I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the probable delay in the publication of the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for last year, it would be possible to publish the reports to the Chief Inspector of the various inspectors, or extracts from them, such as are generally given in the Chief Inspector's report; and whether, particularly, it would be possible to publish the report for 1898 of the principal, lady inspector, generally given as a whole; and the returns of accidents and prosecutions, generally given as appendices, so that they would be available before the discussion on the Home Office Vote, or at least before the end of the Session of Parliament?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer in the absence of my right honourable Friend. He thinks that it is quite impossible to break up and anticipate the text of the Chief Inspector's report in the manner suggested. But the tables relating to accidents and prosecutions could be issued earlier. He thinks that this would be useful, and he will make arrangements for their publication as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland is aware that the railway level crossing in High Street, Cowdenbeath, Fifeshire, is absolutely un- protected by gates for shutting public traffic off the railway during the passing of trains; and will he take such steps as may be necessary for the public safety?

The crossing in question is over a private, not a public railway. There are single, but not double gates, and special precautions by means of a watchman are taken for the safety of the public, with the result that only one accident has occurred since 1855, and no person was injured in it. The arrangements of the road are in the hands of the road authority, and the Secretary for Scotland has no jurisdiction in the matter.

I am personally well acquainted with the crossing. The railway is blocked by the gates, but the road was not. When a train passes, then the watchman stops the people.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the proposal to call up the Ross-shire Militia for annual training in the month of July instead of April, as hitherto, will seriously interfere with the avocations of many of the men who earn their livelihood as fishermen, will he consider the expediency of continuing the training during the month of April?

The proposal has been dropped, and the training will take place in Scotland at a time suitable to the convenience of the battalion.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to send the Carabineers to India in the trooping sea- son of 1899; and if he could explain why this regiment, which only returned from India in 1888, should be detailed for foreign service before the 15th, 14th, 13th, 10th Regiments of Hussars, and 12th Lancers, which corps all returned from India previous to 1888?

The Carabineers will go to India in the trooping season of 1900. Their position on the foreign service roster was advanced four years in order to obtain as soon as possible a due proportion of the number of Dragoon regiments abroad to that at home. The regiment when it goes abroad will have been 12 years at home.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the remarks of the President of the Admiralty Court, as reported on the 20th instant, under the heading, "Grievances of Pilots," in an action by Thomas Whit wall, a licensed Trinity House pilot, on behalf of a large body of pilots, to test the construction (if the Merchant Shipping (Exemption from Pilotage) Act, 1897, the defendants being the owners of a Norwegian ship whose captain had refused the services of an English pilot to pilot the vessel up the Thames to Gravesend; whether he is aware that the learned President expressed his great regret that there was no codification of a few simple rules laying down as to when ships should be under compulsory pilotage; whether any steps will be taken by the Government to carry out this recommendation; and whether, in view of the finding of the Court in the case, that foreign vessels without passengers are exempt from pilotage under the Act of 1894 and the Act of 1897, while British ships are not to exempted, the Government propose to take any and what steps to remedy this difference of treatment as between British and foreign ships and British and foreign pilots in British waters?

I have seen a newspaper report of the judgment of the President of the Admiralty Division of the High Court in the case of Whitwall versus Owners of "Columbus." The Board of Trade will bear in mind the remarks of the learned President as to the desirability of codifying the rules as to compulsory pilotage, but this could not be done without repealing and re-enacting the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts relating to pilotage, a task which I am not at present prepared to undertake. The honourable Member is, I am advised, not correct in his view of the law as to British ships. British ships when not carrying passengers are by Section 625 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, exempted from compulsory pilotage in the London District.

May I ask whether it is the fact that foreign passenger vessels, if their masters hold pilot certificates, are exempt, from taking pilots?

I should prefer to have notice of that Question; it is totally different to the one on the paper.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed to take any steps to prevent the extinction of rare or interesting species of wild animals or birds in Africa; and, if so, whether the cooperation of other Powers has been invited or secured?

Steps have already been taken to guard against undue destruction of wild animals by the issue of Game Regulations, and we are in communication with the German Government as to collective action. It is proposed to hold an International Conference in London in the spring.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government have it in contemplation to introduce a Bill framed on the lines of the Patent Agents' Registration Bill of 1894, as amended by the Select Committee; or, if not, whether he will carry out the recommendations contained in page 6 of the report of that Committee, namely, that unless the Bill, as amended, or some Measure on similar lines, should become law at an early date, the Board of Trade should remove the register, and the appointment and control of the Registrar, and the examinations, from the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, and make other arrangements to carry out the provisions of Section 1 of the Act of 1888?

No, Sir; I must refer my honourable Friend to a reply which I gave to a Question put by the honourable Member for the Strand on the 4th March last year. The position of matters is unchanged. The Board of Trade recommended amendments to the bye-laws submitted by the Institute under their Charter, framed so as to enable members of the profession of Patent Agents not members of the Institute to enter that body, and so obtain a position to take part in the government of the profession as a whole. If the proceedings under the bye-laws, still in progress, do not prove to have a satisfactory result, the Board reserve the power to take other action.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that, on Monday 25th July, 1898, Inspector Outram, with two detectives from the Criminal Investigation Department and two officers from the Assay Office of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, proceeded with a search warrant to the premises of Mr. Reuben Lyon, 125, High Holborn, London, and seized over 300 pieces of modern silver plate into which counterfeit hall marks had been transferred for the purpose of fraudulently and largely increasing their money value by representing them as antique silver plate; and if the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths, instead of publicly prosecuting Mr. Reuben Lyon, privately fined him a sum of money, withholding his name from publicity? I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Rome Department if he is aware that in April, 1897, William Wyatt and Charles Rimer were prosecuted by the Assay authorities and were found guilty of fraudulently transposing the hall mark from certain wares of gold to other wares of gold, without lawful excuse, and were sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment with hard labour; that in October of the same year John Jefferay pleaded guilty to a like offence and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude; and that in March of 1898 Isidor Weil was found guilty of feloniously producing imitations of the dies of the Goldsmiths' Company, and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour; and whether the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths possess the optional power of either privately fining or publicly prosecuting for such an offence; and, if the former punishment is inflicted, do the fines go into the funds of the National Exchequer or into those of the Worshipful Company of Goldsmiths? I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if in order to minimise the depreciation in the value of genuine antique gold and silver plate, such as that owned as family heirlooms, by private collectors, and by respectable dealers, and for the better protection of the public generally, he will take the necessary steps to have the law so amended as to transfer to the Public Prosecutor the duty of dealing with persons charged with forging or otherwise tampering with the hall mark, and persons dealing in counterfeit modern or antique gold and silver plate, with a view to their being adequately tried and punished?

The prisoners referred to in the honourable Baronet's second Question were convicted and sentenced as stated. Wyatt and Rimer were prosecuted by the Birmingham Assay Office, and Jefferay and Weil by the Goldsmiths' Company. With regard to Lyon, the Goldsmiths' Company inform me that, having received information that a large quantity of silver was deposited on his premises, the marks upon which were either forged, or had been tampered with in various ways, a search warrant was applied for and obtained, and a large quantity of spurious silver seized under it. The forgeries and transpositions of marks on this silver had been very skilfully effected, and no evidence being forthcoming that Lyon had himself made them or caused them to be made, the Company were advised by the counsel, on whose advice they had acted in prosecuting Jefferay and Weil, that, though the case was one of great suspicion, there was no material for a criminal prosecution, there being not sufficient evidence of guilty knowledge on Lyon's part. The Company therefore took proceedings, under 7 and 8 Vic, cap. 22, sec. 3, to recover the full penalty of £10 in respect of each article, and confiscated the plate which had been seized. Lyon professed inability to pay, but after some demur the amount was forthcoming, and was paid through a solicitor. The result of the action of r the Goldsmiths' Company is that Lyon no longer carries on the trade. In cases where the Company sue for penalties and those penalties are paid, they have no power to advertise the name of the offender. By Section 10 of the Act mentioned penalties recovered are to be applied by the Company "in defraying the expenses of their Assay Office and of detecting and prosecuting offenders" against the Act. By an earlier statute the Company are prohibited from making any profit out of their Assay Office, and I am informed that the Company perform the duties imposed on them at considerable cost to themselves. I have consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions as to the suggestion in the third question. The only offence (except bankruptcy offences after an order made by the Court under Section 166 of the Bankruptcy Act) which is specified eo nomine as one in which it is the duty of the Director to prosecute is murder, the other cases in which it is his duty to take action being generally defined in Section 2 of 42 and 43 Vic, cap. 22, and Regulation 1 of the Regulations made under the Prosecution of Offences Acts. I agree with the Director's view that there is no good reason for placing offences of the kind in question in a special category. I see no reason for finding fault with the way in which the Goldsmiths' Company or the Assay Offices carry out their statutory powers; and there is nothing to prevent the Director from taking action in any case should he think it desirable to do so, nor any person who may think there has been any failure of justice from communicating with the Director.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any compensation has been awarded to Postman Armsby, of Ely, for the loss of his horse, which was taken from his charge by the orders of his postmaster and was fatally injured while in charge of the man who used it by the postmaster's orders.

The question of making this-postman a grant towards the loss incurred by the death of his horse is under consideration, and the Postmaster-General is about to seek the authority of the Treasury for the amount.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he will explain why the allowance paid as compensation for the loss of the privilege enjoyed by postmen, prior to 1892, of carrying private parcels has not been continued to the rural postmen of Watford and Ellesmere in addition to their ordinary wage; and is he aware that these men are receiving at the present time only the same wage as comrades who never possessed the privilege of carrying private parcels?

As this question refers to alterations of payment dating back for a long period, and some of the documents relating to them are not at this moment available, it has not yet been practicable to obtain full information upon the points raised. But the matter is receiving the Postmaster-General's attention, and he will communicate with the honourable Member upon it as early as possible.

I leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if he can explain why postmen John Knap-man and William Chave, of Torquay, who were in February 1894 appointed as full time unestablished men, and for three years after received the same increment as the established men in the same office, have had refused to them the increased increments recommended by the Tweedmouth Committee; on what ground has it been decided that they are only entitled to an increment every alternate year; and are they not included in the recognised established force at Torquay, which, according to the Estimates, consists of 45 postmen on a wage scale rising from 18s. to 2Cs. weekly by an annual increment of 1s. 6d.?

The postmen John Knapman and William Chave, of Torquay, are not entitled to any increment under the provisions of the Tweed-mouth Scheme. On the contrary, under a strict observance of the rule of the Post Office these men should not be employed at all, as they failed to obtain the necessary Civil Service Certificate, but as an act of grace the Postmaster-General allowed them to remain in the service in the capacity of unestablished postmen on fixed wages. As a further act of grace they have from time to time been granted increases of pay from 1s. to 1s. 6d. a week. I may state that both men signed a form stating that they clearly understood that their employment was of a temporary nature, at fixed wages, terminable at any time, and that it gave them no claim to pension, gratuity, or compensation.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the practice of the Diss bench of magistrates in refusing to grant certificates of exemption to conscientious objectors under the Vaccination Act, 1898. unless they have attended at the clerk's office on a previous day to fill in a form giving notice of their intention to apply for a certificate; and whether the magistrates are within their rights in requiring the attendance on two separate days of persons who in many cases would have to come a distance of several miles, and would lose wages on each occasion?

I am informed that the magistrates referred to by the honourable Member do not require applicants for certificates of exemption under the Vaccination Act, 1898, to attend at the clerk's office on a previous day; but that they expect all persons applying to the court to present themselves at the clerk's office previously to the sitting, in order that their applications may be put in proper form. If this practice, has the effect suggested in the question I think that steps should be taken to prevent this result, and I have so informed the magistrates.

Has the right honour able Gentleman's attention been drawn to the notice in the Diss Express of January 27th, in which it is stated that the practice adopted by the Bench is to require applicants to attend at the clerk's office on the day previous to their meeting, and—

Order, order! The honourable Member's Question is not in order.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, under Rule 70 of the rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898, for local prisons, it is intended to withhold all library books from convicted prisoners sentenced to one month's imprisonment?

Under Rule 70 prisoners will be supplied with instructive and educational books from the prison library during the first month of their sentence. After that they will be able by good conduct and industry to gain the privilege of having works of a more amusing character also to read.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment whether he can state what officers will he charged with the duty of inflicting corporal punishment in local and convict prisons under Rule 84 for local prisons and Rule 78 for convict prisons, in the Draft of Rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898; and if it is a fact that schoolmaster warders and hospital warders have in some cases been employed for this duty; and whether the employment of such officers for this purpose has been sanctioned?

As a rule the punishment would be inflicted by one of the ordinary discipline staff, the discretion resting with the Governor to select the most competent person. It is not likely that such a duty would be entrusted in the ordinary course to the schoolmaster or hospital warders. There is no rule regulating this matter, which can be safely left to the discretion of the Governor, who is best able to judge, according to all the circumstances of the case.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Draft of Rules proposed to be made under the Prisons Act, 1898, and now upon the Table of the House, contains, in accordance with the advice of the Departmental Committee of 1894, all the rules relating to the administration of local and convict prisons; and, if not, whether he will lay all prison rules upon the Table of the House?

The Draft includes the whole of the Rules, properly so called, for the government of local and convict prisons. There are no other rules in existence, but merely orders or general instructions as to the mode of carrying out the Rules. These are usually called Standing Orders, and are liable to alteration from time to time, according as circumstances may dictate. The Secretary of State has undertaken to furnish the Library of the House of Commons with a copy of these Standing Orders for Local and Convict Prisons, and copies will be furnished accordingly as soon as the Rules on which they are based mature. The House of Commons will then be in possession of a complete set of Rules and instructions, regulating the government of Prisons in every detail and particular.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in all future Annual Reports of the Commissioners and Directors of Prisons, a tabulated statement of the number of lashes inflicted in every case of corporal punishment, and the number of days of dietary punishment to which prisoners have been sentenced, will be inserted?

The answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, but the Home Secretary is afraid he cannot undertake to give the details suggested in the second part, as their collection and tabulation would cause an amount of clerical labour wholly out of proportion to the value of the result obtained.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange that the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners shall in future contain the Annual Reports of the Visiting Committees of Local Prisons and of the Boards of Visitors of Convict Prisons?

These Reports are for the information of the Secretary of State, rather than of the public, and I think it will be found that they are more valuable if treated as confidential, than if written for publication.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in local prisons, there are any cells used for the confinement of prisoners undergoing or awaiting punishment which can be artificially darkened by perforated iron shutters; and, if so, if he will direct the immediate removal of all unnecessary obstacles to the entrance of light into all prison cells?

The Commissioners some time ago gave orders for the removal of these perforated shutters, and in many cases these have been already removed, and the work is gradually proceeding. It involves both time and expense, as in many cases the windows have to be reglazed and a stronger glass provided.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment whether under Rule 189 of the draft of proposed rules under the Prisons Act, 1898, for local prisons, a prisoner awaiting trial is to be deprived of the special provisions of sub-rules 1, 2, 3, 4, until the Visiting Committee which may meet once a month has considered his case?

This Rule has been in operation for 20 years without any difficulty arising. It is not necessary for the whole Visiting Committee to accord these privileges, but it is in the power of any one member of the Committee to act, or in his absence the Governor would act provisionally. The constant visits of individual members of the Visiting Committee make the rule easy of application.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state how many men have been transferred since 1st January, 1898, from cavalry corps in which they had originally enlisted to other corps, and how many of these men volunteered for transfer?

The number of men transferred since 1st January, 1898, from cavalry corps in which they had originally enlisted to other corps is 70, all of whom volunteered.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that a request has been made by the Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company, Ireland, that the line of railway from Kingstown to Carlisle Pier should be doubled in order to facilitate the dispatch of the mails at Kingstown; and whether, since large sums of money have been expended by the Treasury at Holyhead to give quick discharge to the mails, he will direct that the request of the Dublin and Wicklow Railway be complied with in regard to Kingstown?

Yes, Sir. I understand, however, that the application is mainly based on the necessities of the passenger service (which has largely increased) rather than those of the mail service. The bulk of the land on which it is proposed that the widening should take place is now the private property of the Railway Company; and, before that property was transferred to them by the Government for this very purpose, it was expressly arranged that the State was to bear no part of that expense. If the intention of the Kingstown Township (Transfer of Harbour Roads) Act of last Session had been that the Government should defray the cost of the works there would have been no reason for the transfer of the land. In any case, I do not consider it desirable that the Government should construct such works as these on private property. No money has been spent on private property in the case of Holyhead, to which the honourable Member refers.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state whether the Departmental Committee, which was appointed in 1897 to inquire into the heavy expenditure for stationery in Admiralty Offices, has reported in favour of an economy; and, if so, to what, extent?

Certain regulations recommended in the Report of the Committee have been adopted as regards printing, lithographing, binding, and the supply of stores, and it is believed that they will ensure the observance of due economy in the matter.

I beg to ask the honourable Member for West Salford, as Ecclesiastical Commissioner, if the Ecclesiastical Commissioners take great tithes from some parishes to such an extent as to leave the incumbents of those parishes with a less income than £200 a year; and if the Commissioners of Queen Anne's Bounty are in the habit of demanding a tenth and firstfruits from livings under £200 a year?

In answer to the first part of the Question, the practice of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in dealing with parishes from which they have derived revenue is, speaking generally, to raise the income of benefices in public patronage with a population of 500 and upwards to the value of £300 a year before distributing the surplus revenues elsewhere. Owing to depreciation in the value of tithe rent charge and agricultural land the income of many benefices thus augmented has suffered diminution. The original augmentation was made upon the basis of the income which the benefice then possessed. It is not possible for the Commissioners at the present time to readjust such incomes in order to raise them again to the amount then provided-It should be remembered that the Common Fund of the Commissioners is derived from property in different parishes, together with dividends and interest upon investments. The surplus of this fund is the only source from, which they can make grants to augment poor benefices, and to provide for the needs of great and growing centres of population. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am unable to state what is the practice of the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty.

What is the amount per annum granted on the ground of "local claim"?

Out of augmentations amounting to a total annual value of £817,000, about £431,000 has been granted on the ground of "local claim," and the remaining £386,000 to endow new districts and cures with large populations and to meet benefactions.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will order an inquiry into the circumstances attending the drowning of two men at the Aberlour Elchies Ferry on the River Spey on 23rd December last?

There has already been a full inquiry into the circumstances of the accident in question. The result was to show that the ferry boat was worked on a wire rope carried across the river, and supported on upright posts at each side. The ends of the wire rope were attached, by means of eyes, to iron bolts. The strain on the rope, owing to the river being in flood, caused one of these bolts to straighten out; the eye slipped off, the rope slackened, and then broke, and the boat was carried down the river. In consequence of the accident, the Crown authorities have been in communication with Mr. Grant, of Elchies, who is the owner of the ferry, and the County Councils of Banff and Elgin, who, along with the justices, are vested by statute with the supervision and regulation of ferries, with the view of securing the safety of the public.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware that the Post Office Department insist on telegrams for Govan having the word Glasgow; and whether he can see his way to have this annoyance discontinued?

No, Sir, the Postmaster-General is not aware that his department insists on telegrams for Govan having the word Glasgow. If the honourable Member will bring to the Postmaster-General's notice any case in which the addition of the word "Glasgow" has been insisted upon, inquiry will be made into it. Meanwhile the attention of the officers of the department will be called to the matter by means of the "Post Office Circular."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state what salary is attached to the position of Governor-General of the Soudan; and whether the officer holding this position will, in addition to this sum, draw his ordinary army pay during the period of his administration of that province?

As Governor-General of the Soudan, Lord Kitchener draws pay at the rate of £1,000 a year with £500 for travelling allowance. This is in addition to his pay as Sirdar of the Egyptian Army. He draws no pay from British Army funds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the serious inconvenience occasioned at the Metropolitan Police Courts by the indisposition of four Metropolitan Magistrates, which has resulted, as stated on the 22nd instant by Mr. Francis, sitting at Marylebone Police Court, in the proceedings at that court being delayed for two hours owing to the non-arrival of a magistrate; whether he is aware that this detention has necessitated the detention of prisoners in custody two hours longer than necessary, a proceeding described by Mr. Francis from the Bench as very hard on prisoners; and whether arrangements can be made to strengthen the magistracy temporarily in similar emergencies in the future?

The Home Secretary has consulted the Chief Magistrate, and is aware of the great inconvenience caused by the unfortunate illness of so many of the Metropolitan Magistrates. A committee is now inquiring into various questions connected with the administration of justice in London, and they will no doubt consider whether any changes are desirable in the direction indicated in the Question.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the absence from the annual report of the Inland Revenue Commissioners for 1897–8 of two important tables relative to the death duties which were published in previous reports—namely, the table giving the classification of capital values of estates and of the net receipts of duty in respect of each category, and also the combined table showing the combined estate duty, probate duty, and inventory and account duty; whether he will consent to a Return embodying these two tables; and whether he will give directions that these tables shall in future be published with the Inland Revenue Commissioners' Report, as was done in 1896–7?

The tables in question were omitted in accordance with the recommendations of a Committee which was appointed in 1897 to revise the Statistics of the Department. But the information contained in them will be found given more fully than in the old tables on pages 146–7 and 157 of the Report for 1897–8. There is, however, one omission—the net receipts of estate duty in each category—and this will be given as a Return, and included in the tables in future years.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether, in communicating with Members of the Government, or officials in Government Departments, on public business, there is any necessity for the people to pay postage?

No letter is entitled to pass without prepayment of postage unless it is sent exclusively upon the public business. Letters upon public business may be sent to Members of the Government at their respective Departments without prepayment, but not elsewhere, and also to certain of the chief permanent officers in each Department who are authorised to receive service letters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether any dispatches have been received concerning the operations undertaken by the troops at Kassala against the Dervishes during the period between the taking over of Kassala from the Italians and the Battle of Omdurman: and whether he will call for them to be sent if none have been received?

No dispatches relating to the period mentioned have reached the War Office, but it is possible that some may have been received by the Foreign Office.

Perhaps the Under Secretary for War will say?

We have only received two telegrams, which were addressed one by Colonel Parsons to the Adjutant-General at Cairo, the other to Lord Cromer by the Sirdar. Both reported successes obtained in the Kassala region. Inquiry will be made as regards detailed dispatches, which have not yet reached us.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the British soldier, who is at present served out with necessaries of his kit free on enlistment, should not have them renewed in the same way as he has his tunic and other articles of clothng: and whether a soldier re-engaging for 12 or 21 years has to supply himself with his underclothing, etc. at his own' expense, and is thereby unable to clear his Is a day?

It is estimated that the cost of abolishing stoppages for upkeep of the kit of soldiers serving at home would be between £110,000 and £140,000 a year, and the Secretary of State is not prepared to recommend an addition of such a sum to the Army Estimates.

And does that sum represent merely the cost of shirts and socks, etc.

It applies to the upkeep of the soldier's kit.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to confirm the information that the Russian Government has issued an administrative order prohibiting the permanent settlement in Russian territory of the Armenian families which were driven from their homes in the eastern provinces of Asiatic Turkey by Kurdish and Circassian brigands and by Ottoman irregular troops during the period from 1894 to 1897: whether, in consequence of that order, several thousands of Armenian refugees have been or will be compelled to leave the districts of Kars, Erivan, Tiflis, Ardahan, and Batoum; and whether Her Majesty's Government will use its friendly offices with the Government of the Tsar with a view to inducing His Imperial Majesty to permit the widows and orphans who have sought a refuge in the towns and villages of Trans-Caucasia to remain in their present domicile?

In June last information was received at the Foreign Office that the Russian Government had published early in May a proclamation to the effect that all immigrants of Armenian extraction and Turkish nationality residing in the Governments of Baku, Kutais, Tiflis and Erivan, and in the Province of Kars were to quit the country within a year. It is believed that some thousands of persons were affected, but the matter is one for discussion between the Russian and Turkish Governments, and Her Majesty's Government could not properly interfere in it unless requested by one or the other of the parties.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what will be the width of the new Parliament Street between the buildings and between the kerbstones on the east and west sides respectively; whether the front of the new buildings is to align with the Home Office, or to be set back; whether he can give the approximate height of the new public offices at the south-east angle; whether it is proposed to so arrange the refuges that the traffic from Victoria and Westminster Bridge can be divided into two separate streams; and what will be the width of the new Charles Street?

In answer to the right honourable Gentleman I beg to say that the width of the new Parliament Street between the buildings will be about 140 feet, and the width between the kerbs about 95 feet- The front of the new buildings will be set back from 10 to 15 feet from the corner of the Home Office. The approximate height of the new public offices will be 78 feet, the tower at the south-east angle being about 106 feet. The arrangement of refuges will follow that already in existence in Parliament Street, which has been found most convenient for traffic purposes. The width of the new Charles Street will be 80 feet.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if County Councils in Scotland have already power to purchase and use such land as they require for the erection of public bridges, in the event of the present owner being unwilling to negotiate; and, if such powers do not exist, whether the Government will consider the necessity for further legislation?

The answer to the first Question of the honourable Member is in the negative. As regards the suggestion made in the second Question, the Secretary for Scotland will con- sider it along with the question of ferries, but he cannot undertake to propose any amendment of the Local Government Acts during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the London School Board is within its legal right in determining to issue through the visitors employed by the Board a form of questions to be answered by the parents of children attending Christ Church School, Albany Street, Marylebone, which form invites the parents to state whether they are paying school fees or not, and if they desire free education for their children; and if not, what action the Committee of Council on Education will take in the matter?

The action of the London School Board in singling out one particular voluntary school for such inquiries appears to be invidious; but the Committee of Council have no power to determine the legal rights of the London School Board in such matters.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will furnish a return giving particulars of the concessions for 2,800 miles of railway in China which have, up to the present, been granted to British investors?

It would be unusual for Her Majesty's Government to give particulars of concessions granted to private individuals or companies, even if the full particulars were in all cases known to them; but the figures giving the number of miles of railway as to which a preference has been secured or promised to British enterprise can be given.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether officers of the Inland Revenue in Ireland are allowed by the rules of the service to become candidates for and sit as district councillors and town commissioners under the Local Government (Ireland) Act?

The Board of Inland Revenue have not yet issued any instructions upon this point; but the matter is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of the Resolution passed at a meeting of the Guardians of North Dublin Union on the 15th instant, requesting him, in consequence of the continued congestion of the workhouse, due mainly to the influx of about 800 paupers from the various counties of Ireland, to bring in a Bill to assimilate the Law of Settlement in Ireland to that of England and Scotland; and whether the Government will take steps this Session to carry out this reform?

I have received a copy of the Resolution referred to. The reply to the second paragraph is in the negative. Apart from the question of the time which such a Measure would occupy, I have grave doubts as to its expediency.

I Leg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will make arrangements for the "Parliamentary Debates" to be delivered to Members of this House who sign a general Sessional Order, instead of continuing the present arrangement under which it is necessary for them to sign the Demand Form daily?

No, Sir; it is an essential part of the arrangement that only those Reports shall be supplied for which Members specially apply. The object of the new arrangement is to carry out a suggestion made last Session and supported by the then Leader of the Opposition, that Members interested in particular current Debates should be able to obtain them for immediate reference. It is not intended to supply every Member of Parliament with a complete copy of "Hansard" gratis. Even in the case of ordinary Parliamentary papers the issue of the pink paper, to avoid unnecessary printing, was intended to prevent a general order requiring all papers to be sent indiscriminately.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, having regard to the fact that on the 5th April, 1897, he stated that the question of the alteration of the law in regard to School Board Elections in Scotland would receive consideration before the next triennial election, will he now state whether the Government intend to propose any change in the law?

I can only refer the honourable Member to the answer I gave to his Question on the 21st of February, which really answers the present Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state in whom the Crown salmon fishings of the river and estuary of the Broom, Ross-shire, are vested?

There are no Crown salmon fishings in this river or estuary.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if ho will shortly arrange for delivery of letters once a day at least to the Union of Mitchelstown, situated about half a mile from the town; and also consider the necessity of a delivery through the districts approaching Glanduff and Araglen, at present indifferently served?

Proposals for affording a delivery at the Union of Mitchelstown and in the districts near Glanduff and Araglen are under examination at the present time, and the necessary arrangements shall be completed as soon as possible. The delivery at Mitchelstown Union will be made once a day (Sundays excepted), but the frequency of delivery at the other places referred to cannot at present be stated.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Michael Murphy and seven others were prosecuted at Petty Sessions, Newcastle, county Down, at the suit of the Crown, for injuring property belonging to the owners of a trawler fishing in Dundrum Bay; whether the mode of fishing practised by the trawler, while quite as destructive to the fish as ordinary trawling, is alleged to involve no violation of the law; and whether under the circumstances the Crown will make inquiry into the whole matter before lending its services to support such a serious evasion of the law on the part of the owner of the trawler?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The further hearing of the case has been adjourned to the next Petty Sessions to be held on the 17th March, and, pending the result of the magisterial investigation, I do not think it desirable to reply to the inquiries contained in the second and third paragraphs of the Question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the new district councils in Ireland, whether he is aware that, in the following dis- tricts in county Down, Castlewellan with 465 electors, Ballinahinch with 537 electors, Kilkeel with 608 electors, and Moira with 616 electors, three representatives have been allowed for each district, and in Rathfriland, with 620 electors, only two representatives have been allowed: if he will state why Rathfriland is treated thus; and whether he will direct the attention of the Local Government Board to the matter, in order to extend the right of similar representation to Rathfriland?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. Rathfriland is in Newry Union the other electoral divisions referred to in the Question are in Downpatrick or Lurgan Unions. The claim of Rathfriland Division for increased representation could not be properly determined by comparison with the electoral divisions of other and differently circumstanced unions. The Local Government Board are required by section 23 of the Local Government Act to fix the number of district councillors for each electoral division comprising a municipal town. The representation of the rural divisions, however, is fixed by the statute, and although the Board are given power by the 111th section to increase the number wherever they think the division should be divided, they have not interfered with the general provision of the Act assigning two district councillors to each division, unless the Board of Guardians have called attention to special circumstances in the case of a particular division which appeared to warrant their doing so- The Board of Guardians of Newry Union made no such representation in the case of Rathfriland Division. It is perhaps right to mention that there are about 4,300 electoral divisions in Ireland, and even if the Local Government Board had desired to investigate the circumstances of all these divisions in order to determine the precise number which had a claim to be divided it would have been quite impossible to have done so in time for the first elections. As the notices of election are now posted, no change can be made in the representation of any division for the coming election.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what are the practical difficulties, that must be surmounted by the Colonial authorities to the satisfaction of the Treasury before permision can be given to coin silver in the Australian branches of the Royal Mint; is he aware that the Melbourne Mint is ready to erect the necessary machinery as soon as the Treasury sanction is received; and whether he can state the amount of estimated Imperial revenue that will be lost by granting this concession?

It would not be possible to explain, in reply to a Question, the practical difficulties which beset this subject. I may mention that they are mainly connected with providing adequate safeguards against the dangers of over-issue as well as withdrawing worn coins; and the Treasury await the submission of united proposals from the Governments of the Australian Colonies on the various points to which the attention of the Colonial Office has been drawn. The readiness of the Melbourne Mint, to which reference is made, is necessarily premature, as that establishment is a branch of the Imperial Mint. The loss to Imperial revenue which the grant of the concession to the Australasian Colonies alone would involve cannot be estimated with accuracy, but it cannot, at present prices of silver, be put at less than £20,000 a year.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will take steps to enable several hundred children of St. James End, Northamptonshire, to fulfil their legal obligations in respect of the Education Acts, which they are now precluded from doing by the action of the managers of the only school in the place?

There is nothing to prevent the children, to whom the honourable Member is understood to refer, from fulfilling their legal obligation to attend school, but they are expected to conform to rules, which have been laid down by the managers for the order and discipline of the school, and are approved by the Committee of Council.

In consequence of the answer I have received, I shall, on a very early opportunity, call the attention of the House to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, as to the Habitual Inebriates' Act of last Session, how many inspectors of inebriates' homes have so far been appointed, and what are the qualifications necessary to such appointments, and the conditions under which they are held; and whether it is intended to appoint any women to such posts?

The Home Secretary has appointed one inspector of certified inebriate reformatories under the Act of last Session, and has selected, in accordance with the recommendation of the Deparmental Committee, which was appointed to advise him in the matter, a "practical and energetic medical man, with a know ledge of institution management and of the treatment of inebriety." At present there is no need for additional inspectors. If the necessity arises, my right honourable Friend will give careful consideration to the question of appointing a woman.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state to the House the number of encumbered estates in Ireland under the control of the English Court of Chancery?

I am informed that there is no information available on the subject of this Question in the Department of the Land Judge in Ireland.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention, has been drawn to the report of the case of R. v. Barker and Passingham, tried; n the Crown Court at Liverpool before Mr. Justice Day last week, when evidence was given that the crew shipped at Port Townsend on board the British ship "Mary A. Troop" included a Chinese, a Finn, a railway clerk, and a commercial traveller who had never been to sea before, and when the learned Judge commented on the way in which the shipping laws are carried out in foreign ports by British Consuls; and whether he will, either directly or through the Foreign Office, impress upon such officers the necessity for a vigilant discharge of their duties in regard to the sanctioning of the engagement of crews for British ships?

Yes, Sir, my attention has been directed to the case referred to in the question. Her Majesty's Consuls are not expected, and indeed have no authority, to act as judges of the qualifications of seamen shipped before them.

May I ask whether a section of the Merchant Shipping Act does not expressly require the sanction of a Consular officer for the engagement of seamen?

The honourable Gentleman had better put that Question down.

If the Chinaman and the Finn had never been to sea before, how did they get here?

You had better ask the honourable Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what alterations, if any, have been made in Her Britannic Majesty's Consular Shipping Office at New York, United States of America, with regard to the engagement and discharge of seamen; whether instructions have been given to exclude all crimps, boarding-house keepers, and others from such office during the time of the engagement or discharge of seamen; whether seamen now receive their advance notes in the Consulate; whether shipping fees are still exacted from seamen by crimps; and whether police officers have been engaged to maintain order and prevent seamen being assaulted whilst transacting business in the shipping office?

I am unable to add anything to the reply given on Monday by my right honourable Friend the President of the Board of Agriculture.

May I ask when we are likely to get a reply to this Question?

I have already informed the honourable Gentleman that I cannot add anything to the reply given on Monday last.

Will the right honourable Gentleman give instructions to the Consular officers to see that these things are conducted in a proper manner?

The honourable Gentleman must be aware, from the reply given to this Question, that the attention of the Foreign Office has been directed to this matter, and they are now inquiring into it.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to state the number of Lascars employed as sailors, firemen, and coal trimmers on board the P. and O. steamship "Australia," which was due to sail on the 23rd instant; whether he can state how many cubic feet of space is provided for each Lascar in the forecastle of this vessel: whether the said vessel is a British ship registered in the United Kingdom; whether the crew of this vessel has allotted to them the cubic accommodation as provided by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and, whether he can state if the forecastle of this vessel has been inspected by Board of Trade officials during the time she has been in dock?

I am informed that the number of Lascar sailors, firemen, and coal trimmers carried by the P. and O. steamer "Australia" this voyage is 148, with, possibly, the adition of a, boy or two. The Lascars are berthed in the poop aft. On the starboard side the space available per man is 66 cubic feet, and on the port side 64 cubic feet. The "Australia" is a British ship, registered at Greenock, and the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, requires that "every place occupied by seamen shall have for each seaman a space of not less than 72 cubic feet, and not less than 12 superficial feet." The vessel has been inspected by the Board of Trade officials during the time she has been in dock, with the result I have stated, but I wish to add that the P. and O. Company contend that the "Australia" comes not under the Imperial, but under the Indian Merchant Shipping Act. This point will be carefully inquired into, but I think it right to add that were the "Australia" carrying a European crew—in accordance with the complement usual to vessels of her size and character—the crew space allotted throughout the vessel would be in excess of the statutory requirements.

Arising out of the Question, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether section 210 of the Merchant Shipping Act does not provide that each seaman shall have 72 cubic feet of space; that where the law is not complied with the owners are liable to a penalty of £20 for each offence; and whether the President of the Board of Trade intends to enforce the law against this wealthy company?

No doubt the honourable Gentleman has quoted the law correctly, but I am advised by my advisers that no obligation rests upon the Board of Trade to prosecute in the particular case referred to by the honourable Gentleman. However, the matter is now the subject of negotiations between the Board of Trade and the P. and O. Company. Of course, it may be held that the law applies to Lascars as well as Europeans; but, so far as the merits of the case are concerned, every honourable Member must know that Lascars are in a very different position to Europeans, and though 64 feet may not be within the letter of the law, 64 feet for a Lascar is certainly not less than 72 feet for a European.

Is the right honourable Gentleman aware that one of the Members of the present Administration is a director of the P. and O. Company—Lord Selborne?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question. The Question on the paper has been fully answered.

I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he thinks the Lascars should not have the same—

Order, order! The honourable Member is now arguing on matters of opinion.

I will put this Question down again to-morrow.

I will ask a Question which does arise, Sir. I wish to ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has received, or whether any complaints have been made by the Lascars in reference to these matters?

I have not only not received any complaints, but I have no reason whatever to think that they are dissatisfied.

Does not a Lascar come within the definition of a seaman under the Act?

Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

I beg to postpone asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can state if the Honourable A. B. Morine, formerly a Minister of the Colony of Newfoundland, was dispensed from further service in his office by the Governor of the Colony on grounds appertaining to his conduct as a Minister. But I will take the opportunity of asking whether it is proposed to take the Colonial Estimates to-day?

Not in the absence of the Colonial Secretary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War what are the reasons for delaying the appointment of an incumbent to the vacant Assistant Accountant Generalship of the Army, and to the three vacant principal clerkships at the War Office; and whether the Secretary of State will favourably consider the claims of retired officers of the Army Pay Department to be appointed to vacancies on the directing staff at the War Office, if they are recommended as meritorious by the Commander-in-Chief and certified as duly qualified for civil employment?

It is intended to fill up some of the vacancies referred to. They were not tilled up as they occurred, because an inquiry into the duties of the civil staff of" the War Office was in progress. The inquiry is not yet concluded, but the Secretary of State is satisfied, having regard to other vacancies which are in prospect, that there are no sufficient reasons for entirely arresting the flow of promotion. The officers mentioned in the second paragraph of the Question would not suitably fill the vacant posts.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a little girl, six years old, daughter of Mr. John Russ, of East Ham, who disappeared after leaving school on Sunday last; is it a fact that the police of the district were communicated with at once, but took no steps to help to trace the child until 26 hours afterwards; whether, if this statement is correct, he will order a more prompt attention on the part of the police in future cases of this kind; and whether any special effort has been made by the authorities during the past few days to discover the fate of this child?

It is not a fact that the police took no steps to trace the child until 26 hours after being communicated with. A description was telegraphed to surrounding stations and telephoned to the Essex constabulary immediately it was received from the child's father. The matter was dealt with most promptly, and the most strenuous efforts have been, and are being, made to discover the missing child.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will arrange that a discussion upon the draft proposed rules under the Prison Act, 1898, may take place before. 12 o'clock upon some evening appropriated to Government business, within the 30 days during which the Act directs that the rules shall be upon the Table of the House?

I am afraid I cannot give my honourable Friend any pledge on this subject. Possibly he may have an opportunity of discussing the rules before 12 o'clock, but in the present condition of public business I am not sure of being able to find an opportunity for him.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, considering the recommendation of the Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) of last Session, that, as the House fees produce a sum far in excess of the expenses incurred, they should be reduced, he will take the necessary steps to carry out this recommendation by amending the Standing Order of 1864, by which these fees are fixed?

I do not propose to suggest to the House, in the course of the present Session at all events, any Amendment of the existing Standing Orders upon this or any other subject. I may remind the honourable Gentleman that, while our fees are regulated by Standing Order, no Resolution of this House or modification of our Standing Orders would affect the charges of fees of the House of Lords.

Will the right honourable Gentleman be able in any way to facilitate the discussion by the House of this subject, either on the question that "Mr. Speaker leave the Chair" or on any other occasion?

As far as I am aware, there is no opportunity of discussing on Standing Orders, either on any Vote in the Estimates, or on the question that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair. It is not my duty to give a ruling on the subject, but I do not remember any such thing ever being done.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the report with reference to the demolition of the Mahdi's tomb, and the circumstances connected therewith, which Lord Cromer has been directed by the Government to furnish, will be accessible to Members of the House of Commons; and, if so, will it be printed and circulated before the first reading of the Kitchener Bill?

Yes, Sir; before any proceedings are taken upon the vote of thanks to Lord Kitchener we shall, of course, be glad to put the House in possession of any knowledge we may possess upon this subject.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he has any information that the Soudanese desecrated the grave of General Stewart at Khartoum.

No, Sir; I am not aware of that fact.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether, seeing that the Supplemental Estimate for Savings Bank Deficiencies was taken rather by surprise, the First Lord of the Treasury will put down Report of it at an early hour, so that Members who were absent when it was taken may have an opportunity of discussing it?

I cannot give any promise on the subject. I cannot admit there was any surprise in regard to the Supplementary Votes. There was no undue haste in dealing with them. It may be, however, that Report of Supply will come on at a reasonable hour.

Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz.,

"The persistent refusal of the Managers of the only school in the urban district of St. James, Northamptonshire, to admit above 300 children of the ratepayers of the district into this school on the sole ground of their wearing a medal, thus rendering the parents of these children unable to fulfil the obligations imposed on them by law;"

but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, MR. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen.

In spite of the laughter of honourable Gentlemen opposite, I am convinced that this is a matter of urgent public importance. It is not only urgent to the inhabitants of Northamptonshire, but it is also urgent to Dissenters in every part of the country. The case, Sir, is this: St. James End is a suburb of Northampton, containing about 6,000 inhabitants. It is in the Parliamentary Borough of Northampton, but it is not in the Municipal Borough. This suburb is attached to the school district of Dunstan Cross, and there are also two agricultural villages in the district, with the result that although, I am given to understand, the majority of the inhabitants of this urban district are in favour of Board schools, they are outvoted by the agricultural voters in the two villages outside. There is, therefore, at, present only a Church of England school there. The Church of England school is, I believe, a most estimable school, after the manner of Church of England schools. It spends £1,650 a year, and its annual subscriptions are £40 a year. In September last 150 children of Nonconformists declared, through their parents, their intention of withdrawing for the period of religious instruction. At the same time there was a conscience-class school established just opposite, where the children went to learn the leanings of their particular religion during the period that the religious instruction was given in the school. By Christmas this number had increased to about 350, 300 of whom were taught in this little conscience class, while about 50 went to the Board schools in Northampton. The numbers are exceedingly large, the House will observe—300 taught in this way in, the little room opposite the schools. Well, the conscience school met, I think, at nine o'clock, and at half-past nine the children went to be registered. On account of their number, there was some difficulty in marking them in. Consequently the heads of the conscience school thought a very simple plan would be to have a medal, upon, which was the number of the child, and by which means it would be possible to ascertain quickly how many children were present. The medal was issued on 22nd December, just before the holidays, which ended on 9th January. On that occasion—namely, 9th January—the children went across from this little school to the large Church of England school with the medals on them. They were told by the teachers to take them off. The children, like all Northampton parents—very much amenable to the law—took off the medals, but there was one little girl who had strong views on the subject—or perhaps I ought to say that her mother had strong views on the subject, for she had sewn the medal on to the child's pinafore. The pinafore was taken off, a pair of scissors was placed in her hands, and, under the eyes of the schoolmistress, the girl was forced to cut the medal off the pinafore, thus injuring the pinafore. The girl, still feeling that she ought to obey the direct orders of her mother, put the medal on again, upon which she was caned and otherwise punished. Of course, this excited a great deal of indignation among the parents, and on the following day they told their children to wear the medals. They therefore presented themselves with the medals, but were refused admission, and had been locked out ever since. Now there is an inscription on this medal. The inscription, I believe, is a very sound one, and though I do not wear medals myself, I should be proud to have such an inscription on any medal of mine. It is, "We want a Board school." But the inscription has nothing to do with the question. The managers have laid down that these children are not to he admitted if they wear any medal whatsoever, as is clear from the following notice which has been served on the parents—

"January 12th.

"Dear Sir,—I have to inform you that the wearing of medals"—[not this medal, hut "medals"]—"is contrary to the rules of the St. James's School. I am compelled, therefore, to refuse your children admission as long as they come to school wearing medals."

Well, Sir, that is a very remarkable order to give, because we know perfectly well that there are medals—or ribbons identical with medals—which children do wear. I believe there are children who belong to the White Cross Society, who wear white medals, and children belonging to the Band of Hope, who wear blue medals, and everybody knows that Catholic children very often wear medals, or a cross, bearing the words "Ave Maria." And am I told that the managers of a Voluntary school are to say that the children attending it shall not wear medals? It is absurd. But it is even worse than it appears, because I am credibly informed that a great many ritualistic curates appear in these Voluntary Church of England schools wearing crosses. Are curates to be allowed to wear an equivalent to a medal showing their views with regard to religion, and the children to be refused? Sir, I have had an interview with my right honourable Friend the Vice-President of the Council. The Vice-President of the Council was very conciliatory, I admit, but he was firm. He said, as I gathered, that the managers were right, or that they were not so far wrong that he ought to interfere in the matter. But that is not the point. For many years this school has been kept entirely by funds and subscriptions from the State. The children have only this school to go to, and many parents feel that they would not be fulfilling their proper obligations if their children were not cancelled there. We know perfectly well what happens in country districts where there is a Church of England school only—the clergyman is the great man of the place; there is no one to interfere with him. Put if you allow this inroad upon the rights of Nonconformists in a suburb of Northampton, we can well imagine what will take place in country schools. The children, as I have said, have this little conscience school, where they attend to the number of about 300. It may be asked, Why don't they go to the Board schools of Northampton? Well, the reason is that the nearest Board school is a mile and a quarter from St. James End. That is a long way to send little children; and in the nearest school there is no room for them. The other school is a mile and a half distant, in addition to which the road is very bad, and there is a great deal of traffic upon it. It would, therefore, be very undesirable, and almost impossible, to compel little children to trudge through a long country road, backwards and forwards, to school. The parents, therefore, are in this position—they are stopped from fulfilling their legal obligations, and, as I say, stopped unfairly and improperly, and yet the Department will not interfere and put an end to this state of things. I quite admit that I think it would be desirable if St. James End were separated from the rural villages by making it a school district, or joining it to the Board school district of Northampton; and if the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President will assure me that he will alter the present arrangement, and that in future—or as soon as possible; I do not mention any particular time—St. James End shall have a school district of its own, or that it shall be added to. Northampton, I will not press the matter, but will even try and arrange some sort of modus vivendi. I will go so far as to say that I will urge the parents—notwithstanding their undoubted rights—to withdraw this medal for the time being. Sir, I want the House clearly to understand what I am moving the Adjournment for. The question is not whether these children are to be allowed this particular medal with this particular inscription, but whether they are to be allowed to wear any medal. To my mind, the action of the managers at St. James End imposes not merely a disability, but an insult upon the parents, and I contend that the right honourable Gentleman ought to tell them that the present state of affairs is not to continue. Putting aside the fact that it is very possible that parents may be liable to pains and penalties, it really is a sad thing that you should, have a school maintained almost entirely by the State, and yet that there should be 300 little children turned adrift into the streets day after day, and not able to get any sort of education except the little voluntary education which is given them. In order to meet the difficulty, the children ought to be allowed to go into this school—that is the point—with their medals or without them; and unless I receive a satisfactory assurance from the right honourable Gentleman, I shall take the sense of the House upon the matter.

Representing, as I do, an adjoining constituency to that of the honourable Member for Northampton, and having interested myself in this subject, I should like to say a few words in seconding his proposal for the Adjournment of the House. The question is, after all, a very simple one. The State has paid £1,660 a year for the education of certain children in this district, while the voluntary contributions are only £37 10s., and yet the children of this school are being deprived of the education which has been paid for in this enormous proportion by the taxpayers of the State. The right honourable Gentleman who represents the State, in his reply this afternoon, so far as I understand, accepts the managers' excuse as a reasonable cause for their withholding the education that they have contracted to give these 300 or 400 children, and for which the State is paying £45 down for every subscriber's £1, and says that the wearing of a simple little medal or badge on the breasts of these children is a sufficient reason for these managers refusing to fulfil the contract. That is the point, Mr. Speaker, and it is a point which the right honourable Gentleman cannot fly away from with his usual jests and subterfuges. [Ministerial laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] I am sorry I have betrayed myself into an expression of that kind, and I will withdraw any word that may be considered in the least offensive to the right honourable Gentleman. I do, however, want the House to realise that what is apparently a trivial question, which honourable Members opposite laugh at, is a very serious question indeed. These children are being withdrawn by their parents, under the law of the land—under the 7th section of the Education Act of 1870. They are perfectly within their right in withdrawing those children from the religious instruction of the school, and having at the same time the benefit of the whole of the secular instruction. Now, Sir, my honourable Friend has laboured this case somewhat before the House, but I would ask the indulgence of the House for a moment while I say one or two words about it. I should like to ask the right honourable Gentleman specifically whether, in the first place, he admits that the managers of any school can make any rules they please as to the apparel children shall wear, or shall not wear? The right honourable Gentleman shakes his head. I am very glad he does, because I have always regarded him as a man of intellectual force. I would, however, remind him that his inspector, at the somewhat farcical inquiry he held at Northampton, said that it was perfectly within the right of managers to make any rule whatsoever with regard to the schools. I was reading the other day the very interesting auto biography of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Arch), edited by Lady Warwick. In that book there is a description of a Warwickshire parson, who imposed upon all the children in the village school a certain way of cutting their hair. The mother of my honourable Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk was, however, a plucky Nonconformist, and she had the courage to face the parson's wife, and the result was that this absurd regulation was knocked on the head. I would ask the right honourable Gentleman whether he would have approved of rules like that? I would also ask him whether these managers have said that they would allow no medals whatever to he worn in the school? In 1897 these children were allowed to wear the Jubilee medals in the school, and my honourable Friend has referred to the case of Catholic children. Suppose a committee of managers of an extremely anti-Catholic type were to pass a rule that no Catholic child should appear in the Church of England schools with a cross or one of the innocent little medals of the the Catholic religious societies—a badge indicating the particular religion of the wearer? Surely the right honourable Gentleman would not accept that as a sufficient reason for excluding a child from school. Now, Sir, I contend that there is animus behind the whole of these proceedings. I wish the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford had been in his place. He would have remembered, if the present Vice-President does not, that I drew the attention of the House to a similar case six or seven years ago, where parents had withdrawn their children under the Conscience Clause from the religious teaching in the Church school at Ringstead, in Northamptonshire. The clergyman in that case was as despotic in his treatment of those children as the clergyman in the present case. When the children returned to the school after the religious teaching they were each day humiliated by being put at the bottom of the class. Now, I drew the attention of the then Vice-President, the right honourable Gentleman the Member for Dartford, to the case, and he very frankly said that it would be a breach of the Conscience Clause, and he righted the matter. Well, Sir, I say this matter is very much more serious. It is not a matter of treating these children with disparagement and with contumely in the school; it is a matter of depriving them by this shallow and miserable pretext of these medals of the education which they are entitled to receive, and which the right honourable Gentleman is paid his salary by the country to see that they are receiving and will receive. Now, Sir, I should like to know whether the right honourable Gentleman is the man who ought to challenge the right to use some distinctive badge, when he was responsible for the introduction of the Education Bill of 1806, which came to so miserable a fate in the House. That Bill contained a clause, as many honourable Members will recollect, in which it was provided that religious teachers of all denominations should have access to the schools, and have the children of their particular denomination set aside and marked off from the others. The 27th clause of the Education Bill provided that the religious teacher should have access to the schools.

No.

Well, the right honourable Gentleman can explain his Bill again in any way he pleases, but the impression on my mind is—

Order, order! The honourable Member is travelling away from the subject of the Debate.

Mr. Speaker, with all respect, I would submit to you that my argument is this—that, in order to carry out the object which proposed, in the 27th clause of the Hill of 1896—namely, to have separate religious teaching in the schools by the teachers of various denominations, it would be necessary to have some mark of distinction on the different sets of children. It would be almost impossible to work that clause without some kind of distinctive badge. That is the sole object with which I desire to put that question. I think it is perfectly clear that these people are acting in a practical and reasonable spirit in wishing to have some token or badge on these 300 or 400 children, so that they may be taken off to their own schoolroom and taught there. Now, Sir, I have read the speech of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell, in which he refers to the whole question of the withdrawal of these children, and anyone reading that speech will see the animus there is behind the whole of these proceedings. The order with reference to the medals is a pretext associated with other humiliations imposed on children and their parents, with the set purpose of coercing the children back into the flock of the Rev. Mr. Hurrell to learn his catechism. It is a policy of coercion from beginning to end, and nothing but coercion. To forbid 300 or 400 children to enter the schools because they wear a medal is a miserable pettifogging pretext to oppress humble Nonconformists, and deprive them of the educational advantages the law allows.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very small matter on which to move the adjournment of the House, but it is one which deserves the attention of the House, because it is a novel and, I think, not at all a praiseworthy method of carrying on the agitation in favour of Board schools. The people of St. James' End are prompted by outside influence, and largely by a society of which, I believe, the honourable Member who has just spoken is a distinguished member.

If the right honourable Gentleman refers to the Education League in Northampton, I have nothing to do with it. I am a member of the Northamptonshire County Education League, founded by Lord Spencer, but that association has taken no official part whatever in these proceedings.

It is one of its ramifications. The agitation began after the election in August last, in which the School Board party were defeated, and one of the first steps was to withdraw more than 300 children from the school under the Conscience Clause. Here let me say that there has been a great deal of misapprehension among honourable Members about the power of the Conscience Clause. There is a right to withdraw children from religious infraction, but not to withdraw them from a school.

Will the right honourable Gentleman allow me to explain? The managers have no accommodation for separate teachings; they have one schoolroom only.

I understand that the managers of the Church schools are very glad to allow the teaching of the children in the conscience school. The difficulty often arises in various parts of England and Wales, and the state of the law is not at all satisfactory. School Boards are within their right in making such arrangements as they please as to the time for religious instruction. I will give the House an illustration of what occurred in a village school a short time ago. A little Nonconformist girl was separated from the rest of the village school at the time of religious instruction, but, woman-like, she paid especial attention to what she was forbidden to hear, and when the time came for the annual examination by the diocesan inspector, that little girl went in for the Scripture examination, and won the prize. The House will remember that in 1896 the Government tried to induce the House of Commons to assent to a real Conscience Clause which would allow children not only to be withdrawn from religious instruction, but to have such religious instruction as the parents preferred, and this clause would have made absolutely legal the course taken by the Nonconformists at St. James's End. But that clause was bitterly opposed. And who opposed it? The very Nonconformist Party who now complain of the inefficiency of the existing Conscience Clause. Well, the next step taken by the Education League of Northampton was to send children to school decorated with medals, a specimen of which I hold in my hand. Everybody knows how easy it is by giving children emblems to make violent partisans of them. If you give them a piece of ribbon or a rosette to wear you may turn them into partisans of almost any cause you like. But what a pity to do so! How much a proceeding of that kind interferes with the good order and discipline of a school. The honourable Member for Northampton mentioned the fact that the little girl was punished. I regret that she should have been punished for refusing to obey the order to take the medal off, but I would ask right honourable Members to carry their recollection back to their boyhood days, and think of what would have been the fate of a boy who refused to remove a medal or party emblem when told to do so by his class-master. Well, this medal was intended to indicate that the little girl was taking a particular side in the contest that was going on. The Department sent down the senior chief inspector, who was, of course, the best official we could send, and who was entirely impartial in the matter, because he happened to be neither a Nonconformist nor a Churchman. The inspector reported to me that this particular medal was provocative and intended to provoke. The honourable Member has asked me what rules managers may make for observance in their schools. They may make such rules as they think fit and which are reasonably necessary for the maintenance of discipline and good order in their schools. The Committee of Council are of opinion that a rule which prohibits children from wearing medals which are provocative or intended to provoke, so long as it is impartially administered on both sides, is a very good rule, and sufficient reason for managers and teachers refusing to allow children wearing such medals in their schools. Where there is risk of quarrel and in this case there had been fights already—I think it is perfectly reasonable—and I hope the House of Commons will admit it—for the managers to prohibit partisan medals altogether. But I have a great authority on this subject. The honourable Member for Northampton has himself written a letter—I read the letter at the time it was written—in which there is some extremely good sense. I will read a sentence to the House—

"Apart from the question of a School Board the question seems to me to be this: Have the children the right to wear a medal of a Party and controversial character?"

I had some doubt whether it could be done without the permission of the right honourable Gentleman, and I wondered whether the right honourable Gentleman was prepared to give the permission.

The honourable Gentleman thought, at all events, that there was a great deal of doubt about it. I myself have inquired through a senior chief inspector, and I have no doubt about it. The Education Department, though they much regret the unfortunate quarrel going on in Northampton, are perfectly prepared to support the managers of the schools. Now, may I say one word in the hope that this unfortunate difference may be put an end to? I do not blame the children of Northampton, and I do not very much blame the parents, because, as I say, they have been worked upon by outside influence. But I do blame the noblemen and gentlemen and Members of Parliament who have encouraged them to carry on this unfortunate quarrel in which the children are the only sufferers. The battle between the Voluntary schools and the Board schools will, I suppose, continue to be waged through all our time. Let us carry it on by all legitimate means, but don't let us bring the children into it. So far as I know, there is no religious difficulty between the teachers and the parents. I have not had one single instance brought to my notice in which the religious difficulty has not been imported from the outside from political motives, and if the honourable Members for Northampton and Northamptonshire will only use their influence to induce the parents of these children to let their children return to school, I am quite sure they will consent in a moment. The moment outside influence is withdrawn I believe the children will be allowed to return to school.

I have only one word to add to the Debate. I should like to point out to the House that the right honourable Gentleman very cleverly evaded the whole issue. The question is not whether these children, by wearing the medal, have been guilty of a breach of discipline, but whether that breach of discipline has been sufficient to justify the managers of the schools in excluding

I understand that the honourable Member for Northampton will withdraw his Motion to-day if he can get a satisfactory answer from the right honourable Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council. Whether my honourable Friend thinks that he will receive a satisfactory answer or not, I really do not know. I am bound to say, Sir, that the answer that he has received is not satisfactory to me. My honourable Friend the Member for Northamptonshire when he said that there was animus behind this matter, encountered a cheer from the other side. I was pleased to hear it, and I am very much obliged to the honourable Member for giving honourable Gentlemen opposite an opportunity to cheer and laugh. There is animus, Sir, and I shall give my vote in favour of the Motion of my honourable Friend in order to protest against clericalism, and I shall take care to represent any votes given against the Motion as votes of approval of clericalism. Many honourable Gentlemen have a large proportion of Dissenters among their constituents, and I give them distinct notice that I intend to do so.