost, but a copy of it has now been obtained from the Postmaster of Nottingham. The memorialists complain that they were taken off some sorting duties to which 7s. allowances were attached, and placed on stamping duties for which only 4s. allowances were granted. But the Postmaster General has ascertained that this was done because the men were found incompetent for the sorting work. In these circumstances, he does not consider that the men have any ground for complaint, and they will be so informed.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education (1) if he is aware that on the 2nd instant the Burnley School Board asked that the approval of the Science and Art Department to the proposed Secondary Education Committee for Burnley should be withheld; (2) whether, nevertheless, that approval was given on the 10th instant; and (3) whether this action is in consonance with the Department's circular letter No. 370, and his own statement in the House in May, 1897, that in districts where no voluntary combination is made, and where rival authorities are in operation, the proposals of the Departmental Committee for preventing overlapping cannot be carried into effect without legislation?

The answer to all three Questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that the constitution of the secondary education authority for Burnley consists of eight governors of the grammar school, only three representatives of the school board, and no representation of teachers; and whether he will secure that a more even distribution of the representation shall be made?

With regard to Question 6, the committee organised at Burnley contains two, not eight, representatives of the grammar school. It contains no representative of teachers. The Committee of Council have no power to alter the committee.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the elaborate provisions in the form of a regulation, mentioned in paragraph 26 of the enclosure in his dispatch to Sir A. Milner of 13th January, 1898, respecting the administration of the British South Africa Company, have now received his approval, and can be laid before the House?

I have already stated in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for the Chesterfield Division of Derbyshire, that the correspondence is not yet complete, and that, when it is so, papers will be laid on the Table.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when this particular matter will be complete?

I am afraid it is impossible; it is now with the High Commissioner, and I do not know when I shall receive his Report.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to the suggestion of Mr. Nathaniel Louis Cohen as to the advisability of publishing further particulars of the average attendance of scholars in public elementary schools; and whether he will include in the next Departmental Report a list of schools varying 5 per cent. above and 5 per cent. below the national average of attendance?

The Department are at present preparing tables which will contain information bearing on the subject referred to in the Question. Perhaps the hon. Member will kindly wait till these tables are published before moving further in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the islands of St. Paul and Amsterdam are of value for telegraphic communication between the Cape of Good Hope and Australia; whether they were formerly included in the dependencies of the British Colony of the Mauritius; and whether they are now recognised by Her Majesty's Government to have passed to France in 1892; and, if so, how?

I am not aware that it has ever been proposed that these islands should be made use of for the purpose of telegraphic communication. They were formerly supposed to be dependencies of Mauritius. In 1843 the French took possession of them, and again in 1892 the French flag was formally hoisted in them, and they are now recognised as belonging to France.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if his attention has been directed to the frequent causes of complaint by the people of the city of Limerick and surrounding counties on account of the late arrival of the mails, owing to the non-providing of a special train at the Limerick Junction for that city whenever the train from Dublin is late; will he explain why the postal authorities have refused the small subsidy of £3 to the railway company to run a special train to Limerick when such delay occurs; and whether, seeing that when the mail misses connection at the Limerick Junction a delay of nearly four hours is caused in the delivery of letters in Limerick, he will take final steps to have this grievance obviated in future?

A Question practically identical with that of the hon. Member's was asked by the hon. Member for East Clare on Monday last, and I must refer the hon. Member to the detailed answer which I then gave. I shall be happy to show him a copy of it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, of the Reservists offering themselves for re-engagement, a large number have been rejected as unfit for service with the Colours; whether the proportion of rejections has been in some districts as high as 25 per cent., and in one case over 40 per cent., of the number of men offering themselves; and whether the War Office has in any case sanctioned the retention in the Reserve of soldiers who have been rejected as medically unfit; and, if so, on what grounds the country is to pay 6d. a day to men who have been certified as unfit to render the service for which the money is paid?

A return up to the 31st March, showing the particulars required in the Question, has been called for from the several districts. When the information has been received the Secretary of State will consider what action should be taken.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers in the Reserve offering themselves for re-engagement will be accepted, and, if so, whether they will hold their former rank in the regiments to which they are posted?

Some sergeants have returned and will be gradually absorbed in the Establishment of that rank. An unlimited number cannot be accepted: the interference with the promotions of those who have continued to serve would be unfair.

Arising out of the previous answer may I ask whether the returns will be made public in the House—will hon. Members have an opportunity of seeing them?

Well, Sir, I did not propose to make them public, but I shall be ready to answer Questions upon them at any time.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty why the privilege of wearing the "half-stripe" has recently been taken from lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve; and whether, as officers of the Royal Naval Reserve rank with, but after, corresponding ranks in the Royal Navy, he will consider the possibility of restoring this privilege, the loss of which is much felt by the lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve?

My hon. and gallant Friend is in error in supposing that the privilege of wearing the "half-stripe" on the uniform has been taken away from lieutenants of the Royal Naval Reserve, for the right to wear it has never been given to those officers. The reason why the "half-stripe" cannot be allowed to them is that it is not given to all lieutenants on the Active List of the Navy, but only to those of eight years' seniority, and as lieutenants, R.N.R., rank with, but after, all lieutenants on the Active List, the "half-stripe" would be out of place if granted to officers of the Reserve.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the "half-stripe" is only worn by lieutenants of over eight years' standing; and is it not the fact that under the Queen's Regulations these gentlemen are eligible?

I am not aware of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India who is responsible for the issue of Dum-dum bullets to the troops in India; and whether the India Office has any information as to the effect of these bullets on men or animals?

These bullets were issued by order of the Government of India. No further sanction for their issue was necessary, nor was any such sanction either asked for or given; but Her Majesty's Government were fully informed as to the proceedings of the Government of India, and saw no reason for questioning their propriety. On the 1st of March I gave the hon. Member the substance of such information as I had as to the effect of the bullets, and added that I had asked the Government of India for reports on the subject. Those reports have not yet reached me, and are not likely to do so for some time to come.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office on what grounds he holds that the use of Dum-dum bullets is not contrary to the declaration of St. Petersburg?

Because the Dum-dum bullet is "neither explosive nor charged with a fulminating or inflammable substance." These are the words of the Convention. I may repeat, what has already been stated to the House, that the Dum-dum bullet does not, as a rule, inflict nearly so severe a wound as was inflicted by the Snider bullet.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether Dum-dum bullets have been served out to any troops directly under the control of the War Office; and who is responsible for the supply of these bullets to troop serving in West Africa?

The Dum-dum bullet has not been issued to any troops directly under the control of the War Office. With regard to West Africa, I must refer the hon. Member to my reply to him of the 15th inst.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to give effect, by legislation or otherwise, to any and which of the recommendations of the Commission presided over by Lord Justice Fry; and, if so, whether they propose in the meantime to modify or change, or put in abeyance, the action of the Deputy Commissioners?

The Report will require careful consideration by the Government and the Irish Land Commission before a conclusion is arrived at. In the meantime I would remind my hon. Friend that the appendices containing the evidence have not yet been published.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under what conditions has a Government Grant of £9,500 been made to the Shannon Development Company; has this company carried out the conditions on which Government and the counties granted them £20,900; was part of these conditions that they should provide a daily passenger service between Killaloe and Dromod, and a cross service between Scariff and Dromineer, and how far have they done so; is he aware that this company only put four small and unsuitable steamers of sixty feet long on the river; on what grounds has the Board of Works issued a certificate that this company has carried out its conditions with the Government, which certificate has compelled the counties to pay their portion of the grant greatly against their inclination; and will the Government order the withdrawal of the certificate?

The conditions on which the Government Grant has been made to the company are contained in the agreement between the company and the Commissioners of Public Works. A copy of the agreement and of the several Grand Jury Presentments will be laid on the Table of the House. The Board of Works have certified that the company has carried out its contract with the Government. It rests with the county authorities to say if the obligations imposed by the Presentments have been carried out. The service between Killaloe and Dromod was divided, with the consent of the parties, as provided by one of the clauses in the agreement, into two sections, with Athlone as a centre, it having been found that the through service between the extreme points could not be worked with safety or convenience. The company has also provided special services, including cross services on Lough Derg, so far as the Commissioners of Public Works have considered necessary. The two steamers generally used between Killaloe and Athlone are as large as could pass through the locks between Limerick and Killaloe. The smaller boat used between Athlone and Dromod is suitable for the work, and the fourth steamer is a launch used for local purposes on Lough Derg. The Board of Works have issued their certificate, because that Department is satisfied the company has carried out its conditions with the Government.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Roscommon, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Belfast District Lunatic Asylum is dangerously overcrowded, and that a new asylum for this district is already built and ready for occupation by patients, but cannot be utilised owing to the officers and staff not yet having been appointed by the Lord Lieutenant; also that 300 patients are under care and treatment in the new asylum at Portrane, of the Dub lin district, without a superintendent medical officer in charge; and whether the necessary steps will be immediately taken to secure a satisfactory arrangement in the districts mentioned?

The Belfast District Asylum is seriously overcrowded. The new asylum at Antrim is not yet ready for occupation, though it is approaching completion. The determination of the officers and staff of the new asylum is at present under consideration, so that there may be no delay in the transfer of the patients when the asylum is completed. It is the fact, as stated, that there are 300 patients under care and treatment in the buildings erected at Portrane. The patients are under the charge of the resident assistant medical officer. There is a legal difficulty in the way of appointing a resident medical superintendent for the new asylum at Portrane.

On behalf of the noble Lord the Member for York I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can inform the House what type of boiler is being placed by the French in their largest cruiser building, the Jean d'Arc, which report says is to have an i.h.p. of 28,000 as compared with 25,000 i.h.p. of H.M.S. Powerful; and, whether the Belleville boiler, which is a French type, is still being adopted by the French Admiralty in their fast cruisers?

It is not considered desirable to give any detailed information in this House as to foreign designs, but the noble Lord will find some information on the subject in the report of the Commission on the French naval budget for the year 1898, and in the speech of the French Minister of Marine in the Chamber of Deputies on the 2nd February.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that Yussuf Yunan, two days before his assassination at Sairt, wrote a letter to Mr. Andrus, of the American Presbyterian Mission, relating in detail the threats of the Governor and Procureur Général of the district, who each demanded an advance of money from the Relief Funds in charge of the deceased; and whether Mr. Stavrides, legal advisor to the British Embassy at Constantinople, has communicated to the Sublime Porte a copy of that letter, together with copies of the Reports by Mr. Andrus and Vice-Consul Crowe, in support of the statements made by eye-witnesses to the effect that the six men arrested for complicity were hired assassins, paid for their services by the Governor and Procureur Général of Saint?

No such letter as that described in the first paragraph has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, in a long memorandum in our possession by Doctor Andrus, written directly after the murder, which it described, there is no mention either of the threats or of the suspected complicity of the two officials mentioned. Mr. Stavrides has been watching the case on the part of Her Majesty's Embassy, but we do not know what documents, if any, he may have communicated to the Porte. Neither the report by Mr. Andrus nor that by Vice-Consul Crowe, both of which we possess, contains anything about the assassins having been hired by the above-named officials.

Can the right hon. Gentleman name an approximate date when further correspondence relating to this murder will be laid before the House?

I cannot answer that without notice. The whole of the papers are being collected, and will, of course, be laid. As to the data I will make further inquiry.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in order to increase the convenience of the inhabitants of the district, the Post Office authorities will establish an office between Ballyvaughan and Lisdoonvarna, in county Clare?

Inquiry was made last year on the question of establishing a post office at Ballyconnoe, the place, between Ballyvaughan and Lisdoonvarna county Clare, to which the hon. Member is understood to refer; but it was found that an office was not warranted. A delivery of letters to Ballyconnoe on three days a week was, however, established.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty who are the contractors who supply lubricating oil to the Navy; and what, price is paid for it?

Lubricating oil for the Navy is supplied by limited tender from selected exporting firms, and is accepted upon approved samples, and at the most favourable price. I am not prepared to give the names of the contractors or the prices paid.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the beacon locally known as Rashy Knapp, between Scurvyness lighthouse and Usan village, which has long been used as a landmark by the fishermen, both in guiding them through the channel of the Montrose River and avoiding the dangerous Craig Rock, has recently been removed; and whether he will see to its being replaced?

I have communicated with the Montrose Harbour Trustees, and am informed that the beacon known as Rashy Knapp stood in the middle of a field, and was removed on account of its interfering with agricultural operations by the proprietors, who were not aware that they would thereby cause any inconvenience to navigation. Neither the Board of Trade nor the Harbour Trustees have any power to compel the re-erection of the beacon on private property, but I trust there will be no unnecessary difficulty in making arrangements for the placing of a suitable mark at or near the former site.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the extended area of the Belfast City boundary, whether he is aware that the principal city official, in giving evidence before the Select Committee on the Belfast Corporation Bill of 1896, testified that the Corporation would not require the footpaths in the extended area to be flagged; whether he is aware that, notwithstanding this representation, the Belfast Corporation have instructed their City Surveyor to insist upon the flagging of the footpaths in the outside area in the same manner as the footpaths within the old city boundary; and whether, considering that two Belfast City Bills are at present before Parliament, he will make inquiry into the matter for the information of the Members of the House?

The Belfast City Surveyor (not the principal city official, who is the Town Clerk), in giving his evidence before the Select Committee with respect to the then existing streets and roads in the added area, which were not repairable by the Grand Juries, stated that he did not think the Corporation would require flagging to be done in the outside area. The Town Clerk of Belfast states that the Corporation have not, nor are they, requiring the flagging to be done in those cases. He adds that paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 11 were introduced into the Belfast Act of 1896 to carry out this understanding. It appears from the Town Clerk's Report that new streets have been laid out in the added area since the passing of the Act, and in such cases the Corporation have required the footways to be flagged before they would adopt them. They are fully justified, he states, in doing so, and all the owners of property adjoining, with one solitary exception, have willingly agreed to this requirement. The only Bill the Corporation have at present before Parliament is, I understand, the Belfast Corporation (Hospitals) Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a request was ordered to be issued to the Land Commission on the 9th November last for the sale of the Scanlan Estate, in the Scarriff Union, under Section 40 of the Land Act of 1896; and that Mr. Justice Ross, on 11th March, warned solicitors having carriage of sale that he would deprive them of their costs if they did not forward the request; whether he can state if it has been yet forwarded; whether he is aware that the relieving officer of the Scarriff Union has been notice for the eviction of one of the tenants on this estate for one year's rent; and whether, under the circumstances, the forces of the Crown will be given for the purpose?

The request for an inspection of this estate has not yet, I am informed, been issued, as the resettlement of the rental is not complete. I have no knowledge of the statement as to costs alleged to have been made by Mr. Justice Ross, though. I believe that he intimated that solicitors should proceed with due diligence in all sales entrusted to them. I have called for a Report as to the third paragraph, but have not yet received it. The hon. Member must, of course, be aware that the executive cannot interpose any obstacle to the execution of the decrees of a competent Court.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will give information with regard to the Army Ordnance factories in the form of the Return standing on the Paper?

There will be no difficulty in giving the Return for 1897–8 after the accounts of the year have been closed—say, towards the end of May. As regards, however, the Return asked for for the year 1876–7, there is great difficulty. Some of the sub-accounts, from which details would have to be taken, having long ceased to be of any use, have been destroyed. The Departments were then separate. Their accounts were not all on the same plan, and none were on the lines now adopted. To make an effective comparison between the two years would therefore be extremely difficult, if not impossible. Inquiries, however, are being made to ascertain whether any satisfactory return to meet the hon. Member's object can be prepared. If the hon. Member will confer with me, I shall be glad to meet his wishes, if possible.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to an inquiry held by Mr. Henry Lockwood, an inspector of the Board, on the 1st instant, relative to an application from the Guardians of St. Olave's Union to the Local Government Board to promote a Provisional Order in Parliament to extend the borrowing powers of the guardians from one-fourth (£212,070) to one-half of the annual rateable value of the Union (namely, £424,140); and, if so, whether, seeing that such power, if granted, would mean an increase in the rates of 5d. in the pound for the next 30 years, he will consider the advisability of refusing to sanction the promotion of this Provisional Order?

I am aware of the Inquiry referred to. If the Provisional Order were issued by the Local Government Board it would not confer on the Board of Guardians any borrowing powers which could be exercised without the sanction of the Board, and, before giving sanction to any loan, the Board would very carefully consider all the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether it is the case, as has been stated, that the Viceroys of Nanking and Hupei and the Governor of Hunan have agreed to direct the affairs of the Yang-tze Valley from Nanking, irrespective of the Emperor's orders, and not to allow the Emperor any voice in the affairs of the government of the central and western provinces; (2) whether Russia has been giving assistance to the Korean Government in the form of the Palace guard, army instructors, and financial adviser; and (3) whether she has now withdrawn such assistance?

We have had no confirmation of the report mentioned in the first paragraph; and in a telegram dated 22nd March Sir Claude MacDonald informed us that nothing was known at Peking of the imminence of extensive rebellion as reported from Shanghai. The answer to the second and third questions is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether county surveyors are an Imperial or Governmental appointment, although paid out of the local rates; whether the Grand Juries have neither the power of appointing nor dismissing them; can he define what their position will be under the Local Government Bill; and, if they are still an Imperial appointment, will the local authorities be called on to pay their salaries as were the Grand Juries?

County Surveyors are at present appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, subject to the approval of the Grand Jury. The persons appointed must have been previously examined at an open competitive examination. The salaries of these County Officers are paid out of local rates. They may be suspended or dismissed by the Grand Jury, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. Under the Local Government Bill the County Councils will have the power of appointing or removing County Surveyors with the concurrence of the Local Government Board, and they are to have such qualifications as may be prescribed by that Board. They will continue, as heretofore, to be remunerated out of local rates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any consultation has yet taken place between the Board of Works and the Consultative Committee nominated by the Royal Irish Academy and the Royal Society of Antiquaries as to the means to be taken to preserve the ruins of the ancient cathedral of St. Mel, at Ardagh, county Longford; whether a sealed order has been issued by the Local Government Board closing the graveyard in which the ruins stand; and will there be any effort made to ensure attention to this matter now that the fine weather is approaching, when work could be more easily undertaken?

No meeting of the Ancient Monuments Committee has taken place since the date of my reply to a previous question on the subject a month ago, but it is expected that they will meet on the 4th proximo. The Local Government Board have postponed the question of closing the graveyard until September next. As previously stated, the ruins have not yet been vested by the Church Representative Body in the Board of Works, and, as the Board believe that there is little, if anything, of architectural merit in the ruins, and that they are not being injured by the delay, they have not taken any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Mr. James McGowan, Medical Hall, Belturbet, complains that his letters are being opened in transit through the Post Office; and, will he cause inquiry to be made into the matter?

The Postmaster General has received complaints from Mr. James McGowan, Medical Hall, Belturbet, that his letters are being opened in transit through the post; but there is absolutely no foundation for these allegations.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many writs and civil bills for the recovery of instalments of annuities payable under the Land Purchase (Ireland) Acts have been issued since 1st March, 1896, at the suit of the Irish Land Commission; and whether the Land Commission can show more consideration by giving purchasers who are in difficulties at least until the gale day next after an instalment has become due for the payment of it?

The Commissioners are unable to state without communicating with their local agents throughout Ireland the number of writs and civil bills that have been issued in the period mentioned for the recovery of instalments of tenant purchasers' annuities. The Commissioners state, however, that in all cases in which it may have been found necessary to commence proceedings the arrears were paid with very few exceptions. It is the duty of the Land Commission to recover instalments of purchase annuities as they accrue, and the suggestion that a hanging gale should be allowed is not one that could be acceded to.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the decisions in the cases heard by the Land Sub-Commission, which last sat in Dungarvan, country Waterford, have yet been given; if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when are they likely to be announced?

I am informed by the Chairman of the Sub-Commission, which last sat at Dungarvan, that decisions were announced in all the cases then heard, on the 22nd February last, with the exception of four cases on the estate of the Marquis of Waterford, in which the decisions will be given on Monday next.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether there are 13 Poor Law Unions in Ireland, each of which includes within its area portions of three counties; (2) whether the said Poor Law Unions extend into 23 counties; and (3) whether the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, if enacted in its present form, will entail alterations of the boundaries either of these Poor Law Unions or of the counties in which they are situated?

The facts are as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question. The reply to the third paragraph is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the special rules for wool sorting are now in operation; and, if not, when they may be expected to be put into operation; and whether, if they have been put into operation, they have been served on all employers known to be manipulating the dangerous classes of wools enumerated in the rules?

The special rules have been served on all employers known to be engaged in the sorting of dangerous classes of wools; and in all save four cases, where the employers have still the right to object, they have actually come into force.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether in the negotiations for the new Treaties of Commerce with Germany and Belgium due consideration is being given to securing most favoured nation treatment for goods the produce of the United Kingdom; and whether similar treatment can be secured for goods the produce of any British Colony which may desire to secure this trade advantage?

Yes, Sir. The object of Her Majesty's Government is to endeavour in the new Treaties with Germany and Belgium to secure the continuation of most favoured nation treatment for British goods; and to obtain for the British Colonies faculty of accession to the treaties when concluded.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the chief reasons for the enactment in the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (Clause 73), that pleasure yachts are permitted, by special warrant from the Admiralty, to fly other national colours than those permitted for the mercantile marine?

I presume that Parliament saw no reason for abolishing a privilege that has long existed.

May I ask whether the Admiralty can state the reasons for permitting this flag flying?

The Admiralty have no control over the legislation of this House.

Upon what grounds did the Admiralty issue their warrant for this permissive section?

That is a different Question, of which I should have notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the petition of the Calcutta Bar against the new legislation regarding sedition, and the contention therein contained that any native Indian subject of Her Majesty who petitions Parliament against alleged oppression, and thereby excites any feeling of enmity against the Government of India, will now be liable to transportation for life; and whether, looking to the provisions of Section 22 of the Indian Councils Act of 1861, he will take care that the privileges of Parliament are not infringed?

I have seen a letter purporting to be written on behalf of the Calcutta Bar, and containing the contention to which the hon. Baronet refers, and which, on the face of it, is absurd. I see no necessity for any special precautions to protect the privileges of Parliament.

Has the noble Lord any reason to doubt that the petition came from the Calcutta Bar?

I have no reason to doubt that, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he proposes to bring under the review of Parliament the effect upon the liberty of the Press of the recent Acts passed by the Government of India dealing with the law of sedition?

I intend, as I have more than once stated, to lay the Acts on the Table of the House as soon as I have considered them, but I do not propose to take any other steps in connection with them.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if he is aware that there has lately been a partial water famine in the East London district; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend taking in the matter?

I am not aware of any recent water famine in the East London district, but in consequence of the Question of the hon. Member I have inquired of the company, and they state in reply that the assumption of a partial water famine is without foundation, that no complaints have been received by them, that their storage reservoirs are all full, and that the supply to the consumers has been continuous.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also make local inquiry among the people who use the water supply?

We have received no complaints from anyone. I do not know whom to apply to.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the statement has appeared in the East London Press?

I am not aware of it; neither have I seen it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state about what time the Report of the Petroleum Committee now sitting will be issued?

My right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee informs me that they hope to report in the course of the present Session. I understand that they have not yet finished taking evidence.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, now that the doctor to the Dublin Metropolitan Police has resigned, the wishes of the Kingstown force can be met by the appointment of a local medical officer to the police?

Dr. Nedley's retirement will take effect on the 1st May. In the meantime the whole question of the arrangements for medical attendance on the Dublin Metropolitan Police, consequent on Dr. Nedley's retirement, will be considered, including the representations made by the Kingstown force.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will explain the nature of the new Indian currency proposals which the Viceregal Government has submitted for his consideration?

It would be inconvenient to attempt to explain the nature of the currency proposals which have just been received from India within the limits of a Parliamentary answer; but I may state that they will form the subject of an inquiry, which will be instituted forthwith, and that the dispatch of the Government of India, in which these proposals are contained, will be published. No action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government upon these proposals until the inquiry in connection with them is concluded.

Will the Report be submitted to Parliament before action is taken?

That will depend on the time at which the inquiry is completed. My desire is, as far as possible, to consult all who are interested.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the dogs owned by the landlord of a public house or of an hotel have to be muzzled in the house during the whole time that the house is open to customers; and, if so, whether he can see his way to relax this part of the muzzling order?

The reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member depends upon whether a public-house or an hotel is to be regarded as a public place, and this is a legal question which I have no authority to decide. It is, however, very desirable if rabies is to be eradicated, that dogs should be muzzled whenever they are likely to come into contact with other dogs, which would usually be the case on premises such as those to which the hon. Member refers.

Did the Board consider the questions whether an hotel was a public place before it issued the Order?

It is not the duty of the Board to consider anything of the kind. The enforcement of the law rests with the local authority and the police.

But you considered the nature of the Order?

Would a prosecution against the owner of an unmuzzled dog in a public house be a legal prosecution or not?

I cannot undertake to answer legal conundrums of that kind.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Admiralty is disposed to co-operate with the Colonies and the scientific societies in the proposed resumption of Antarctic exploration; and, if so, to what extent?

The Admiralty have been in communication with the Royal Society with reference to Antarctic exploration. The Board has been unable to promise co-operation either by the loan of ships or of officers, as officers cannot be spared at present for expeditions which may keep them away from their ordinary duties for long periods of time; but they have informed the society that if they can render any assistance by the loan of instruments, or by any information which their experience enables them to give, they will be very glad to do so.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory working of the Local Registration of Title Act, 1891; whether he is aware that in many cases proceedings to perfect the registration of title occupy a period of two years; whether, in view of the multiplicity of offices and officers which act as a block to the sale, transfer, or other dealing in land, he will cause an inquiry to be made into the working of the Act; and whether he will introduce a Bill simplifying and expediting the procedure under the Act?

It is true that the proceedings in the registration of tenant purchasers' titles have in some cases occupied a period of two years, but apart from the rare exceptions which present inherent difficulties arising from want of proof or otherwise, the chief cause of any such delays has been the apathy or neglect of the applicants themselves to answer the requisitions issued to them by the Registrar of Titles. In those cases in which the applicants have replied registration has been effected without delay. The Act of 1891 contemplated a central office as well as local offices for each county in Ireland, and I have no evidence before me that there is a needless multiplicity of offices. I cannot give an undertaking to introduce legislation as suggested in the concluding paragraph of the Question.

Will the right hon. Gentleman hold an inquiry?

I cannot undertake to do that without preliminary inquiry.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether in the present tenders for forage in the Western District the standard weight for oats has been increased from 38 lbs. to 40 lbs. per imperial bushel; if so, whether he is aware that large quantities of good British oats weigh only 38 lbs. per bushel, and that, in increasing the weight, necessarily large quantities of thoroughly good British and Irish oats must be excluded; and whether he will order that the weight shall be lowered to the former standard of 38 lbs. per imperial bushel?

I was not aware, until the Question of the hon. Member appeared upon the Paper, that any change in the standard weight of oats laid down in War Office contracts, had recently been proposed, except in Ireland, where the standard has been raised to 40 lbs. at the suggestion of Irish growers, who, apparently, considered that standard would promote the supply of the home-grown article. No change will be made in the English standard until its effect on English producers has been considered, and I shall be glad to avail myself of any information on the matter which the hon. Member may be willing to afford.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what Irish growers requested the raising of the standard?

The officers of the Board recently visited Ireland and saw a large number of Irish growers, and the opinion they expressed, I believe, was unanimously in favour of raising the weight.

Has the hon. Gentleman any objection to laying their statements before the House?

No, Sir.

Has the standard been raised for British oats also; if so, why, and will it be lowered?

No change will be made until I have had an opportunity of considering it.

But the change has been made.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of Slate for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House as to the conditions of the demands made by the French Government upon China?

NO, Sir, I cannot; and may I say that this Question seems to me to fall into the category of Questions which I asked hon. Members a few days ago to exercise some reserve in putting at the present juncture.

May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this is a question of fact and not of policy?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that several of the railway companies having termini in London, are not complying with the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, by running workmen's trains until eight o'clock in the morning; that the latest train arriving in Liverpool Street, on the Great Eastern Railway, is 6.47 a.m., the Great Northern Railway arriving in Moorgate Street at 6.39 a.m., the Midland Railway at 6.13 a.m., whether he is aware that there is a great demand by the working classes for later trains; and whether the Board of Trade are in communication with the railway companies, with a view of securing compliance with the Act of Parliament; if not, will he take the necessary steps to carry out the provisions of the Act of 1883?

I am aware that several railway companies have no workmen's trains running on their lines as late as eight o'clock. The Board of Trade have recently addressed a communication to these companies on the subject. If there is a demand for additional workmen's trains, as distinct from cheap trains, I shall be glad to receive any evidence indicating the further trains desired between specific points, and I shall be happy to cause inquiries to be made, and, if necessary, use the powers conferred upon the Board of Trade by the Cheap Trains Act.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the alleged grievances of the workmen employed at the Royal Gunpowder Factory, Waltham Abbey; whether he has read the correspondence which passed between the workmen's secretary and Mr. Ormsby, the superintendent, in October last; whether he is aware that this gentleman refused to meet a deputation of the workmen affected to discuss their grievances; whether he will state the reasons for such refusal; and whether the permanent officials at the factory would now be willing to meet a deputation of the men to discuss existing grievances?

Colonel Ormsby, the superintendent at the Waltham Factory, has not refused to consider representations as to grievances brought forward, in the manner prescribed by the regulations, by any workman considering himself aggrieved; but he has declined to receive a deputation from an outside organisation called the Government Workers' Federation. The factory is peculiarly one in which strict discipline and adherence to the rules is necessary for the safety of the men employed, and in the control of which interference cannot be permitted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended for postmen a continuous duty, or only two attendances; whether he is aware that at the present time in some of the small amalgamated offices clerks are compelled to make four and five attendances in one day; whether he will get a Return of these offices where these duties exist with a view to the reduction of these attendances; and if he will state the number of hours the eight hours per day is supposed to cover?

It is not the case that the Tweedmouth Committee recommended for postmen a continuous duty or only two attendances. The Postmaster General is not aware of any specific cases where clerks at small amalgamated offices are compelled to make four or five attendances in one day, but it is probable that such an arrangement may exist. The Tweedmouth Committee, in recommending that the number of attendances should as far as possible be reduced, recognised that in the case of the smaller provincial towns, where the staff reside within easy reach of their office, the pressure of split duties is less severe than in London and at the larger provincial towns, and the extent of their recommendation in this matter was that while each split duty should be considered on its own merits it should be the invariable rule that such duties should be so arranged that the officer performing them may enjoy during each 24 hours nine clear unbroken hours at his own home. This rule is being introduced wherever attention is drawn to its non-observance, and in these circumstances it is not necessary to get the return suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen or received a copy of a resolution passed by the Dublin Corporation on Monday directing his attention to the fact that some time ago a body of workmen in the north of Ireland, when making excavations, discovered a number of golden Celtic ornaments of a very rare character, which, in the first instance, should have been offered to the National Museum in Dublin, but which, instead, were purchased at a high price for the British Museum; and strongly urging on the Government the desirability of having those Celtic ornaments transferred from the British Museum to the National Museum in Dublin; and whether, in the spirit of this resolution, he will use his influence to have these ornaments restored to the country whose national art they illustrate?

I have seen the resolution referred to. I understand that in the absence of legislation no power exists to transfer these ornaments from the British Museum to the National Museum in Dublin. If I may express my personal view on the subject, I think it is to be regretted that the ornaments did not find their way to the National Museum in Dublin in the first instance.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman in this connection whether he will allow the Bill which I have introduced, giving power to transfer these—

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

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether he is aware that Edward Pilkington, A.B. seaman gunner, with first class conduct, and wearing one good conduct badge, serving on board H.M.S. Retribution at Devonport, was sentenced to 14 days' cells and deprived of his good conduct badge, and reduced to second class conduct, for not taking the shamrock from his cap on St. Patrick's Day last, by order of the officer of the watch, but that this sentence has since been reduced to seven days' cells and the loss of his good conduct badge; and (2) whether he will order Edward Pilkington to be at once released from the cells in case any portion of that part of the sentence remain unexpired, and have him also reinstated in his former position in the service?

No information on the subject is in the office, but it is evident that, if the terms of the Question are correct, the man must have been punished for disobedience to orders and in accordance with the scale authorised by the Naval Discipline Act. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

I could not catch what the hon. Gentleman said.

If the hon. Member will come to me in the Lobby I will show him my answer.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to a letter from the High Sheriff of Dublin to the Corporation of that City in reference to recent transactions of the Irish Lights Board; whether he has read the Resolution moved by Mr. Jones at the meeting of the Dublin Corporation held on Monday last; and whether, in view of the general dissatisfaction which prevails in shipping and commercial circles in Ireland in regard to the present management of the Irish Lights Board, he will this Session introduce a Bill for the reconstruction of that body?

I have received the newspaper report of the proceedings of the Corporation of Dublin which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. Any representations which the Corporation may be pleased at any time to make to me will receive my careful consideration. My answer to the last Question is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Port Arthur is the naval base of defence of Pekin; whether it commands the Treaty ports of Cheefoo, Tientsin, Neuchwang; whether it is the only port in China with a dock capable of taking modern warships of considerable burden; and whether the harbour of Talienwan is as good as that of Port Arthur, and how far Talienwan is from Port Arthur and from the sea on the west?

The Questions of my hon. Friend appear to relate either to matters of fact which can be ascertained from other sources, or to matters of opinion upon which in the present circumstances I must decline to pronounce.

I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister is justified in this House in referring a Member, in answer to a Question, to "other sources"; and whether we have not a right to ask Ministers for definite replies as to matters of fact?

Undoubtedly. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to give such an answer. It is frequently done by Ministers in reply to Questions which merely refer to matters which can be ascertained from other sources.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he would be so good as to refer us to the sources from which we may obtain the information asked for in the Question?

Order, order!

I do not know where the information is to be obtained.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is intended, under the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, to make English or Irish born paupers irremovable to England or Ireland after two years' residence in Scotland, as stated in the memorandum to the Bill, or after ten years' residence as stated in Clause 5 of the Bill itself?

It is a clerical error in the Memorandum. A reissue of the Bill and Memorandum will be in the hands of hon. Members to-morrow.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will say when he proposes to introduce a Bill to consolidate the law as to testing chain cables and dealing with the issue of bogus certificates?

No, Sir. I am not able to state the period when the Bill will be introduced.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether an order by the Presidents of the Divisions of the High Court carrying out the recommendations of the Commission on the Law Offices, presided over by the present Home Secretary, which he stated on the 9th April, 1897, would shortly be issued, has been issued; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay?

The order referred to, which was intended to be issued last year, has not, in fact, been issued on account of legal difficulties which have since been pointed out. The Ridley Commission, of course, did not refer to the Legal Departments, nor take any evidence respecting them.

Do I understand the delay is due to the legal difficulty?

Yes, I think some legal difficulty has arisen as to the power to make such an order.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, seeing there is no reference to county infirmaries in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, will he state his intentions in reference to the future position and administration of these useful institutions?

If the Bill passes with reasonable speed through Committee, the Government will probably bring forward a clause dealing with county infirmaries. I am not, however, in a position at this stage to state what form our proposals, if made, will take.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he proposes to introduce the Bill to amend the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act, which had been prepared, and was ready for consideration, in January, 1897, as stated in Her Majesty's Speech?

I am afraid I can hold out no immediate prospect of introducing the Bill which the hon. Member refers to.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government will this Session introduce a Measure making provision for the superannuation of teachers in public elementary schools?

I am afraid I cannot give an absolute pledge on the subject, but I have every hope that the Bill will be introduced and passed into law this Session. Of course, the Bill is one which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has more to do with directly than I have. I was not aware that that arrangement had been made.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Donegal I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any precedent for the business of the Foreign Office being conducted by anyone other than one of the principal Secretaries of State?

I have not looked into the question of precedents; but, inasmuch as Foreign Secretaries have no privilege in respect to the ills to which all flesh is heir, I have no doubt that many Foreign Secretaries have before this called upon their colleagues to assist them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he could state to the House how often during the years from 1890 to 1898 corporal punishment has been inflicted for breaches of prison discipline in Military prisons in India?

There have been 304 cases, during the years from 1890 inclusive up to date, in which corporal punishment has been inflicted in Military prisons in India for breaches of prison discipline.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Fishery Board has been called to the large number of steam trawlers working near the shores of the islands of Colonsay, Gigha, and Islay, and that they have destroyed the gear of the native line fishermen; and whether the Government will take the necessary steps to sea police these waters, and thereby secure adequate protection to these fishermen?

I am informed that the Fishery Board have received numerous complaints of illegal trawling and damage to lines off Gigha, Islay, etc., during the past year, and that, when possible, these complaints have always been investigated either by the Vigilant or one of Her Majesty's gunboats. The investigations by the commanders of these vessels invariably resulted in their finding that the complaints were greatly exaggerated, and the evidence vague and quite insufficient for action to be taken. The Vigilant will visit the district of Gigha, etc., as often as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice, namely, whether the Board of Works have only advertised the contract for the Donegal Railway in one Irish paper, whereas the advertisement has appeared in several English papers? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that reasonable facilities are offered to Irish contractors to become acquainted with the works to be let out to contract?

I am sorry I cannot give the information asked for, as I only received the notice after I entered the House. I quite admit that this is a subject for inquiry.

I beg to ask whether, in the event of the Army Vote No. 10 being completed early to-morrow, Vote 2 will be taken, that of the Medical Vote, Upon which an important declaration of policy has been promised by the Government?

I understand the arrangement which will be the most convenient is that after Vote 10 the Ordnance Factory Vote will be taken, and then the remaining Votes in their order.

Beginning with No. 2?

Yes, Sir.

Will the superannuation of teachers' scheme apply to Scotland?

Perhaps the hon. Member will put down Questions on this matter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is it proposed to take the Second Reading of the London University Bill before Easter?

I should be extremely glad to get the Second Reading of this Bill before Easter, but I am told that the Debate on the Greek Loan Bill is likely to last rather longer than I had anticipated. Under these circumstances I am afraid I cannot give any pledge on the subject.

I wish to ask whether Her Majesty's Government have protested against the occupation of Kiaou Chau by Germany. This Question would have been on the Paper, but the officers at the Table took it upon themselves to suppress it.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will be good enough to answer the Question put by my hon. Friend? [Ministerial cries of "No."] May I ask you, then, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether it is in the province of the clerks of the House to remove Questions such as that put on the Paper by my hon. Friend, which was to inquire whether the Government had made any protest against the German occupation of Kiaou Chau?

I did not interfere before because I really did not hear what the Question was when put by the hon. Member who first asked it. The Question is one which I now understand was put down at the Table, and was refused, and it seems to me perfectly proper, because it is a Question of a nature which the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had distinctly stated he did not consider he was entitled to answer.

As this is a matter of some importance, might I ask you, Sir, whether the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs will clearly define the nature of the Questions which he does not wish to be asked?

That is not a Question of order at all. Ministers have a right to refuse to answer Questions when put, and if they clearly classify certain Questions and state that they will not answer any Questions of that description, it would be perfectly futile to continue putting such Questions down.

Has your attention been called to this fact, Sir, that the Question merely deals with a matter of fact?

Upon this Question I wish to ask whether there is any precedent for the clerks at the Table defining what is meant by a Ministerial declaration, and may I ask whether it has not always been the practice hitherto for the Minister to take the responsibility upon himself of declining to answer each Question, and not to delegate his responsibility to the officials of the House?

The clerks at the Table are not responsible. I am responsible. The clerks frequently inform Members what they propose to do, and if a Member objects he can come and speak to me about it; but in a general way they act on the assumption that the Member will appeal to me if he is discontented with what they do. As to any precedent, I believe the action generally at the Table has been, with the sanction of the Speaker for the time being, of the kind I have stated. I quite agree it is a matter which must be exercised with great discretion, and in this particular case it appears to me that the statement made by the Under Secretary was a perfectly clear one with respect to the particular class of Questions which he would not answer.

I beg, Sir, to ask—is the House to understand that the Question was refused by your authority or the authority of the clerk?

This particular Question was not brought under my notice, but after the answer of the Under Secretary that he must decline to answer Questions of a particular class, I did authorise the clerks no to put on the Paper Questions which clearly came within that refusal.

Might I ask, with great respect, with whom the final decision rests when a Question is handed in, whether it comes within the category of Questions which the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has intimated his intention not to answer in this House?

The final responsibilty, as I have already stated, is clearly mine. If it is brought under my attention it is mine under any circumstances, but of course it is the duty of the clerks, in any case where a Member thinks a Question might be put on the Paper and remonstrates, to bring the matter under my notice, which they always do.

I wish to ask you whether your privileges as Speaker of this House are not limited to excluding Questions which transgress order, and whether it is not for the Member himself to protect himself by refusing to answer?

The hon. Member asks me whether my duties are not confined to Questions transgressing order. The word "order" is used with reference to the practice of the House; and whatever is contrary to the practice of the House it is my duty to exclude. As I understand my duty, it is to exclude Questions of that description. As I said before, this is a matter to be exercised with great discretion.

I desire to ask you merely for the convenience of Members—[Cries of "Agreed!"]—whether you would be good enough to state, either yourself, or make known in some way, the exact nature of the in Questions that you consider it your duty not to allow to be placed upon the Paper. Are we to understand—I am merely sinking for information, and not for the purpose of obstruction—that at the present time we are not at liberty to hand in or expect to have put on the Paper any Question directed to the Under Secretary dealing with foreign affairs at the present time?

No. Nothing I have said will bear that construction. As to laying down a precise definition, I must decline to do so. If any Question is brought to the Table and any appeal made to me I will deal with it I must exercise my discretion according to what I consider to be my duty, but of course I am subject to the correction of the House.

I desire to ask—[Cries of "Order!"] This is a point of order—

I hope the hon. Member will confine himself to what is simply a question of order, because I cannot allow any debate to be raised on my conduct in the Chair.

I beg to assure you, Sir, that nothing is further from my intention than to raise a debate on your conduct in the Chair. If any conduct is in question it is that of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and I desire to ask you as a point of order whether the Under Secretary is entitled in this House to refuse to answer Questions put to him by Members dealing with foreign affairs.

Of the answer to that there can be no doubt whatever. It is the right, and, I might say, it is the duty of the Foreign Secretary, as it is of the representative of any other Department, to refuse to answer any Question if he thinks reasons of State require him to do so. It has been done over and over again.

All I can say is—

Order, order! I must ask the Member not to debate this matter.

We are simply muzzled in this House.

I rise to ask leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Law relating to the Reserve Forces and Militia. I bring forward this Measure to make good a pledge which I gave in the Debates on the Army Estimates with regard to the conditions of employment of the Reserve and the Militia. The Measure I am introducing is of a very simple character, and deals with the present position of employment in the Reserve. At the present time the Reserve could only be called out in case of a national emergency, and the Government consider it very desirable, taking into consideration such expeditions as had taken place from time to time, that a certain portion of the Reserve should, under special circumstances, be enabled to be called out. The Government now propose to give an extra sixpence a day to a body not exceeding 5,000 men, who will be liable to be called out during the first year of their Reserve service to serve in case of any warlike operations. With regard to the Militia, at the present moment they were able to volunteer for service in the Channel Islands, Malta, and Gibraltar. Commanding officers, and other Military authorities, have recom mended to the Government the desirability of extending these limits, and the Bill I have introduced provides for such an extension as will enable the men in the Militia to voluntarily give their services in other places besides those which I have previously mentioned. Their service will not extend to more than one year. The provisions of this Measure were explained fully to the House at the time of the introduction of the Army Estimates, and I am glad to say that they were very favourably received both by this House and by criticisms in the newspapers.

The right hon. Gentleman has very truly said that his former proposals which he had referred to were favourably received, but I think the House ought to understand what one of the right hon. Gentleman's proposals now is. It is practically to withdraw another 5,000 men from the Reserve, making 10,000 in all. It is really to take 10,000 men from one branch of the Army and put them in another, and that is called strengthening the Army. The effect is to stamp 5,000 men with the seal of incompetence for work, because the fact that a man is liable during the whole year to be withdrawn by telegraphic notice from his work must lessen enormously his chances of getting any work. By this Bill the right hon. Gentleman introduces in the Army another 5,000 men, making 10,000 in all, all of them serving long service, and this is to be done without any discussion in the House. [Mr. BRODRICK: No, no!] Then I understand this question will be discussed again, but I wish to protest against the statement that there has been any acquiescence on the part of the House to this particular part of the Bill. Although we shall be very glad to see the Mititia employed in the way he suggests, I think there will be many hon. Members who share my opinion that the further strengthening of the Army by transferring men like this from the Reserve is not a principle which ought to be carried out, and is not a practice calculated to really strengthen the Army.

I think this question was left in the hands of the Government so as to make it impossible for them, even if they should so desire, to so alter the Bill as to make the agricultural grant up to the 31st March next. I should like to know whether that is so. As I understand the Resolution, it is so drafted as to only give authority for the issue of money on the principle that the agricultural grant will begin to accrue from the 29th September, as set forth in the clause, I had not altogether abandoned the hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have altered that clause so as to allow the agricultural grant to begin to accrue from the 31st March next, and provision made in respect of the payment to local bodies during the next six months. What I would ask the hon. Gentleman to do is this: I do not ask him to decide this question now, but I ask him not to bind his hands, and so to alter the wording of the Resolution as to leave it an open question. It will then be open for him to change, if he thinks fit to change, the clause of the Bill. Now, what are the facts of the case? This is the case so far. I lay aside for the moment all question as to the distribution of the agricultural grant in Ireland, and as to the claim of Ireland to get for the agricultural interest in Ireland the same treatment as the agricultural interest in Great Britain, because the Government have abandoned all attempt to resist that claim.