reported from the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 3rd May, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure: Sir John Kennaway and Colonel Williams; and had appointed in substitution Mr. Knowles and Sir Howard Vincent.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Limerick Clothing Factory is now in receipt of Government contracts; whether a contract for clothing for the Naval Reserve, granted to a Galway firm, has been sub-let by that firm to the Limerick factory; and whether, in connection with any complaint the Admiralty may receive, he will inquire into the circumstances under which the Clothing Factory has recently lost the municipal contract for Limerick in consequence of the adoption by the Corporation of the Fair Wage Clause, although the Factory tender was the lowest?

The Limerick Clothing Factory holds no Admiralty contracts at present, and no application has been received from the contractor at Galway to sub-let his contract to the Limerick Factory.

The hon. Gentleman is not then aware of the fact that this has actually been done?

Certainly not, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he can state when head postmasters in Ireland will receive the 10 per cent. increase of salary recommended by the Report of Lord Tweedmouth's Commission to postmasters of ten years' experience; and whether head postmasters in England of ten years' service have already received the benefit of the 10 per cent. increase of their salaries recommended by the Commission?

A considerable number of head postmasters in Ireland have already received the increases of salaries accruing under the recommendations of Lord Tweedmouth's Committee, and other revisions will be carried out as they fall due. The same remarks apply to head postmasters in England.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there are many postmasters in Ireland with over ten years' service who have not yet got the increase in their salaries?

It is quite possible, because the increase is to be given after a certain time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that there are 13 unions in Ireland whose boundaries extend into two counties; and whether, as the population of Ireland has reduced millions since these workhouses were built, he will advise the Government to compulsorily close some of these workhouses when arranging boundaries under the Local Government Bill?

There are 46 unions in two counties, and 13 which extend into three counties. The unions which might possibly be amalgamated without inconvenience to the sick and destitute are, in very few cases, only those which are intersected by county boundaries. Amalgamation of a certain number of unions is, no doubt, feasible, and Clause 50 (2) of the Bill empowers the Local Government Board, on the application of a county council, and sifter communication with the guardians concerned, to amalgamate unions for the purpose of placing the workhouses at the disposal of the council to serve as auxiliary lunatic asylums.

The right hon. Gentleman has perhaps not noticed I mentioned the word "compulsorily." Have the Government power to compulsorily close the workhouses, or will he advise that it be given them?

They already have the power.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been drawn to the sharp turn vehicles have to make to enter Constitution Hill from Piccadilly; and whether he can see his way, by setting back the railings to the north of the Arch, so to curve the roadway as to abolish this sharp turn and save horses a, trying danger in slippery weather?

The width of the roadway is so great at the point mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend that a driver is enabled to make a turn much less sharp than an ordinary rectangular turn from one street into another. I do not consider it necessary to alter the line of railings which was settled after much consideration, and to move which would entail very great expense.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would explain why, after he had appointed a time to meet a deputation of the textile workers on the Currency question, he refused to receive such deputation, and allowed them to arrive at his office before informing them of his refusal?

This was a deputation from trades unions in Yorkshire and Lancashire on the subject of bimetallism. A few minutes before the hour named for the interview I received a copy of a document which had been circulated by the members of the deputation, in which it was stated that with regard to the subject they desired to bring before me the Government had—

"broken their solemn pledges to the country, treated with contempt the interests and demands of industry, and disgraced this country in the eyes of the world by showing that no Foreign Powers can depend upon the pledged words of a British Ministry."

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the people of Crossmaghan and Cullioville have repeatedly petitioned the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) regarding the great inconvenience they are put to by having no passenger train leaving Dundalk for Enniskillen stop at Cullioville Station from 9.25 a.m. to 7.40 p.m. each day; and whether he will make representations to the Great Northern Railway Company (Ireland) with the view of having this grievance of the inhabitants of Crossmaghan and Cullioville redressed?

The Board of Trade communicated with the company upon this subject, and have received a reply, a copy of which shall be sent to the hon. Member. It seems that the company find a difficulty in consenting to stop the train at Cullioville every day, but they will do so on Mondays for the convenience of those attending Dundalk market.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, having regard to the interesting character of the ruins at Fore, county Westmeath, any steps will be taken by the Irish Board of Works, at the coming meeting of the Ancient Monuments Committee, to have the gateways of the old town, the monastery, and the chapel of St. Fechin, the cyclopean doorway of which has been described by the eminent traveller, Edward Dodwell, as equal to any he had seen in Greece, at Tyros, Argos, or elsewhere, scheduled as ancient monuments under the Ancient Monuments Acts; and whether, as the Royal Society of Antiquaries requested the Board of Works in July, 1892, to bring the ruins at Fore under the protection of the Acts mentioned, and the Board of Works was unable to do so owing to want of money, preference will now be given to the claims of Fore in the event of funds being available?

In 1880 the Commissioners of Public Works approached the late Lord Greville, who owned the estate on which the ruins at Fore, county Westmeath, are situated, with a view to have them vested in the Board, but as Lord Greville declined to do so at that time no further action could be taken. The Royal Society of Antiquaries requested the Commissioners in July, 1892, to bring the ruins under the protection of the Ancient Monuments Acts, and the Board were anxious to have them vested in them for preservation. But the estate on which the ruins are situate forms the subject of a petition for sale in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and though the Board's solicitor has since July, 1893, been in communication with the solicitors having charge of the sale, it has not been possible to obtain the consent of all the parties interested, which is necessary to the vesting of the ruins in the Board.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what were the precise conditions of service and pay offered through the Irish Government to the 995 Royal Irish Constabulary candidates in December, 1896, to induce them to join the Army; were the proposals conveyed to the candidates, and how many of them were found willing to accept service in the Army; and, if they were not conveyed to the candidates, upon what grounds did the Irish Government disapprove of the Military authorities' efforts to induce the men to join the Army?

The nature of the proposal made by the War Office in the Irish Government was explained by my right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War when replying to the hon. Member's Question of Tuesday last. The Irish Government are not aware what conditions (if any) as to service and pay were conveyed to the constabulary candidates, or whether any of the men were found willing to enter the Army. It has already been stated that the proposal of the War Office was not accepted by the Irish Government, and I do not feel myself called upon to supplement that statement.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, if the decision is in favour of the petitioners in the test case tried before the referee appointed by the Board of Trade, Levinstein v. Meister, Lucius, and Bruning, it will be possible for the German firm to take the case to two higher courts before the Board of Trade can compel them to grant a licence for an English firm to work in England an English patent which has been refused in Germany, and which anyone can work in that country?

The case referred to by the hon. Member is one of several applications now being heard. I am not aware hat any procedure could be adopted by a patentee against whom an order for a compulsory licence has been made to appeal against that order.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the wreck of the trawler Nellie, off Rattray Head, Aberdeenshire, in the recent gale; whether he is aware that from 6 a.m. to 1 p.m., when the last man disappeared from the rigging, the only attempt at rescue was a futile one by the rocket apparatus; and that three lifeboats were within reach of the scene of the disaster; and whether he will institute an inquiry into the case?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been directed to the wreck of this vessel. The vessel was seen by the Coastguard at Rattray Head flying signals of distress, some three miles off, at 5.30 a.m. on the 24th. The vessel drifted towards the land, the rocket company watching to render assistance. At 10 o'clock the vessel stranded. A rocket was at once fired and communication effected in about ten minutes. Unfortunately the crew were either unable to haul off the rope, or else were ignorant of its use. A heavy sea struck the vessel; she was thrown on her beam ends, and the crew unfortunately washed away. There are three lifeboats within about seven miles of Rattray Head. I propose to institute an inquiry into the casualty, when till the facts of the case will be ascertained.

Will the result of the inquiry be made known to the House?

Oh, certainly!

Will the inquiry include an investigation with regard to the efficiency of the rocket apparatus?

Certainly; and also into the circumstances connected with the non-arrival of the lifeboats.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the expediency of arranging for it better classification, on page 93 of the Army Estimates, of the civilian clerks employed at the War Office, so as to distinguish between those who are engaged in purely financial duties and those who are otherwise employed?

The hon. Member will find what he requires on page 236 of the Army Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will consider the expediency of introducing in London the carte telegramme, or pneumatic card, in common use in Paris and other continental cities, and of utilising the existing pneumatic tubes of the Post Office Department for the transmission of such cartes telegrammes, or pneumatic cards, and other written messages in the London district?

The question of the expediency of introducing in London a carte telegramme or pneumatic card system has received careful consideration both by the Postmaster General and his predecessors, but they have not seen their way to recommend the very large expenditure which would be necessary for the construction of an efficient network of tubes. The existing pneumatic tubes of the Post Office could not be utilised for the purpose without detriment to the Telegraph Service.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the military stores required by the East African Protectorate are despatched by British or German steamers?

None of the stores, military or otherwise, required for the Uganda Railway, Uganda Protectorate, or East Africa Protectorate, have been shipped in German or in foreign steamers. The whole have been conveyed in British vessels.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if it is now proposed, that Scotland as well as England should, be included in the scope of the inquiry of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal, and if there will be in consequence a fair representation of Scottish Members, of Parliament appointed?

Yes, Sir: both Scotland and Ireland as well as England will, I hope, he represented on the Commission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that injury is being done by trawlers in Ballinskelligs Bay, county Kerry, by fish being prevented from entering the bay and the spawning grounds disturbed; whether local fishermen are greatly injured by trawlers in, the bay; and whether an inquiry has taken place in Ballinskelligs in October, 1897, in connection with, fishing; if so, why has not the decision come to by the Fishery Board been announced, as it is a matter of great importance to the fishermen?

I believe the facts are substantially as stated in the question. The Inspectors of Fisheries have proposed a bye-law prohibiting steam trawling in an area, which includes Ballinskelligs Bay, arm hiss bye-law is now under consideration by the Privy Council.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Inspectors of Fisheries wish to prohibit trawling by bye-law?

Yes, sir.

When will a copy of the bye-law be issued, so that the fishermen of the district will know what it is proposed to do?

It is now before the Privy Council. I cannot say when it will be issued.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is in a position to state how many holdings for which separate receipts are given there are on the Fermanagh estate of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland, and of these how many holdings are judicial tenancies of first term fixings; how many holdings are judicial tenancies of second term fixings; how many holdings are non-judicial tenancies; now many first term judicial tenants have entered court for second term fixings; how many non-judicial tenants have served originating notices; what is the aggregate amount of arrears due by judicial tenants up to 1st November, 1897; what is the aggregate amount of arrears due by non-judicial tenants up to 1st November, 1897; (2) have the Commissioners agreed to sell the estate to the tenants; and, if so, at how many years' purchase respectively to each of the three classes of tenants; and what course the Commissioners intend to pursue with reference to the arrears which the tenants in this bad season are utterly unable to pay?

I have forwarded to the hon. Member the detailed information desired in the first paragraph of the Question. As regards the second paragraph, an offer, purporting to come from 212 of the tenants, to purchase their holdings at 18 years' purchase of their present rents was made to the Commissioners in December last. This offer was accepted in January on the understanding that the expression present rents" meant the rents then actually payable by judicial and non-judicial tenants alike, without any deduction either on account of any abatement made voluntarily by the Commissioners, or on account of any judicial rents that might be fixed after their acceptance of the tenants' offer. The resolution of the Commissioners does not contain any provision dealing with the manner in which the arrears of rent are to be settled previous to the signing of the agreements to purchase. Number of holdings for which separate receipts are given, 332; number of holdings which are judicial tenancies of first term fixings, 164; number of holdings which are judicial tenancies of second term fixings, 1; number of holdings which are non-judicial tenancies, 167; number of first term judicial tenants who, except as above, have entered court for second term fixings, nil; number of non-judicial tenants who have served originating notices, 18; aggregate amount of arrears due by judicial tenants up to November 1st, 1897, £428 19s. 8d.; aggregate amount of arrears due by non-judicial tenants up to November 1st, 1897, £507 7s. 4d.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in 1890 and 1891 concessions, which have since been acquired by the North Charterland Exploration Company, under the British South Africa Company, were obtained from the chief Mpeseni and ten subordinate chiefs in Angoniland, in return for which they were to receive annual payments amounting to £860 for 99 years; whether it is correctly stated that the payments have not been made, and that the recent disturbances in Angoniland are partly consequent thereon; and whether he will inquire into these statements, and take them into consideration in deciding the treatment to be accorded to Mpeseni and others for their alleged rebellion?

The validity of the alleged concessions has never been acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government, Mpeseni not being the hereditary or paramount chief of the territory in question, and there being other claims upon it of superior weight. The South Africa Company have expressed their readiness for the present to make a payment of £200 a year to Mpeseni. The recent disturbances are attributed by our officers, not to the withholding of the larger sum, but to other causes. Every consideration consistent with the public safety will be shown to Mpeseni, who has now surrendered, and to others engaged in the recent rebellion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the War Office have recently had under consideration a proposal to make all recruits for the Army verify the ages they give on enlistment; and whether, in coming to a decision upon such proposal, the authorities will duly consider the probable cost which it would involve, and the difficulties that may arise in connection with names that have been assumed?

Recruits will not be called on to prove their ages. There will be no change in respect of them. But in order to become entitled to the new messing allowance the soldier must have completed his 19th year. His claim to have attained that age will be verified by reference to certificates, and where proof of age cannot be furnished the medical officer and commanding officer will be required to certify that he has the physical equivalents of 19 and is fit to do a man's work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) if it is the case that it was intended, on the reduction of the pay of the Queen's Foreign Service Messengers, that officers of the Army on half-pay should be appointed Queen's Foreign Service Messengers, and that their half-pay and the pay granted by the Foreign Office for the appointment should together amount to £400 a year; (2) why half-pay officers have not been appointed; and (3) if it is intended to keep Queen's Foreign Service Messengers on the lower scale of £250 a year permanently at that salary with no prospect of its being raised, although their work and duties are identical with those performed by those Queen's Foreign Service Messengers receiving £400 a year?

The recommendation of the Royal Commission was that no fresh appointments should be made on the old scale of £400, but that in the future £150 to £200 should be the salary, and that the service should be mainly recruited from officers of the Army and Navy on half-pay, or in receipt of pension. It was consequently decided to reduce the salary of a Queen's Messenger from £400 to £250 a year, but a deduction of £50 is made in the case of any person, already in the enjoyment of a pension for other services. With reference to the second Question, the Secretary of State does not consider himself bound in every case to carry out the recommendation of the Commission, which is qualified by the use of the word "mainly," and, as a matter of fact, only one appointment has been made under the new system by the present Secretary of State. The answer to the third Question is in the affirmative.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that John Duffy, Corkeeran, Ballybay, county Monaghan, who served in the 5th Royal Irish Fusiliers, and was disabled while in that regiment, is at present in a very destitute condition; and whether he will bring the case of Duffy under the notice of the War Office with a view of getting him some small allowance to prevent him to have to enter the workhouse?

The service of John Duffy was in the Militia, and the injury he received was not caused by the service, although it occurred during the training. His case was carefully considered on several occasions by the Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital, and they decided that his claims on the service have been fully met by the two years' pension which has been paid to him.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has decided to abandon the principle of religious classification of children in industrial schools laid down in the circular letter of the Secretary of State to the Clerks of Justices of the Peace, dated the 14th of February, 1888, and confirmed by a subsequent letter of the 30th of January, 1892, to the senior Metropolitan Police magistrate; if so, will he state the reasons for such change; and whether he has directed the London School Board to amend the rules of the Brentwood Industrial School accordingly?

The letters referred to did not lay down or profess to lay down any principle of religious classification. They merely contained a request to justices, based on reasons of administrative convenience, that in sending children to these schools they should state in the order the particular denomination to which the child belongs, the word Protestant not being distinctive enough for the purpose. This has nothing to do with the Question in the case of the Brentwood School rules—which was that, as the school was not intended for the reception of Roman Catholics or Jews, it would be desirable that the rule specifying the class of children to be received should state this, and for this purpose Protestant is the usual and most convenient word.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any demand has been made by the Government upon the Porte for restitution of the sum of £500 belonging to the British Armenian Relief Fund, of which the murdered man Yussuf Yunnan was robbed at Sairt more than a year ago?

Her Majesty's Government are not yet in possession of any evidence which would justify them in presenting a claim to the Porte for the restitution of the sum mentioned.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now name an approximate date upon which the further correspondence relative to the murder of Yussuf Yunnan and the prosecution of his murderers will be laid upon the Table of the House?

Correspondence on the subject will be laid in the next Blue Book on Asiatic Turkey; but in consequence of the great pressure that has been put upon the Foreign Office for the immediate production of other Papers, I cannot give any promise as to the date on which it will appear.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether some procurators - fiscal upon appointment are debarred from undertaking private practice, while others are not; and, if so, upon what principle, if any, such a distinction is made?

The facts are as stated by the hon. Member. The principle of the recent policy has been to restrict procurators-fiscal from private practice, and it has only been departed from in some of the smaller posts when it appeared impossible, at the salary sanctioned by the Treasury, to secure the services of a sufficiently competent man without allowing him to continue in private practice.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that Dr. Reece, a medical inspector under the Local Government Board, while making an official inspection in Middlesbrough, and Darlington during March, recommended local authorities and others to use the glycerinated calf vaccine prepared by a particular private firm; whether Dr. Reece and all other inspectors are officially authorised to advocate by name the interests of a private firm; whether it is consistent with the regulations of the Local Government Board that officials should use their position as a means of pushing the sale of the goods of any particular firm; whether the matter has already been previously brought to the knowledge of the Local Government Board; and whether prompt steps will be taken to check the practice complained of?

I am informed by Dr. Reece that he has not, either in Middlesbrough or Darlington, recommended local authorities and others to use the glycerinated calf lymph prepared by any particular firm, but on one occasion, when conferring with a board of guardians who required immediately a large supply of lymph, he was pressed to state the name of some firm to whom a telegram could at once be sent, and he mentioned the only firm whose telegraphic address he happened to know. The Inspectors of the Department are not officially authorised to advocate by name the interests of private firms, and so far as I am aware there has been no instance where an official of the Department has used his position as a means of pushing the sale of the goods of any particular firm. I had received a communication on the subject previously to the notice of this Question being given, but as there has been no such practice as that suggested no steps on my part are necessary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that last week (it being the second time this winter) the mails for the Continent, viâ Dover and Calais, were delayed at Dover over twenty-four hours owing to the difficulty and risk of entering Calais Harbour in rough weather, whereas the mail packets might either have been sent from Dover to Boulogne, or the mails been forwarded by the Folkestone-Boulogne route; and that on Friday last the Indian mail was put on board two mail steamers which remained at Dover till next day, when, in order not to incur further delay, it was decided to send them with an accumulation of mails to Boulogne, where they entered the port without difficulty; and whether, in view of similar delays, which may occur from time to time in the Channel mail service, and the general inconvenience these delays give rise to, affecting correspondents both in Great Britain and abroad, the English post office will arrange with the French postal authorities to forward the mails, without loss of time, either viâ Dover and Boulogne, or viâ Folkestone and Boulogne, or vice versâ, instead of detaining them even five or six hours at Dover or Calais?

The facts as to the delay which occurred last week are substantially as stated by the hon. and gallant Member, but in the case of the previous interruption to which he refers, it is right to remark that, not only Calais but Boulogne Harbour was impracticable through the state of the weather. The Postmaster General has already made an arrangement with the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company for the diversion of the mails under the control of the British post office to Boulogne when deemed necessary, and, in accordance with this arrangement, the Indian mail was sent last Saturday from Dover to Boulogne. But the hon. Member must recollect that the day mail service is not under the control of the British, but of the French, post office, and though the Postmaster General has invited the French Postal Authorities to co-operate with him in the same direction, no definite understanding on the subject has yet been arrived at. He hopes, however, that an arrangement will be concerted before long between the two post offices and the companies concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of altering the Treasury Minute 6215 (1896), which compels a "Watcher" to give an attendance of 300 days in one year to entitle him to a year's service, which will count towards his claim for sick pay allowance and gratuity, as set out in Customs G. O. 21 (1896); and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the cases of Watchers who have been deprived of a gratuity through this Treasury Minute, it being impossible, under the old conditions of employment, for an extra C. D. officer, now a Watcher, to make 300 days in one year?

I have this matter under consideration, and will communicate with the Board of Customs on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if the men employed in the Customs Department as watchers at a wage of 21s. per week for a 54 hours' week are now performing efficiently the duties formerly allotted to the established outdoor officers, whose maximum salary was £101 per annum, with two-thirds of their salary as a retiring pension, their regular number of hours per day being eight in summer and seven in winter; and whether he will consider the advisability of carrying out the Fair Wages Resolution of 1891, by having these officers' wages raised to the minimum of 24s. per week for a 48-hour week?

It is the fact that the Customs Watchers, whose wages are 21s. a week, perform efficiently some of the duties which formerly fell to established outdoor officers. The Customs Watchers are liable to a full attendance of 54 hours a week, but I understand that it is only in rare instances that they are required to work that number of hours. One of the objects of the establishment of the body of Customs Watchers was to put an end to a system under which certain duties were being discharged by officers on an unnecessarily high scale of pay. Only the inferior duties of the former outdoor officers have been transferred to the Watchers, and their pay and conditions of service were fixed with special reference to the character of the work to be performed by them.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education for what reasons the Department has not, in the new Code for 1898, made any grant, as was generally expected, for the teaching of housewifery to girls, a subject which comprises general house work and home nursing, both admittedly costly classes to establish, whilst a grant of 6s. to 7s., according to excellence, is allowed for the manual training of boys; and whether, as at present, one half-day per week throughout the school year is devoted to manual training in woodwork by boys, he would consider the advisability of a similar amount of time per week throughout the school year being given to the training of girls in housewifery?

The Committee of Council carefully considered this Question when preparing the new Code; but it was found that, for financial reasons, a grant for housewifery could not be made at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the fact that the shareholders of the South African Chartered Company can fill up existing vacancies in the directorship as they please, he proposes to take any steps for preventing the election of persons whose complicity in the Jameson raid, and in the hostile preparations that preceded it, has been established by a Committee of this House?

Under the new scheme the powers of the directors will be greatly limited, and they will be exercised under strict Imperial control. I do not, therefore, propose that the ordinary privilege of shareholders who invest their money in this and all similar companies to choose their own Directors shall be restricted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to state whether new arrangements will be presented to the House before the final decision is made?

The new arrangements have already been brought before the House.

Will there be an opportunity of discussing them?

Certainly, Sir; on the Estimates.

The scheme has not been finally adopted, then, and will not be until the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?

I think that no final action will be taken until the House has had the opportunity of expressing its opinion, and that will be on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in negotiating the new Commercial Treaties with Germany and Belgium, it is intended to safeguard the interests of the British Home and Colonial sugar industry by introducing clauses to effectually prevent export bounties on sugar imported into the United Kingdom?

The subject which has been raised by my hon. Friend has not been lost sight of; but while the new Treaties are still in course of negotiation, it would, I think, be unadvisable to make any statement as to what may, or may not, be their ultimate contents.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) if he is aware that the grand jury of Kerry erected a bridge at a cost of £3,496 10s. over the River Feale, between Duagh and Islandanny, and that three-fourths of the total cost is now repaid out of the public rates to the Commissioners of Public Works (Ireland), but that the general public are not allowed to use the bridge, although it has been completed and maintained for the past seven years; and (2), what steps will be now taken to obtain access for the public to pass over the bridge?

I am informed that the facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The line of railway from Tralee to Limerick crosses the road or approach, at one side of the bridge, and no proper crossing has been provided by the railway company at this point. The grand jury, moreover, state they have no power to employ a person to look after the gates at what appears to be a farm crossing. I am advised there is no legal provision under which the railway company or the grand jury can be required to provide a crossing, and the Board of Trade inform me they have no power to intervene.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman why the grand jury constructed this bridge—[Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!] But, Sir, arising out of the question, I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a large number of people in the district are prevented from using this bridge.

Order, order! The hon. Member is continuing to argue a question which has already been fully answered.

I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker—

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it has been brought to his notice that Egbert Pethurst, late first-class sorter, Inland Section, G.P.O., who, after 26 years and eight months' service with exemplary conduct, was obliged to retire through ill-health, has been awarded only £50 per annum, whereas he is entitled to £72 6s. 8d.; and, whether he will see that this officer's case is favourably re-considered?

It is a fact that Pethurst has been pensioned, and that the pension awarded to him was much less than it might have been, having regard to his service; Pethurst's attendance during his service was very irregular, and in the opinion of the Medical Officer of the Department the ill-health which led to his retirement was due to causes within his own control. In such a case it is the practice to make a deduction from the amount of the pension, and in the circumstances the Postmaster General sees no reason to ask the Treasury to reconsider their decision.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if the Secretary of State for War sees his way to grant the initial equipment allowances to medical officers of the Volunteer Force, having regard to their increased duties under new regulations; and if its extension to quarter-masters will be considered?

I am glad to say that an Army Order is about to be issued giving the allowance to medical officers of the Volunteers on the Establishment. The question of extending it to quarter-masters has been considered, but no decision has been arrived at.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now say when farms on the Shirley and Tennison estates county Monaghan, will be viewed by the Sub-Commissioners who sat lately at Carrickmacross to fix fair rents?

The Land Commissioners inform me that it is not at present possible to fix a date for the inspection of holdings in cases recently heard from these estates. As soon as a date has been fixed for inspection all the parties interested will be notified. The date will, however, depend upon the completion of other cases previously heard by the same Sub-Commission.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has received information of the arrest by the Spanish authorities in Havana of Mr. Musgrave, the special correspondent of the Daily Chronicle in Cuba, and a British subject, and of his deportation on the steamer Buenos Ayres; whether Mr. Musgrave was permitted an appeal to the British Consul, and for what offence he was arrested; and whether Her Majesty's Government will press for his release?

I beg at the same time to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it be true that Mr. George Clark Musgrave, correspondent in Cuba of an American and of an English journal, has been arrested; whether he was arrested without a warrant, and whether he has been deported from Cuba; and whether the British Consul at Porto Rico, where Mr. Musgrave will touch on his way to Spain, can be instructed to demand the release of Mr. Musgrave on the ground of the illegality of his arrest, and because his arrival in Spain at a moment of excitement may be attended with serious danger to his personal safety?

A telegram has been received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Havana stating that Mr. Musgrave has been expelled from Cuba by the order of the Governor General, and that he left for Spain on the 30th of March. There is nothing in the telegram to show that Mr. Musgrave is still under arrest or even under detention, and accordingly the steps suggested by the hon. Members do not seem to be called for. The Consul General is reporting fully on the matter by post, and I shall be happy to give the hon. Members what information I can at a later date.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Musgrave has been sent away, and is in custody?

That is not the conclusion I draw from the words of the telegram. The Consul General reported that Mr. Musgrave had been arrested and expelled, and had left for Spain; but I do not gather from the words of the telegram that he left under arrest.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Motion for a Return of all communications entered into by the Congested Districts Board with Irish landlords or graziers with a view of obtaining land for the purposes of migration or enlargement of holdings?

The correspondence referred to is of a private character, and it would be altogether improper to lay it on the Table of the House. Moreover, such a proceeding would, in all probability, seriously prejudice any negotiations of a similar kind into which the Congested Districts Board might wish to enter hereafter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Colonel Foster has been passed over for the rank of General, although he is the senior Colonel eligible under the terms of Royal Warrant, 1897 (par. 44); if he could explain on what grounds his claims to promotion were rejected in favour of the officer immediately below him; if he was incompetent to command as a General Officer under the terms of the warrant why was he retained in command of a district for five years and not informed of the fact; and whether the Reports having reference to him were satisfactory or otherwise during this period?

Colonel Foster was not promoted to the rank of Major-General because the Commander-in-Chief and the Army Board did not recommend his promotion. It would not be desirable that I should enter upon the subject of confidential Reports on officers in this House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether facilities will be given to Militia officers, whose battalion is ordered for the annual training between the 8th August and the 10th of September, and who are candidates for admission into the Army, to join some other battalion for the training at an earlier date, in consequence of the Army examination being fixed for the 12th of September?

The examination has been postponed until the 25th October to enable officers to train in their own battalions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would obtain, and lay upon the Table, a Report from Her Majesty's Commissioner of the Uganda Protectorate on the condition and progress of that Protectorate from its establishment to the present time, similar to the Report on the British African Protectorate (Africa, No. 7, 1897) recently presented?

All the material information which Her Majesty's Government have received on the subject of Uganda for many years past has been already presented to Parliament, and many of the British officers who have served there have also written valuable works on the subject. A Report on the trade and commerce of Uganda was also presented last year. There is, therefore, no lack of available information on the subject, and for the present I think that the services of Her Majesty's Administrator will be more usefully employed in coping with existing difficulties than in writing a long historical Report, such as that suggested by my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government, under Article IV. of the Declaration between Great Britain and France, signed at London on 15th January, 1896, agreed that all railway concessions and all commercial and other privileges and advantages conceded, or which may in the future be conceded, in the two Chinese provinces of Yunnan and Szechuen shall be extended and rendered common to Great Britain and to their nationals and dependents; and whether by the same article the French Government engaged to use its influence and good offices with the Chinese Government for this purpose?

The hon. Member has correctly cited the terms of Article IV. of the Anglo-French Declaration about Siam, with, one exception—namely, that the words "as far as rests with, them" should have appeared in the eleventh line between the words "shall" and "be."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether any members of the Cork telegraph staff refused to select their periods of annual leave for 1897; and, if so, how many, and at what time did they get the same; and if it is the intention of the telegraph authorities at Cork to carry out the telegraphists annual leave scheme as already arranged—namely, by seniority?

Four telegraphists declined to select any period for annual leave when the lists were being made out. They were allowed leave later on as circumstances admitted, two of them in September, one partly in May and partly in September, and one in November. It is intended to carry out the arrangement of annual leave at Cork this year by seniority. The arrangements for future years are now under consideration.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the establishment of a college of science will be established in Ireland; and whether he will place it under a board of management in Dublin?

At the request of my right hon. Friend I will reply to this Question. I have already, on the 22nd and 25th March, answered two Questions identical with the present one, and I must refer the hon. Member to the answers then given.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state when it is intended to introduce the proposals mentioned in the Queen's Speech relating to secondary education?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to say that he is unable, in the present state of public business, to make any statement on the subject.

In the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury, perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us what will be the order of the business it is proposed to take on Monday?

The Prisons Bill will be the First Order on Monday, the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill the Second.

Mr. Speaker, in calling attention to the Orders issued by the Board of Agriculture, I do not think there is any need to challenge the finding of the Committee of 1896, on which the policy of the Board of Agriculture has been based. That Committee came to this among other conclusions, that the amount of rabies fluctuated according to whether the Muzzling Order is or is not enforced all over the country. I cannot help observing that this particular conclusion of the Committee goes somewhat beyond the facts. The Committee found that rabies always increased when there is no muzzling and decreased when there is muzzling, but that conclusion is open to the obvious objection that rabies is a very old disease, and muzzling is a very new remedy; but, in spite of the antiquity of the complaint, its extent has always been very limited. What I would suggest as one reason why rabies has diminished under the practice of muzzling is that the police are able at once to detect stray and homeless dogs. I believe it is the fact that 5,000 stray dogs have been killed since the Muzzling Order has been enforced. It is an undoubted fact that amongst these curs of the street there have been numerous cases of rabies, and consequently it is quite reasonable to assume that the protection afforded by muzzling is not only a direct protection against rabies, but the provision of an easy method to the police to discover which are the stray and ownerless dogs. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture has laid it down as his policy that he is determined to stamp out rabies. Before such a policy as that can be carried out it is necessary to examine the characteristics of the disease. Taking them quite shortly, I find that they are fourfold. First, the period of incubation of rabies extends ever a time limited between one week and six months, although there have been cases—supposed cases—of a longer period of incubation than six months. Secondly, during incubation no symptom of rabies appears, and consequently the afflicted dog gives no sign that he is a victim of the disease while it is maturing. Thirdly, the disease, when it is finally matured, displays itself quite suddenly; and, fourthly, almost the very first symptom of rabies is an uncontrollable desire of the dog to go upon what is known as the "rabies tramp," which necessarily removes him from the control of his own owner. The usual extent of the rabies tramp is, I believe, 16 miles. I have seen a case of a dog having wandered as far as 80 miles on the first appearance of the symptoms of rabies. Now, Sir, such being the symptoms of the disease, it is obvious that if muzzling is to be efficacious at all there must be universal muzzling. I will not say that you will not get a diminution of disease under a partial system of muzzling, but if we are to stamp it out—and the right hon. Gentleman has laid it down as his policy that he wishes to stamp out all rabies—universal muzzling is absolutely essential. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman would disagree with that as a conclusion. [Mr. LONG: I do.] He does disagree. The right hon. Gentleman thinks partial muzzling is quite sufficient to stamp out rabies. Well, Sir, the evidence of the veterinary experts, and the general knowledge of the House, as to the symptoms of rabies, would probably lead the House to come to the conclusion, if we had the opportunity to vote on this question, that the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. But there may be, and no doubt there are, certain considerations which determine the Board of Agriculture not to inflict a universal Muzzling Order. So far as we can judge from the terms of the Orders themselves, those considerations appear to take rank in the following order: the first claims to consideration in the mind of the Board of Agriculture are the interests of the sporting community. Whatever the Board of Agriculture does to stamp out rabies, it must not touch the sporting interests of the community. The next, Sir, is a consideration, which I myself do not put forward, because I do not believe that the Board of Agriculture have been guilty of the charges which have been levelled against them. But it is an undoubted fact that throughout the country there has arisen an impression—I conclude it is a fact from the amount of correspondence I have received—that electoral considerations induce the Board of Agriculture from time to time to take off the Muzzling Order when a contest is about to take place. I do not put that forward myself as a reason, as I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman would be influenced by any electoral consideration; but I only warn him that the policy of the Board of Agriculture has given rise to those views very largely. The third consideration which has influenced the action of the Board of Agriculture is the interest of the health of the community, and on that ground partial muzzling is enforced. That is a consideration which naturally appeals to everyone, but it is a consideration which I venture to say this House thinks ought to be put first. It certainly ought not to be subordinated either to the interests of sportsmen or, as has been alleged, to the interests of electoral contests. Last of all, the right hon. Gentleman takes into account the interests of farmers. We find that sheep dogs, which ought to be absolutely unmuzzled in order to carry on their work, are muzzled, and that the interests of the farming community are seriously sacrificed. Now, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us the reasons why he has not exempted the sheep dog and has freed the sporting dog from muzzling; but before we accept the views of the Board of Agriculture I think we have a right to complain of the recklessness and ignorance of the Board in regard to muzzling. The House must remember that these Orders are issued solely on the responsibility of the Board of Agriculture. It may have been thought that any Department of the Government which issued Orders of that kind would first have inquired what the scope and purport of those Orders were likely to be. I addressed a question to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether, under the exemption allowed to sporting dogs, terriers engaged in rabbit coursing would be included. The right hon. Gentleman did not know. He said whether they were or were not included was a matter for the determination of the lawyers. But, surely, before they issue those exemptions to all sporting dogs, the Board of Agriculture ought to have made up their mind as to the classes of dogs to be included as sporting dogs. An hon. Friend of mine addressed another question to the right hon. Gentleman. He asked whether dogs are to be compelled, under these Orders, to be muzzled in hotels or public-houses, and whether an hotel or a public-house was a public place for the purpose of these Orders. The right hon. Gentleman again did not know. Surely before the Board issue these Orders they ought to be satisfied as to their real meaning; and it is an instance of great recklessness and ignorance on their part not to inquire as to the scope of those measures before they foist them upon a very unwilling public. I will only make one comment upon the disingenuousness of a certain reply made by the Board of Agriculture. I ventured to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman as to the number of cases of rabies that had occurred in the last 10 years amongst sporting dogs. What was the right hon. Gentleman's answer? He answered that no cases had occurred.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. The hon. Gentleman's question had reference to the exemptions which applied to sporting dogs.

I will give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for the ingenuity of his reply. I asked the right hon. Gentleman the number of cases of rabies which had occurred amongst sporting dogs, and the right hon. Gentleman answered, with great accuracy, that no cases of rabies had occurred amongst sporting dogs while they were engaged in sport. Of course, I knew that, and I suppose every person in the kingdom knew it before the question was put. No doubt, if rabies broke out among a pack of hounds, that pack of hounds would not have been engaged in sport. But the right hon. Gentleman's answer, if strictly true, was somewhat disingenuous if the Board of Agriculture are willing—as I submit they ought to be willing—to give to hon. Members in this House the information which they have reasonable ground for asking for. Now, Sir, as to the question whether rabies does occur among sporting dogs or not, I do not think that on the evidence there can be a shadow of doubt. It has over and over again occurred, one notable case as recently as last August, in which a whole pack of foxhounds had to be destroyed because rabies had broken out amongst them. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will reply, "Yes, but when rabies breaks out amongst foxhounds it is always when they are in the kennels, and they are immediately destroyed." If that were the universal effect, no doubt it would be a complete answer; but, unfortunately, there have been recorded cases beyond dispute of foxhounds affected with rabies breaking away from the kennels, or breaking away whilst they were out engaged in sporting, biting other dogs, and spreading rabies far and wide. I would not bring forward such a charge as that unless I had evidence, and that evidence—which I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has himself—is based upon a statement made by Mr. Sewell, the well-known veterinary surgeon—probably the best-known dog doctor in London—whose authority on such a point as this cannot be denied. As to sporting dogs always being under complete control, which can be the only excuse for the limited scope of the Orders, it appears in a case which I have seen reported as recently as last March that a foxhound worried a sheep and damages of £5 were recovered against the owner of the dog in the county court. This was a case as recently as the 11th of last March, at Etling Green, Dereham. Over and over again advertisements appear in the papers advertising for foxhounds that have been lost, and it cannot be disputed that these foxhounds—although I admit they are excellently controlled—do from time to time break away, and the risk of spreading rabies by unmuzzled foxhounds is absolutely as great as in the case of any other class of dogs, and much more so than in the case of sheep dogs. Now, I have here the opinion of Mr. G. S. Lowe, who was formerly secretary to the Kennel Club. He states—

"I have seen absurd replies to letters sent to those in high authority stating that hounds and sporting dogs can well be exempted, because they are under control and less liable to be affected by rabies than others. This is all nonsense, as there has been more rabies in foxhound kennels than elsewhere. I have heard of five authentic cases of hydrophobia in the village or parish in which I have resided, and the animals afflicted by this terrible malady included one foxhound and four black retrievers, and they all did more or less fatal mischief."

"There are certain classes of dogs—farm dogs and the dogs of drovers—for whose exemption from the muzzle a strong plea might be urged. For these dogs are necessary for the carrying on of the most important industries of the country, and the muzzle interferes with their doing so. But strong as this plea is, it has not been allowed. What then, may we ask, is the still stronger plea that has procured the exemption of the hounds and other sporting dogs? These dogs do not in any way add to the well-being of the country by assisting in its industries as do the sheep and the cattle dogs. They do not, like the dogs of the blind, answer any purpose of benevolence. They are maintained only for the purpose of amusement."

I wish to say a few words on this subject, and I shall approach the question from an entirely different point of view from the speaker who has just addressed the House. It seems to me that the arguments just addressed to us are not very applicable to this question. I wish to point out that the arguments of the speech to which I alluded referred chiefly to the dogs exempted, rather than to a further extension of the exemption. I would plead on the same ground—undoubtedly I do get to the same point—for the exemption to be extended to the sheep dogs. In the southern part of England, as I know the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, at this time of the year we are in an extremely difficult position. The sheep in that part of the country wander in the hills very great distances from the marshes, and at this very moment, during this next few weeks, they are being brought along the roads, and by railways, very long distances. Very often they are driven between 30 and 40 miles along the public highways, and it is often almost impossible for the farmers to carry on their trade in a manner convenient to themselves, or even to the public, in consequence of these restrictions put upon them by the muzzling order. We have to deal with the ordinary sheep dog of the ordinary shepherd, and it is found as a fact that the older dogs, after a certain amount of use with the muzzle on, get sulky, and will not do the work which is necessary; while the younger dogs do not go on learning their trade in order that they may take the part they are expected to do. At this moment, when hundreds and thousands of sheep are returning from the hills and marshes, the farmers in our district are in very great difficulty to know how to conduct their flocks along the highways. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if he can see his way to discover some means by which we could get over this difficulty. This is a restriction which, naturally, the people feel very annoying. They look round and they see a large number of sporting dogs unmuzzled which are exempt from the order, for this happens to be a district where sporting prevails very largely. There are foxhounds and hunters; there are staghounds, and others, which, perhaps, there is not so very much to be said for; there are also greyhounds, and all these must be unmuzzled when actually coursing. Naturally, the people who own sheep dogs think it very wrong to make a distinction between a greyhound and a sheep dog in the exercise of his duty. There are these distinctions, and I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman must draw the line somewhere, but it does seem to me to be drawing the line very finely between a greyhound which is unmuzzled at exercise along the road while sheep dogs at work are compelled to be muzzled; and the people whose views I am acquainted with would be quite satisfied if this distinction was done away with. They do not desire to see any restriction put upon the gallant efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman to put an end to rabies, but they do ask him to try and find some means by which they can use their sheep dogs in a satisfactory manner. They would not mind some system of registration, or some certificate being given by a magistrate, or anybody else, provided that while a sheep dog is at work it may be used without a muzzle, so that they may be able to carry out their calling. I do not in any way attack the muzzling order, or attack the very persistent attitude which has been adopted by the right hon. Gentleman, but I will urge upon him most strongly that if he can see his way to devise any means in his department to attain the object which I plead for I am sure that he will not really be doing any injury to the cause which he is serving, and at the same time he will give satisfaction to a large body of farmers in this country. I hope he will consider this suggestion.

I desire to say a few words upon this question. I speak upon this subject with perfect impartiality, because, wisely or unwisely. I keep dogs myself, which, being for sporting purposes, are not required to be muzzled by this order. The poor man living close by me naturally feels aggrieved, and cannot understand why his diminutive Yorkshire terrier should be compelled to wear a muzzle for the safety of the public, while at the same time he sees a pack of hounds walking past his door free altogether from any such restriction. I think that my friends in the Midlands take a wider view of this matter than the view entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture. They believe—and I quite agree with them—that the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in view can be better achieved by the collar order, which is universally popular, than by the muzzling order, which is universally unpopular. The very greatest decrease ever known in the Metropolis took place six years ago, when every dog was wearing a collar and none were wearing muzzles, but that fact was not brought before the Departmental Committee. Now, what are the facts? In 1890 the Board of Agriculture muzzled the Metropolis, and at the end of that year they exempted from the muzzle any dog wearing a collar, with the result that in 1891 not a single dog was wearing a muzzle. Now, that went on, and what was the result for this period when the order was entirely withdrawn? Here are the figures:—In 1890, when the Metropolis was muzzled, there were 32 cases of rabies in London; during the year 1891, when every dog was wearing a collar, there were only eight cases of rabies; and during the next year, when the collar regulation was still in force, there were only three cases. I only hope that the muzzling order will shortly be withdrawn, because I am sure that its withdrawal would give very great satisfaction. I say this because if there is one thing more than another which may be repeated it is that the muzzling order is no use whatever unless it is in conformity with public opinion. I do not profess to have any experience of any particular locality beyond my own, and what I do know is that the feeling of Staffordshire, Warwickshire, and Worcestershire is utterly opposed to this muzzling order. Throughout the whole of the three counties resolutions have been passed asking for the withdrawal of the order. It has been condemned by magistrates, including the Chairman of the Quarter Sessions for Worcester. In conclusion, I only hope that at the end of this Debate we shall hear from the President of the Board of Agriculture that in a very short time the muzzling order will be withdrawn.

Unlike other speakers, I do not believe in the failure of the muzzling order to stamp out rabies. This disease does not spring up spontaneously, and it can only be stamped out by wise, firm, and judicious legislation, such as he has proposed. I think, however, the right hon. Gentleman would be more consistent if he made absolutely no exemption at all, but if we are to have any exemptions I think it would be necessary that exemptions should be made in the case of sheep dogs. If we have exemptions for hunting dogs, which are practically useless, I do think the same amount of favour ought to be extended to those dogs which are necessary to a great industry, seeing that under this muzzling order great inconvenience has been caused among the agricultural community. I think it is very important in the interests of my hon. Friend, and in the interest of the muzzling order, that it should be as popular as possible, and I cannot conceive anything less calculated to make this order popular than to cause this amount of irritation, which my right hon. Friend has described, among the agricultural population, on account of the muzzling of an animal which is so useful for the agricultural interest. My right hon. Friend will be able to tell us whether there has been many cases of rabies amongst sheep dogs, and if they are in the habit of meeting animals from whom they are liable to get the infection. My right hon. Friend will no doubt be able to give us some satisfactory assurance. Really, I am inclined to join with my hon. Friend who introduced this subject in appealing to the right hon. Gentleman in the interest of the popularity of the Measure, for which I am bound to say he is working so well, so skilfully, and so resolutely, to make this exemption, which I do not think will eventually do any harm to the great interest which he has so much at heart.

While I cannot agree with all that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire has said, I do think that in one point he is right, and that is that there is a great deal of public feeling against any general Muzzling Order. I think, Sir, that we are entitled to congratulate most heartily the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture in having, pursued the Order with so much firmness. The Government, although it has not been successful in ruling Europe, has certainly been successful in muzzling dogs. It certainly has shown a strength that might hardly have been expected from them on other grounds. I was one of the Members of the Committee which was appointed to examine into this question of muzzling. I do not want to go into the question at present—it may be in order or it may not—but I will only say this, that when I entered into that Committee I believed that muzzling was perfectly superfluous, and that some Collar Order would do all that was required. After hearing the evidence, I came to the exactly opposite conclusion, and I agree with the Committee that this evil of rabies, which is, perhaps, not a very great one, but still is a serious one, can be effectually stamped out in this country in some four or six months if that Muzzling Order were applied universally. To a very great extent that is what we recommended to the Board of Agriculture. They have carried out the recommendation fairly well, although they might have carried it out better. At the same time, I give them every credit for what they have done. Now, the present complaint seems to me to be this: that the Board of Agriculture has exempted from muzzling sporting dogs and not shepherds' dogs. As to sporting dogs, I confess that I am not myself a sportsman or particularly in favour of sport; therefore, personally, I have no feeling whatever in the matter of the exemption of sporting dogs; but I do think this, that, as has been admitted by Members who have spoken on this subject, the enforcing of the Muzzling Order is exceedingly difficult, and that concessions have to be made. I have no doubt that had I been in the place of the right hon. Gentleman I might have found myself, perhaps against my inclination, compelled to exempt sporting dogs. I do, however, think that it is rather unfortunate that a parallel exemption has not been made in the case of shepherds' dogs. At the same time, I cannot help thinking, although I speak without the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman, that the feeling is not quite so great as the hon. Member who introduced the Motion has made out. I should think that in almost all the districts where sheep dogs are universal the Muzzling Order is not enforced. I believe that is largely so in Scotland, and I have heard of no complaint whatever in this matter in the North. I daresay that there may be some cases down in the South of England such as have been described, and, if there are, I have no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some sort of assurance that he may be able to deal with these cases to the satisfaction of those who have brought up this question. However this may be, I do think it is fair, as a Member of the Committee, to state that the hon. Gentleman has dealt in an exceedingly fair and plucky manner with the recommendations of that Committee, and, however right or wrong he may be in general matters, I think that his conduct in this particular case deserves very great commendation.

The hon. and learned Member who has introduced this Motion has referred to the fact that he would be unable to take the opinion of the House upon it by a Division. I must say that I congratulate the hon. and learned Gentleman upon his misfortunes, because I cannot conceive a Motion better worded for an academic and inconclusive discussion than the one he has introduced into the House to-night. Although his Motion is as "milk-and-water" as it is possible to have a Motion, he has contrived to introduce into his speech a totally different element. I must say that having regard to this question of muzzling, with which, by this time, I am probably as familiar as the hon. and learned Member, or any of those who support him—familiar with it in all its aspects, from the aspect in which he he has approached it to-night, to the aspect of the lady who has special interest in a dog from which she cannot be separated without fear that the separation would cost her her existence. I must say that, failing altogether to possess either the capacity or the ability of the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced this Motion, I think that I could nevertheless have made, at least, as good a case, if not a better one than he has done, without descending to the form of attack which he has thought necessary to adopt with regard to myself and my Department, and in support of which he did not advance one single argument or statement of fact. The hon. and learned Member said, in making some comments upon muzzling generally, that he and his friends thought that electoral considerations had governed me. [Mr. MCKENNA: I repudiated it altogether.] Oh, yes! We are all familiar with the old advice, "Don't nail his ears to the pump!" and, of course, although other people said it, he did not. We are all familiar with that sort of gossip. You know what so-and-so has said about somebody else. Of course, I don't believe it. That is the position which the hon. Gentleman assumes to-night. He does not believe these base insinuations, but although he desires to dissociate himself altogether from them—and I am glad to hear that statement—yet he will admit that, as he has made them, I am entitled to repudiate them altogether, and to say that he has not advanced one single argument in support of that contention. Whatever the faults of the Department may be, and I daresay we have plenty of faults, I should like to dispose of one minor point. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I had made an answer to a question which was not altogether an exposition of the exact facts, and, in order again to save himself, suggested that the answer emanated from the officials of the Department. I think the hon. Gentleman must know perfectly well that that is a position which no Minister could take up; it is an utterly impossible position, and it is an altogether unworthy attack to say that the answer to a question is the work of an official, and that, therefore, the Minister is not responsible for its inaccuracies. Whatever the answer to a question is—whether it is a written one which the Minister reads, and as to which he has not exercised any discretion himself, or whether it is not—everybody in this House knows that no man is fit to stand up on the floor here as the representative of a Department, and say one word or write any communication in the name of that Department, and everything and anything connected with that Department, for which he himself is not responsible, or in respect to which he is entitled to say that he is not bound to accept, and cheerfully accept, the full responsibility. Therefore I say it is an unworthy argument to say that a Minister makes a reply which is not his own, but is merely a written one, for which he is not responsible, because it emanated from the officials. The hon. Gentleman has got a very good case. I could have made a very good case, and so far as I am concerned, if it were not the practice of Parliament to reply, I should have been contented to have listened, and, had it not been for these unworthy insinuations, to have said "agreed," and to have passed on to the next business. What does the Motion say—

"That this House regrets that the President of the Board of Agriculture has not found it desirable to extend to sheep dogs the exemption from muzzling under the Rabies Orders which has been allowed in the case of sporting dogs."

That was a supplementary question which I put, as to whether, in the opinion of the Board of Agriculture, when they considered the question before they issued the Order, a public-house was a public place or not, and the right hon. Gentleman said "No."

I am quite prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to frame his own attacks, but I am not prepared to let him frame my answers. I said I had not considered the matter at all. What I said was that it was not the business of the Board of Agriculture to define the legal question as to what was a public place, and the minor question which was put to me, as to when dogs were at exercise or when they were not at exercise, or when a dog was a sporting dog, or when it was not a sporting dog. It is not my business to give answers to those questions, and if I were to do so it would deprive hon. Gentlemen opposite of half the amusement they derive from asking them. Now, occasionally, hon. Gentlemen get a good attack against the Government, and if I were to accept the suggestions of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and remove the Muzzling Order, what would become of them at the next bye-election? Their occupation would be gone, and the elections would once again revert to their proper direction. The real answer to the objection of the hon. and learned Gentleman is not that we desire to give exemption to British sport—although I am not afraid to defend that if necessary. The policy of the Department is based on the conditions under which sporting dogs are kept, whether the dog forms part of the best pack of hunters in the country or whether it is the terrier of the rat-catcher; everybody knows that a sporting dog is taken great care of, and if he is not well in the morning, he is not taken to work. Why? Because everybody who has anything to do with hounds knows that any dog who is suffering from any form of indisposition is not up to his work, and so it is in the case of the terrier, which is kept for the sole object of his master's business, and the rat-catcher knows that, without his dog, he cannot carry on his trade. What we contend is that there is over those dogs a supervision, a constant survey, which ensures, if the dog displays any symptoms of ill-health, especially of rabies, that the symptoms will be discovered, and the dogs kept under control until the cause of their malady is ascertained, and, if possible, has been removed altogether. The hon. Gentleman asks. What about sheep-dogs? I will tell him something about sheep-dogs. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean is a great, authority on statistics and details, and, as a rule, looks into a question very closely. I would like to know if he has looked into the question of sheep-dogs. [Sir C. DILKE: Only in my own constituency.] Then we shall have the pleasure of hearing what is a sheep-dog in the Forest of Dean. But I shall not be surprised at all if, when he looks a little closer into the question, he finds that sheep-dogs there are very much the same as all over the rest of the country. I quite agree that the muzzle might mean a difficulty in the way of a dog doing his work. I am not going to say that they can work as well with a muzzle as they can without. Now, I sent my inspectors about the country to see the sheep-dogs in different parts. I sent them to farms and other places all over England, and I have done my best to obtain reliable information. I have actually visited the country myself. I happened once to be in Devonshire, and somebody put a paper into my hands, saying that the worst hated man in the country was Mr. Long, and that, if he showed his nose in Devonshire, it would be very much the worse for him, and I was actually in the middle of the county at the time. Well, I saw them driving sheep and cattle in many cases, and I observed no great difficulty or inconvenience from the use of the muzzle, and the reports of my inspectors point in the same direction. Of course, one knows perfectly well a dog docs not wear a muzzle for choice; nobody believes that a dog driving sheep or cattle is as useful with a muzzle on as without. I know it is a great inconvenience, and in many cases inflicts considerable loss on the man driving sheep and cattle; but the hon. Gentleman asked me just now whether sheep-dogs were not its carefully watched as sporting dogs. I appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who are familiar with owners of sheep and sheep-dogs of this country. We know that every dog which is used for the purpose of driving sheep and cattle, not continuously or regularly, but at one time or another, is a sheep-dog, and it mast be remembered, too, that sheep-dogs were the dogs that were granted exemptions from the ordinary licence. Now, when this matter was first brought before me I carefully examined it, and I will give the House a few of the figures which I have had taken out, and which show the proportion of sheep-dogs to the dogs of the entire district. In the district of Inverness there are 2,804 dogs for which licences have been taken out, and 10,704 for which exemptions were claimed; in Aberdeen, 2,685 for which licences were taken, and 11,520 exemptions. In another county, in Wales, there are 1,854 licences, as against 5,963 exemptions. On one occasion I instructed an inspector to make a careful local inquiry into the various breeds of dogs for which exemptions were claimed as sheep-dogs. This is a point, which I respectfully commend to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean. In one county, I will not mention the name, with regard to the exempted dogs under the head of sheep-dogs, and from the Returns made to me, I find that there were 122 lurchers, six setters, 12 pug dogs, six mastiffs, and, worst of all for the hon. Gentleman, 35 retrievers. Now, according to that, the hon. Gentelman appealed for the sheepdogs as against the sporting dog, and he says if the retriever cannot be exempted as a sporting dog, he will be as a sheep-dog. If we do that, we shall have to give up muzzling altogether. This is the case with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that it is better to put up with this disease than to put up with the unpopularity at the moment. I will not trouble the House for more than another minute. The hon. Gentleman said there was another method. We cannot do more than point to the facts as they stand. At all events, the figures are very remarkable. If any hon. Gentleman will look at the figures published he will see that for the quarter ending March, 1896, there were 200 cases of rabies in the country; for the quarter ending June, 123; for the quarter ending September, 67; for the quarter ending December, 48; and so on—every quarter the number decreasing until we get to the quarter ending March last, when the total number of actual cases had fallen to six, as against 200 in the quarter ending March, 1896. There are some suspected cases, with regard to which I am not in a position to say whether they are rabies or not; but there are only three, and if they are certified to be rabies the figures will stand as follows; 200 cases in the quarter ending March, 1896, against nine in quarter ending March, 1898. I do not want to excite the passions of the House by referring to morbid cases, but there is no disease from which man suffers which brings with it more real horror than this disease of hydrophobia. Not only is there the physical suffering, but there is also the mental suffering which goes on for months, while the unfortunate victim is waiting to see whether he is afflicted with the disease or not. Only the other day the wife of a prominent tradesman in Stockton died in great agony from the bite of a dog inflicted in the previous September. The symptoms only developed before her death.

With reference to the right hon. Gentleman's statistics of exemptions in Aberdeenshire and Inverness-shire, is it not a fact that there is no Muzzling Order in force, and no rabies in these counties?

What on earth has that to do with it? Docs the hon. Member ask that exemptions are to be made in certain places where the figures suit him, and not in other places where the figures do not suit him? His argument is that sheep-dogs are to be exempted all over the country. I have endeavoured to give the House the reasons which have governed us in refusing to adopt that policy. I think I have shown that if the hon. Gentleman's suggestion was accepted it would involve the total destruction of the Muzzling Order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite might make use of this question for Party purposes. Of course it is perfectly fair to say, "Here is the brutal Tory Government muzzling the poor man's doe-s and leaving the rich man's hounds to go free." ["No, no!"] Well, that is a very good argument, and although hon. Members opposite say "No," I have a shrewd impression that this is an argument they are very likely to use. I appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, apart altogether from the idea that muzzling is carried out in order to please a particular Department, or an individual, to ask themselves whether rabies is not one of those diseases which it is the absolute duty on the part of the Government to exterminate, if they are able to do so, by a certain policy. It is a policy founded on vast experience; and holding that view they are compelled to adhere to that policy, believing that, if able to carry it out, it will result in eradicating altogether this appalling disease.

I know that there are a number of Members of the House not present who are particularly anxious to take part in this Debate, who have been looking forward to such a Debate; but unfortunately the Debate is not going to take place, from what I hear. The right hon. Gentleman says we wish to make Party capital out of this. I, for one, wish to dissociate myself from anything of the kind; it never occurred to me to make political capital out of it. I join issue with the right hon. Gentleman on that question. If we wish to make Party capital, we have only to look to the north, to the south, to the east, and to the west, to find ample material in that direction. I have some little knowledge of dogs, having been brought, up, more or less, in the kennel for the last 50 years of my life. I should cordially congratulate the right hon. Gentleman if he can eradicate from among man's best friends the most hateful of all diseases—hydrophobia. The question is, Is this the best way of dealing with hydrophobia? I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that rabies is a disease that must be given by one dog to another. I join issue with hint there; I do not believe it. I believe that rallies with a dog is just the same as small-pox, or scarlet fever, with a human being. You might as well muzzle all of us for influenza. I believe that 90 per cent. of the dogs destroyed as mad are not actually mad. I have had instances brought under my personal notice. When I was in Russia I brought home a very large retriever. A man told me he was mad, for the dog was foaming at the mouth, and was anything but a pleasant object to look at. I carried him up to my own room, and kept him there for about eight or nine hours, and he got over that attack. Everybody said he was mad, but in a week's time that dog was as well as ever he was. I had another instance of a foxhound. I went into the kennel and took hold of him and had him shut up. That dog, in three weeks time, was perfectly well again. There is no child in any family who is so carefully watched over as a hound; morning, noon, and night, they are watched over. Ninety persons out of 100 would have said that hound was mad, and yet he got quite well.

I am not going to challenge the high authority of the hon. Gentleman; but our facts are absolutely ascertained. We do not deal with doubtful cases; we only deal with cases that are ascertained on the spot and confirmed by evidence.

Do I understand that till these cases have been dealt with by one veterinary surgeon?

No, no. The cases are discovered in the locality, and they are generally examined by the local veterinary surgeon. Some cases of rabies are forwarded to an institute the hon. Gentleman knows well, and there the investigations are made and the decisions announced. The statistics I have given refer only to cases which are verified.

How long have you struck them off?

I struck them off—I may say, to be accurate with the House—up to the 31st of March, when the number of cases was six, and, in order that I might not misrepresent these cases, I said there were three doubtful cases.

The right hon. Gentleman does not see my point.

Order, order!

What I was trying to bring before the right hon. Gentleman was the question of the number of cases of hydrophobia. That is a matter of great consequence, and it is the crux of the whole business. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many cases of hydrophobia have been laid before the authorities? The question is, what is the best way of dealing with hydrophobia? I quite disagree with the right hon. Gentleman that rabies is a disease that may be given by one dog to another. I do not think anyone takes the opinion of a veterinary as to whether a case is hydrophobia or not, because you have only got to find two veterinary surgeons, and they are sure to differ. Take them a horse, and one of them will pass it as sound, and the other will condemn it; take them a dog, and one will say it is mad, and the other will say it is not. Certainly, anyone who has had to do with the buying and selling of horses as I have had, will know the value of the advice of a veterinary surgeon. [Laughter.] I do not see why hon. Gentlemen should laugh, because if they had sold horses as I have done they would find it out, and very quickly too. But the matter before the House is the question of exempting sheep-dogs. Now, I can speak with some authority on sheep-dogs, because I have had a long experience of them. Sheep-dogs are the right-hand of the shepherd, and when they are muzzled they cannot possibly do their work. We have thousands of acres of land devoted to sheep farming, and these shepherds cannot possibly look after their sheep without these dogs, and it is of the greatest importance to the shepherd that sheep-dogs should be exempted from the muzzling order. No dog living could look after a large number of sheep with a muzzle on, because everyone knows that a dog breathes and sweats through his mouth, and no dog can breathe freely with a muzzle on. The placing of a sheepdog and a foxhound in the same category is all nonsense. A foxhound is looked well after, while a sheep-dog is whistled for when he is wanted, and kicked out of doors when he is not wanted. With regard to the putting down of rallies, I am just as anxious to do that as the right hon. Gentleman is, but the question with me is whether the keeping of this Muzzling Order in force in the country is the best way to do it. I do not believe it is, for I believe the only way to put down rabies and do away with these sheep-killing dogs, which prevail so terribly in the sheep-growing countries, is by making the owner of the dog answerable for all that his dog does. [Laughter.] I really see nothing to laugh at in this matter. To make the owner of the dog answerable will, if I may use the expression, "pin the dog to the owner," and you can only do that by having a collar on the dog with the man's name on it. We know that in Wales, where almost everybody keeps dogs, they are turned cut at night, and they have committed all kinds of havoc among the sheep, but you cannot find the owner of the dog which has done the damage. You cannot trace him, and if you do find him, he will say the dog is not his, although you may know very well that if is. He will swear that it is not, and you cannot prove it. We want to be able to prove the ownership of dogs to certain individuals, and I am perfectly certain that if you were to put a collar on every dog with the owner's name on it, and make the owner answerable for all the dog's acts, the people would look after their dogs very much better than they do now. There are people who do not care a straw for dogs or what they do, and they simply whistle for them when they want them. But, if you make the owner responsible, and if you are able to trace him and make him answerable for everything that dog look after it. [Laughter.] laugh if you like, but you will never put down rabies if you go on muzzling every year. It has been tried in other countries, and the right hon. Gentleman is not the first who has adopted muzzling. If has been tried in foreign countries, and they have had to give it up because it did not succeed. [The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE: They have not tried it on the principles tried here.] But the muzzle in Germany is the same as in England. I will take another point, and I will challenge him on this. If a dog be mad in one of these muzzles, he will get it off like a shot. A dog coming down the street with a little bit of thin wire on his mouth can instantly break it if the dog be mad, and I will undertake to say that a mad dog will break any of the muzzles I have yet seen. It is nonsense to talk to any practical person and say that these muzzles, will keep down rabies, and stop dogs biting. I believe that half the people who are said to die from madness really die more from fright than mad ness. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I believe if. If a person gets bitten by a dog now, all the rest of the family at once begin to wonder why he is not taken ill. I have been bitten myself by foxhounds and dogs of all kinds. I am certain of it. You may laugh as much as you like, but the idea has got abroad in this country that the moment a man is bitten by a dog he must be sent off immediately to Paris, and if he does not go mad, then people are disappointed, and wonder why he did not go mad. But the question is, Is this Muzzling Order dealing with the matter in a really practical way? I do not suppose for a moment that there is a man in this House who would not look with the greatest pleasure on any practical scheme which would put down this horrible disease; but if you are going to attempt to do it in a way which a great many of us think is not the best way, why, naturally, we shall get up and tell you so. Well, why not? Perhaps hon. Members opposite do not own dogs If they did they would not laugh. These ore matters which want to be driven right home, and move particularly in Wales where we have all got dogs. I understand you are going to muzzle all the dogs. [The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE: Certainly not.] Well they are either to be muzzled or branded. [The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE: The hon. Gentleman is entirely inaccurate.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to drop the Bill, I suppose he will drop the muzzle, and that is the best thing he can possibly do. I believe people would sooner run the risk of rabies than have their dogs muzzled.

As the representative of a constituency where the Muzzling Order has been in force six months, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon his courage in having put this intensely disagreeable Order in force. I do not wish to deal with it from a political point of view, as the right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine we have done. He has slated that the Muzzling Order has been a great success. I hope it has, but if it has been a great success, with the exemptions that have hitherto escaped the Muzzling Order, how much greater would that success have been if all dogs had been muzzled. What I object to is that a sporting dog, which a man uses for his enjoyment, is not muzzled, but a sheep-dog, which is used for business is muzzled. If the Order has been a success with a portion of the dogs, how much more would it have been if all dogs had been muzzled. I do object most strongly to this invidious distinction between dogs which are kept for pleasure and those which are kept for the purposes of business. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to treat this matter purely or almost as a joke, and he ridicules us on this side of the House—in fact I almost thought that he had put on the Muzzling Order in order to give us something to talk about or something with which to abuse the "brutal Tory Government." I do not intend to do much in the way of attacking this Order. I will leave that to the Tory Party, of which the right hon. Member is so distinguished a supporter, for his Party is criticising the Government on this matter more than we are. If the hon. Gentleman will only allow me, I am merely answering the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the "brutal Tory Government." He said distinctly that that was the only stick we had got to beat the "brutal Tory Government" with. [Mr. LONG: NO. Not the only one.] Well, I do not intend to attack the Government, but I will let their supporters do that themselves. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to imagine that this Muzzling Order had no effect upon the bye-elections. Well, I remember a bye-election in Devonshire which this-Muzzling Order seems to have had a great effect upon. When the Plymouth election took place the Muzzling Order had been in force for six months, and two days before the election was decided the Muzzling Order was withdrawn.

Now, the hon. Gentleman has made a distinct and definite accusation against my Department, and I will state the facts. He has stated in so many words that the Muzzling Order had been in force six months when the election was pending; that that Muzzling Order was withdrawn two days before. Now, as the hon. Gentleman has made this charge I wish to answer it. The charge is so ridiculous that I think it only fair to myself to state what actually happened. The Papers from my Department came forward to me in the ordinary course, informing me that the Muzzling Order had run its full course in Devonshire, that the disease had been exterminated, and that the time had come when the Order must be rescinded. It was suggested to me at the time that a charge like the one which has now been made—and which I call a most unworthy charge—would possibly be made. I said, that if such a charge be made, it will not be necessary for a man in my position to condescend to answer it.

Well, it was a very curious coincidence that when the election was going on in Plymouth a letter came down from the right hon. Gentleman, to a Unionist Member in Devonshire, to state that the Order would be withdrawn. He defied the right hon. Gentleman to contradict that.

Was it while the election was going on?

Yes.

An hon. Friend—I think it was one of the Members for Devonport—wrote to me asking when the Muzzling Order was to be withdrawn. I wrote to him as soon as the Order was out, and with no more regard to the Plymouth election than I had to the elections in Maidstone and Berks, in both of which districts the Order was in force.

said the right hon. Gentleman had risen twice to interrupt him on a question of fact, and he maintained that he had not contradicted in one single particular any statement he had made. He said, and repeated distinctly, that while the Plymouth election was going on a letter came from the right hon. Gentleman, addressed to a Unionist Member in Devonshire, telling that Unionist Member that the Muzzling Order would be withdrawn.

I have not charged my memory with the facts, but, was it not the case that this rescinding of the Order was made on the last day of the Plymouth election? If my serves me, the election took place on the next day.

To the best of my recollection it was two days before the election.

said he did not wish to pursue the subject, because the right hon. Gentleman was in a fog, and did not know when the Order was withdrawn. He would say this, that the rigid, hon. Gentleman began the controversy himself by saying this question was used in many bye-elections. It was used, undoubtedly, to make bye-elect ions go for the Liberal Party. The right hon. Gentleman also said he had had statistics of dogs that were exempted from having to pay licences under the name of sheep-dogs. He said there were sheepdog exemptions granted to mastiffs, retrievers, pugs, and setters. He could not help thinking some inspector might be playing a joke upon the right hon. Gentleman. No man in his senses would have imagined that retrievers or setters, or pugs or mastiffs, could have been used for any such purpose as driving sheep. [The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of AGRICULTURE: I never said so.] All he could say was that if they were not used for driving sheep they were not entitled to the exemption. Some one had not done his duty. Either the inspector had been playing a practical joke, or the Excise officers in the country had not done their duty. He did not believe the Excise officers were such fools as to take a mastiff or a retriever for a sheep-dog. It was one of the most ridiculous things he ever heard in his life. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked other questions. Many of them wanted to know what was a public place, but the right hon. Gentleman said, "I am not here to answer conundrums of that description." But he was the legislator in this matter. He made laws, and they had to obey them. They wanted to know what was in his mind when he defined a public Place. They wanted to know whether a public-house was a public place. The right hon. Gentleman put those conundrums for them to answer in the country. They had to answer them or be hauled up before a magistrate, and he thought it would be better if a definition of a public place were given. He most strongly protested against the system of muzzling which had been enforced, and which had allowed the rich man's sporting dogs to escape, but not the working farmer's sheep-dogs, and it was to raise his voice in this protest that he had addressed the House.

said he wanted to say a few words on the question of the Muzzling Order. He was disposed to think that if it had been made universal throughout the country it would have done much more good than it had done at the present time. At any rate, there was a strong feeling in the constituency which he represented upon this question. The Town Council of Hastings had, he believed, petitioned the Board of Agriculture to withdraw the Order in Hastings. It had been enforced there for a considerable period, and, in the opinion of the local authorities, the time had come for it to be withdrawn. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would consider the recommendations of local authorities in this matter.

, CHAIRMAN of WAYS AND MEANS in the Chair.