laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, that, in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the first reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, and which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, viz.:—

It is only necessary to detain the House a very short time in order to explain the Motion which appears on the Paper in my name. The Bill to which my Motion refers is called the "All Saints' Church (Cardiff) Bill," and it has passed the House of Lords. It has not yet been read a second time in this House, and, in fact, I take the opportunity of bringing up my Motion before the Bill comes on for second reading. My contention is that the Standing Orders of the House have not been complied with in this case. Hon. Members know that the Standing Orders provide in the case of Private Bills that notice should be given in October or November setting forth the objects of the Bill to be brought in, with a short explanation at the head of the notice describing the main objects of the Bill. I do not want to go into the merits of the Bill, but I may say that the objects of the Bill are to sell the present parish church called All Saints, and to devote the funds partly to the building of a new church and partly towards the present church of Dewi Sant, and to substitute as parish church for the church about to be sold the church about to be built. In the notices published in the Gazette and in the local newspapers in November last, it was stated at the head that it was proposed that the church called the New Church of Dewi Sant, the Welsh Church of the parish of All Saints' should be constituted the parish church in place of the church it is proposed to sell. Now, the Bill itself provides for something very different indeed. Had it not been for what I regard as the very material changes between the objects as set forth in the notices and the objects provided for in the Bill, I suppose there would have been very little opposition to the Bill. The Bill itself provides, not that the church of Dewi Sant should be substituted as the parish church, but that the new church proposed to be built should be the parish church. Clause 10 provides that "The new church (to be built) should, on and after its consecration, for all purposes, take the place of and be in substitution for, the old church." I contend that the notices given in November last were distinctly misleading, and that a complete change of policy occurred between the time of giving the notices and the introduction of the Bill. The Bill in due course came before the Examiners, and they reported that the Standing Orders were compiled with; and I understand that there is no appeal against the decision of the Examiners. The only way to get out of the difficulty, it appears to me, is to refer the Bill back to them. I do not believe that this would cause any delay, because they will be able to report in a few days, and the Bill has not yet been put down for a second reading in this House. I do not wish to attach the smallest suspicion of blame to the Examiners. If I had been one of them I would have committed exactly the same mistake. Nor do I want to ascribe any blame to the Parliamentary agents of the promoters of the Bill, who are a firm of very high standing. But I cannot free myself from suspicion of doubt as to the action of the promoters. A friend of mind told me that in January he heard rumours that a change of policy had occurred, but, on inquiring, he was assured that the church of Dewi Sant was to be made the parish church. I say deliberately that the notices given of this Bill were distinctly misleading, and have, in fact, misled the people of Cardiff. Motion made and Question proposed—

"That it be an Instruction to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, to whom the Bill is referred, that they do inquire and report as to whether Standing Order No. 3 (notices by advertisement) has or has not been complied with."—(Mr. D. A. Thomas.)

The view taken by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil in this case has my warmest sympathy, although I am afraid I cannot recommend the House to accept the motion which he has just made. The case, in a few words, is simply this: that under the notices which were given of this Bill it was proposed, amongst other things, to "constitute the new church dedicated to Dewi Sant, situate in Howard Gardens, in the said parish of All Saints', the Parish Church of the Parish and District Chapelry of All Saints' in substitution for the existing Church of All Saints, and to make all such provisions and confer all such powers as may be necessary for accomplishing that object." In the short title of the notice which was given, this phrase occurs: "Constitution of the New Church of Dewi Sant as Parish Church." I think that that is a wholly misleading notice, and I can quite understand that the inhabitants of Cardiff, seeing that notice of the Bill, thought that the Welsh church of Dewi Sant was to be constituted the parish church; that that fell in with their views, and that they, therefore, would not take further objection. They did not do what perhaps they ought to have done—send for a copy of the Bill, or at any rate inspect the Bill at the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons. It is only recently that they have discovered the omission in the Bill itself of provisions to carry out what was in the notice. It seems to me, as I have said, that the notice was very misleading, and that the public were led to expect that certain things would appear in the Bill. But when the Bill came to this House not only does this provision not occur, but the very opposite occurs—that the new church to be built is to be the parish church of the parish of All Saints'. So much on the merits of the case. Then comes the question of procedure. Now, although I have not a very strong feeling on the matter, I think it would not be a very wise thing to send the Bill back to the Examiners. It must be a matter of common knowledge that very often the notices go considerably beyond what is afterwards contained in the Bill. You cannot, under certain circumstances, expect that the Bill shall contain everything that is in the notice. There are numerous cases in which notices drawn in November must contain proposals which, by the time the Bill reaches this House, it is obvious cannot be carried out. And, therefore, we cannot say that because a Bill does not carry out every particular in the notice there has been a non-compliance with the Standing Orders. If the Bill went back to the Examiners they would only report that, though in certain respects it did not carry out all that was in the notice, there has not been non-compliance with the Standing Orders. To send it back, moreover, would cause a great deal of delay and a very considerable amount of expense. Exception to the notices should also have been taken at an earlier stage, in the other House. For these reasons I do not ask the House to take that step on a question of procedure. When the Bill comes before the House there will be an opportunity to excise or amend the clause to which the hon. Member objects, and to insert the proposal that the church of Dewi Sant shall be the parish church. To that no technical objection can be taken. The hon. Member's case will not be prejudiced by waiting till that time, and therefore I should suggest that the House should not pass the motion standing in the hon. Member's name, but reserve to itself the right to amend the Bill in Committee.

I do not think that the case is quite met by the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees. If we get the Bill sent back to the Examiners they will have to report that the Standing Orders have not been complied with. In Sir Erskine May's, "Parliamentary Practice," it is said that "in preparing a Bill for deposit the promoters should be careful that no provisions are inserted which are not sufficiently alluded to in the notices." Our complaint is that in the notices there was no sufficient indication that the Bill would propose that the new church would be the parish church. It was quite the contrary. The notice was that the existing Welsh church of Dewi Sant should be the parish church. But when the Bill is laid on the Table of the House it turns out that another church is to be made the parish church, the new church of All Saints, in which the English services are to be carried on. The case comes back to the general proposition I have read. In the notice in November no sufficient indication was given that it was intended to make the new All Saints' Church the parish church, and therefore we ask that the Bill should be sent back to the Examiners, and that they should report whether the rule has been complied with.

It is not my intention to offer any remarks upon the technical objection as to the sufficiency of the notice, but I wish to state that which I think the House ought to know, and which probably is the cause of the terms of the original notice not being in exact accordance with the Bill. The church of Dewi Sant is a church built by the subscriptions of those who thought that the Welsh-speaking population of the whole of Cardiff should possess a church in which their own language was used. The Welsh-speaking population of All Saints' is a very small and diminishing quantity. Under these circumstances it would have been impossible to carry out the terms of the notice without destroying what the hon. Member opposite has rightly described as a thorough Welsh church, inasmuch as, as soon as it becomes the parish church, the services must necessarily be held in the language of the great majority of the parishioners.

Order, order. I think the hon. Member is going into a question which does not arise upon the instruction.

I quite agree with the view expressed by the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means. The House of Lords has passed this Bill, but it is still open to consideration by this House. How, therefore, can the public suffer any loss by anything that has been overlooked by the House of Lords? Hon. Members will have ample opportunity, when the Bill is brought forward, of correcting it.

After what has fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means I do not propose to press my motion to a division. Motion by leave withdrawn.

reported from the Committee on Group 8 of Railway Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Monday 19th June, at half past Eleven of the clock. Report to lie upon the Table.

reported from the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulations Bills; That the parties opposing the Warrington Corporation Bill had stated that the evidence of Joseph Parry, civil engineer, of Liverpool, and John James Lackland, civil engineer, of St. Helens, was essential to their case; and it having been proved that their attendance could not be procured without the intervention of the House, he had been instructed to move that the said Joseph Parry and John James Lackland do attend the said Committee to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock, Ordered, That Joseph Parry and John James Lackland do attend the Select Committee on Police and Sanitary Regulationas Bills to-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the discussion of local details in relation to the Muscat incident has sufficiently closed to allow of the presentation of the Papers to Parliament.

I am afraid the discussion of local details is not yet closed, and we cannot lay Papers at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the immunities and privileges (if any) in regard to the exemption from personal taxation enjoyed by the Consuls representing foreign countries in different portions of the Empire; and are the same immunities and privileges allowed to all Consuls, whether paid by salary or by fees.

Consuls of foreign states enjoy no special privileges or immunities, as a matter of right, in the Queen's Dominions. In the United Kingdom foreign Consuls are, however, exempted in practice, as a matter of courtesy, from payment of income tax on their official salaries, but not from other taxes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the protest presented on 24th July by the British Minister at Pekin to the Tsung-li-Yamen, in which it was stated that England would not tolerate any interference of another Power with the British loan contract entered into freely by the Chinese Government, especially referred to the demand made by Russia at Pekin, on 11th June, 1898, and 19th July, 1898, that the portion of the line to be built should not be mortgaged to the British bondholders, and that no foreign control should be permitted even in case of default, both of which points were included in the preliminary contract between the Chinese Government and a British corporation on 7th June, 1898; and, whether the Foreign Office subsequently insisted on the British corporation withdrawing from the agreement the clauses objected to by Russia, despite the British Minister's statement that England would tolerate no interference in the matter.

The negotiations concerning the Northern Railways loans are detailed at length in the Blue-book, and must be considered in connection with the negotiations for a general settlement proceeding at the time. The British corporation was consulted, and agreed to the arrangements made upon which their capital was successfully raised.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the agreement giving Russia priority of railway conces- sions in Persia expires; and what stops Her Majesty's Government propose taking, at the expiration of this agreement, to place England on an equal footing with Russia as regards the construction of railways in Persia.

No public announcement has been made as to the agreement in question, and it would be inexpedient for Her Majesty's Government to make a declaration as to their intentions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the concessions granted to German capitalists for the construction of a railway through Asia Minor and Mesopotamia to Bagdad, Her Majesty's Government will notify the Porte that English interests in the trade of the Persian Gulf make it necessary for any line that may be hereafter constructed from Bagdad to Bussora and the Gulf to be entrusted to English capitalists.

I am afraid I cannot make any statement as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, but we are fully alive to the necessity of maintaining British interests in the Persian Gulf.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Russian Government has lately imposed a tax of 50 roubles on English commercial travellers carrying on their business in Russia; and also a tax of 500 roubles, or over £50, on the firms which they represent; and whether Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been instructed to make representations to the Russian Government against such charges as calculated to check the development of trade between that country and England.

The reply to the two questions in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. There are, however, several points in regard to which the precise manner in which the new law will be applied is open to doubt, and upon these points Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed to ask for explana- tions, before it can be decided whether Her Majesty's Government would be warranted in making any representations against the proposed charges.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make his promised statement in reference to the recent visit of H.M.S. "Tauranga" to Tonga, the interviews of Captain Stewart with King George, and the further responsibilities, if any, incurred by Her Majesty's Government in connection with this native kingdom.

This agreement involves no liability on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and it is therefore not thought desirable to publish it.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the clause in the Anglo-Russian Agreement, that the Russian Government is at liberty to support concessions for a railway from the main Manchurian line in a south-westerly direction, implies that the British Government will offer no objection to the construction of a railway joining Peking with the main Manchurian line.

The clause referred to in the Anglo-Russian Agreement does not, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, cover the question of railway communication with Peking.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any consent has been given by China, Russia, or any country to the geographical definition of the Yang-tsze Valley as being the provinces bordering the Yang-tsze River and the provinces of Honan and Chekiang; and whether the Government has got inserted in any railway concessions obtained by foreign Powers in China a proviso guarding British goods from differential treatment or preferential rates, as suggested by Lord Salisbury's despatches of the 24th September last.

The valley or basin of the Yang-tsze has been defined as stated in the question, and this definition was communicated to the Russian Government, but there has been no occasion to invite the assent of the Powers to it. As will be seen from the papers just presented, the Russian Government considered the question of railway rates as too technical for insertion in a preliminary agreement, and that it should be settled between the two Governments when the time came for its necessary consideration. Her Majesty's Government will, of course, use their best efforts to prevent British goods being subjected to differential treatment on Chinese railways.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what was the number of British officers present with each battalion of native troops at the Battle of Omdurman; and whether care will be taken in any future operations in the Soudan that the proportion of British officers to native troops shall be kept to the full standard.

The number of British officers in Sondanese battalions is five, in Egyptian battalions four. It is not now possible to say what number of these were present with each battalion at the Battle of Omdurman, but battalions are kept complete or very nearly so to the above establishments. It is, of course, not possible on a campaign to secure that all officers will be present at an engagement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether further military operations on a considerable scale are to be undertaken in the Soudan in the autumn; and, if so, whether they are to be carried out entirely by means of native troops, or whether British troops will also be employed.

It is impossible for me to make any statement as to whether military operations may be necessary in the Soudan next autumn or not. Nor has any question arisen as to the nature of troops to be employed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners have declined to re-admit a widow named Frances Lewis, of Newport (Mon.), who, as the wife of Patrick Driscoll, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment of Foot, was two years in the Crimea, and underwent many of the hardships of that campaign; and, whether the decision will be reconsidered, seeing that she is now aged, again a widow, and almost absolutely dependent on the ratepayers.

The case of Mrs. Lewis has been carefully considered by the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, and in view of the fact that there is not only no evidence of the death of her second husband, Charles Wilmott, but that the certificate of her third marriage has been unmistakably tampered with, they are unable to readmit her to the list of recipients of the fund.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether an order has been issued, or is in contemplation, withdrawing from the engineering branch the control of the various electrical motors, and placing these complicated machines in charge of lieutenants; and whether it is contemplated that the necessary duty of overhauling and repairing the motors shall be performed by the engineering branch.

No change in the present Regulations as to the charge of electric motors is contemplated. In 1898 the torpedo officer, or where none is borne the gunnery officer, was made responsible for electric motors. Before that time electric motors were not specially mentioned in the Regulations, as there were scarcely any in the Service, but in the few cases in which they were fitted it was the practice for the torpedo officer to take charge of them. The motors are kept in repair by the torpedo staff,

On behalf of the hon. Member for West Belfast, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when, and in what form, it will be convenient to him to present to the House the promised statement with regard to the performance of the water-tube boilers on board Her Majesty's ships.

Every effort is being made to complete the statement as soon as possible, but ill view of the large amount of current work in the office the preparation necessarily takes some time. It is not practicable to explain in an answer to a question the form in which the information will be given, but I shall be glad to show it to the hon. Member. It will be, generally speaking, a continuation of the Return No. 234 of 1895.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board is obtaining Returns under the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th schedules of the Life Assurance Companies Act, 1870, from those members of Lloyd's and others who have issued policies of insurance upon human life within the United Kingdom: and whether such persons who have begun such business since the passing of the Act have been required to make the deposit of £20,000 specified in the 3rd section thereof.

I can only give the hon. Member the same answer as I gave to the similar question asked by him on the 12th July, 1897. The Board of Trade have no information that any member of Lloyd's or other individual has issued or incurred any liability under such policies except as a member of a life assurance office.

May I be allowed to hand the right hon. Gentleman copies of such policies which I hold in my hand?

Yes, I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will give me any information he can,

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the erection of the new lighthouse at Blackhead, county Antrim, whether he is aware of the danger involved in delaying to secure from the tenants arid occupiers possession of the lands upon which it is proposed to construct the lighthouse there; whether, considering the increasing value of land in the vicinity of Whitehead, which is adjacent to the place, a fair and liberal offer will be made to the tenants for their interest in the holdings required; and if he can say about what date the work is likely to be commenced.

As stated by me on 2nd June, in reply to the hon. Member for Gateshead, a site has been obtained for the new lighthouse on the Blackhead. I am informed by the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the site can he entered upon at once. The Board of Trade have no power to make any suggestion as regards the amount to be paid to the tenants, which, in case of disagreement, will be determined by arbitration in manner provided by statute. I understand that tenders for the buildings will be invited very shortly, but I have no information as to the date upon which the work is likely to he actually commenced.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will state to the House how many signal boxes on the North-Eastern Railway exist in which signalmen are on duty 12 hours consecutively without any relief; and whether the Board of Trade is taking steps, in the interest of the safety of the travelling public, to discourage such long hours of continuous labour in positions where concentrated attention to duty is essential for the safety of passengers.

The Board have not the information asked for in the first paragraph of the question. In cases under the Regulation of Railways Act, 1893, the Board discourage continuous twelve-hour shifts in signal boxes. The amount of work to be done by signalmen varies largely, and the case of nearly every box must be considered on its merits.

Will the right. hon. Gentleman take any steps to obtain the information referred to in the first paragraph?

We have no power to compel the company to give the information, but if the hon. Member wishes it I will see what can be done.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that property of the value of £110, belonging to the fishermen of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea, in the county of Northumberland, was destroyed last week by trawlers operating within the recognised limit; and whether, seeing that these offences occur with great frequency, he is prepared to take any further steps to prevent the inshore fishing industry on the north-east coast being wilfully destroyed by the illegal operations of these trawlers.

I have received no information as to the alleged destruction of fishing gear at Newbiggin, but the matter was referred to at the annual Fishery Conference on the 6th instant. Trawling within this district is prohibited by bye-law made by the Northumberland Sea Fisheries Committee, and it is for that body to take such steps as may be necessary to enforce their own bye-law.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether he will furnish Members desiring it with copies of the circulars of the Education Department which have been issued since the publication of last year's report, so that they may be in their hands before the discussion of Scotch Estimates.

The circulars issued by the Department in the course of a year are numerous, and several of them have reference only to unimportant details of routine business. All that are of general interest are on sale, and may be obtained at small cost, and it has never therefore been considered necessary to have them printed and distributed as Parliamentary papers. In any case the request could not be complied with before Friday of next week.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether recent enactments by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia in reference to the immigration of Japanese have been disallowed at the instance of Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, upon what grounds.

Certain laws enacted by the Legislature of the Province of British Columbia imposing disqualifications on Japanese have been disallowed by the Government of Canada at the instance of Her Majesty's Government on the ground that they were offensive to a friendly Power.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make any statement to the House with regard to the Conference at Bloemfontein. The following questions on the same subject also appeared on the paper:—

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he expects to be able to lay upon the table papers in reference to recent negotiations with the Government of the Transvaal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement as to the result of the Conference between President Kruger and Sir A. Milner.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he will make a full statement as to the causes of the failure of the Conference between President Kruger and Sir Alfred Milner; and whether he will undertake that, pending the presen- tation to Parliament of the official reports of the proceedings of the Conference, Her Majesty's Government will proceed with no action tending to the possible rupture of diplomatic relations between this country and the Government of the Transvaal.

To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will cause to be printed and at once circulated to Members copies of the Outlanders' petition received some weeks since from the Transvaal, and also of the counter-petition.

It is unfortunately true that the Conference has broken up without any result, and a new situation has thus been created. President Kruger has rejected the proposals for a settlement offered by Sir Alfred Milner, and the alternative suggested by him was considered by Sir Alfred Milner, and is now considered by Her Majesty's Government, as entirely inadequate. I have not yet received the Memorandum which Sir Alfred Milner informs us he has communicated to the Press on the subject of the Conference. He understood that this memorandum would be telegraphed by Reuter verbatim to this country, but owing to some unexplained cause it has not yet arrived. I am therefore unable to say whether the statement of the Government of the South African Republic which has been published in the meantime agrees in all respects with Sir Alfred Milner's account. I understand that the discussion turned mainly on the question of the franchise. Sir Alfred Milner was of opinion that the exclusion of the Uitlanders from representation was the root of the difficulties which have arisen, and that it was desirable, if possible, to come to an arrangement on this point before dealing with other questions in dispute between the two Governments. Sir Alfred Milner asked that the franchise should he given to all naturalised aliens who have resided five years in the country, with retroactive effect, and a fair amount of representation be conceded to the new population. President Kruger's proposal was substantially as follows: First, that aliens who were resident in the country before 1890 might naturalise and have the full franchise in two years' time; secondly, that the bulk of the Uitlanders might be naturalised in two years' time, and might receive the franchise five years later—that is to say, in seven years from the present time. Between the period of naturalisation and that of receiving the franchise they would have to abandon their present nationality, and would have no rights of nationality in the Transvaal. The President also attached to his offer certain conditions as to a pecuniary qualification, and the proof of possession of civil rights in the country from which the alien had come. It is not clear whether the further condition, that a majority of two-thirds of the burghers would be required to confirm the possession of the franchise, would be insisted upon. The President agreed that three members might be added to the representation of the mining districts, thus giving to them five members out of a total of thirty-one. According to these proposals no change whatever would take place for two years, and then only in the case of a small minority of the Uitlanders who had resided eleven years in the Transvaal. The whole of these proposals were made subject to an agreement by this country to refer all differences with the Transvaal to the arbitration of a foreign Power. Sir Alfred considered these proposals as altogether inadequate, and further informed the President that Her Majesty's Government would not consent to the intervention of any foreign Power in disputes between themselves and the Government of the South African Republic. The President also asked for the incorporation of Swaziland, but does not appear to have pressed this claim. He also demanded that the question of an indemnity for the Jameson raid should be settled; and was informed by Sir Alfred Milner that the British South Africa Company had agreed, in a despatch which was then on its way, that, while protesting against the amount of the claim sent in as altogether unreasonable, they would nevertheless consent to submit to arbitration the amount of damages for any material injury suffered by the Transvaal in consequence of the Jameson raid. The question of the dynamite monopoly was touched upon, but, in view of the failure to come to an agreement with regard to the franchise, it was reserved for further discussion between the two Governments. I have to add that the despatch in answer to the petition of the Uitlanders to the Queen, which was sent to the High Commissioner before the invitation to the Conference was received from the President of the Orange Free State, and which had been held back pending the result of the Conference, will 110AV be communicated to the Government of the South African Republic, and as soon as they have received it will be laid on the Table with other papers, including the petition of the Uitlanders to the Queen, and the counter-petition of other Uitlanders to the Government of the South African Republic.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will include in those Papers the instructions he gave to Sir Alfred Milner for his guidance at the Conference?

No, Sir; that will not come into the present Bluebook. A subsequent Blue-book will have to be published as soon as we get the full report of the Conference, and that will contain all the instructions I gave.

I wish to point out that the right hon. Gentleman has not fully answered my question as to when he expects to lay on the Table the Papers relating to the Transvaal. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that hé will lay immediately the despatches and reply to the Uitlanders' petition, and that further Papers will be laid at a later date. I venture to urge on the right hon. Gentleman the view that a situation has now arisen when the Government ought to lay before the House all the Papers relating to the negotiations which they propose at any time to communicate to the House.

The Government cannot lay Papers on the Table until they get them. I cannot possibly receive the full despatches containing what has taken place at the Conference for about three weeks. As soon as I get them I propose to lay them on the Table.

I presume the Colonial Office Vote will nut be taken before these Papers are received?

No, Sir; I think that would be expedient.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Private D. Jackson; of the 2nd Black Watch, was drowned whilst bathing in the canal at Aldershot on 28th May, and that there were no appliances for saving life in the vicinity; and whether proper bathing places will be established for the use of the soldiers at Aldershot.

I regret to say that a soldier of the Royal Highlanders was drowned in the canal, notwithstanding the praiseworthy efforts of a comrade to save him. The man was bathing contrary to orders, as the bathing season had not commenced. When bathing is permitted, certain hours arc specified and picquets with the necessary apparatus for saving life are detailed at three bathing places. I may add that money is taken in this year's Estimates for the provision of a swimming bath at Aldershot.

May I ask whether last week the weather was not hot enough for bathing at Aldershot?

This private was drowned, I am sorry to say, on Sunday, the 28th May.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War when the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Military Prisons will be presented to the House.

I hope to present this Report before the end of the month.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state if any difficulty is experienced at the present time in obtaining an adequate supply of suitable recruits for the ranks of the Metropolitan Police; and by what number that force is short of its established strength.

The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. It is necessary, in order to provide a margin for temporary augmentations, to keep the force below its authorised strength, and it is at the present moment 285 short; but this includes a recently authorised augmentation of 100 men for whom recruiting has not yet commenced. The actual deficit therefore is 185, which is below the average of the past seven years. These figures take no account of the 75 men now being trained in the preparatory class.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the unsuccessful application of Miss Sorabji for permission to plead before the Allahabad High Court; whether he is aware that the lady referred to has taken law honours at Oxford and has passed the LL.B examination of the Bombay University, and has complied with all the necessary regulations; and whether he will state the grounds upon which she is prevented from practising before the High Courts of India.

I am aware that Miss Sorabji applied to the High Court for permission to practise as a pleader, and that the Court, which has an absolute discretion in the matter under Letters Patent, refused its assent to her application. I do not know what honours Miss Sorabji may have taken at Oxford or elsewhere, nor do I know the grounds of the Court's refusal; but I think it probable that in was on account of her sex, which would equally have debarred her from practising in any court of law in this country.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the control of legal education in Calcutta is wholly in private hands, the Government Presidency College having no law department, and the four private colleges teaching up to the full course of the University law degree; and whether he will state upon what grounds the Bombay Government have now decided to pursue a different policy, and consider it not advisable that the control of higher legal education in Bombay should he wholly or partially in private hands.

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The grounds on which the Bombay Government decided that the control of higher legal education should not in Bombay be allowed to pass to private institutions are thus stated in a letter from that Government of the 1st September, 1898:—

"In the opinion of this Government it is inadvisable to allow the control of higher legal education to pass to private institutions, for the administration of the law is undoubtedly a part of the general administration of the country, and in spite of the fundamental dissociation of law front politics there is a distinct danger of the perversion of legal instruction to political uses."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether for the last few years the Bombay Government have contributed nothing to the support of the Government Law School, but on the contrary have made a yearly profit of about Rs.8,000 from the fees paid by the students, and have now resolved to raise these fees; whether he is aware that the Bombay Government refused to sanction the affiliation of the proposed private College of Law on the ground that they desired to improve the Government School by means of these enhanced fees, and were therefore unwilling that students should be diverted to another institution; and whether this prevention of the establishment of a private College of Law has been sanctioned by the Government.

It is a fact that the fees received at the Government Law School at Bombay have during recent years exceeded the expenditure, but I doubt whether the average excess has been so much as Rs.8,000; in 1896–97 it was only Rs.3,190. It is also true that the Bombay Government have resolved to raise the fees; but this is not to make a profit out of fees, but to make the new organisation self-supporting. I answered the second and third paragraphs of the question in my reply to the hon. Member's question of the 16th May last. The question of the fees had nothing to do with the refusal of the Bombay Government to sanction the application of the private institution to the Bombay University.

Will the noble lord ascertain from the Bombay Government which of the contradictory reasons they rely upon for preventing the establishment of this private college?

No, sir I can add nothing to my answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of the Central Committee of the Pasteur Institute, held on the 15th April last, at the office of the Director-General, Indian Medical Service, at Simla (the Director-General himself in the chair), when it was proposed to ask the Government to make a grant for a Pasteur Institute, and to place it under a Government medical officer; whether this committee has been formed with the sanction of Government; and whether it is proposed to grant them the assistance asked for.

(1) I have seen a newspaper report of the meeting of the Pasteur Institute Committee to which the question refers. (2) The Government of India are, I believe, aware of the formation and proceedings of the committee; but I ascertained some weeks ago that they had not decided on their course of action. They hoped, however, to deal with the subject during the present summer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to certain prospectuses of the Godaveri Estates, Limited, and the Godaveri Valley Collieries, Limited, purporting to deal with mining and other rights in the Zemindari of Ramangavaram and Mullur, in Hyderabad State; and whether the Zemindar has power to give a lease of the mineral rights on his estate.

My attention has been called to these prospectuses, which appear to have been issued in London for the purpose of exploiting a concession alleged to have been granted by one Mathu Krishnam, Zemindar of Ramangavaram and Mullur, in the Warangal District of Hyderabad State. The Government of His Highness the Nizam brought the matter to the notice of the Government of India, and reported that they had nothing to do with this alleged concession; and that, inasmuch as no Zemindar has the right to lease minerals to an English Company without their consent and that of the Government of India, ally contract purporting to deal with milling rights which may have been made by the Zemindar is null and void.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he will be good enough to state the quantities of sugar, raw and refined, entering India during the year 1898–9, specifying in each case the countries of origin.

The trade returns for March, 1899, give the following figures as the imports of sugar into India during the year 1898–99:—

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state to what kind of committee the proposed inquiry into the financial relations of the State to savings banks will be referred, and the scope of the reference.

I have fulfilled the intention I expressed of consulting with several hon. Members who have taken a special interest in this subject; and a strong opinion has been expressed to me by some whose views I feel bound to respect that such a matter ought not to be referred to a Select Committee without a definite indication of the views of the Government. There would also be some difficulty in constituting a Committee at this time of the year, as some Members whose services I should much like to secure are already engaged on other work. I intend, therefore, to institute certain preliminary inquiries, with the assistance, I hope, of someone with practical knowledge of the working of savings banks; and I hope to base on them a proposal which may be considered by a Select Committee early next session. This will not involve any real delay, as no legislation could in any case take place this year.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to a statement in the Press, that a quarter of the caper teas and half of the dust teas now imported should be confiscated under the Food and Drugs Act of 1875, by reason of their containing 20 per cent. of earthy matter and sand; whether he will explain the nature of the precautions taken by the Customs Department in London for the detection of such adulteration, and whether the number of samples analysed could be increased with advantage: and, whether, having regard to the fact that the descriptions of tea above named are for the most part consumed by the humbler classes least able to protect themselves against adulteration, he will increase the staff of inspectors especially allocated to the duties of sampling and analysis of caper and dust teas.

My attention has been called to this matter. The Board of Customs have, in view of representations made to them by certain firms and of statements in the Press, ordered a full inquiry to be made. It is not easy, within the limits of an answer to a question, to explain the precautions taken by the Board for the detection of the adulteration of tea; but I shall be happy, if the hon. Member wishes it, to supply him with particulars. The Board of Customs, as at present advised, do not consider that there is any need for altering the existing regulations, but if, as a result of the investigation now in progress, it should appear advisable to make such alterations or to increase the number of tea inspectors, the necessary steps will he taken at once. Meantime a circular has been issued to the tea inspectors directing them to administer the existing regulations with special care.

When will the inquiry be held?

It has already been begun.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the 21st April last, while a private meeting of the Irish National Foresters, of Cookstown, was being held in their own hall, an attack was made on the hall, and the windows smashed, by an Orange drumming party; and will he explain why the police were not present while the attack on the hall was going on, why no arrests were made, and why no one has been prosecuted.

:I am aware of the occurrence referred to in the first paragraph. After the drumming party had marched through the streets it halted opposite the Foresters' Hall and continued drumming, at the same time hooting and yelling. When the drumming party had passed it was found that four panes of glass in the hall had been broken. The damage is estimated at ten shillings. A party of police was present on the occasion, but they saw no windows broken when the drumming party was passing, and did not become aware of the fact until afterwards. This is accounted for by the noise caused by the crowd, which was a large one. Every possible inquiry has been made with the view of obtaining evidence against the persons concerned in the breaking of the windows, but so far without success.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the judgments in two sittings of the Sub-Commissioners held in Bailieborough, county Cavan, 7th and 8th March and 10th May, have not yet been communicated to the tenants; whether he is aware that this delay is disapppointing to many of those who are offered and desire to purchase their holdings under the Land Act; and whether he can say at what time the decision of the Land Commission will be made known.

Judgments have been delivered in a few of the cases heard at Bailieborough on the 7th and 8th March last. It is expected, however, that the decisions will be announced on the 24th instant in the remaining cases, as well as in a large number of the cases subsequently heard on the 10th ultimo at the same place. The inspection and office work necessary to complete these cases is being proceeded with as rapidly as possible. The Commissioners have no information on the subject referred to in the second paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that in those cases where landlords and tenants agree to fix fair rents on the report of two Court valuators there is great delay in securing the valuation; that in many instances four months will elapse after applying to the Land Commission before there is a response; and whether there is any reason for this delay.

There has been some delay in referring a number of the applications mentioned to the court valuers for inspection, but the delay has been unavoidable owing to the work in other districts in appeal cases, and it is expected that all such applications will have been referred to the valuers before the end of July.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the complaint of Mr. Fagan, inspector of industrial schools in Ireland, that the children now committed in Ireland are rather destitute than criminal, whether he is aware that the circulars sent from Dublin Castle discouraging the magistrates from making such committals has raised considerable indignation throughout the country; that the industrial Schools (Ireland) Act provides that such destitute children arc proper subjects for committal under this Act; and that out of 396 boys discharged from industrial schools in Ireland from 1894 to 1896 (both inclusive) 347 are found doing well, and 31 only re-convicted; and out of 49 girls 47 are doing well, and not one reconvicted; and, whether, considering the good results of the present system, the closing of some of the prisons in Ireland, and the reduction of the number of prisoners in several others, he will consider the advisability of withdrawing or modifying the Circular referred to.

The words attributed to Mr. Fagan will be found in his last Annual Report on Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Ireland. These words should be read with the context, when it will appear that in using the word criminal the inspector meant not alone actual criminals, but waifs and potential criminals. The statistics quoted in the question refer not to industrial school cases, but to those of reformatory schools. There is no intention to withdraw or modify the Circular mentioned.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this new role may possibly lead to the closing of some of these schools altogether?

It is not a new rule at all, and I have no reason to believe that it will lead to the closing of any schools.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Land Sub-Commission has been appointed for a fixed term of three years; whether this rule will apply to all future appointments; and, with what object has the change been made.

Presumably the hon. Member refers to the Rule made by the Land Commission on the 13th March last, and which has been laid on the Table. That Rule provides that Temporary Assistant Commissioners appointed by the Lord Lieutenant after the date thereof and before the 31st day of March, 1902, shall hold office, subject to the provisions of the Land Act of 1881, up to and including the 31st day of arch, 1902, save that where any such Temporary Assistant Commissioner has attained the age of 65 years he shall not be appointed or re-appointed for a continuous period greater than one year. It is clear from the wording of this Rule that its application is limited to appointments made before the date mentioned. The object of the Rule is to give as long a tenure of office to Temporary Assistant Commissioners as is consistent with the convenience of the Service.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Irish emigration to America continues upon an extensive scale, and has considerably increased this year as compared with the same period last year; and whether it is intended to take any steps to revive Irish industries with a view to provide Irish workers with employment in their own country.

It is the fact that the number of emigrants from Ireland to the United States during the past five months is larger than the number in the corresponding period of 1898, in which year, however, the number of Irish emigrants was smaller than for many years back. But the number of emigrants from Ireland to the United States and other countries during the past five months is considerably less than the average numbers for the corresponding period in the ten years 1889 to 1898.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appoint a Committee to inquire into the causes of this steady drain of the Irish population to foreign countries?

I da not think there is any occasion for such a Committee. As far as I am able to judge, the number of emigrants from Ireland to America depends much mare upon the state of trade in America than on any other cause.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the unreasonable delay complained of by the tenants and owners of land in Ireland in carrying out the Land Purchase Acts (Ireland), whether his attention has been called to an estate in Chancery near Kingscourt; whether he is aware that a number of tenants on that estate have agreed with the landlords to purchase at a price already fixed, and have lodged with the Land Commission the usual affidavits under the Land Purchase Acts, and no court valuer has since been sent to inspect the holdings; and if he can state the cause of delay or say when the court valuer will come down to inspect these holdings.

The hon. Member's question does not contain sufficient information to enable the particular estate referred to to be identified. If he will communicate with me on the subject I will cause further inquiry to be made.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the statement of the Secretary of the Kildare County Council that a sum of –753 had been struck off the amount to which the Council were entitled under the Agricultural Grant, notwithstanding the fact that exceptional circumstances existed which should have increased rather than diminished the county's share of the grant; whether he is aware that the Local Government Board has failed in response to the application of the Secretary of the Council to afford any information as to the basis on which they calculated the amount of the grant; and whether he will order the required information to be given.

The amount of the reduction made by the certificate of the Local Government Board was –289, not –753 as stated in the question. All exceptional circumstances were considered in this case. The information asked for by the County Council was not given, but I propose to lay on the Table of the House a general memorandum explaining the methods adopted by the Local Government Board in calculating the amount of the grant.

To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can undertake to have the Orders in Council, General Orders, and Rules issued by the Local Government Board, and the Rule of Court in connection with the Local Government (Ireland) Act, collected in one volume and issued to Members before the vote for the Irish Local Government Board is taken.

There are some cases in which the Local Government Board Orders referred to may require modification, and I would rather that they were not collected and printed in a permanent form until these cases have been considered. Apart from that, the collection, when completed, will form a bulky volume, and I do not think there is any chance that it can be printed in time for the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the General Order in reference to collectors of the poor rate, recently issued by the Local Government Board, has been laid upon the table of the House; and why it has not been circulated.

The General Order has not been laid on the table of the House. Copies of it were sent to every county council and board of guardians in Ireland, and the Order can be procured through any bookseller. I shall be happy to supply the hon. Member with a copy if he so desires.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that to be a bad practice? Can he not undertake that General Orders of this character, which bear directly on the administration of the Local Government Board, shall be circulated as a Parliamentary paper?

If the hon. Member will give me a list of the General Orders which he would like so dealt with, I will see if it can be carried out.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Local Government Board informed one of the Cork Councils early in the year that a director of a joint-stock company, which had a contract with the Council, could not be a member of the Council; and whether, as Article 12, Sub-section 5 (c), of the Application of Enactments Order, 1898, provides that a shareholder of a company having a contract is not disqualified as a councillor, and as a director's interest is not greater than a shareholder's, he will direct the Local Government Board to issue fresh instructions on the subject.

The Local Government Board have been unable to trace any case such as is referred to in the first paragraph, but if the hon. Member will supply me with further particulars I will have another search made. I may add that the point raised appears to be a legal one, and could not, therefore, be finally decided by an opinion of the Local Government Board, even if they expressed one.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the amount deducted as an excluded charge from the Agricultural Grant for the county Roscommon in respect of the Suck drainage charges; whether he is aware that the Suck drainage charges are not charges in connection with navigation works under Drainage and Navigation (Ireland) Acts, 1842 to 1857, or any special Act whether public or local; and whether he will have the Agricultural Grant to Roscommon increased in respect of this matter.

The amount deducted as an excluded charge from the Agricultural Grant to Roscommon in respect of the Suck drainage charges is –100. As regards the second and third paragraphs, the Commissioner of Valuation is of opinion that the Suck Drainage Act of 1889, under which these charges arise, fairly comes within the description given in the latter part of Section 57, Subsection 6, paragraph 1, of the Local Government Act, and therefore that these charges should be excluded from the benefit of the Agricultural Grant.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the details of the excluded charges?

I have not the details here, but if the hon. Member will put down a question I will attend to it.

On behalf of the hon. Member for S. Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the meeting in Shaftesbury Avenue, Belfast, addressed by one of the Custom House steps preachers, on the 27th May last; whether he is aware that the men present there then marched through the City of Belfast, and when passing through Dougall Street stoned and smashed the windows and fixtures in the business houses of a number of Roman Catholics, and that they afterwards attacked and assaulted with stones or otherwise a number of the city police; and, whether he will take steps to have this practice prevented by the local authorities.

The facts are generally as stated in the question, except that it is not true that the mob on this occasion made an attack on the police, none of whom were injured. Proceedings have been instituted against 17 persons for obstruction and riotous behaviour, and the cases will be heard at the Belfast Petty Sessions Court on the 18th instant.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Ids attention has been called to the report of the proceedings at the inquest upon the body of the old man Davies who died from injuries received at a so-called religious meeting at the Custom House steps, Belfast; whether a copy of the depositions taken thereat has been received by the authorities, and if a copy will be laid upon the Table of the House; whether he is aware that the depositions disclose that foul and filthy imputations were made by the evangelists disturbing the peace there upon the members of a Roman Catholic Sisterhood remarkable for their works of mercy and charity, respected by the whole community of Belfast, and very dear to the Roman Catholic citizens; also that the coroner's jury and the coroner condemned these open-air demonstrations as disgraceful and a menace to the public peace of the city; and what steps, if any, will he taken to prevent a recurrence of this danger.

I replied to a question on this subject, addressed to me by the hon. Member for East Mayo, on Thursday last. I see no reason for laying a copy of the depositions taken at the inquest on the table of the House, but if the hon. Member so desires I will be happy to supply him with a copy. In answer to the last paragraph, I do not propose, in view of all the circumstances of the case, and after conferring with the local authorities in Belfast, to institute proceedings for the language used on the occasion mentioned, but the Government will certainly prosecute in the event of a repetition of such language in future.

On behalf of the hon. Member for South Down, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that an attack was made upon the Nationalist demonstration on its way home from the meeting at Hannahstown, near Belfast, on Sunday evening last; that stones were thrown by a mob; that a disturbance took place in the Old Lodge or Shankhill Roads, and near the Townsend Street Police Barracks; and that the house of a Roman Catholic publican was attacked in or near Upper Townsend Street. Whether any, and how many, persons have been arrested; and if he can give particulars as to the damage done to persons and property in Belfast during these riots.

Upon the return journey of the Nationalist procession from Hannahstown on the 5th instant, when near Broadway on the Falls Road, a small crowd of the Protestant party assembled in a field and groaned and displayed party emblems. Some of the processionists left the procession and attacked them, both mobs throwing stones. They were at once dispersed by the police and military, and no one was injured. On the Old Lodge Road a mob of roughs of the Protestant party, who had collected to watch the return of some of the processionists, made a wanton attack with stones on the police. They then immediately dispersed. They shortly afterwards reassembled and threw stones at the house of a Roman Catholic publican named O'Neill, breaking all the glass in the windows. They were dispersed by the police and military, and three of them arrested. The place where this disturbance took place is about 300 yards from Brown's Square Barrack, on the Shankhill Road. The disturbance extended to the Shankhill Road and continued for about three hours, but the rioters were held in check from the outset by the military and the police, and very little damage was done to property. In all 47 persons were arrested for riotous conduct, stone throwing, etc. So far as the police are aware, no person was seriously injured. Six members of the Royal Irish Constabulary were wounded, though not seriously. Mrs. O'Neill, wife of the publican whose house was attacked, and two of her boys were injured by stones, and one of them is in hospital suffering from a broken nose. Accurate particulars regarding injury to property cannot yet be given, but at present it would appear that about £270 would cover the damage done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the military were withdrawn from the streets of Belfast at a very early hour yesterday morning; and, if so, by whose orders was this done; and whether he can say anything further as to the injuries inflicted on the military magistrate Major Tobin, and give further particulars generally as to the riots.

Early yesterday morning the Commissioner of Police satisfied himself that the services of the military were no longer required, and an intimation to that effect having been conveyed to the magistrates on duty with the military, the latter were withdrawn front the streets by degrees. The injury to Major Tobin was of a trivial character, and it never incapacitated him from the discharge of his duty as a military magistrate. Further information regarding the riots is given in my reply to the previous question of the hon. Member. The city has been quiet since Tuesday night, and the riots may now be regarded as virtually over.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that heavy election expenses have been caused by candidates putting themselves forward at the recent local government elections in Ireland for divisions where no possible chance existed of their being returned; and whether he will undertake to amend the Local Government (Ireland) Act to the extent of obliging any candidate who provokes a contest, and fails to secure at least a fourth of the votes of the electorate, to pay a moiety of the cost of such election.

The amendment in the law suggested by the hon. Member is clearly one which, if adopted at all, should be of general application. I think, however, it will be found on consideration to be open to grave objections.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if, having regard to the desire of officers commanding and other officers arid members of provincial regiments of Volunteers to see the March Past of the Metropolitan Volunteers before Field-Marshal H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, K.G., on Saturday, 8th July, in commemoration of a similar Review held by His Majesty King George III. in 1799, he will be good enough to authorise or move H.R.H. the Ranger to authorise the erection of a stand near the saluting base, provided that the cost be guaranteed by the Institute of Commanding Officers of the Volunteer Force and the Council or the Major-General Command- ing the Home District be responsible for the distribution of seats.

:The preliminary arrangements are still under the consideration of the General Officer Commanding the Home District, and his proposals have not yet come before the Office of Works. Should the Review take place, it will no doubt be possible to give reasonable facilities for the erection of stands.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he will consider the desirability of providing an ambulance within the precincts of the House, to be ready for use in case of accident or sudden illness.

In reply to my hon. friend, I have to say that the matter appears to me to be outside my jurisdiction; and I would refer him to the authorities of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether the Return for the year ended the 31st March, 1898, of the Army and Navy officers permitted under Rule 2 of the regulations drawn up under Section 6 of the Superannuation Act of 1887 to hold civil employment of profit under public Departments contains a complete list of all officers so employed; and whether he is aware that Case 4, on pages 28 and 29 of the above-mentioned Return represents that of an officer whose retired pay is –450 a year, and emoluments of civil employment –500, who does not draw retired pay, who is consequently serving for –50 a year, and that the deductions made from this officer's salary, compared with the total amount received of effective and non-effective pay, amounts to 90 per cent.

My right hon. friend has no reason to doubt the completeness of the Return in question. The lists, however, are not in the first instance compiled at the Treasury. The officer referred to in the second paragraph was appointed Naval Assistant to the Hydrographer while still on the active list. After being placed on the retired list, he was retained in his civil employment under the provisions of the Order in Council of 18th May, 1870, which necessarily precluded him from drawing retired pay. The case is not an ordinary instance of deduction, as the officer was in receipt of the same emoluments both before and after retirement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the extraordinary length of time taken in the transit of the following telegraphic messages to Oldham, between the 3rd and 18th of May: From Manchester, 48 minutes; Eastbourne, 2 hours 2 minutes and 2 hours 12 minutes; Crystal Palace, 2 hours 17 minutes: London, 2 hours 14 minutes; Cambridge, 3 hours 4 minutes; Kennington Oval, 2 hours 4 minutes; Bath, 2 hours 4 minutes; Worcester, 2 hours 11 minutes; House of Commons, I hour 40 minutes; and Liverpool, 1 hour 19 minutes; and whether there is any intention on the part of the postal authorities to give a through wire to Oldham from London, or in some other way remove the cause for the constant complaints that are made by supplying an efficient and effective telegraphic service.

My hon. friend communicated with the Postmaster-General on the 24th ultimo respecting the delay sustained by the telegrams in question. The various cases are being investigated, and as soon as the inquiry is completed an explanation will be furnished to him. In regard to the question of a wire from London to Oldham, I fear I can only refer him to the answer given on the 15th ultimo.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he can give any explanation why a telegraphic message sent from London on the 31st May to Messrs. Bradbury and Co., of Oldham, took over one hour before it arrived at the Oldham Post-office: whether he is aware that the systematic neglect of the postal authorities to grapple with the delay in transmitting messages to Oldham is resulting in considerable loss to the constituency; and whether, if the postal authorities cannot remedy the evil without going to the expense of a separate wire, it is intended to do What is necessary in the interests of the public.

The Postmaster-General is unable to find any trace of the message to which the hon. Member refers, but if he will furnish him with the necessary particulars inquiry will be made. The Postmaster-General is not aware that there is any general delay in the transmission of Oldham telegrams. The cases to which the hon. Member has drawn attention are of an exceptional nature. The matter is, however, being kept under review, and every effort will be made to avoid unnecessary delay.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether the attention of the Postmaster-General has been called to the mandatposte system, for the transmission of money by post, which has been for many years in operation with great success in Switzerland and Germany; and whether he will consider whether it would be desirable to give the system a trial in this country.

The question whether it is desirable to introduce into this country the money-card system in operation in some Continental countries is under the consideration of the Postmaster-General, and it is not possible at present to make any definite announcement on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the Money-lending Bill was particularly referred to in the Queen's Speech, and that it has already been read the third time in the House of Lords, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the measure this session; and whether he can give any informa- tion as to the date when it will be brought forward for discussion in this House.

:I beg at the same time to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there is any prospect of his being able to proceed with the Money-lending Bill at an early date.

I am afraid that in the present situation of the business of the House I cannot make any accurate forecast which would enable me to answer my hon. friends' questions.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state definitely the day on which Scotch Supply will be taken.

I think I intimated I would take it to-morrow week. On Monday I propose to take the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, on Tuesday the third readings of the London Government Bill and the Finance Bill, and Thursday I propose to allocate to the Vote of Censure, or the Motion to be proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, on the subject of the sugar duties.

What Supply, if any, will be taken after the Foreign Office Vote to-morrow?

I confess I have not considered that. If the hon. Member will communicate with me privately later I will endeavour to inform him.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell the House when the Naval Works Bill and the Military Loans Bill will be introduced. Both Bills were promised long ago.

I am anxious to produce them at an early date, and I hope no long delay will intervene before they are introduced. The Military Bill is almost ready for introduction, and may be expected in a day or two. The Naval Bill is not quite so well advanced, but I think it will he in the hands of Members before very long.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when it is proposed to proceed with the Telegraphs (Telephonic Communication, &c.) Bill.

I regret that my right hon. friend the Secretary to the Treasury is not able to be in his place to-day, and I have not been able to communicate with him. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will postpone the question till a later day.

When will the Municipal Trading Committee be appointed?

I am afraid I cannot give any pledge at present.

I beg to ask the leave of the House to introduce a Bill dealing with undersized fish. Its object is to prevent the destruction of immature fish, and I am sure the House will realise that it is a matter of importance to prevent the destruction of such fish, which has the effect of limiting our food supply. The Bill is based on the Report of the Select Committee on Sea Fisheries. A measure was introduced by us in the House of Lords in 1897, and it passed through that House, but came down to the House of Commons too late to be considered. The present Bill is somewhat similar, and will, I hope, he passed into law. Every year the Fishery Department have been urging on me the great necessity of introducing a Bill on this subject, because of the great injury caused by the destruction of undersized fish which is constantly going on. Similar representations have also been made to me by the representatives of sea fisheries, and by the Fishmongers' Company.

This is a Bill which has been introduced almost every year since I have had the honour of holding a seat in this House, and I feel bound to make one or two remarks with reference to it. I believe this Bill is introduced under an entire misapprehension. I am perfectly convinced that fish in the sea, or even the fringe of them, cannot be touched by anything done by trawlers or lines; but however that may be, what I wish to impress on the House is the great ignorance which prevails as to the habits of fish, even among fishermen. No one can tell, for instance, why the herring come one year and not another. Consequently if this Bill is founded on the assumption that we knots a great deal about fish and their habits, it is a very serious misapprehension indeed. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the Sea Fisheries Committee of 1893. That Committee practically reported what have just said, viz., that there was great ignorance with regard to the size of fish. I would ask leave to read a sentence from the Report of the Biological Society, of which the First Lord of the Treasury and the Secretary for the Colonies are vice-presidents, and it is therefore a very important society. On page 239 the Report states:

"A calm survey of the situation, however shows that the cry concerning the annual diminution of our lisp supply has been dispelled by the institution of statistics; that the alleged destruction of spawn has no basis in fact; that the destruction of immature fish is common to all classes of fishermen, and nowhere is proved to have resulted in the ruin of any sea fishery."

Yes, they are in France and elsewhere.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken. He is supposed to have informed my right hon. friend the Member for Thanet that these restrictions would apply to foreign fishermen, but in my opinion what my right hon. friend wanted to know was whether these restrictions were applied to foreign fishermen in their own waters. If they were he would support the Bill, otherwise he would not. I think that is manifestly fair. There is great difficulty in saying what are undersized fish. Fish are of all sizes, and a fish is not undersized because it is small, any more than a Shetland pony is undersized because it is smaller than a shire horse. Our knowledge in regard to these matters is very defective indeed, and it would be a very dangerous thing to legislate without further information. What I suggest is that this matter should be referred to a Select Committee, and if the evidence given before the Committee justifies it, and if the fishermen are found ready to cut their own throats by opposing undersized fish—which I do not admit are undersized at all, because small fish are the very best—then let the Bill be proceeded with. I reserve my opinion of the Bill until I have seen it; but whatever the Bill may be, I hope it will be referred to a Select Committee.

I have no objection to considering the hon. Member's suggestion. Bill to provide against the Destruction of Undersized Fish, ordered to he brought in by Mr. Ritchie. Bill "to provide against the Destruction of Undersized Fish," presented accordingly, and read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 229.]