I beg leave to introduce this Bill, which is a Bill to make temporary provision for the relief of distress in Ireland. This Bill is practically identical with the Bill which was introduced in 1895, and a Bill which was introduced last year, in order to cope with the distress in Ireland, and it is necessary in order to prevent boards of guardians being surcharged with such expenditure.

Might I just ask the right honourable Gentleman to say that this Bill shall not be taken before Wednesday next, as I should like to have an opportunity of reading the Bill and becoming conversant with it before he takes the Second Reading?

Yes.

I also beg leave to introduce another Bill; a similar Bill has been introduced on previous occasions when distress existed in Ireland. This is a Bill to provide for the supply of seed potatoes, seed oats, and spraying machines and material to occupiers and cultivators of land in Ireland, and for the employment of instructors in the use of such machines and material. The only difference between this and previous Bills is that this applies not only to seed potatoes but to the other matters which I have mentioned. Leave being given, the Bill was brought in and read a first time; to be read a second time upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 307.]

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will give a Return showing the number of schools erected, or taken over, by the London School Board, which have been wholly or partially closed, or used as special departments; and the number of vacant places in existing Board schools in each division of the metropolis, with the name of each school?

A Return can be given of the number of schools closed, but the Department does mot think that any reliable Return could be given of those partially closed, or used as special departments. The number of vacant places will appear in the annual Report.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has received a copy of a Resolution passed in the month of May last by the Hants County Council praying for a relaxation of the muzzling order within the county of Hants; and whether, as there has been no case of rabies in that county for over six months, he will consider the advisability of relaxing the Order, at least in the inner portions of the county?

I have received the Resolution to which my honourable Friend refers, but I regret that at present I am not in a position to give effect to it. A serious case of the disease occurred at Chichester some three weeks ago, the origin of which could not be traced, and there are other indications to show that, although the position has very greatly improved, the disease still lingers in the home counties area. I am naturally very anxious to avoid the necessity of re-imposing any of the Muzzling Orders now in force when once they have been withdrawn, and under existing circumstances, there must be a great danger that this would be the case, so far as East Hampshire is concerned.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are some members of the clerical staff of the English Prisons Department at the Home Office who are over 65 years of age; and, if so, how long it is intended that they should retain their posts?

I am informed that there are no such members of the clerical staff of the English Prisons Department.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether it has been decided to lay down wood pavement between Buckingham Gate and Marlborough House; and, if so, when the work will be completed?

No decision has yet been arrived at as to laying down wood pavement between Buckingham Gate and Marlborough House. The matter is now under the consideration of the Treasury.

Will the right honourable Gentleman remember that if wood paving is laid down—

Order, order! The honourable Member is suggesting an argument.

Then may I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, if it is decided to lay down wood pavement, he will consider riders on horseback, and allow a space for them outside the wood pavement?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any cases have been brought to his notice in which women and children have been dismissed by their employers in consequence of evidence given by them in support of prosecutions undertaken by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Factories; and, if so, whether he purposes taking any action in the matter?

Yes, cases of this sort do from time to time come to my notice. As the law stands, however, I have no power to take any action in the matter; and in view of the great difficulties in regard to proof which are experienced in cases of a similar kind under the Witnesses Protection Act, 1892, it seems very doubtful whether the matter can be remedied by legislation. Much more good can, I think, be done by the voluntary action of such a committee as, I am glad to see, is in process of formation for the very purpose of rendering help in these cases.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if there have been many cases of the kind in the Potteries?

I cannot say whether there have been any in the Potteries.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he can inform the House of the number of cattle lost by death from disease in recent cargoes from the River Plate; whether he can inform the House of the nature of the disease; whether, in the case of those arriving in the Thames alive, and slaughtered at Deptford, a careful examination is made of the carcase to prevent suspected meat finding its way to the markets?

I have made inquiries on this subject, but I find no reason to believe that any losses occur amongst cattle brought from the River Plate by reason of disease. The examination of the carcases with a view to the protection of the public health rests with the local authorities, who, in the particular instance referred to, have appointed a special inspector for the purpose; but, in addition, the Board's veterinary officers are instructed to call attention to any carcases which, in their opinion, are unfit for human food.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he has reason, to believe that tuberculosis is prevalent in the dairy herds of the country; and, if so, whether any steps are being taken to warn the consumers of milk of the danger to young children drinking milk from cows so effected?

With regard to the a prevalence of tuberculosis among dairy stock, I would refer the honourable Member to the very full statement on the r subject contained in the Report of the recent Royal Commission. I do not myself think that the issue of any warning on the subject is necessary, but the matter is one for the consideration of the Local Government Board rather than of myself.

Do the Government contemplate any action arising out of the Report of the Royal Commission?

No, Sir; it is not contemplated to take any action on the recommendations of the Royal Commission until there is some evidence on the part of the agricultural community that they desire it.

In connection with that reply, I would like to ask whether his attention has been called to the want of knowledge or practical experience as to the test shown by English agriculturists examined by the Commission, and whether he would issue, in leaflet form, information such as that contained in the Report of the Royal Commission as to the success of the eliminating test in Denmark?

If the honourable Member means, will I circulate the Report in a cheaper and condensed form, I shall be ready to consider that, but I cannot undertake, on behalf of the Department, to circulate the information referred to, for which the Department might be held legally responsible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why town postman Paul, now of Enfield, has been refused payment of the arrears of pay for doing two duties, a midnight collection, and a station duty on Saturday nights and Sunday mornings at Woodford Green between April and October, 1897; and is he aware that the claim for payment is based on the recommendation of the Tweedmouth Committee, that no period of duty should be reckoned at less than an hour; and that, although Paul has repeatedly claimed the arrears and been refused, his successor is being paid at the rate of two hours for doing exactly the same duties?

The postman referred to by the honourable Member performed at Woodford Green a station trip occupying 30 minutes on four Saturday nights between April and October, 1897, in turn with other postmen, as part of his regular duty. The period of duty was reckoned as one hour; but, as the postman's total attendence for the week did not exceed the regulation limit, his claim for extra payment was properly refused. On a revision of the duties in October last, the duty in question was assigned to an assistant postman, as part of his regular duty, and paid for accordingly.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it has been brought to his notice that on 26th May last Private White, of the 7th Battalion Rifle Brigade (formerly of the Royal Horse Artillery and Army Service Corps), while on parade at Milton Camp, Gravesend, was ordered to take off the Egyptian medal and clasp and the Khedive's star he was wearing sewn on his best clothes; that the said medal and star were publicly cut off by his colour-sergeant in the presence of the whole battalion of 600 men; that later in the day, having been ordered to appear at a ceremonial parade, he wore his medal and star, which were again removed; and that, because he protested against their removal, Private White was made a prisoner and confined to the guard room; whether the commanding officer s would have sent Private White to prison but for the intercession of the adjutant, who gave him an excellent character, whereupon he was fined only; whether he is aware that Private White made respectful application to the War Office on 31st May and 7th June last, without receiving any reply to his communication; and seeing that Private White has worn his medal and star at previous trainings without any complaint being made, and has now been warned that he must leave the battalion owing to the incident referred to, the Secretary for War will prevent this soldier being driven from the service merely for wearing decorations honourably obtained?

Is it not the fact that the regulations provide that no medals shall be worn on undress uniforms?

By the regulations medals are worn in review order, i.e., on tunics, and ribbons only are worn when troops parade in "marching" or in "drill" order. Several men in this battalion have medals, but Private White alone appeared on parade in marching order wearing his medals, and was consequently ordered to remove them. The colour-sergeant of the company cut them off, Private White lending him a knife for the purpose. In the afternoon the battalion paraded again in "drill" order, when Private White, having replaced his medals, refused to take them off, and was confined for disobedience to orders. Nothing is known as to what the adjutant said to the commanding officer, but the man went before the bounty board, by whom he was fined 1s. Private White's communications have necessitated various references in order to verify the facts. No communication has been made to him that he should leave the battalion. The commander-in-chief holds that a serious act of indiscipline was committed, and that some punishment was necessary. At the same time, he considers that militiamen should be allowed to wear their medals on ceremonial parades and when walking out; and regulations will be issued providing that in the case of militia regiments which have not got tunics medals may be worn on these occasions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can give the House any information as to the progress made in supplying quick-firing guns to the Royal Artillery; how many batteries have already been equipped with quick-firing guns; how many are expected to be so equipped before the end of the current financial year; and whether any steps are to be taken to bring the reserve forces up to a similar standard of efficiency by gradually equipping the volunteer batteries with quick-firing guns?

As my noble Friend is aware, the increased rapidity of fire exhibited by these guns is due partly to the mechanism of the gun itself, and partly to modifications of the gun carriage. Experiments with the new equipment have been and are being pressed forward by every means at the disposal of the War Office, and the Secretary of State hopes that the Ordnance Committee will shortly be in a position to recommend a suitable design for adoption.

Will the right honourable Gentleman answer the last paragraph of the Question?

It is impossible to equip volunteer batteries before the regular troops.

The right honourable Gentleman talks about experiments. Is he aware that the French and German armies had quick-firing guns nine years ago?

Yes, but it is not possible for us to adopt a gun until it has been recommended to the Secretary of State for War by the experts.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government in Egypt has made any inquiry into the causes of the epidemic of dysentery which broke out at Assouan last February and led to the deaths of three ladies; and, if so, whether the Report can be obtained; and what authority in Egypt inspects and is responsible for the sanitary conditions under which hotels and postboats in Upper Egypt are conducted?

No information has been received at the Foreign Office as to the cases of dysentery at Assouan last February, but Mr. Rodd will be asked to obtain a copy of any Report which may exist on the subject, and also in regard to the inspection of hotels and postboats.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that an attempt is being made by some land speculators to change the Welsh name of Llandrillo-yn-Rhos to Rhos-on-Sea, a mixture of Welsh and English, without history or association, thus ignoring the historic Welsh name known ever since the thirteenth century; and that there is a strong feeling in the district amongst all classes of the community in favour of the retention of the existing name; and whether the Post Office authorities will refuse their sanction to such a change?

An application was made last year for the name of the post office at Llandrillo-yn-Rhos to be changed to Rhos-on-Sea, but in the absence of a general expression of opinion in favour of the change the application was not acceded to. A change of name is not, as a rule, adopted until the new name has been brought into use in the address of the great majority of the letters, and in view of the strong feeling in the district this condition is not, I think, likely to be fulfilled.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Clogher Board of Guardians have, en the 16th instant, re-elected Miss Ann Eliza Magill as rate collector for the parish of Errigal; whether he will re-consider the decision to refuse the confirmation of this appointment, the duties of which she has efficiently discharged for five years; and whether, if there exists any difference between the laws of Ireland and England, to the disadvantage of Irish women, he will consider the advisability of amending the law in justice to the women of Ireland?

I am aware of the fact mentioned in the first paragraph. In reply to the second paragraph, I must remind my honourable Friend that if this lady had been discharging the duties of the office for five years she can only have done so by virtue of an irregularity on the part of the rate collector, as collectors have no power to act by deputy. I do not think that the Irish law could with advantage be altered with the object of enabling women to hold the position, and I am afraid I cannot undertake to re-consider the decision arrived at. Of course my honourable Friend will understand that this decision is in no way intended to reflect upon Miss Magill in particular, but is dictated by general considerations.

But will not the right honourable Gentleman take into account that Miss Magill has held the office for over five years?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James M'Cann, one of the magistrates who was on the bench in the Summons Court, Belfast, on the 6th instant, and who signed a certificate for a spirit grocer's licence, is traveller for a firm of wine and spirit merchants in Belfast; and, if so, has such action made him liable to a penalty of £100, under the provisions of the 35th and 36th years of Victoria, chapter 94, section 60?

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he is aware that the facts mentioned in the Question do not disclose any violation of the Act referred to, and whether, in such cases, if penalties are incurred, they can only be recovered by action in the High Court of Justice in Ireland?

I have no informaion whether the facts are as stated in the first part of the Question. If the provisions of the enactment referred to have been violated, it is open to any person to proceed for the recovery of the penalty.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, between the 24th of February and the 18th June, 1894, contracts were entered into by the Admiralty with certain contractors for the delivery of sis torpedo boat destroyers for sums amounting in the aggregate to £227,535, the dates of delivery for the several vessels falling between the 3rd December, 1894, and the 30th March, 1895; had any such vessels been delivered on the 31st March, 1897; how many of such vessels have been delivered up to the present time, and at what respective dates were the vessels in question delivered to the Admiralty; how much has been paid to contractors in respect of their construction, and what proportion of the amount voted for that purpose remains in the hands of the Admiralty; what is the total amount of the penalties for delay in delivery incurred under the terms of the contracts; and how many of such penalties have been enforced, and what is the amount recovered; and whether, in deciding upon the acceptance of tenders in contract work of this kind, the Admiralty regard time as an important element, and whether, if one contractor undertakes the delivery in a shorter period than another, the difference in time may, in the estimation of the Admi- ralty, be an equivalent for paying a much larger price?

Contracts were entered into for six torpedo boat destroyers for delivery as stated in the Question. Only one of these vessels, the Zebra, has been delivered—namely, on the 22nd October, 1897. £196,672, including extras, has been paid to contractors, the balance now outstanding being £32,329. The penalties incurred amount to £81,915. The question of remission of penalties has been considered only in the case of the Zebra, in which they have been remitted. Time is an element in the acceptance of tenders, and exceptional cases may occur where earlier delivery justifies the acceptance of a higher tender, especially where time is the governing condition of the contract.

Will the right honourable Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the ordinary form of contract—including the penalty clauses?

I should like to have notice of that Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the amount of salary paid to the electrician-in-chief to the Post Office; and whether he is allowed to do other work for electric or telephone companies?

The salary of the engineer-in-chief and electrician to the Post Office is £1,200 a year. Mr. Preece also receives varying sums every year for services rendered to the Colonies. Mr. Preece is not allowed to do other work for electric or telephone companies. There are a few municipalities which were obtaining advice from Mr. Preece on their electrical undertakings before he became engineer-in-chief, and they have been allowed to continue to consult him in regard to these works, but Mr. Preece has not entered into any fresh engagements of the kind.

Arising out of that Question, may I ask does the right honourable Gentleman consider it conducive to the good of the public service that this official should—

Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Irish Government has yet given permission to the Commissioners of National Education to pay in full the arrears of fee grant, as calculated in the Education Office, to those National school teachers who elected in 1879 to remain outside the provisions of the Teachers' Superannuation Act, and who have, in consequence, no pecuniary interest in the solvency of the Pension Fund?

The Irish Government have not given permission, to the National Education Commissioners to make such payments. No claims of the kind have been brought to the notice of the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of Education in Ireland have yet decided to sell their Tyrone estate to the tenants; and, if so, can he state at what price respectively to first term judicial tenants, to second term judicial tenants, and to non-judicial tenants; and whether, in the case of the last class, they will wipe out the arrears which resulted mainly from their inability to pay unreduced rents and costs of legal proceedings?

The Commissioners of Education have not yet decided to sell the Tyrone estate to their tenants, nor have they decided to remit the arrears due by non-judicial tenants.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have definitely refused to consider the representations that have been made by Her Majesty's Government with a view of securing compensation for the families of the British officers and men killed at Waima?

A communication on the subject has been addressed to the French Government, but no reply hag yet been received.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether all aldermen and councillors in the boroughs of Clonmel, Drogheda, Kilkenny, Sligo, and Waterford will, under the provisions, of the Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1898, vacate their seats before the elections on 25th November next; (2) by what date must the new borough registers be revised and by what date must the revised registers be published; (3) is he aware that most elective public bodies in Ireland are in favour of having the elections once in three years, and will that system be adopted; (4) and will he inform the House how casual vacancies occurring through death, resignation, or disqualification are to be filled up under the now Act?

Under the provisions of the Bill aldermen and councillors of the boroughs mentioned will not vacate their seats until the middle of January next. The Local Government register will be printed and come into force along with the Parliamentary register—that is to say, on the 1st January. Many of the local bodies are favourable to the triennial system, but the majority of them are not in favour of its being applied compulsorily. As regards the last paragraph, I must refer the honourable Member to the provisions of clause 91 of the Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Newbliss Petty Sessions bench of magistrates consists of five gentlemen, not one of whom is a Roman Catholic, although the Roman Catholics number two-thirds of the population; and, since the County Lieutenant does not recommend any Roman Catholic for the commission of the peace, will the right honourable Gentleman draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor to this case, with the view to the appointment of at least one Roman Catholic to the Newbliss magistracy?

I am informed that nine magistrates have been appointed to attend the Newbliss Petty Sessions, and of these three are believed to be Roman Catholics. The resident magistrate of the district is also of the same religion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any confirmation of the statement that Mr. W. T. Halstead, special correspondent for the New York Herald was re-arrested and sentenced to nine years' imprisonment by the Spanish authorities at Porto Rico, not, as at first alleged, for a repetition of the offence of photographing the fortifications of San Juan, but for the original offence for which he had previously been arrested and discharged; and whether, if this statement be confirmed, Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to procure the release of Mr. Halstead; and, if so, what success has attended their efforts?

No official confirmation of this statement has been received, but telegraphic instructions have been sent to Her Majesty's Consul at San Juan that if the report is true he is to apply to the Captain-General at once for Mr. Halstead's release on the ground that he has been sufficiently punished and that it is contrary to usage to re-arrest and sentence a prisoner for an offence upon which he has already been discharged. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has also on more than one occasion represented the case to the Spanish, Government, who are inquiring into it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that Volunteer brigades encamped this year at Aldershot cannot be supplied with the usual amount of transport in consequence of the autumn manœuvres, and will therefore be put to extra expense in providing transport for themselves, he will make some allowance to cover such outlay?

The allowances granted to Volunteer corps are intended to cover the cost of moving baggage to and from their camps. When Army Service Corps wagons are available at Aldershot they are lent for the purpose. If it should be the case that owing to the manœuvres special expenditure which is not incurred at other camps is occasioned this year at Aldershot, Lord Lansdowne will consider whether some assistance can be given.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a sub-lieutenant, who at Greenwich and Portsmouth has obtained two first classes and three second classes, receives no earlier promotion than one who has passed third class in all five examinations?

Promotion of sub-lieutenants is not governed, as the honourable Member appears to think, by classes only, but also by the marks which they obtain in the various examinations. An officer who obtained the classes referred to in the Question might or might not get earlier promotion than another who obtained no class higher than third class, according to whether his class in seamanship and marks in navigation came up to the prescribed standard. Certain changes in the present conditions of promotion of sub-lieutenants have, however, been proposed by the Committee on the Training of Junior Naval Officers, which are now under the consideration of the Board.

May I ask when the right honourable Gentleman anticipates being able to announce to the House the decision of the Committee?

I will give it at the earliest possible time. The work done is very heavy.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he can give any information as to the result of his inquiry into the accommodation provided in the various Voluntary schools in Oxford; and whether the already adequate accommodation for the number of children attending these schools will be recognised as such by the Department?

I am unable at present to give an answer to the noble Lord's Question, as the census of certain parts of the city, which is being taken by the School Board, at the request of the Education Department, is not yet completed. No change will be made in the practice of the Department in regard to the subject mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the losses of cattle from the Argentines amount to 80 per 1,000, as compared with 8 and 3 per 1,000 from Canada and the United States; whether there has been any improvement in the carriage of Argentine cattle to this country since the issue of the Report of the Board of Agriculture, 1896; and whether he can state if he is taking any or what steps to see that properly appointed ships are used in the service?

The losses of cattle shipped from Argentine, Canada, and the United States during 1897 were substantially those stated in the Question. During the first six months of the present year the losses in the Argentine trade have been at the rate of 67 per 1,000, a figure which indicates that some improvement in the position has recently taken place. The vessels engaged in the trade are continuously under inspection, and we have in several instances prohibited the carriage of animals by ships which in our judgment were unsuitable for the purpose. We shall continue to keep the matter steadily in view, for, in my opinion, the trade cannot be said as yet to be on a satisfactory footing.

On behalf of the honourable Member for Stafford, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether a contract for upwards of 2,000 cycles has been placed by the Post Office authorities without due notice having been given to the trade generally, and tenders publicly advertised for; and whether such contract, if given, has been confirmed; and, if not, whether fresh tenders will be called for before such confirmation be given?

No, Sir, no such contract has been placed, but the Postmaster General has under consideration tenders from 14 leading firms for a supply of 300 cycles to a specification specially prepared by the engineer-in-chief to the Post Office. He does not at present propose to call for fresh tenders.

Has the contract been advertised?

I gather it has not.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of star class life prisoners who were released since 1883, and the number of such prisoners who were released at the expiration of 10 years, 11 years, and 12 years respectively; how many life prisoners during the same period were sentenced to death and reprieved, and were since 1883 released; and how many star class life prisoners are now in prison (exclusive of treason-felony prisoners) who have served more than 15 years?

The answer to the first paragraph is 65, of whom 10 were released at the end of 10 years, six at the end of 11, seven at the end of 12. The answer to the second paragraph is 152, of whom 44 have been released. These figures do not include convicts sentenced at the present assizes or those transferred to asylums or Scotch or Irish prisons. The answer to the last paragraph is six. I should add that, In deciding when a convict under a life sentence can properly be released, the question whether he has been placed in the star class or not, which is purely a matter of prison discipline, is not taken into consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he proposes to take any steps to carry out the recommendation contained in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the improvement of horse-breeding in Ireland, that greater aid should be given by the State to improve the breeding of horses in Ireland?

A discussion took place on this subject in another place on Tuesday last, and Lord Denbigh then stated that the Lord Lieutenant was considering the desirability of creating an authoritative body in Ireland similar to the Commission existing for that purpose in England, for the encouragement of pure and sound thoroughbred horses, and that the question of the financial arrangements was also being considered.

On behalf of my honourable Friend the Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the case of Milner re Beall and Singleton, where it is stated that a large sum was invested in worthless securities or bogus companies which, although registered, never carried on business nor purchased the properties for which they were formed; whether the Public Prosecutor has been instructed to act in the matter; and whether the Board of Trade will prosecute the promoters of fraudulent companies on the application of shareholders who have been victimised by false promises?

I have seen a newspaper account of the case referred to. The Board of Trade have no power in regard to the prosecution of promoters of fraudulent companies. Where, however, a company is ordered to be wound up, and the investigations by the Official Receiver disclose primâ facie evidence of criminal offences, the Board cause a statement of the facts to be prepared and laid before the Director of Public Prosecutions.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has asked the Lord Lieutenant to add expert outsiders to the Vice-Regal Commission on Intermediate Education; and whether he can state what was the reply?

I have been in communication with the Lord Lieutenant on this subject. In view of the fact that the subject of the inquiry is the system which the Commission have to administer, and not the procedure which they have adopted, His Excellency does not think that sufficient reason exists for adding any additional members to the Commission as now constituted.

On behalf of the honourable Member for the St. Patrick Division of Dublin, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he can state what has been done with the money set aside for the new Science and Art Buildings, Dublin; and whether he can say when they will be commenced?

The only money set aside for science and art buildings in Dublin is the provision made in the Public Works and Buildings Estimate for sundry minor works there specified, and these are being proceeded with in due course. The honourable Member presumably refers to the proposed new College of Science for Dublin. No definite scheme for that institution has yet been before the Treasury. The Departmental Committee of last year did not propose any plan for its construction, thinking it desirable that another Committee, differently constituted, should inquire into that question. No financial provision can be made until a scheme has been decided upon.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he will take steps with local authorities in Ayrshire and Lancashire to allow Irish-reared pigs to be kept for fattening purposes by the people in counties mentioned?

The Ayrshire local authority have within the last few days made amended regulations in pursuance of which swine brought from Ireland will, under certain conditions, be admitted into their district, for fattening purposes. I am not aware whether the matter has recently been under the consideration of the Lancashire local authority, but I will bring under their notice the representations which have been made to me by the honourable Member respecting it.

Will the right honourable Gentleman see that the Lancashire authorities do admit pigs for fattening purposes?

It does not rest with me. I will communicate with the Lancashire authority, and as soon as I have received a reply will inform the honourable Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, considering the long delay of their trial, the hardships and sufferings they have already undergone, and the fact that had it not been for the information supplied by the British Foreign Office they would probably have escaped, the Government will now use its best offices with the Moorish Government to secure the pardon and release of Mr. Harry Grey and the other three British subjects who were recently condemned in the Consular Court in Tangiers to terms of three and four months imprisonment?

The sentences were pronounced by the Chief Justice at Gibraltar, and Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier has informed us that the time during which the prisoners had been in detention was taken into consideration in allotting the sentences. I am afraid that the fact that the service in which the prisoners were engaged was in deliberate disregard of the repeated warnings given, by the Foreign Office can hardly be accepted as a ground for mitigation of sentence. It is proposed, however, that the imprisonment shall, if possible, take place, not in Morocco, but in Gibraltar.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the justices of the peace for the petty sessions holden at Chipping Norton, in the county of Oxfordshire, on 29th December, 1897, when Sidney Lewis was convicted on the prosecution of the Queen at the instance of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for conveying in the way of his trade some of his workmen from their place of work to home, together with some of his trade plant, in a vehicle used solely for the purpose of his trade; and whether the Statute 32 and 33 Vic, c. 14, ss. 19 and 27, under which the prosecution was instituted, sanctions such a decision; and, if so, whether he will consider the desirability of proposing an amendment of the law to prevent a great hardship on small traders?

By the courtesy of my honourable Friend I have seen a report of the case referred to in his Question. The conviction was in accordance with the Statutes which govern the matter. It has always been found necessary to enforce the law strictly; and as at present advised I do not think there is any necessity for an amendment.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if any progress has been made, since the Debate on Friday week, in the negotiations for the restoration to Ireland of the Celtic gold ornaments now in the British Museum?

I have been making inquiries on the subject, and I find that the only two circumstances which permit the British Museum to give up any part of its collection are either that the part of the collection is a duplicate, or is useless for the purposes of the collection; and I am afraid that under neither category can be ranked the golden ornaments referred to by the honourable Baronet. No merely administrative act on my part can alter the conditions; and I am disposed to think that the best plan will be to institute a general inquiry into the relations of the authorities of the British Museum with those of Edinburgh and Dublin, with a view to preventing the removal of characteristic Scotch or Irish curiosities from the country of their origin.

Does the right honourable Gentleman propose to take steps to carry out this inquiry?

Yes, Sir, I do; and if the honourable Baronet will put a question on the subject I shall be pleased to tell him what those steps are.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what day the Queen's Colleges Vote will be taken?

I cannot fix a day for the Vote. But if I am able, as I think I shall be, to give some more time—it cannot be much—to Irish Estimates, I shall be glad to arrange for an opportunity of discussing any question which the honourable Member for East Mayo and his colleagues may desire.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can approximately state how much it has cost Ireland, from 1881 to 1896, or during the first judicial term, to fix fair rents in that country; whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists among the tenant farmers of Ireland owing to the general increase in rent by the chief Land Commissioners in cases appealed from the decisions of the Sub-Commission Courts; and whether, considering the expensive method of fixing rents in Ireland, he will advise the Government to bring in a Bill next Session of Parliament to enable the tenant farmers of Ireland to become owners in fee of their holdings?

No separate accounts have been kept of the cost of fixing fair rents in Ireland, either by the Land Commissioners or by the different county courts. Both the Commissioners and the county courts have various other duties to discharge in addition to the fixing of judicial rents, and it would be impossible to give the expenditure entailed by the fixing of fair rents alone. I may, however, state that during the period from the passing of the Land Act of 1881 to the 31st March, 1897, the total amount appropriated out of moneys voted by Parliament for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Land Commission, together with the salaries of the judicial and other Commissioners, which are charged on the Consolidated Fund, was about £1,473,753. I have no evidence before me that the fact is as alleged in the second paragraph, but I should certainly anticipate from experience that any increase of rent would cause dissatisfaction among tenants, and that any reduction of rent would similarly cause dissatisfaction among landlords. The answer to the third paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Diadem has been passed into the Fleet Reserve; and whether, to thoroughly test her capabilities, in view of the breakdown of H.M.S. Terrible, on her cruise from Gibraltar, he will order the Diadem to undertake a full speed cruise across the Atlantic?

The Diadem was commissioned on the 19th instant. A programme of steam trials has been arranged for her with a view to obtaining all the information required. It does not include a cruise at full speed across the Atlantic, but if fully carried out it will give a very thorough test of the efficiency of the engines. The object of the trials is to investigate carefully all the points connected with the machinery which may be found capable of improvement.

Will the right honourable Gentleman publish these trials, since there is great doubt as to the efficiency of the Belleville boilers, and it would be satisfactory if those doubts could be removed?

I presume it will be possible to do so, but I do not wish to commit myself without consideration. I am most anxious that every publicity should be given to the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state whether the post in the copying branch of the Colonial Office, recently filled by the promotion of an assistant clerk, was one of the six posts referred to in the statement made in this House on the 5th of December, 1893, by the then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies as being special posts to which the best second division clerks may look to be promoted if found qualified; whether a period of over twelve months elapsed between the occurrence and the filling up of the vacancy in question; and, whether, during that interval, the second division clerks serving in his department preferred a request that the Permanent Under Secretary of State would receive a deputation from their body with reference to the filling up of the vacancy, but that no opportunity was afforded them of sending such deputation?

This is a question of administration and necessitates a very long answer. The post of superintendent of the copying branch of the Colonial Office, which became vacant last year, was one of the six posts referred to in an answer given by the honourable Member for Poplar, then Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, on the 5th of December, 1893, as posts to which the best second division clerks might look to be promoted if found qualified, and if, as vacancies approached, the circumstances of the office should continue to justify their retention. On the occurrence of the vacancy it was thought advisable not to retain the post on the same footing and scale of salary, but to substitute an office, the holder of which should be styled supervisor of copying, with a salary not rising beyond £300, which is below the maximum of the second division clerks, and it has been filled by the appointment of an assistant clerk who had assisted the superintendent for several years, and had for considerable periods acted as superintendent during the absence through illness of the superintendent, and was in my opinion the person best qualified for the duties of the post. The answer to the second question is in the affirmative. There was no necessity for any deputation. The second division clerks who applied for the post stated their views as to filling up the vacancy fully in writing, and all or any of them who desired it might have stated them orally to the Permanent Under Secretary of State. I may add that since the date of the answer referred to in the question one second division clerk has been promoted to the rank of superintendent, four have been specially promoted to the higher grade of the second division, and one to a temporary staff post with increased emoluments, and that of the second division clerks then serving in the Colonial Office there are only four who have not received any special advancement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in the draft cantonment, rules sanctioned by him in his despatch of 8th July, 1897, it is provided that any medical practitioner who in the course of his practice becomes cognisant of the existence in any person of any infectious, or contagious disorder shall be bound, under penalty to give information to the cantonment authority; and whether the Indian Government have given any reason for omitting this provision in the cantonment regulations issued by them under date 15th October, 1897, and now in operation?

The Government of India were of opinion that the rule to which this, question refers was, as originally drafted, too wide, and that it required modification. As, however, it was desirable to issue the rules without delay, they decided to publish them without this particular rule, which they reserved for further consideration; but it was and their intention to restore it in a modified form. This will shortly be done, and I will then lay it on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the letter issued by the Government of India, Military Department, dated 20th November, 1897, which purports to state explicitly and in practical detail the policy of the Government of India with respect to the future treatment of venereal disease in cantonments?

In answer to a supplemental Question the other day I said I was not aware whether I had seen the actual document. I find now that it did pass before me, and it is included in the Papers which are already in print and which I have presented to the House.

I wish to ask the permission of the House to make a personal explanation with reference to a statement which appears in to-day's Standard, to the effect that I intend to oppose the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill on the Report stage, and have declared that I will carry on the struggle through an all-night sitting. I wish to say at once that that statement by the Standard is absolutely false and unfounded. I have made no such declaration, and have not even conceived such a thought. Indeed, I imagine that if the Government show a generous disposition with regard to Amendments, the Bill can be disposed of early. I should have taken no notice whatever of the statement in the newspaper, which I have observed is so often remarkable for the inaccuracy of its statements, had I not conceived that the First Lord of the Treasury or the Attorney General might possibly have read the paragraph—

Order, order! The honourable Member is utilising the occasion for something more than a personal explanation. I am sure the House will accept his statement.

May I ask if it is the intention to proceed with the Vaccination Bill to night?

No, Sir. And may I point out it is not usual to discuss the general principles of a Bill at any length on the Third Reading.

When will the Bill be taken?

I cannot say as yet, but I warned the House yesterday that it might have to be taken late in the sitting.

May I suggest that if the Bill were put down as a First Order on the understanding that the discussion would not exceed two hours it would be more convenient?

The difficulty would be to confine the Debate to two hours. We have to send the Bill to the Lords.

When will the Prisons Bill be taken? I notice that, although in his statement the other day the right honourable Gentleman named it immediately after the Vaccination Bill, he is taking the Criminal Evidence Bill before that.

I do not recall that, but I have looked upon the Bill as one not requiring much further discussion.

The right honourable Gentleman certainly said the business for the early part of this week would be the Vaccination Bill and the Prisons Bill.

When I assented to clause 3 of this Bill, it was pointed out to me that the clause went further than was necessary, and a suggestion was made that some limitation should be put upon it. So far as this Amendment is concerned—this new clause, subject to your ruling, Sir—the House will see is a real protection over clause 3. Of course, I shall have something to say as to the provision later on, but in moving this new clause I do not think I ought to detain the House.

I have a small Amendment to this clause, Sir, after the word "charged," at the end of the third line, I should like to insert the words, "wife or husband of the person charged."

I have not yet put the Second Reading.

I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General what cases he thinks will arise in which the right of reply will depend upon other circumstances. I am only aware of one, and that is where the Attorney General in criminal cases appears on behalf of the Crown. I do not know whether there are any other cases of any right. No doubt the clause carries out what are the wishes of the right honourable Gentleman, but I hope he will say a word or two on the subject.

As an Amendment to this clause I beg to move after the word "charged" at the end of the third line that the words "wife or husband of the person charged" be inserted, because I presume that whatever rule applies to the prisoner in this matter would also apply to the wife or husband of the prisoner, and if it does not, there should be some good reason why it does not. I merely move this in order to obtain some explanation.

We have discussed this question from many points of view, and I believe we ought not to go further in this clause. The real object of the clause is that there may be no disadvantage to the prisoner who is giving evidence himself, but that does not arise in the case of witnesses who are only witnesses and not persons charged. If a wife or a husband were called as a witness, in order to present their views of the facts as regards the prisoner, the matter would not arise.

I think I was quite right in taking the opinion of the Attorney General, and after his explanation I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The Motion which stands upon the Paper in my name will, as you have intimated to me, require some alteration, and I think that all difficulties will be met if it reads as follows—

"In criminal proceedings in which the Attorney General, or Solicitor General or any persons acting as their representatives, shall appear to prosecute for the Crown, and the person charged shall give evidence on his own behalf, under this Act, the same rule with regard to the right of reply which is followed in other criminal proceedings shall apply."

Now, the question which I wish to raise is one of considerable importance, and one in which the general public take a great interest, and in order to make the matter plain I think it is necessary in the first place to speak upon the best authority we have as to what the existing rule and law really is, and I think the best authority we have upon that subject is "Russell on Crime." In volume 3, page 456, there is a reference to this matter in which it is held that in cases of public prosecution for felony, instituted by the Crown, the law officers of the Crown and those who represent them are in strictness entitled to reply, although no evidence is produced on the part of the prisoner. According to some authorities it is only the Attorney General and not the Solicitor General who has the right to reply, but it is sufficient for my purpose to take that rule as applying the right beyond all dispute to the Attorney General, when he appears in criminal proceedings where the prosecution is instituted by the Crown. Now, Mr. Speaker, while fully admitting that that practice is established beyond all controversy, many of our most eminent judges have expressed strong disapprobation of it. Baron Marten said the right in question was a very objectionable one in his opinion, and he should limit it as far as possible that he wished that he could prevent even the Attorney General of England from exercising it. There are many cases where our eminent judges have expressed a strong opinion of disapprobation to this right of the prosecution in proceedings instituted by the Crown. I think that rule really ought to be reversed, because, in a case where the Attorney General is brought down to prosecute, you have the greatest ability brought to bear against the prisoner; you have all the prestige of the highest legal officer of the Crown being engaged throughout the trial, and where, perhaps, there is already, or may be existing, in the minds of the jurymen a little prejudice against the prisoner in consequence of the case having been considered of such importance that the Attorney General has been brought down to prosecute—that is surely not a case where this exceptional privilege ought to be given. Only a few weeks ago the Attorney General was prosecuting in a case at the Central Criminal Court and the counsel on behalf of the prisoner objected to this right being exercised. Of course, he did not object to it in the legal sense of the word, but in his address to the jury he commented very strongly upon the fact that the Attorney General had chosen to insist upon this right. When the Attorney General came to reply he referred to the observations which had been made by the counsel on behalf of the prisoner, and said it was not a privilege to have this right of reply, but a very great responsibility. I state that case because I think it is a very significant illustration and strongly supports the action which I am now taking in asking Parliament now to express an opinion upon the subject, because it was recognised in that case by the profession, and recognised by the public generally, that that prosecution was conducted, if I may use the expression, with the very greatest moderation against the prisoner, and although the prosecution was conducted in so admirable a spirit, the right honourable Gentleman the Attorney General felt himself bound in the high office which he holds to claim this right of reply, and to exercise the great responsibility that in that position fell upon him I think that the Attorney General would himself be pleased if by the high authority of Parliament he were relieved of this great responsibility. We have to consider whether Parliament will abrogate the old rule.

Order, order! The only question which can be discussed on this Amendment is whether in cases where a prisoner has been called as a witness and no other evidence has been given for the defence the law officer of he Crown is to have the right of reply.

As under the Speaker's ruling I cannot argue in support of the general abrogation of the rule my Amendment would be open to the charge of being illogical. I quite admit that my Amendment is rather illogical, but though it is illogical I do not think that in substance and in fact any evil results will follow from it. What I am now submitting will result in this, that if the House decides that after the prisoner has given evidence the Attorney General is to have the right of reply, it would still be a case of a fortiori, and it may reasonably be assumed that no subsequent Attorney General would think himself justified in exercising the right.

I think the House will recognise, whatever view they may take with regard to the general question, that it would be quite impossible to put this Amendment into the Bill. The responsibility of replying will still rest with the Attorney General if the Amendment is carried, in cases in Which -the prisoner is not called, and it will be rather absurd to take the right away in cases in which the prisoner is called. The honourable and learned Member has not stated the practice of the present day quite correctly. I believe that this special right of reply can only be exercised by the Attorney General or Solicitor General in person and cannot be exercised by their representatives. I can assure the House that it ought not to alter the present practice without very serious consideration. I am of opinion that in many oases the right of reply of the law officer is exercised to the advantage of the accused person. When several persons are charged together, as is the case of the Walsall anarchists at Stafford, and in long firm and fraudulent company cases, it is very important that the prosecution should have the responsibility of polluting out the different degrees of guilt of the prisoners after the speeches of their counsel. I have myself been engaged in cases in which topics have been introduced which it has been my duty, in the interests of the prisoners themselves, to notice in the course of my reply, in order to prevent injustice being done. The Speaker has ruled that in respect of the right of the Attorney General and Solicitor General to reply when no evidence is called for the prisoner no change can be made by this Bill, and it would be absurd to make a kind of exception to the rule in connection with cases in which additional facilities for giving evidence are to be extended to prisoners. The Amendment would create anomalies, and I must resist it.

It is with the greatest possible regret that I am obliged to take up a position antagonistic to my honourable and learned Friend on this occasion. The present practice under which law officers of the Crown have a special right of reply is, in my opinion, illogical and full of the greatest possibilities of unfairness to a person on his defence. Mr. Speaker, it may be said that this power is never abused, but I have myself known a case where an attempt was made to abuse it, and I am sure that it is capable of abuse. Well, my honourable and learned Friend gives the oddest reasons. He says, in certain cases, where several prisoners are charged together, it is to the advantage of a prisoner that the Attorney General should have this right of reply, because he may be able to point out the difference in the case as regards one prisoner or the other. Well, I venture to point out that that is not the duty of the prosecuting counsel; that is the duty of the judge. He speaks after the prosecuting counsel has finished, and to him may safely be left the duty—and it is a judicial duty—of pointing out how the evidence varies in regard to the different prisoners. Now, the Amendment, I agree, is limited in its terms and seems most inadequate—I will not go so far as to call it a ridiculous Amendment—but it will, at all events, secure that in every criminal case hereafter, if the prisoner, and only the pri- soner, is called for the defence, the law officers should have no special right to distinguish that case from other cases. Although it does not go, and cannot go, as far as I should most earnestly like to see it go. I cannot refuse to support it because it only goes a little way in the right direction. I may say that, so strong has my opinion been with regard to this right of reply, during the six years that I had the honour of being a law officer, and the prosecutor in certain criminal cases, I invariably followed the ordinary rule, and declined to avail myself of what I considered was an odious privilege. I sincerely trust that the words which my honourable and learned Friend has introduced this evening may limit in future the practice of claiming the right of reply, even if we are not able to do away with the right itself. It is said that topics may be introduced in the defence which ought to be dealt with upon the responsibility of the law officers of the Crown only. I think I know the cases to which this reference is made—namely, those in which, in times of great trouble, excitement, and tumult, there may be very strong appeals made on behalf of the defence. I do not, however, see any rear son connected with that class of case which ought to entitle a law officer of the Crown to exercise a privilege of this kind. I cannot but hope that, notwithstanding the position that my honourable and learned Friend has taken, and notwithstanding that the Amendment is but a small instalment of a reform, that the House will accept it, and, so far as the limits of the Bill will allow, will carry out a real and important reform.