I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if, having regard to the fact that loss of life at sea is now more frequently due to collision and sudden foundering, as in the case of La Bourgogne, than to storms, any regulations are in force on British ships, or on ships seeking clearance from British ports, as to the hanging of the boats and exercise in launching them, or as to notices to passengers, sailors, firemen and stewards with regard to boat stations in case of alarm, and similarly with regard to life-belts, life-rafts, and other life-saving gear; and if obedience to such regulations is ever the subject of inspection by the Board of Trade?

My right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Trade has requested me to answer in his absence. The statutory rules and regulations under the Merchant Shipping Act require the boats and other life-saving appliances of all British ships to be kept so as to be at all times fit and ready for use, and in the case of passenger steamers such appliances are inspected, and the boat-lowering gear tested, by the Board of Trade Surveyors at each survey for renewal of the Passenger Certificate. In the case of emigrant ships, notices are posted in each compartment suggesting that crews should be assigned to the different boats, and that they should be exercised as opportunity arises. The Board of Trade officers also thoroughly inspect boats and all life-saving appliances while an emigrant ship is being fitted for a voyage; and, in addition, when clearing vessels exercise the men in lowering one or two boats with the proper crew assigned in each case—the boats selected for lowering and manning being varied at each inspection.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that cartridges manufactured by the Normal Powder and Ammunition Company, Hendon, are very much delayed in transit by the Customs authorities; whether he can state the cause of the delay in delivering the cartridges sent by the company to Mr. Henry Brannigan, Castleblaney, on 20th May; and if he will see that in future cartridges sent by the company to Ireland will be promptly delivered?

This is a Customs Question. The cases of alleged delay in the delivery of the manufactures of the Normal Powder and Ammunition Company have not come under the notice of the Board of Customs. There was certainly no delay on the part of the Department with respect to the cartridges mentioned as having been consigned to Castleblaney. These were not presented for shipment at Holyhead until the 27th May. They left that port, by the Connemara, at 1.56 a.m. on the 28th, and were passed by the Coastguard at Greenore on the same day.

How was it that it took from the 20th to the 27th May for the cartridges to reach Holyhead?

I cannot say. The Customs are not responsible for that.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the follow- ing case: A.B. died in January last, leaving a large sum of money to his nephew, CD., on his attaining the age of 21 (which he will do in October), but in the event of his dying under age the money is to go to three other persons, the share of one of those persons being directed to be settled. Estate Duty on A.B.'s death is being paid. If CD. lives to October next no part of the money will be settled, and if he dies in November Estate Duty will be again paid on the whole sum; but the Controller of Inland Revenue has claimed settlement Estate Duty also in respect of one-third of the amount, on the ground that it is contingently settled; and whether, in view of the fact that the injustice of this claim has been recognised by him, and prevented in the cases of persons dying after the 1st July instant, the day on which the Finance Act, 1898, commenced, he will give directions that the claim shall not be enforced in such cases?

Section 14 of the Finance Act of this year was intended to meet cases such as that put by the honourable Member. But it applies only in the case of deaths occurring after the commencement of the Act, and I cannot give directions which would make it retrospective.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what decision has been arrived at with reference to the disposition of the new buildings for science and art at South Kensington; and whether the art buildings are to be placed on the east side of Exhibition Road and the science buildings on the west side, in accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee?

No decision has yet been arrived at. I have on several occasions given to the House my assurance that directly a decision has been come to I will at once inform the House of its nature. I regret that the honourable Baronet seems indisposed to accept this assurance.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether ha is aware that on the Great Northern. Railway (Ireland) no passenger train leaving Dundalk for Enniskillen stops at Cullioville Station from 9.32 a.m. to 7.51 p.m. any day of the week except Monday; whether he can say if the Great Northern Railway are acting legally in leaving Crossmaglenn and a thickly-populated neighbourhood without rail way accommodation for over 10 hours whether he can state if any other station on the Great Northern system is without railway communication for over 10 hours, excepting Cullioville; whether he is aware that during the management of Mr. Robertson the 4.15 train from Dundalk stopped at Cullioville; and if he will make representations to the company to stop this train at Cullioville in the future?

The Board of Trade cannot give a legal opinion as to whether adequate facilities are afforded by the Great Northern Railway of Ireland—the jurisdiction is in the Railway and Canal Commissioners. The Board of Trade feels strongly, however, that the company should improve the train service, and representations to that effect have been and are being made to them.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that on the recent burial of one William Griffith Jones in the churchyard of the parish of Llansamlet, in the county of Glamorgansihire, on an application being lawfully made to the vicar for his interment in a family grave, the vicar, on receiving notice of requirement of a Nonconformist burial service, pointed to a corner of the churchyard then unused for burial purposes, and so situated that reasonable objections might be taken to the site by the relatives of the deceased; and that the vicar told the applicant, pointing to the place, that it was there that he buried the dead of such that bring him these papers; whether he is aware that in this case the relatives of the deceased submitted, in consequence of the vicar's words and actions, to the burial of the deceased in accordance with the rites of the Church of England; and whether he will take steps to compel the Vicar of Llansamlet and other priests of the Church of England in Wales to observe the law?

I gather from a letter I have received from the vicar that the facts of this case are substantially as stated by the honourable Member. An incumbent has a discretion as to the part of the churchyard in which a body shall be buried, but I apprehend he cannot lawfully use his discretion for the purpose of compelling persons to waive rights conferred upon them by Statute. Whether the conduct of the vicar in the present instance was or was not illegal appears to depend on facts on which I can pronounce no opinion. It seems, at any rate, a matter for regret that he should have acted as he did.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that, at a marriage at the Presbyterian Chapel at Montgomery on the 18th of May last the registrar (who does not know Welsh) required the ceremony, or part of it, to be repeated in English after the whole (including the declarations required by s. 20 of 6 and 7 Will. IV., c. 85) had been solemnised in Welsh, although the Welsh language was preferred by the parties to the marriage and by their friends; whether, if the facts are as stated, the action of the registrar was legal, having regard to the provisions of the statute 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vic, c. 22, s. 23; and whether he will issue instructions to registrars explaining their duties in such cases?

I have no information as to the facts of the particular case referred to, but if the honourable Member will be so good as to inform the Registrar General of the case, and the name of the official referred to, he will make inquiries into the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether the number of offences and corporal and other punishments in prisons under the control of a chief warder have been proportionately three times as many as those in prisons controlled by a governor; and whether he will give legislation on the lines of clause 5 of the amended Prisons Bill

During 1897 the prison offences committed in military prisons under governors gave a percentage of about 16 on the number of prisoners. The corporal punishments were.07 per cent. In the prisons under chief warders the offences were 24 per cent, and the corporal punishments.2 per cent. The rules for the infliction of corporal punishment in military prisons are nearly identical with clause 5 of the amended Prisons Bill, and it is intended to alter the rules so that they shall conform to the Act when passed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, the Science and Art Department having obtained permission from the Board of Works to take a cast of the High Cross at Monasterboice, the workmen have been engaged in scraping the stone surface of the cross with sharp instruments, and that the surface of the cross has been disfigured by this process; and whether, in the opinion of some experts, there is not serious danger that the elaborate carving may be injured?

The Board of Works gave permission to the Science and Art Department to take a casting of the cross for the Dublin Museum. Before the plaster could be applied it was necessary to remove the moss and lichen from the hollows of the cross. This work was entrusted by the Department to a skilled Italian workman of artistic training who has been for some time in their service and has always done his work with the greatest care. He at first used a steel instrument to clear the surface, but attention was usefully called by Mr. Pentland, a local antiquarian, to the risk of injury by that process, and it was at once discontinued, and the remainder of the growth removed by washing. Skilled officers have been sent down both by the Science and Art Department and the Board of Works, and they have examined so much of the surface as is not already enclosed in plaster. No signs of injury appeared, and it is hoped that, when the plaster is removed, the remainder of the surface will be found to have taken no harm.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has made the promised inquiries into the reasons which induced the Government of the colony of Hong-kong to issue an order of banishment against Sun Yat Sen; whether he can now say what the grounds were upon which this order was issued; whether any application had been made to the Governor of Hong-kong by the Chinese Government for the expulsion of Sun Yat Sen; and, if so, was this application submitted to the Colonial Office before being acted upon; and whether, if no breach of British law has been committed on British territory by this Chinese reformer, the decree of banishment from Hong-kong will be withdrawn?

The promised inquiries have been made, and I have to supplement my previous answer as follows. Sun Yat Sen, not being a natural born or naturalised subject of Her Majesty, was, under section 3 of the Banishment and Conditional Pardons Ordinance of 1882, prohibited from residing in the colony for five years from the 4th of March, 1896, on the ground that he was, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, dangerous to the peace and good order of the colony. No application was made by the Chinese Government for his banishment, and he left the colony prior to the issue of the order; but there seems to have been no doubt that he was implicated in a conspiracy against that Government, which made and makes his presence in Hong-kong undesirable. I see no reason to interfere with the temporary prohibition of his residence in Hong-kong.

I wish to ask the right honourable gentleman whether he is aware that no opportunity has been given to Sun Yat Sen to meet the charges made against him.

I cannot answer that question without notice; but I think I have seen in the papers that this gentleman is now leading the rebels in China, and—

I hope he will be successful.

If that be true it will confirm the opinion of the Government of Hong-kong.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the increasing output of steam coal from the coal fields of Nova Scotia suitable for coaling Her Majesty's North and South American Squadrons; whether he is aware that this coal is used extensively by foreign navies and British and foreign merchant vessels calling at Halifax and Cape Breton, Canada; and if steps are taken to supply British men-of-war at Canadian stations with this coal and also to replenish the coal supply at Bermuda from these coal fields.

These coals have been used from time to time in Her Majesty's ships and for yard services at Halifax. They are bituminous and smoky, and their general use in Her Majesty's ships was discontinued in 1887, when the use of bituminous coal mixed with Welsh was given up throughout the Service and Welsh coal only used. In the present year purchases of Nova Scotian coals have been made for issue at Halifax to Her Majesty's ships for trial, and reports have been called for. With regard to the second paragraph, it is known that stocks of local coal are kept at Halifax and other local ports, which it is presumed is supplied to ships requiring replenishment thereat.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any precedent under section 299 of the Public Health Act, 1875, for declaring a district Council in default with regard to sufficient sewers in the case of a village such as Holcot, with a steadily decreasing population, now about 300, which is exceptionally healthy, and where there has been no epidemic, and over whose sanitary arrangements the district council has recently spent between two and three hundred pounds; and, if not, whether he will withdraw the order that the rural district council shall undertake further sewage works within six months?

In the case referred to the facts were fully inquired into, and as the result of that inquiry the Board were satisfied that the district council have made default in providing their district with sufficient sewers, and this being the case it became the statutory duty of the Board to issue the Order in question, and the Order cannot be withdrawn. As regards the question as to what course has been taken in other cases, the decision of the Board is arrived at in each case in connection with the particular circumstances of that case.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kilkenny, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider the advisability of extending the scope of the commission of Sir D. P. Chalmers to enable him to conduct an inquiry into the grievances of the native population in the Lagos and Gold Coast Settlements against the levying of the hut tax, and the cruel measures adopted for its collection?

There is no hut tax in either of those colonies. There is a municipal house rate in the town of Accra, but no cruel measures have been adopted for its collection.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kerry, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received resolutions from several bodies in Kerry in connection with Fenit Pier; and whether, considering that Fenit Pier has been constructed entirely at the cost of the ratepayers of the several baronies in the county, some provision will be made in the Local Government Bill giving the county council adequate representation on the Harbour Board?

I am looking into the question of the constitution of the Fenit Harbour Board but cannot in any case hold out any hopes that the matter will be dealt with in the Local Government Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to carrying out his promises with respect to the Customs catchers, he will further consider he advisability of recommending that he former rate of overtime—namely, eightpence per hour—be restored o the watchers when requested by the merchant, dock company, or wharfinger to attend in excess of the legal warehousing hours, seeing that watchers practically cannot now make overtime chargeable to the Crown; whether he will allow the watcher to receive the cab allowance when remaining on duty up to midnight, or when attending at 6 a.m. on the merchant's request, as was formerly the practice, seeing that the concession made in this respect as to attendance it 5 a.m. will not benefit more than about 20 men in the port of London; and whether, in lieu of the uniform cap now provided, he will cause he watcher to be supplied with a similar uniform to that issued to the new class of messenger (temporary) now being appointed to the Customs and taking the place of watchers and boy messengers?

The present conditions of employment have been carefully considered, and I cannot hold out any expectation that those relating to rate of overtime payments, or night employment, will be altered, except in respect of attendance at 5 a.m. or earlier, for which two hours' overtime will be allowed for disturbance instead of one. The number of watchers who remain in Customs employment for only short periods is so large that the proposal to give uniform cannot be entertained.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware of the grave inconvenience to the linen manufacturers of Annsborough, the business men of Castle-wellan, county Down, and to the gentry of the surrounding neighbourhood, that London or English letters cannot be answered in time to reach, their destination next forenoon; whether a mail train leaves Newcastle, within a few miles of Castlewellan, daily about two o'clock p.m. carrying mail bags for limited mail from Belfast to Dublin, and whether London letters carried this way reach London and principal English towns early on the following morning; whether he is aware that arrangements could easily be made whereby a mail bag could be sent to this train by car from Castlewellan; and whether he will make inquiry into the matter with the view of giving further postal facilities to the residents of the district?

It is the fact that letters from England to Castlewellan and Annsborough cannot be answered by the day mail of the day on which they are received. No doubt this may cause some inconvenience. A train carrying the English mail leaves Newcastle at 2.30 p.m., but it would be impracticable under existing arrangements for answers from Castlewellan and Annsborough to English letters of the same day to be sent by that train, because such letters do not reach Castlewellan until 1 p.m., or Annsborough until 1.45 p.m., and some time must then be occupied in delivery. The Postmaster General is making inquiry whether the arrival of English letters at Castlewellan and Annsborough could be accelerated, perhaps by sending them viâ Newcastle instead of viâ Newry as at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the serious physical discomfort to which jurymen ere subjected owing to the construction of the jury box; and whether, as the pattern of the jury box has come down to us unaltered from a time when criminal trials seldom, if ever, lasted more than one day, whereas trials now frequently extend over a week and upwards, he will, by means of a Home Office circular or otherwise, communicate with the local autho- rities having the charge of court houses, with a view to remedy this unnecessary inconvenience suffered in the discharge of an imperative and important public duty?

I have never, I think, received any complaints on this subject which would justify my taking such action as the honourable Member suggests, but I shall be ready, of course, to give attention to any representations that may be made to me.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kerry I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. John H. Calvert, Local Government Board auditor, has stated in his declaration of audit of the Kerry Grand Jury on the 3rd March, 1898, that the following sums of money are outstanding as arrears on former warrants: barony of Corkaguiny, £267; barony of South Dunkerron, £229 15s. 2d.; barony of Glanerough, £806 2s. 7d.; whether he can give the names of the baronial constables and their sureties in these three baronies; and whether steps will be taken against the parties concerned for the recovery of this large sum of money outstanding?

The facts, as disclosed at the recent audit of the accounts of the Kerry Grand Jury, are correctly stated in the first paragraph. The name of the constable for the barony of Corkaguiny, who> made default in 1891, and has since died, was Mr. Hilliard. His sureties are Mr. Hewson and Colonel Rowan. Out of a sum of £1,615 for which Mr. Hilliard made default, the sum of £1,415 has been paid, leaving a balance still due of £200. The constable for the other two baronies mentioned was Mr. Hutchins, and his sureties were Mr. M'Gillicuddy, now dead, and Mr. Bateman. Mr. Hutchins made default in 1884 for £2,484, of which £1,573 has been paid, leaving a balance of £911 still due. The grand jury are secured by life policy, mortgage, and promissory note against loss, and the debts are being paid by the sureties in half-yearly instalments.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will take the necessary steps to have the specimen cartoons which are at present hung unframed in Committee Room 10, and which are understood to be of considerable merit, restored, framed, and suitably hung; may I be allowed to say that I am well aware that the credit for the discovery of these cartoons belongs to the right honourable Gentleman?

I do not propose to have the cartoons touched for the present, but their framing, which presents certain technical difficulties, is under consideration. Directly a decision is come to I will inform my right honourable Friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what arrangement is in force between Her Majesty's Government and the Niger Company with regard to their respective contributions towards expenditure upon military and exploring operations now being undertaken in those territories in the neighbourhood of the Niger which have formed the subject of recent arrangement with France; whether any date has yet been fixed after which the duties collected by the Royal Niger Company on their own imports and exports will be collected for the account of the Imperial Government; and whether the Government will be able before the end of the Session to make a statement on the subject of the proposed acquisition of any portion of the Niger Company's territories by the Crown?

The answer to the last two questions is in the negative. There is an understanding by which the Royal Niger Company will practically be recouped for the services of the kind rendered by them at the request of Her Majesty's Government since January 1st last. But this matter will form part of the general settlement with, the company.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain on what grounds an official of the General Post Office has been, for some weeks placed in charge of the sub-post office, Clonmellon, county Westmeath; why the conduct of that office was taken out of the hands of Miss Higgins, the sub-postmistress; and how long is the existing arrangement to continue?

An investigation into the conduct of the office disclosed serious irregularities on the part of Miss Higgins, and it became necessary to put the officer in charge. It was only after much hesitation that the Postmaster General felt able to allow her a further trial on the understanding that, if she should give any further cause for complaint, there would be no alternative but to take the office out of her hands. Miss Higgins was restored to duty on the 13th instant.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with reference to the practice under which national teachers in Ireland have been for a considerable period compelled to buy reading books and all other school books from the Dublin stores of the Commissioners of National Education, whether he is aware that for sometime the teachers have been allowed to buy all their school books, except the reading books, from shops throughout the country, thereby encouraging the sale of books throughout the country districts; whether it is in contemplation to prepare new and more drastic regulations; and if a copy of the proposed regulations for the purchase of school books will be laid upon the Table of this House before such regulations are finally adopted by the Board of Commissioners?

This Question has been referred to the Board of National Education, by whom it will be considered at their meeting to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on Wednesday last the County Cork Grand Jury awarded constable Thomas Deevy, Royal Irish Constabulary, £400 compensation to be levied upon the county for injuries sustained to a finger while acting in his capacity as peace officer; whether ratepayers in England are compelled to compensate police constables who may receive injuries in the discharge of their duties; and whether steps will be taken to relieve Irish ratepayers from a burden which is not placed upon English ratepayers?

It is true that the Cork Grand Jury have unanimously awarded a sum of £400 to the constable named, as compensation for injuries sustained by him whilst acting in the discharge of his duty. It is, of course, open to the ratepayers to traverse the award before the judge of assize, and as the assize is still proceeding it would be obviously improper to discuss the matter at the present stage. I believe there is no power to award, similar compensation to police in England. I have no information as to the second paragraph. As to the third paragraph, I may remind the honourable and gallant Gentleman that it is proposed by Amendments passed in the Local Government Bill without a Division to extend the power to grant compensation to police officers for malicious injuries inflicted in the discharge of their duty to the cities of Dublin and Belfast, which were the only parts of Ireland in which such com- pensation could not hitherto be obtained. It is not proposed to deprive the Irish police of this power.

Why are the Irish ratepayers saddled with a burden which is not placed on the English ratepayers?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, having regard to the provisions of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and to the assurances given by the Government of China in respect of the Yang-tsze provinces in which British commercial interests are so predominant, Her Majesty's Government will demand from the Chinese Government full information as to whom and on what terms and conditions the concession for a railway from Pekin to Han-kau in the Yang-tsze Valley has been granted?

Application has already been made to the Chinese Government for this information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state if officers of the Army Medical Staff are obliged to retire at an earlier age than combatant officers, although they enter the Army several years older on an average; whether the rule regarding promotion to the rank of major-general has been applied to medical officers to the extent that they are ineligible for promotion after attaining the age of 57; and why the rule permitting all major-generals to serve on to 62 is not also made applicable to all surgeon-generals, seeing that such an extension of service would be economical to the State?

In the combatant ranks colonels retire at 57 years of age, and major-generals at 62. In the Army Medical Staff the age of 60 holds for both ranks. The medical officers have, therefore, the advantage of three years in one rank, while they lose two years in the other. Medical officers are not ineligible for promotion to the rank of surgeon-general after the age of 57, if recommended by the Promotion Board as possessing exceptional abilities. As a general rule, however, promotion to the rank of surgeon-general is only given to officers who have at least three years to serve. The Secretary of State is advised that, having regard to all the conditions involved, it would not be desirable to extend the rule under which major-generals are allowed to serve on to 62 to all surgeon-generals.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether stokers working night shifts in the Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, finish their shifts at 5.30 a.m., and, if not relieved at that time, are compelled to work till 8 a.m. before they can see a foreman to inform him of the fact; will he explain why the stoker gets no extra pay for the two and a half hours, and yet the man who fails to turn up at 5.30 a.m. gets stopped two and a half hours' pay; and whether he will make inquiries with a view to remedying the grievance complained of?

A similar Question to this was asked by the honourable Member on the 23rd May. The stokers referred to receive a rate of pay which covers an occasional necessity to work extra time, such as that mentioned in the Question. A man who gives less than his proper attendance, and thus oblige another man to do his work, is, of course, mulcted.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the carpenters employed in the General Post Office, North, have to work in underground rooms, so dark that they have to use the electric light all the year round; and whether steps can be taken to give them rooms to work in where they can have daylight at least during the summer months, as most of them are not entitled to any pension if they have to give up their employment through failing eyesight, which entails great hardship upon them and their families?

The carpenters working in the General Post Office, North, are employed by the Office of Works contractors. The accommodation provided for them is in the basement, but it is fairly well lighted throughout, having windows on each side opening into areas lined with white glazed bricks. The men are largely occupied elsewhere, and it is not considered that there is any reasonable ground for complaint. No other accommodation can be provided for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, why a memorial from London postmen, relating to a question of discipline affecting all postmen, was returned to the memorialists, contrary to the custom hitherto observed in such matters, and in spite of repeated assurances to the House that the Postmaster General is always open to receive petitions from members of the staff?

The memorial to which the honourable Member no doubt refers was one praying for the modification of the punishment inflicted on a postman for falsification of dates and absence without leave. The postman was dismissed in November last, and the memorial, which was received only a month ago, was returned to the signatories with an intimation that while it has been, open to the dismissed man himself to make any appeal on his own case, a right of which he had already fully availed himself, the Postmaster General was unable to receive a memorial from the staff respecting the exercise of his discretion in administering the discipline of the Department.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that Post Office employees who are members of volunteer corps and attend various military camps for training, do so at a loss of wages, while War Office employees are given leave of absence without any such loss; and whether the Postmaster General will see that Post Office Volunteers are not treated less generously in this respect than those employed in another branch of the Civil Service?

Post Office servants who are Volunteers do not always incur loss of wages by attending camps of instruction, as a considerable number take a portion of their annual leave for the purpose, when it can be so arranged, but others, it is true, have to pay for substitutes, and the Postmaster General regrets that he has not the power to allow all to attend free of expense. The Postmaster General has no knowledge of the practice which is pursued in the War Office.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could state when the Lunacy Commissioners will issue their Reports for 1897 for England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively?

I have made inquiry of the different Departments concerned, and am informed that all the Reports are in the printer's hands and will be ready for issue within the next two or three weeks.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India by whose authority writing paper for official use at the India Office has been purchased abroad, to the exclusion of British and Indian manufacturers and workmen?

All writing paper used at the India Office is procured from the Stationery Office, and the India Office has no control over the sources of supply. I have, however, ascertained that it is all manufactured in the United Kingdom,' with the exception of what is used for typewriting purposes. This has hitherto been of a pattern which, I believe, is supplied only by the American firm which makes the typewriting machines that are used in the public service generally; but if the Stationery Office can supply a satisfactory article of British manufacture, it will be readily accepted by the India Office.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended by the Government to impose a countervailing duty on all agricultural produce assisted with bounties imported into Great Britain and Ireland; and whether any bounty system on the principle of the proposed grant to the West Indian sugar, planters, to relieve native producers and agriculturists, is under consideration?

No, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why the quarter's salary, due on the 31st December, 1897, to the late sub-postmaster of Southerndown, has been withheld for over six months; and why the auxiliary postman attached to the same office has been doing duty since the 5th April, 1"97, to the 30th April, 1898, without making the usual declaration when accepting service under the Department; whether he is aware that the post office is at present inconveniently situate at the extreme end of the village; and that, before its removal to this position, a petition was sent from the inhabitants of Southern down to the Postmaster General praying that the new office should be placed in a central position; and what steps, if any, have been taken to carry out the wishes of the inhabitants at an early date?

The salary due to the late sub-postmaster of Southern down for the quarter ended 31st December, 1897, was withheld pending the final closing of the account between him and the Post Office, and through some oversight this item was subsequently not included in the settlement. The mistake is regretted, and the sub-postmaster has now received, payment of the amount due to him. The auxiliary postman referred to in the Question made the usual declaration on the 30th April last. His previous employment without having made the declaration appears to have been due to some neglect on the part of the local officials. The present sub-postmaster was appointed on condition that he provided a new office in a central position as soon as possible. The new office is being built, and it is expected that it will be ready for occupation in the course of a few weeks.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of Mr. Samuel M'Keown, who, early on the morning of the 12th of July, while in discharge of his duty as a reporter on the staff of the Northern Whig, was surrounded by a number of Nationalists in York Street, and when he said that he had never done anything to offend them, exclaimed that he was a Protestant, and inflicted such injuries upon him that he is still lying in a dangerous state in the Royal Hospital; and whether the perpetrators of the outrage have been discovered and brought to justice?

I understand the facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph, except that Mr. M'Keown was not detained in hospital. Whether he was attacked because he was a Protestant, or a newspaper reporter, or because, as has been alleged, he was mistaken for a police detective, I am unable to say. Two girls witnessed the assault on Mr. M'Keown, but neither he nor they are able to identify the guilty parties.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has received official confirmation of the reported murder by Pathans on the 12th instant of Mr. F. S. Wilde, an engineer employed upon the extension of the Bengal-Assam Railway, in the North Cachan Hills; and whether he has any information as to the circumstances under which the murder took place?

Mr. Wilde was not in the service of Government, and I have not received, and am not likely to receive, any official information, as to his death. But, having communicated privately with the Assam-Bengal Railway Company, I regret to say that I have reason to believe the report of his murder by Pathan workmen employed on the railway to be true. The company have no information as to the circumstances under which the murder took place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the rebellion in China, and as to the recent severe defeat sustained by the Imperial troops; whether he has an official corroboration of the report that 1,000 troops, of the Imperial army were slain on that occasion; and what steps the British Government are taking to safeguard their interests in the regions affected by the rebellion?

According to a telegram just received from Her Majesty's Consul at Canton, the rebels, who are said to be badly armed, and to number about, 6,000, encountered the Imperial troops on July 4th, and retreated westward with loss. The rebellion is not yet put down, but Her Majesty's Consul reports that it is difficult to obtain reliable information.

Can the right honourable Gentleman say where this defeat of the rebels is alleged to have taken place?

I do not know.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the fact that many of the constables in the Metropolitan Police Force are natives of Ireland and Scotland, and that, necessarily, the journeys to and from their native places occupy a considerable period of time, he would be good enough to give his sanction to a regulation under which any constable, desiring to spend his leave among his kinsfolk in Ireland or Scotland, might have permission, at his option, to accumulate two years' leave in one—taking, e.g., a leave of 20 days in one year instead of 10 days in each of two following years, as provided by the regulations now in force?

I have considered whether it would be practicable to give effect to this suggestion which the honourable Member has already made to me by letter, but I fear there are administrative difficulties which make it impossible. It is the case already, as have informed my honourable Friend, that officers who cannot reach their destination in 24 hours are allowed two days extra leave.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that, although the parish of Scawby, in Lincolnshire, is only 88 miles from Shaw and Oldham,, it takes two days for the delivery of a letter; and whether, considering that numerous complaints have been made in the past, and the difficulty from time to time removed by the postal authorities, and that it has been proved that the letters can be satisfactorily delivered in 24 hours, he will make inquiries with a view to the delivery being regularly carried out in the future?

Letters posted at Shaw before 8.12 p.m. and at Oldham before 9.30 p.m. should in the ordinary course be delivered at Scawby, in Lincolnshire, on the following morning. In the reverse direction letters posted at Scawby before 5.42 p.m. should be delivered at Oldham or at Shaw on the following morning. As the honourable Member was informed by a letter from the Post Office in November last, the delays which have occurred in the delivery of letters passing between the places in question have been mainly due to the late running of trains, and it is impossible to avoid occasional delay from this cause. It is found, however, that in one or two recent cases letters have unfortunately been mis-sorted in the Post Office, and the Postmaster General has caused proper notice to be taken of the errors.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the duty of a British Consul, stationed in a foreign country, in case of danger to the lives of British subjects under his jurisdiction and registered as such at his office, to give them notice of all arrangements made by him for their safety in case of a bombardment of the place in which they are residing; whether he has received information that the British Consul at Manila on the 29th May made such arrangements, and on the 30th May gave notice of the same to the members of the Manila Club; whether he is aware that on the attention of the British Consul being called to the fact that there were large numbers of poor British subjects in Manila who were not members of the club, and would not know what had been done for their safety, he declined to give any notice to such individuals, and said they must call upon him; and whether, considering that the consulate office is only open from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m., and that the Consul lives four miles away, he will wire out instructions that every step must be taken to inform all British subjects of the provisions made for their safety?

It is the duty of the Consul to take such steps as may be in his power to make the arrangements to which my honourable Friend alludes generally known to British residents. We have not heard of the incidents mentioned in the Question; but Her Majesty's Consul at Manila will be asked to furnish a Report on the subject. In the meantime telegraphic instructions have been sent to him to be careful to give full publicity to any notices which he may issue for the guidance of British subjects.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, since provision is made in Great Britain for the admission and care of private patients in public lunatic asylums, he will extend in the Local Government Bill or by other legislation this useful provision to Ireland?

By an Amendment to section 9, sub-section 6, of the Local Government Bill, introduced in Committee, power is given to county councils through the Asylums Committee to make regulations respecting the conditions as to payment and accommodation under which private patients may be admitted and detained in the asylum.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any ground for the alarm now being felt in Australia and New Zealand at the unusual massing of French troops in New Caledonia; and whether any change is contemplated in the dual control of the neighbouring groups, the New Hebrides, by the joint British and French Commission?

Her Majesty's Government have received no information with regard to the matter referred to in the first paragraph of the Question, and no such change as that indicated in the second paragraph is in contemplation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any objection to stating the conditions under which the exiled chief Mataafa is to be permitted to return to Samoa?

The conditions are a general declaration of loyalty to the Government of Samoa as established by the Berlin Treaty, and a specific pledge as to the locality of the chief's residence.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the Government have chosen the architects who are to prepare plans for the new public offices in Parliament Street and in Whitehall, provided for in the Act of this Session?

Yes, Sir, Her Majesty's Government have made a selection. They have requested Mr. J. M. Brydon to prepare plans and drawings for the new Public Offices on the Parliament Street site, and Mr. W. Young to prepare plans and drawings for the new War Office on the Whitehall site. These plans when completed will be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and before orders are given to proceed with the buildings the drawings will be exhibited for the inspection of Members. In selecting these gentlemen the Government have received invaluable assistance from the Royal Institute of British Architects.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the fair rent application of Timothy Leary, tenant on the estate of Robert H. E. White, heard by Land Sub-Commission at Bantry on 12th January last, and dismissed on 8th May last, whether he is aware that the point raised by the landlord was that the applicant was a labourer and paid part of his rent in cash, for which the receipt was produced and the balance in labour, when the Chairman of the Commission held it was open to pay part of the rent in labour, whether he is aware that months afterwards the application was dismissed because the tenant was a labourer; whether the lay Commissioners visited the holding to fix the amount of rent; and why the expenses of their inspection were incurred when the case was dismissed on merely a legal point?

I have nothing to add to my reply to the similar Question addressed to me on Monday last by the honourable Member, and I have no power to call upon the Land Commission to give an explanation of any action they may take in the exercise of their judicial functions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state in how many cases heard before the Chief Land Commissioners at Dundalk on 23rd and 24th June the rents were raised and lowered respectively from the valuations made by the court valuers on farms from the Shirley and other estates in county Mona- ghan; whether the court valuers were present in court when decisions in above cases were given, and if they gave any evidence; whether the chief Land Commissioners only accept the court valuers' valuation when in favour of the landlord; and whether he will make any change in the present method of fixing rents before the Appeal Court in Ireland?

It has already been pointed out to the honourable Member that the court valuers did not make an estimate of the fair rent in the cases referred to, but only of the fair letting value of each holding as it stood; the first paragraph cannot, therefore, be answered. The court valuers were not present in court on the occasion. The reply to the third and fourth paragraphs is in the negative.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the suction dredger sent by the Board of Works to Donaghadee Harbour, in June, 1896, with the object of removing the silting there almost entirely failed in doing so; whether he is aware that at present from five to six feet depth of sand and loose stones now render the harbour very dangerous to vessels; whether he is aware that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners can with one of their ladder or bucket dredgers remove from the harbour and channel of Belfast about 12,000 tons of dredging per week, at the cost of about £100, notwithstanding that the stuff has to be taken away about seven miles from Belfast; and whether he will make inquiry with the view of having a ladder or bucket dredger sent to Donaghadee to remove the sand and stones which could easily be deposited within about half a mile of the harbour?

The dredger was sent in 1896 as an experiment. In the course of trial about 5,000 tons of accumulation were removed, but it was found that the remaining material was not of a kind on which that dredger could be usefully employed. The Board of Works are aware that there is a considerable accumulation of sand and stones in certain parts of the harbour, but they do not regard the harbour as at all dangerous for the class of vessels which make use of it. The Board have no particulars as to the dredging plant or the dredging operations of the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, but they have now under consideration the expediency of further operations at Donaghadee, and in connection therewith they will pay regard to what is done at Belfast and elsewhere.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty under what authority and for what purposes a piece of Hayling Beach Common, Hampshire, 100 feet square, has been enclosed by the Admiralty; whether any, and, if so, how much compensation has been paid to the commoners for the extinction of their rights over the land enclosed; and whether, seeing that the local authority is opposed to the enclosure and in view of the action taken by Parliament in 1886 in preventing the proposed enclosure of portions of this common, due regard has been taken to the interests of the public by the substitution of land equal in area and value to that now enclosed, or otherwise?

The land in question has been leased from the Lord of the Manor for a term of 21 years for coastguard purposes, one of the conditions of the lease being that the Admiralty should fence in the site. My information is to the effect that there has been no encroachment upon the rights of the commoners and no compensation has been made to them in money or land. But if there is any dispute upon this question, it should be settled between the commoners and the Lord of the Manor. The Admiralty are only tenant, and are bound by the conditions of the lease.

Then has the Crown come to the conclusion it is not common land?

The conclusion is that there is no encroachment on the rights of commoners.

That it is not, in fact, common land?

I presume that may be the inference, but it is rather a legal question.

I beg to ask the Attorney General if there is any age at which recorders, county court judges, and stipendiary magistrates are required to retire; if it is usual for one individual to hold the positions of county court judge and recorder in the same district; if there is any rule, written or unwritten, concerning the practice of a lawyer's son before a father sitting as county court judge or recorder; and if there is any power of revising a criminal sentence if the public sense feels that it has erred on the side of excessive leniency?

As far as I know, there is no age fixed for the compulsory retirement of recorders, county court judges, or stipendiary magistrates. There is no uniform practice, but of late years it has not been usual for the same person to hold the office of county court judge and recorder in the same district. There is no written rule applicable to the question of a son practising before his father, but the Bar has always set itself steadily against such practice, and discouraged it in every possible way. The answer to the last paragraph is in the negative.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether the Order in Council passed on 9th July, 1864, condoning offences against neutrality on the part of British subjects in China, is still in force; and, if so, whether this ordinance will apply to British subjects who may be engaged in the present rebellion against the Government of China, as it did originally in favour of British subjects who fought on the side of the Imperialists against the Ti-Ping rebels; and whether he can state why the ordinance of 17th January, 1855, known as "Sir John Bowring's Ordinance of Neutrality," was so modified by the Order in Council of July, 1864, as to justify Englishmen who fought for the Emperor of China, and condemned British subjects who took part in the Ti-Ping rebellion?

The Order in Council of July 9th, 1864, is no longer in force; it was repealed by the Order in Council of March, 1865, which at the same time repealed Sir John Bowring's Neutrality Ordinance of January 17th, 1855. The reasons for the modification of Bowring's ordinance will be found fully stated in the speech of Mr. Layard, Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the House of Commons, on April 22nd, 1864. I shall be pleased to give the honourable Member any further information he requires.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, owing to the failure of the Old Age Pensions Committee to recommend any scheme for old age pensions, he will give a day to discuss the Old Age Pensions (Friendly Societies) Bill, or other Old Age Pensions Bills now on the Order Paper?

Even if there were time at this period of the Session to debate the subject, I do not think anything would be gained to the cause the honourable Gentleman has at heart by discussing the Second Reading of the Old Ace Pensions Bill.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the inspector to the Local Government Board, on his recent inspection of Belfast Workhouse, suggested large changes in the management of that institution; whether he can say if these changes recommended by the inspector are due to the fact that the landlords in the future will not have to contribute to any increase of the poor rate; whether he can state if the inspector who advised these reforms has been long inspecting Belfast Workhouse; and whether he can explain why this gentleman waited so long to complain of the insanitary and dilapidated state of the laundry, lavatory accommodation, bad food of the inmates, overcrowding of the infirmary, insufficient water supply, and increase of the staff of nurses?

The fact is not as stated in the first paragraph. The changes suggested by the inspector are such as are rendered inevitable from time to time in a large establishment like the Belfast Workhouse. The inspector has been five years in charge of the district which comprises Belfast, and he has constantly drawn attention in his Reports to the growing need for improvements in certain departments of the workhouse. The guardians have expended large sums in making extensions and carrying out improvements, and it should hardly be necessary to observe that the inspector, who, in the discharge of his paramount duty, suggested the carrying out of necessary alterations and improvements which have been largely undertaken in the past by the guardians, was not influenced by considerations of the incidence of the poor rate.

On behalf of the honourable Member for North Kilkenny I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the danger to persons travelling between Jeddah and the interior of Arabia in consequence of the lawlessness of the tribes and the incompetence of the Turkish authorities; and, if so, what steps would be taken to protect unarmed British subjects whilst journeying to Mecca and Medina for the Mahomedan festival of the Meolood?

The latest report received from Her Majesty's Consul at Jeddah, which arrived upon June 13th, speaks of a revolutionary movement in the Yemen, and of the despatch of Turkish troops, but does not refer to danger upon the Mecca and Medina road.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he could state what is approximately the total numerical strength of the Turkish forces in Crete; and whether it is intended that the decision as to the general question of the retention or withdrawal of those forces shall rest with the Admirals, or merely that they shall settle the details connected with the method of withdrawal, in accordance with principles already laid down, or shortly to be laid down, by the Powers chiefly concerned?

The total numerical strength of the Turkish forces in Crete is believed to be approximately 18,290 men, being 13,520 soldiers and 4,770 gendarmerie. The general question of the retention or withdrawal of these forces is a matter for ultimate arrangement by the Governments of the Powers concerned with the Porte, but the views of the Admirals on the subject will be, of course duly considered.

Can the right honourable Gentleman say whether all the Powers are now represented in Cretan waters with the exception of Germany and Austria?

Yes, Sir, I believe that is the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what financial resources the proposed provisional Executive Committee for Crete will have at its disposal for the purpose of carrying on the government of the island?

The question is under the consideration of the four Powers; but is no step can be taken in the matter without the consent of all of them I am unable at present to make any statement with respect to future action.

On behalf of the honourable Member for East Tipperary, I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the site for the erection of a new post office for Clonmel has for some time past been selected; and, if so, when the building of the post office will begin?

On the 27th of May last Treasury authority was given for the purchase of a site for a new post office at Clonmel, subject to satisfactory arrangements being made in regard to certain easements over the property. Negotiations with this object are in progress, but until they are completed it is impossible to state when the building will be begun.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. C. Hardinge has been appointed Secretary of Embassy at St. Petersburg over the heads of 10 senior secretaries; and whether Mr. Hardinge either possesses special qualifications or has rendered special services justifying his exceptional promotion; if so, whether he can state these qualifications or services?

The fact is as stated. Mr. Hardinge was in charge of Her Majesty's Legation at Teheran from January 14th, 1897, to March 31st of this year, in the absence of Sir Mortimer Durand, and performed the duties of a somewhat difficult position to the entire satisfaction of the Secretary of State, who is of opinion that he is specially qualified for the post to which he has now been appointed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he has come to any decision on my application that the evidence taken before the Indian Currency Committee should be laid before Parliament before the Prorogation?

I am quite ready to agree to the suggestion of the Committee upon Indian Currency, of which the right honourable Gentleman is Chairman, that the evidence and information which up to the close of the Session they will have collected should then be published.