asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the magistrate who on Monday last, at Oldham, is reported to have fined two boys five shillings each for the crime of tossing, is the same person who on the same day was sentenced by the justices at Eddisbury to pay a fine of five pounds for aiding and abetting in cruelty to animals at the recent cockfight in Cheshire; and, if so, whether he is a fit person to hold the office of magistrate?

in reply, said, he believed the gentleman in question was one of the borough magistrates of Oldham. The case had been referred to the Chancellor of the Duchy, who was the proper person to deal with it.

with reference to a statement that appeared in "The Times" of Thursday as to a part of the river wall at the Gun Wharf, Chatham Dockyard, which recently gave way, asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the statement is true; and, if so, what portion of the river wall was alluded to, and to what extent it has given way?

in reply, said, he guessed from the Question that the hon. Gentleman thought the Gun Wharf was within the area of the Dockyard with which the Admiralty was connected. That was an error. It was not within the Dockyard. He had no knowledge of what occurred in the Gun Wharf, which was not in his Department.

asked, Whether he was to understand that the Gun Wharf was no part of the property under the Admiralty, and that the right hon. Gentleman was last week unaware of those facts?

said, he had already stated that the Gun Wharf was not within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty, and that they had absolutely nothing to do with it.

said, the Gun Wharf belonged rather to the War Department than to the Admiralty. He was unable, however, to answer the hon. Gentleman's Question now, having had no Notice of it, but he would endeavour to do so to-morrow.

said, he was in the House on Saturday, at the time when Notices were usually given; but he failed to gather any intimation that the ordinary practice of the House as to meeting at 4 o'clock was to be departed from that day (Monday). If their Standing Orders and Sessional Orders were so loosely worded that it was in the power of the Government to fix whatever time they chose for the meeting of the House, they might fix on 3 in the morning. There was nothing to prevent the same practice being adopted in the middle of the Session. He would draw attention to that matter next Session with a view to an alteration of the Standing Orders.

said, he believed it was almost the uniform practice at the close of the Session for such changes in the hour of meeting to be made.

said, he had himself called attention to irregularities of that kind. The complaint of the hon. Member for York was, he thought, well founded. It was impossible for hon. Members to discharge their duty properly if they had not due Notice when to be present.

asked at what hour it was intended that the House should meet to-morrow?

replied that that did not rest with him. He, however, understood the usual hour was half-past 1.

said, that as to the point raised by the hon. Merber for York (Mr. J. Lowther), he might state that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. Adam) had publicly announced on Saturday afternoon that the House would meet at 3 o'clock on Monday; and Notice to that effect appeared on the Votes.