asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether James M'Gowan, junior, of Conacloon, county Leitrim, settled his rent up till the 1st of November, 1881, under the Arrears Act; and, whether the special bailiff of his landlord has threatened to seize the goods of M'Gowan for said arrears; and, if so, whether he is entitled to any redress?

I have not thought it part of my duty to inquire whether or not Mr. James M'Gowan has paid his rent. In the latter paragraph of the Question the hon. Member asks me whether a private individual threatens to commit a breach of the law by seizing goods for a debt already paid. All I can say is, that if such a thing happens the person aggrieved has his legal remedy.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is correct that a protest has been sent to him from the Medway Board of Guardians against the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police from Chatham; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay a Copy of this document upon the Table of the House, and further to state what action he proposes to take in the matter?

I have received the protest; but there is no object in laying the document on the Table of the House. I have already explained to the House the course that the Government have felt themselves bound to take in consequence of the vote to which the House has come. I suppose the House was fully aware that the local authorities in places where the Acts were in operation were in favour of them. I do not see that a protest of this kind alters the situation at all. The action the Government has taken is consequent upon the vote of the House. The police generally will be withdrawn; but a limited number of Inspectors will remain, so far as may be necessary for carrying out the Acts as to those who voluntarily submit themselves. This is almost a ministerial duty on the part of the Inspectors of Police.

asked if voluntary submission was to be revived with all its imperfections?

said, it was not revived; it was in the Act of Parliament. It had already been stated that the action of the Government would be confined to that part of the Act which was condemned by the Resolution of the House—namely, compulsory examination.

gave Notice that he should challenge the employment of these police on the Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will be good enough to state whether it is intended at once to abolish the office of musketry instructors (Officers and Sergeants) in Militia Battalions as well as in those of the Line?

It is not intended to abolish the musketry instructors (either officers or sergeants) in the Militia Battalions; as Militia officers, from not being constantly on duty like officers of the Line, cannot be expected to be generally qualified to impart musketry instruction. Moreover, very few hold Hythe certificates.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph which has appeared in many London and provincial newspapers:—

"The Exchange Telegraph Company learns that as long ago as June last Lord Kimberley had received an intimation as to the annexation of New Guinea. At that time the Governorship of Queensland had been promised definitely to Sir John Pope Hennessy, but as soon as the intention to annex became known to the Colonial Office, the appointment was not made, as it was well known that Sir John Pope Hennessy was opposed to any such annexation, and would offer the scheme of the planters to introduce the blacks of Now Guinea into Queensland to work the plantations on the northern shore the most determined opposition;"

In the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend, I have to say that the statements in question are altogether incorrect. No intimation was received by Her Majesty's Government until February last that the question of the annexation of New Guinea was likely to be revived by any Australian Government.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether the design for the vast building in the Northumberland Avenue, designated as the "Hôtel Métropole," has received the sanction of the Institute of British Architects, as required by the Act of Parliament?

The design for the Hôtel Métropole was submitted to the Institute of British Architects, as required by the Act of Parliament; but, after due consideration, the Board did not think it necessary to put the tenant to the expense of carrying out the alterations suggested by the Institute, having regard to the fact that the plans for the building had already been amended in accordance with the recommendations of the Board's architect, who was himself then a member of the Council of the Institute.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the State-aided emigration to the United States which is conducted by Mr. Tuke's Committee consists entirely of persons who are likely to be able to support themselves; whether it is true that the United States authorities absolutely decline to take any others; and, by what arrangements Her Majesty's Government hope to relieve the burden of pauperism caused by a system of emigration which compels an ever-increasing proportion of persons who are infirm and ailing to remain behind?

The State-aided emigration conducted by Mr. Tuke's Committee consists entirely of persons who are likely to be able to support themselves and the members of their families who accompany them. I have before stated in the House that the pro-portion between workers and non-workers is carefully observed. The United States Government have made rules to prevent the introduction into the United States of persons likely to become a charge to the public. With regard to the third paragraph of the hon. Member's Question, the Government consider that the emigration of many of the occupiers of small farms, and the consequent enlargement of the holdings in the congested districts, must improve the position of the occupiers of land left behind. ["Oh!"] I think it is a well-founded opinion. I may observe, also, that one feature of the assisted emigration under the Arrears Act is that we assist no one to go who is a means of support to those whom he would leave behind. In the few exceptions of assisted emigration of single individuals this point is carefully observed. Those who remain are not in a worse, but in a better position than they were before.

Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been called to the protest of the Governor of Massachusetts as to persons landing in that State who have no adequate means of support? I would ask, also, whether the exportation of these poor people takes place for the benefit of the ratepayers here at the expense of the American ratepayers?

I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman in what way he considers that the assisted emigration of people who are able to support themselves adds to the prosperity of the district they leave?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can say why the Sub-Commissioners under the Land Law Act are not to hold a Court at Granard, county Longford, this time, as usual, but are to hear all the cases belonging to Granard Union in the town of Longford, thereby in some cases compelling suitors to come in from places more than 20 miles distant?

I can only repeat what I stated in reply to the hon. Member's former Question on the same subject a few days ago. The Land Commissioners fixed upon the town of Longford as the best place for opening the Court, and the Sub-Commissioners had power to adjourn for the hearing of cases to any other town in the county that may be more convenient to the parties interested, which it is understood they consult.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, with a view to giving effect to the recommendation of the Select Committee on Hall-Marking (1878–9)—

"That the duties upon gold and silver plate should be abolished, as soon as the state of the revenue may admit,"

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that although the Select Committee of 1878 and 1879 on Hall-Marking incidentally reported against the continuance of the duties on gold and silver plate, that question was not mentioned in the reference to them, and their Report contained no allusion to the drawbacks on stocks of unused plate, the only real difficulty in connection with the question of duty. I have already stated that I have no intention to propose to repeal the duty; and I may say that until some understanding is arrived at as to what would be a reasonable drawback it would be useless to endeavour to ascertain its amount. The claim of the majority of the trade is for the return of all the duty paid on unused plate, without limit of time, if the duty should be repealed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is in a position to give any assurance to the House that the Commercial Treaty between this Country and Italy will be renewed prior to the expiration of the existing Treaty on the 30th June next; and, if he cannot give that assurance, whether Her Majesty's Government will take measures to obtain the most favoured nation treatment for this country, so as to protect the British textile trades from the serious injury they would suffer from the new General Tariff of Italy?

Negotiations are now in progress for the renewal of the Commercial Treaty between this country and Italy; and I hope that I shall be in a position immediately after the Whitsuntide Recess to give a full reply to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the fact that the List of Dormant Funds in Chancery, issued in 1881, has long been out of print, so that suitors are unable to obtain copies; and, if he will take steps in future that copies shall always be available?

I learn that it is the fact that the Supplement of The London Gazette which contained the last list is out of print, owing to the demand for it having been greater than was expected. Care will be taken in future to print a sufficient number of copies. But I believe copies of the list are filed in the Report Office and exhibited in the several offices of the Court, so that suitors can have access to it. I may remind the hon. Member that a new and improved list will be published in six months.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with respect to the additional loan applied for to complete Rossclare Harbour, Whether he is aware that the said loan was recommended to the Treasury in November 1881 by the then Chief Secretary, on the grounds that the only way to make productive the large sums already spent on the Pier and on the Railway was for their Lordships to sanction such further loan as would enable the work to be completed; and, whether he will recommend a further inquiry?

Yes, Sir; the late Chief Secretary did make the statement quoted; but he did not give the grounds upon which he formed his opinion. Since that date the case has been further inquired into by the Public Works Loans Commissioners, who are responsible for the loan, with the result I stated on Monday. I fear the case is a very hopeless one, and that a further loan would only be throwing good money after bad.

Will the hon. Gentleman make further inquiry?

I have made inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that no appointment of a medical officer has yet been made to the Cashel Dispensary district, though the vacancy has existed since December; whether, in obedience to the instructions of the Local Government Board ordering them to proceed without delay to the election of a medical officer, the Dispensary Committee met on the 1st of May, but again postponed the election till the 14th of July; and, what steps the Local Government Board now intend to take?

, in reply, said, it was a fact that no appointment had yet been made. The Local Government Board wrote to the Dispensary Committee, on the 19th of last month, expressing a hope that the necessary steps would be taken at once to make the appointment. The Committee, on the 1st of May, considered the subject, and postponed the election until the 14th of July. The Local Government Board had no power to override this decision of the Committee.

Am I to understand that the Irish Local Government Board have no power to appoint a medical officer for the district, by sealed order or otherwise, when the Guardians persist in keeping open the vacancy?

said, he presumed such a case as this had probably never occurred before; and he could assure the hon. Member that when the appointment was made the Local Government Board would carefully consider the qualifications of the candidate, with a view of ascertaining whether there was any connection between his appointment and the keeping open of the vacancy for so long a period.

asked how long, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, was this large district to be left without a medical officer in order to allow an unqualified practitioner to become qualified for the vacancy?

I thought the hon. Member would have understood that what I said a moment ago had reference to that phase of the question.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to the case of Frederick Graham, a warrant officer's servant on board H.M.S. "Royal Adelaide," lying at Devonport, who had on 30th April fourteen days' leave stopped by Commander Dugdale, for wearing on shore what was called an unauthorized decoration, generally known as the blue ribbon; and, whether such interference with men in the Navy wearing temperance badges while off duty meets with the sanction of the Admiralty?

It is the fact that Frederick William Graham, warrant officer's servant, belonging to the Royal Adelaide, was arrested by the patrol on the 29th ultimo, while on shore on leave, for being improperly dressed, as he was wearing a blue ribbon on his uniform jacket, which ribbon is only authorized to be worn by persons who have been awarded the Victoria Cross, Egyptian Bronze Star, or Royal Humane Society's Medal, none of which decorations have been received by him. For this offence his leave was stopped for 14 days by the commanding officer. Directly upon the circumstances being brought to the notice of the Commander-in-Chief he remitted the punishment as unnecessarily severe, in which opinion the Admiralty concur. The House will, however, see how much inconvenience would arise if it were allowed that badges, however innocent and even laudable their significance, should be worn by men when in uniform. Besides the danger of their being mistaken for authorized decorations such as those I have named, badges might come to be worn indicative of different opinions on social, political, and religious questions; and it is, therefore, undesirable that any additions should be permitted to the regulated uniform of Her Majesty's Service.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in Committee on the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill, he will give favourable consideration to the proposal to extend the provisions of the Bill to the election of Local Boards, Town Improvement Commissioners, and Boards of Guardians?

As the addition of any further provisions to the Ballot Act Continuance and Amendment Bill might delay its progress through Parliament, I regret that I cannot consent to my hon. Friend's proposal to extend its provisions to the election of Local Boards, Town Improvement Commissioners, and Boards of Guardians, which have never before been included in legislation having reference to Parliamentary and municipal elections. Her Majesty's Government is, however, favourable to the application of the ballot to such elections, and hope to deal with the matter at a future date.

said, that, in consequence of the reply which he had received, he would not press the matter further in regard to this Bill; but on an early day he would submit a Resolution to the House on the subject.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If it is true that he has employed an architect to devise a plan for the restoration of the western side of Westminster Hall; and, if he will come to the House for a Vote before any considerable work is undertaken?

I have appointed the eminent architect, Mr. Pearson, to advise and superintend the restoration of the west front of Westminster Hall. It is certainly not contemplated to erect any buildings there. The hon. Member will find an item of £2,000 for this purpose in the first Vote which will be taken in Supply tonight.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any communication has been made to Her Majesty's Government, on the part of the Government of India, with reference to the taxation of gold and silver plate, and the practice of compulsory hall marking of gold and silver wares; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence relating thereto?

, in reply, said, that the Treasury had been corresponding with the Indian Government on this subject. If the hon. Member chose to move for the Correspondence he would lay it on the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Martin Nash, aged 19, a native of Queen's County, Ireland, was, on the 23rd ult., brought up before the Penzance Borough Bench, charged on remand with wandering abroad, and having no visible means of subsistence, and whether he made the following statement to the magistrates:—

"I have been from home 17 months. I have worked in coal pits near Newcastle. Last Tuesday I went into Newcastle to buy a pair of boots intending to return, having 15s. in my possession at the time, but I met two sailors who took charge of me and said they would take me to America, I having said I would like to go there. I gave them six shillings, and we spent the rest of the money I had in drink. They put me down where the coals were, and I was there from Tuesday evening to Thursday morning. I had some bread in my pocket while in the coal place. On Thursday morning I came before the captain, who kept me on deck till Friday, when he put me on shore at a place called Mousehole. I then had three pence in my pocket. I had no luggage. I came on to Penzance, and went into a public house and had a glass of beer. I did not go to see any person;"

, in reply, said, that he had been informed of this case. Nash, who had been a stowaway on board a vessel going to America—in itself an offence—was found as a vagrant at Penzance, and for that offence was imprisoned. The hon. Member had asked him if compensation would be given to Martin Nash. He was afraid a practice of giving compensation to persons under these circumstances would tend to make the grants very large.

asked whether a person who practised an honest industry, who went to a locality where that industry was carried on, and who did not loiter or ask any alms, which was the case with Nash, could be sent to prison as a vagrant?

replied, that an erroneous view of the facts appeared to have been communicated to the hon. Member.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the Belfast Guardians agreed on the 24th of April 1883 to accept as "satisfactory" a written explanation from the workhouse master respecting the tampering with the books in his charge; if the Local Government Board have censured the guardians, by implication, by declining to confirm their resolution respecting the falsification of the books; if it be true that the Local Government Board have stated in a communication to the guardians that food has been charged in the master's books, as having been supplied to paupers, who were not inmates of the workhouse on the particular dates shown in said books; if it be correct that, by this system of book-keeping, large surpluses of certain articles of food were created which were not credited on the provision book; and, whether, after considering the letter of the Local Government Board, he will continue in office the officials so acting?

It is the case that on the 24th of April the Belfast Guardians received an explanation from the workhouse master respecting the manner in which the diet books had been kept, and that they unanimously resolved that they considered it satisfactory. The Local Government Board, on learning this, informed the Guardians that they did not consider it altogether satisfactory, as it was the duty of the master to report to the Guardians any departure from the approved scale of dietary, and they requested that the matter should be further inquired into, which was done by the Visiting Committee, who made a Report on the subject, and gave directions as to the manner in which the books should be kept in future. The imperfect manner in which the books were formerly kept has met with the necessary attention. The Local Government Board inform me that there is no ground for supposing that fraud was intended or committed, and there is no reason why the officers concerned should not be retained in office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Westmeath Examiner" of Saturday, which states that on Tuesday last a detective and head constable visited a man who resided at Collinstown, in the county of Westmeath, and questioned him as to his knowledge of the murder of Mrs. Smythe; that they stated to him that they did not suspect him of the murder, but that he must know all about it; and that before leaving, one of them addressed him with clenched fist, called him a ruffian and puppy, and said the day would come when he would be glad to give information, but would not get the opportunity; and, whether the statements in this paragraph are true?

I have seen the paragraph referred to; and, having made inquiry on the subject, I am able to state that it contains a very garbled and incorrect account of what occurred. The allegations of misconduct on the part of the police are without foundation.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If sub-constables Kilvehan and Murphy have been employed in ploughing a farm on the estate of Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald, at Ballyculhane, county Limerick, from which a tenant had been evicted; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's advisers in Ireland are prepared to employ the Constabulary in cultivating the evicted farms, so as to render eviction profitable to the landlords?

, in reply, said, he had called for a Report; but it had not come to hand, owing to telegraphic communication having broken down, he believed, in consequence of a snowstorm.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in the "Derry Journal" of May 2nd, of an investigation held by Dr. Woodhouse with respect to gross abuses in the administration of the Dunfanaghy Workhouse; whether he is aware that it was sworn that an imbecile pauper inmate named Annie Haigney, daughter of a broken-down tenant, was delivered of an illegitimate child in the workhouse; whether he is also aware that the girl's sister, who had also been an inmate of the workhouse, swore that the Master, Mr. Greer, had misconducted himself towards her during her residence in the workhouse, and that her imbecile sister had complained to her of similar misconduct on his part; whether the Rev. Father Kelly swore that Jane Easton, a nurse in the infirmary, had reported to him certain irregularities in the house, and whether this statement, though disavowed by Jane Easton, was confirmed by the evidence of another nurse, Frances O'Donnell, who swore that Jane Easton had reported to her that the Master was looking after all the women in the house; whether the Master denied that he was the father of Anne Haigney's child; what steps the Local Government Board have taken to purify the administration of the Dunfanaghy Workhouse; and, whether the workhouse in which an idiot girl was subject to outrages of the character disclosed in the evidence is the only refuge, except emigration, offered by the Government or by the Board of Guardians to the thousands of distressed persons in the Dunfanaghy Union?

With regard to this very serious question the Local Government Board inform me that they have under consideration at present the Report of their Inspector, and that when they come to a conclusion they will inform me as to the result. At present the Local Government Board cannot say whether all the evidence produced is reliable; but the matter will receive attention.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to his statement that complaint was not made of any neglect by the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians, in the administration of outdoor relief, Whether the Rev. James M'Fadden, P. P., Gweedore, has repeatedly complained since January last that the guardians were systematically refusing out-door relief in all cases, and that the communications No. 359 and No. 37,617 from the Local Government Board, are acknowledgments of representations to this effect; whether, as stated to the Rev. Father M'Fadden by the relieving officer, that that official has received strict directions from the Board of Guardians to "offer nothing but the workhouse;" whether out-door relief was in fact refused in all cases, including a number of cases represented by Father M'Fadden as those of persons qualified by law to receive it; whether the Dunfanaghy Board of Guardians is under the control of landlords who are liable for the entire poor rates of large numbers of holdings under £4 valuation; and, what expenditure was actually made by the Guardians or the Government to assist private charity in aiding people during the last three months?

I am informed that in December last the Rev. Mr. M'Fadden wrote to the Local Government Board saying that distress was impending, and, in many cases, existing, in certain town lands, and urging some scheme of remunerative employment. This is the letter referred to as numbered 39,617. In January Mr. M'Fadden wrote again to the Board, forwarding a copy of a letter which he had written to the Guardians mentioning several cases of distress. The Board sent an Inspector to the Union, and there did not appear to be any default on the part of the Guardians or their officers in regard to the administration of relief. This is the communication numbered 359. The Guardians deny having ever given the relieving officer instructions to refuse all outdoor relief; but they did direct him to be very cautious about it in places where they believed the reports of distress were exaggerated. It is evident that the Guardians of Dunfanaghy Union have given indoor, in preference to outdoor relief, to destitute poor persons requiring it. In doing so, they exercised a discretion expressly vested in them by the Poor Relief Acts. There is no doubt that a large proportion of the holdings in Dunfanaghy Union are valued at and under £4. I am unable to say to what extent the Board of Guardians is under "landlord influence." I am not aware that any expenditure was incurred in this Union during the past three months to aid private charity in assisting poor people beyond that involved in the administration of the Poor Law.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a report of a case tried before a Dublin Special Jury on February 13th last, in which Mr. Patrick Fenlon, a tenant farmer of county Carlow, brought an action against one John M'Clintock Bunbury for assault and battery; if it is a fact that Mr. Bunbury and others attempted to ride over the lands of Patrick Fenlon, although a notice was served on the Master of the Carlow Hounds prohibiting hunting over said lands; if Fenlon warned off the trespassers, but Mr. Bunbury refused to turn aside, and struck Mr. Fenlon on the head with a whip; if Mr. Beauchamp Bagenal, who was examined as a witness for the defence, gave in evidence that he was a justice of the peace for Carlow county, and that he would have acted as Mr. Bunbury did under similar circumstances; if it is a fact that the jury found for the plaintiff, with damages; if, since then, one W. B. Pearse, J.P., who was also a party to the assault on Mr. Fenlon, has tendered in damages a sum equal in amount to that recovered in the action; and, if the facts are as stated, and if the three persons mentioned are justices of the peace for Carlow county, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland intends removing them from the list of magistrates?

My attention has been drawn to this case, which has also been under the consideration of the Lord Chancellor, and I have received a Report from his Lordship's Secretary, from which it appears that the facts are not correctly set forth in this Question, but are as follows:—A number of farmers of the county of Carlow had served a notice on the Master of the Hounds prohibiting hunting over their lands; but many of the persons whose names were attached to that notice informed the Master that they had signed under pressure and were in favour of the hunt being carried on as usual, and accordingly hunting was carried on until the day of the occurrence which became the subject of the action referred to. On that day a number of persons who were following the hunt crossed Fenlon's land without objection from him, and even caused a gap to be broken to allow a lady to pass. It was not until Mr. Bunbury came on the farm that Fenlon make any objection. He did not refuse to go when warned off. On the contrary, he said he would leave if Fenlon would show him the boundary of the farm, and that he would pay any damage caused by the trespass. The assault was occasioned by Fenlon catching Mr. Bunbury's horse by the bridle and forcing him back on his haunches. The Lord Chancellor has accepted Mr. Bunbury's assurance that he will in future use every means in his power to avoid going on the lands of those persons who object to his doing so, and he does not consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter. With regard to the other gentlemen named, the Lord Chancellor is not aware that anything transpired at the trial to warrant his withdrawing the Commission of the Peace from either of them. I gather that the Lord Chancellor's letter to Mr. Bunbury was more stiff than was mentioned in the letter of his Lordship's Secretary. I wish to say that people who follow the hounds ought to be careful not to go over farms on which a farmer has posted a legal notice against it. However, this matter does not rest with me, but with the Lord Chancellor.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not answered that part of the Question which inquired what justification there was for the assault upon Mr. Fenlon.

replied, that this was the first time the matter had been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, and his Lordship had written that he was inquiring into the case.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state what would have happened to Mr. Fenlon if he had attacked Mr. Bunbury under similar circumstances?

I would do exactly the same.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some young men who were convicted of preventing a hunt at Loughrea, county Galway, were sentenced to seven years' penal servitude?

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether he considers that Mr. Bunbury's own assurance is sufficient, considering the high securities required from others for keeping the peace?

said, he hoped the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) would put his Question formally, and he would make inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Kerry Sentinel" of Friday last, which complains of the midnight raids now repeatedly made by the police at a time when the county has settled down, and when outrage has almost disappeared; whether it is true, as stated in that article, that peaceable and respectable people are suffering as much now from police raids by night as they did a year ago from the terror of the moonlight gang; and, whether it is true, as stated there, that the police recently entered at night the house of Mr. Leahy, P.L.G., and, although his wife was dangerously ill, persisted in entering and searching the room where she lay ill?

The police had very good reasons to search Mr. Leahy's house. Papers of a compromising character were found there. The search was conducted with as little as possible inconvenience to the inmates of the house. Respectable people have not complained of the searches which it has been necessary to make.

asked whether Mrs. Leahy was not ill when the search was made?

said, she was; but the police had very good reasons for going to the house. The case was a very serious one.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that Sub-Inspector Hamilton, stationed at Crossmolina, county Mayo, while prosecuting one of two searches for arms and treasonable documents in the house of Mr. T. A. Macaulay in November last, seized and still retains an empty powder horn and shot bag, and a photograph; if this seizure was not illegal; and, if he will make an order to have these articles returned to the owner; if it is true that two police inquire for Mr. Macaulay every day at his house, and are ordered to report where he is, and how occupied; and, if it is true that Sub-Inspector Hamilton has, on two occasions, entered his house with a party of armed police at an unseasonable hour of the night without a warrant, and without stating his business?

I have to state that, for reasons of an urgent character, it has been deemed necessary to keep a close watch on one of the inhabitants of the house referred to, and to seize certain articles therein. I have no reason to believe that the action of the Constabulary has been in any respect illegal. With reference to this, and some other Questions that have been sometimes asked, I cannot believe that hon. Members are always aware of the motives which must actuate those who originally suggested the Questions. Between hon. Members and the persons in whose interest these Questions are asked I have no doubt there are intermediaries, and hon. Members are probably quite ignorant of the bearing of some of these Questions. But knowing what I know about several of them, including this one, I am positively appalled at finding the House of Commons used for such a purpose as that to which it is now put.

Perhaps, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, the House will permit me to explain that my object in asking this and other Questions is to bring under the notice of hon. Members a state of facts in Ireland which is simply a scandal to civilization. With regard to this Question and the other Questions which I may have asked—

The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into an explanation.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this search, in reference to which the hon. Member for Westmeath has asked a Question, was made under the provisions of a section of the Prevention of Crime Act which the Government stated in the House of Commons Lord Spencer did not require, and the insertion of which in the Prevention of Crime Act was forced upon them by the Conservative Opposition?

The hon. Member is out of Order in making those statements.

I wish to ask under which section of the Prevention of Crime Act this search was made? I ask the Chief Secretary in the absence of the Attorney General for Ireland.

Inconsequence of the answer which I have received, I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will call attention to the gross inaccuracy and untruthfulness of the information supplied to this House in the answers to Irish Questions.

I will give the House a specimen of what I mean. I was asked if a photograph had been seized. You might imagine from that that it was the photograph of the man's sweetheart. It was the photograph of a man in character, representing an assassin in ambush, with a revolver in his hand.

I beg to give Notice that I will ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the issue in England every week of portraits of assassins with various kinds of weapons in their hands?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any complaints have reached the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to the conduct of Sub-Inspector Smith, of Moville, county Donegal; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay Copies of such Reports upon the Table of the House?

Complaints have been made against the officer named, and the Inspector General ordered a Court of Inquiry to investigate them. The inquiry has not yet been completed, and I cannot undertake to lay Copies of the Reports upon the Table of the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If one of the special jurors engaged on the trial of Joseph Brady, in April last, named Thomas Bowers, and described as "gentleman," is the same Thomas Bowers employed as messenger at the office of the Board of Works Custom House, Dublin; whether it is customary to apply the term gentleman as accurately describing the occupation of those discharging humble functions at a small salary in Irish Departmental Offices; if the services of persons in the employment of the Crown are usually taken advantage of at such trials; and, if it is proposed in future to select such persons to perform the responsible duties of jurymen at Dublin Special Commissions?

Mr. Bowers was a qualified juryman, and I must decline making any other statement about him. Quite enough mischief has come from the names of individual jurymen having been brought before the public; and I am not going to be a party to giving those names the prominence that results from discussion in the House of Commons.

May I ask if this Mr. Thomas Bowers, who was described as being a qualified juryman, was qualified by reason of the fact that he was a messenger at the Custom House? I beg to give Notice that I will ask further Questions with regard to this Mr. Thomas Bowers.

asked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that the female telegraph clerks attached to the Dundalk Office are required to perform the entire of the telegraph Sunday duty of that office in addition to the limit of forty-eight hours per week, as laid down by his late revision; and, if this be so, has any compensation been allowed for this extra duty, and if not, will some now be made; is it also a fact that they are required to enter on duty as early as seven a.m. all the year round, and has not the surveyor and his senior clerk frequently surveyed the office without taking any notice of this irregularity, and what notice will be taken of their remissness; and, would the fact of the surveyor and the postmaster coming from the same district have anything to do with the ignoring of those grievances from which these females suffer?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have ascertained that the two female telegraphists employed at the Dundalk office work during the six week days the usual time of 48 hours. In addition to this, each of them works two hours on each alternate Sunday. They are entitled to extra pay to the extent of two hours a fortnight, and I have given instructions that the amount due to them shall be paid. The night work is done entirely by the male staff.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will delay the withdrawal of the Metropolitan Police from the districts protected under the Contagious Diseases Acts until Parliament has been enabled to decide on the Bill for the protection of young girls announced to be brought forward by the Government?

, in reply, said, he was afraid that the course suggested by the hon. Gentleman would not be consistent with the view which the Government had taken. The Government wanted to carry out strictly the recommendations of the Lords' Committee. A Bill would be introduced into the House of Lords, the effect of which, it was hoped, would be to diminish the serious evils of juvenile prostitution. That was not the direct or immediate object of the Contagious Diseases Acts, though the administration of those Acts have tended indirectly to that object.

said, that, in order not to terminate the operation of the Acts too abruptly, the withdrawal of some of the Inspectors would be postponed.

asked whether orders to that effect had been given?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will support the re-appointment of Rustem Pasha, who has maintained order and peace in the Lebanon during his tenure of Office?

In a Protocol, signed at Constantinople on the 8th instant, the Representatives of the Powers have agreed, on behalf of their respective Governments, to accept Wassa Effendi, who, it is believed, is eminently qualified to continue the able and successful administration of his Predecessor, Rustem Pasha, from which the Lebanon has derived so much benefit.

Is the noble Lord aware that the organs of the French Government admit that the object was to got rid of Rustem Pasha?

That is a Question, of which I should have Notice.

asked the Postmaster General, What arrangements he has made for carrying on the Irish Mail Service after October 1st?

No decision has yet been arrived at with regard to the arrangements to be adopted for carrying on the Irish Mail Service after the 1st of October next. I can, however, assure the noble Lord that the importance of the subject is fully recognized.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the advisability of accelerating the promotion of the Subalterns in the Royal Engineers; and, if so, whether he will communicate such decision?

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 5th of April; and I can only repeat that I do not contemplate adopting any exceptional measures as regards the Royal Engineers unless greater necessity should arise than now appears.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What regulation or custom guides Military authorities in Ireland when fixing the annual moves of Cavalry Regiments; and, in keeping the roster, whether no consideration is given to the fact that some stations are more healthy and popular with officers and men than others; and, if he will explain why the 5th Lancers have been quartered at Newbridge since March 1881, the Royal Dragoons in Dublin since May 1881, and the 21st Hussars in Dublin since September 1881?

There is no unvarying rule or custom as regards the movements of Cavalry regiments. Subject to public requirements, regiments are retained at one station for two years, more frequent moves being inconvenient to both officers and men. Consideration is given to the strength of a regiment, and whether it arrives from, or is going to, a good and popular station. The only Cavalry station in Ireland lately reported unhealthy is Dublin; and of all Irish stations this is the most in favour with the troops.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Daily Chronicle:"—

The Report from Her Majesty's Minis- ter at Tangiers, to which I referred in my reply to the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) on the 17th ultimo, has now been received, and states that it is the fact that slaves are occasionally sold in Tangiers, but that the annual number does not exceed 30 or 40. The status of slavery in Morocco at the present time is said to be still as it was described at page 112 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves, which was laid before Parliament in 1876. Sir John Hay adds that he has called for Reports from Her Majesty's Consular Officers at the Western Ports, and his attention will be called to the paragraph to which the hon. Member refers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Portuguese Government has finally refused to submit to arbitration the dispute regarding the "City of Mecca" collision case, in which the Portuguese Courts had given a decision in violation of the International Sailing Code, and as to which Her Majesty's Government Despatch states that there has been a "grave miscarriage of justice;" if he is aware that that grave miscarriage of justice has caused heavy pecuniary loss to British subjects; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to take to compel the Portuguese Government either to arbitrate or to redress?

I am glad to have been privately informed by my hon. Friend that the course hitherto adopted by Her Majesty's Government with regard to this case meets with his full approval. They are now awaiting a reply to the Note which, by Lord Granville's direction, Her Majesty's Minister at Lisbon addressed to the Portuguese Government on the 18th ultimo, and which will be found at page 14 of the Papers recently presented to Parliament.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the progress of the works at Hyde Park Corner has shown that it would be a mistake to re-erect the arch at the west end of Constitution Hill?

The rebuilding of the Wellington Arch at the new entrance to the Green Park was part of the arrangements explained to the House when the improvement of Hyde Park Corner was determined on, and I see no reason for departing from that arrangement.

said, he would consider the advisability of cutting a little more from the Green Park in order to relieve the traffic from Grosvenor Place to Piccadilly.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock on the Victualling Accounts of Her Majesty's Ships, together with a Copy of the Admiralty Order, dated October 4th, 1882, and any other Papers relative to recent frauds and irregularities connected with the victualling of Her Majesty's Ships?

Sir, in consequence of the state of things disclosed by the proceedings of certain courts martial held last summer, the Admiralty, on the 4th of October, issued an Order directing an inquiry to be made into the system under which the books of the ships in the Home ports are kept. The inquiry was conducted by Mr. Martin and Mr. Laycock, and their Report is dated 21st February. That Report is a confidential Paper, for the information of the Board, and cannot be laid upon the Table. I may add that this important subject is still engaging our attention, with a view to an improvement of the system.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the fact that Mr. William Paterson has been appointed an Assistant Inspector of Factories; whether Mr. Paterson has been recently general secretary of an important association of artizans in Scotland; and, if he can state the qualifications of Mr. Paterson for the office conferred upon him?

The first two Questions of the hon. Member I have to answer in the affirmative. With reference to the last part of the hon. Member's Question, I must refer him to an answer which I gave on February 21, 1881. I then explained that I desired to introduce into the body of Factory Inspectors an element which was thought likely to prove very valuable. That element consists of persons accurately acquainted with the business which, as Inspectors, they have to superintend. I have taken considerable pains to find such persons, and no appointment has been made except upon the highest recommendation.

wished to know whether Mr. Paterson was not for many years the Secretary to the Carpenters' and Joiners' Union; and whether he could in that position have obtained any experience in factory work?

I could only act upon the recommendation of persons who knew Mr. Paterson, and he was recommended by persons who had a knowledge of him extending over many years.

gave Notice that on a future day he would ask further Questions for the purpose of eliciting from the Government their views on the subject of the appointment of trades union officials to Factory Inspectorships.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can assure the House that the Spanish Government has carried out its promise to treat Colonel Maceo as a prisoner of war, and with the consideration due to his rank; and, if not, whether he will communicate at once by telegraph with the British Minister in Madrid to urge on the Spanish Government the necessity of carrying out immediately their promise in reference to Colonel Maceo?

Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid, in a despatch, dated May 6, has informed Her Majesty's Government that, in reply to inquiries on his part, he has received definite assurances from the Spanish Government that the treatment of Maceo is in conformity with the promises made on that subject, and alluded to by the hon. Member.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that, under the Play fair Scheme now in operation in the Civil Service, the clerks of the Lower Division are ineligible, except under very exceptional circumstances, for promotion to the Higher Division; if it is a fact that the majority of these clerks have entered the Service with the same qualifications as the clerks who now satisfactorily discharge the duties of the Higher Division; and, if so, whether he would modify the rules which appear to preclude duly qualified persons from rising in the Public Service?

It is the fact that the Order in Council forbids promotion from the Lower to the Higher Division of the Civil Service except after 10 years' service, and on the ground of special merit; but there are a number of staff or superintending appointments throughout the Service which it is intended to fill up from the ranks of the Lower Division; and, personally, I hope to see the ranks of the Upper Division in many of the offices largely recruited hereafter from among Lower Division clerks. I am not sure what the hon. Member means by the word "qualifications" in the second paragraph of the Question. If he refers to the standard of examination, I cannot admit the accuracy of his allegation. There is no intention of disturbing the present organization of the Civil Service.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will state what will be the charge (if any) for the granting of certificates to keep explosives under the provisions of the Orders in Council of April 20th, 1883?

There is no authority to make any charge of this kind under the Orders in Council.

asked the honourable Member for Walsall, Whether, in consequence of the last Report of the Committee on Public Petitions stating that in the Petition in favour of the Affirmation Bill, presented by Mr. Labouchere on the 23rd of April last, from a place called Suay, the Committee were of opinion that many of the names are in the same handwriting, and that the Orders of the House relating to the signatures to Petitions have not been complied with, it is the intention of the honourable Member to take any and what further steps in the matter?

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will also be able to state whether it is a fact that one person may sign Petitions for others with their consent; and, whether he has any reason to suppose that these inhabitants of Suay did not give their consent to the persons who, it appears, signed more than once?

, in reply, said, that the Petition referred to in the Question was a very small one. It had only 87 names appended to it. Of that number some 17 or 18 were undoubtedly in the handwriting of the same person. No doubt, this was an infraction of the Rules of the House, which the Committee, in accordance with their usual practice, noticed in their Report, and the names were not counted among the signatures. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Northampton, in accordance with the Standing Orders, if a person signed for others the fact ought to be notified at the bottom of the sheet. He was not instructed by the Committee to whom Petitions were referred to take any action in the matter to which the attention of the House had been drawn, and therefore it was not his intention to take action.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the pledges given by the Government, to the state of Public Business, and to the fact that three months of the Session have already elapsed, he will give an assurance to the House, and to the Country, that the present Sitting of Parliament will be continued until the measures named in the Speech from the Throne shall have been considered and disposed of by this House?

Might I be permitted also to ask the Prime Minister whether, with a view to expedite Government Business in general, and the progress of the Grand Committee on Law in particular, he will instruct the Attorney General not to delay the progress of the Committee by talking against time, for the purpose of preventing the Committee from arriving at a decision; and if he will also use his influence with the hon. Members for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) and Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) to the same effect.

I will leave it to my hon. and learned Friend to answer for himself what the noble Lord has now alleged; and, for my own part, I distinctly decline to give any instructions, oven if I were entitled or qualified to give instructions, to my hon. and learned Friend with regard to any portion of his Parliamentary conduct, because I know no man who needs them less. I am hardly in a position to answer the general question of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich, inasmuch as I have said that for three, if not four, nights after the Recess we must proceed with Business in Supply, and until we have disposed of some of those nights it is not intended to refer to any of the important measures of the Session. When we reach that point of time I will endeavour to give such information as I can.

gave Notice that he should repeat the Question on a future day.

If I did not take any notice of the Question it might be supposed that there was some foundation for it. I must appeal to any Member of the Committee, except the noble Lord, as to whether there is any foundation for that statement? The noble Lord introduced an Amendment of the gravest importance in the Committee, and I felt that we ought not to arrive at any hasty conclusion. I therefore took upon myself the whole burden of bringing that important Amendment before the Committee; and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) asked me personally to put down my views in the form of a Proviso, so that they might be considered before the next meeting. I did not ask any Member of the Committee to speak against time, and the Committee acquiesced in the course which I took.

As the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred to me, perhaps I may say that I do not think that the noble Lord intended to imply that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself spoke against time. But as he has appealed to me to say whether there was any delay of that kind in the proceedings, I am bound to say that if the action of the hon. Members for Stockton and Stockport did not amount to talking against time, I have never seen anything that did.

rose to speak, but—

ruled that the observations which had been made with regard to the proceedings of a Committee of the House had been, from the very commencement, altogether irrelevant and irregular.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the facts connected with the execution of Myles Joyce, in Galway Gaol, on the 5th December; whether he has read the declaration made, in reference to this man, by Patrick Joyce and Patrick Casey, who were executed on the same day; whether there is any foundation for the belief that the man was unjustly executed; and, if so, whether he will cause a provision to be made for this man's wife and famliy?

In reply to this Question, my attention has been called to the incident mentioned in the first part of it. But with regard to the question whether there is any foundation for the belief that the man Myles Joyce was unjustly executed, I must say that I distinctly decline to enter, in an answer to any Question, into the discussion of any matter relating to the execution of the capital sentence. It is for the hon. Member to consider whether he will make any charge against the Govern- ment in that respect. I do not part, however, from the subject without stating what is only due, I think, to my noble Friend the Viceroy of Ireland—that, in common with all my Colleagues, I repose the most entire confidence in the judgment, the care, and the humanity with which he endeavours to exercise one of the most delicate and important duties of his high Office.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will afford me an opportunity of raising this question, and I promise him that if he does, I will convince the House—or at least a large portion of it—that not alone has Myles Joyce been unjustly executed, but that certain others have been also unjustly executed in Ireland?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps are being taken to secure the future observance of the Convention in the Transvaal; and, whether he can state if any arrangements have yet been made in the interests of any Chiefs or others who may have just claims upon the Home Government?

The mode of procedure with regard to any actual or supposed infraction of the Convention with the Transvaal is by a remonstrance, conveyed through the Resident; and from time to time a correspondence of that character has taken place upon what appears to us to be a neglect of duty on the part of the Transvaal Government. The first part of the Question of the right hon. Gentleman is general, and does not suggest any further answer. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can only repeat what I said the other day, in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Gloucestershire (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), to the effect that no facts have yet been laid before us in such a form or of such a nature as to afford any plan for arrangement.

asked whether any further remonstrances or despatches had been addressed through the Resident of the Transvaal on the subject of any infraction of the Convention since the last issue of Papers; and whether they would be laid before the House?

said, that a further Correspondence was in progress; but he could not give any answer to the right hon. Gentleman's last Question until the Government had had an opportunity of communicating with Sir Hercules Robinson, whose arrival in this country was expected almost immediately.

said, he would repeat the Question after Whitsuntide.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake not to submit the Vote for the Resident's salary before the question of presenting the Correspondence had been decided?

said, that care would be taken not to bring on the Vote until all information had been given to the House that would enable it to be properly discussed.

having given Notice of the following Question—To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the widespread agitation in India caused by the proposed alteration in the Criminal Law, and of the fact that the Viceroy is constantly slighted in public, Her Majesty's Government will recall Lord Ripon from India?

said: I received just now a Notice from the hon. Member for Eye politely informing me that it was not his intention to put his Question; but, Sir, this Question has appeared on the Notice Paper, and, therefore, I cannot entirely avoid a reference to it, because it conveys a statement that the noble Marquess the Viceroy of India is constantly slighted in public. It mentions this as a fact. What may be the information of the hon. Gentleman I do not know; but no information of that kind, or tending in that direction, has reached Her Majesty's Government, and they deem it to be in the highest degree improbable. With respect to the Question whether the Government intend to advise the recall of the Marquess of Ripon from India, all I can say is that I wish that we or any future Government may, for the benefit of India, at all times when a vacancy in the Viceroyalty occurs, be able to secure for that post the services of a person so admirably qualified as the Marquess of Ripon for the discharge of every duty connected with it.

subsequently said, he would take an early opportunity of proving in that House the correctness of every statement contained in his Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the German Government upon the subject of the large bounties now given upon the export of sugar from Germany; and, if so, what is likely to be the result; and, whether, considering that the French sugar growers are pressing their Government (in consequence of the large export from Germany under bounty) to raise the surtax upon all sugar imported into Prance to a rate that will be prohibitory to British as well as to German sugar, Her Majesty's Government will now carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Sugar Industries, and obtain a Conference of the Powers interested, or take other steps to bring about a settlement of the question?

Her Majesty's Government have been in communication with the British Ambassador at Berlin, and have unofficially communicated to the German authorities the representations of the West India Committee with regard to the German sugar bounties. Her Majesty's Ambassador is of opinion that a proposal for a Conference would not be entertained. I would remind the hon. Member that in 1881 inquiries were made of the Governments of France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, and Austria as to whether they would agree to take part in an International Conference for the removal of bounties on the export of sugar; that the German and Dutch Governments then declined to participate in such a Conference, and that the French Government would only accept the suggestion conditionally. As regards the pressure which the hon. Member states the French sugar growers are bringing to bear upon the French Government to induce them to raise the surtax upon all sugar imported, I have no information which would lead me to suppose that such an agitation is likely to be successful.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, What changes the Government had made with regard to the training of teachers in Ireland?

replied, that if the hon. Member asked this Question in consequence of letters he had received from Scotland—and he (Mr. Trevelyan) had received similar letters from Scotland—he could not help thinking that some people in that country were under a grave misconception as to what the Government had done. The action of the Government consisted simply in extending to Ireland the system of grants to Training Colleges which at present is in force in England and in Scotland. They thought the whole of the United Kingdom should be on the same footing in this respect. There was no intention of interfering with the Marlborough Street College, which, in the opinion of the Government and people who understood education, was doing very good work indeed.

asked whether a Supplementary Estimate would be laid before the House to meet the proposed changes, as no provision was made for them in the Estimates now before the House?

said, he was unwilling to answer a financial question of this kind; but he was inclined to think that sufficient money for this year would be found out of the existing Estimates. If there was any feeling in the House as to the step that had been taken, the Government would introduce a Supplementary Estimate, if only for the purpose of enabling the House to express an opinion upon it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the secret inquiries which have been held or are being held under the provisions of the sixteenth section of the Crimes Act, witnesses are examined only concerning the offence named in the summons, or whether the questions range over a much wider field, in some cases extending to occurrences which happened several years ago; whether Mr. John O'Connor has been twice summoned before Mr. Home at Cork to give evidence in the inquiry proceeding into an alleged conspiracy there to murder public officials and to damage and destroy public buildings; whether Mr. O'Connor has offered to answer any question put to him with reference to such alleged conspiracy, but was informed that he would be compelled to answer every question on any subject put to him by the magistrate, and has consequently refused to be sworn and been committed to prison; whether he can inform the House if any guarantee exists that the magistrates entrusted with these secret inquiries do not take advantage of their secrecy to exceed the powers conferred upon them by the Statute; and what way is open for a person who considers he has been unjustly committed for contempt of court, under the provisions of the sixteenth section, to challenge the action of the magistrate committing him; whether any guarantee exists against the falsification, intentional or otherwise, by the officials employed for the purpose of taking down evidence at these inquiries of the evidence so taken down; and, whether, for the protection of witnesses at these inquiries, the Irish Government will consider the desirability of permitting to a witness the presence of his legal adviser during his secret examination?

In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to state that I have no reason to believe that at the inquiries held under the 16th section of the Prevention of Crime Act witnesses have been examined as to other matters than the offences named in the summons. Some of these offences—such as the murder conspiracies in Dublin and else where—were of a character necessarily involving a large field of inquiry; but in these, as in other cases, the questions put were relevant to the matters inquired into. As regards the case of Mr. O'Connor, I find that he demanded, as a preliminary to being sworn, that an undertaking should be given to him as to the line of examination to be pursued. He was not entitled to such an undertaking, and, having refused to be sworn, was committed to prison ac- cordingly. As regards the guarantee referred to by the hon. Member, I can only repeat that the character and integrity of the responsible magistrates appointed to conduct these inquiries will prove a sufficient guarantee for the upright discharge of their duties. If a witness be unjustly committed he can challenge the action of the committing magistrate in the High Court of Justice. As regards the concluding paragraph of this Question, I have to point out that the main object of the inquiries instituted under the Act has been to break up murder societies. For this purpose, it is essential to examine persons believed to belong to those societies. In the case of the Dublin "Invincibles," it was the examination of the man Farrell which originally led to the discovery and bringing to justice of the assassins of Mr. Burke and Lord Frederick Cavendish. If at that inquiry a legal adviser appointed for Farrell—as would most probably have been done by his confederates—had been present, he would never have spoken out, or, if he had spoken out, he would have been murdered within 24 hours, just as Bailey was murdered in Skipper's Alley, Dublin, in an earlier part of the year. Bearing these matters in mind, I do not intend to propose any alteration in the existing law.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of his reply to my Question, whether, in the first place, the guarantee that Mr. John O'Connor demanded previous to his examination was that questions should be confined to the offence named in the summons, and whether that was the guarantee refused by the examining magistrate; and, in the second place, whether the evidence upon which the "Invincibles" were discovered was not evidence voluntarily tendered by the man Farrell to a policeman in the street, who subsequently brought him before Superintendent Mallon, at Dublin Castle; whether Farrell, in examination at the secret inquiry, did not positively deny all knowledge of the conspiracy in question; and whether, subsequently, on the Phoenix Park trials, he did not declare that he committed perjury at those private examinations in order to save himself and his friends?

said, that Mr. O'Connor's stipulation was very much, if not exactly, that mentioned by the hon. Member. Considering, however, the fact of the immense number of witnesses that had to be called to throw light upon the enormous mass of undetected crime, it was quite impossible to make any difference between witnesses, who ought, as good citizens, to come forward to give evidence. If Mr. O'Connor had been allowed to make that stipulation, other witnesses must have been permitted to do the same; and magistrates could not be bound in that manner. He could not answer the Question about Farrell without Notice, and he doubted, from their nature, if he would answer them at all.

I wish to say that I put the Question about Farrell because I was challenged about him in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman; and when ha challenged me on the subject I naturally concluded that he knew all about the man of whom he was speaking.

said, that he had inquired very carefully into the bearings of Farrell's evidence with reference to the Dublin murder convictions, and he had likewise inquired very carefully into the connection between the other evidence and the secret inquiry, and he was quite satisfied that without the secret inquiry they would never have had Farrell's evidence or the convictions.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

here rose.

called on Mr. O'Shaughnessy.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. O'Connor—[Cries of "Order, order!"]

Mr. O'Shaughnessy.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, What decision had been come to upon the question of the tolls on the Upper Shannon, of which he had given private Notice?

After much consideration we have come to the conclusion that it is best, on the whole, not to attempt to increase these tolls pending further legislative action with respect to the navigation. The tariff will, therefore, be restored to the point at which it stood prior to 1882.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would undertake that the National Debt Bill should be put down as a first Order of the Day?

said, that he could give no such undertaking. He hoped to proceed with the Bill after the Recess.

asked if the Bill would be delivered to Members before the rising for the Whitsuntide Recess, or whether it would be accompanied with a Financial Statement, which was indispensable in connection with the Bill?

replied, that the second reading of the Bill would not be taken until after the Whitsuntide Recess, and before it was read a second time the information asked by his right hon. Friend should be given.

inquired the order of Business for the night? He wished to call special attention to the circumstance that it was understood to be the intention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to bring in that night the Bill which he presumed was the same as that mentioned in the Queen's Speech for amending the Agricultural Holdings Act. No Notice had, however, been given for allowing the Bill to be taken out of its order, and it only stood fourth among the Notices of Motion. Therefore he presumed that the intention must have been abandoned. He should be glad to know what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the Business generally, and especially with regard to the Agricultural Holdings Bill?

said, that it was proposed not to keep the House till an extreme hour in Supply that night, and then to take the questions that would be raised on the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would ask leave to introduce the Bill relating to agricultural holdings at whatever time of the night his Motion might be reached. ["Oh, oh!"] It was very desirable that he should make a statement to the House. In the view of Her Majesty's Govern- ment it was for the interest of all concerned that the Bill should be in the hands of Members as soon as possible.

said, that most undoubtedly the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken that night. It would be brought on before 12, and as soon after 11 as possible.

observed, that the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill contained provisions to which personally he had great objection. He could not help feeling that there would be a great deal of discussion upon it; and he would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman as to whether it was reasonable that such a discussion should be brought on after 11 or 12?

I rise to a point of order. I wish to know from you, Sir, whether I should be in Order in moving that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) in reference to the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill?

Motions in reference to the order of Business are taken at this hour only when they are made by a Minister of the Crown.

We shall make an effort to close Supply between 11 and half-past 11.

said, he would appeal to the Prime Minister, and ask him whether it was fair to Members who had been sitting on a Grand Committee since 12 o'clock that, after taking Supply and the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill, they should be asked to wait for this Bill, which was one of the gravest importance? Was it right, also, that it should be laid on the Table without remark?

said, he wished to support the appeal.

wished to point out to the House the position in which the Government was placed. They were desirous of making every effort to forward Supply, and the Customs and Inland Revanue Bill had already been postponed for various reasons for some time, and it was necessary for the Public Service that it should now be brought forward. In deference to what had been said by the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), they would endeavour to break off Supply somewhat earlier than he originally stated. With regard to the Agricultural Holdings Bill, the Government had every desire to take it earlier, and if there were co-operation on the part of the House it might be done. The statement of his right hon. Friend on the Bill would not be lengthy, and would, if possible, be made at an hour to suit the convenience of Members. Of course, there was no absolute guarantee as to the hour, because the Notices of other Members intervened. He might be asked why, under those circumstances, he did not move the postponement of the Orders of the Day, and his reason was that, although such Motions were extremely convenient to the House at a time when they were passed by the general consent of the House, and without discussion, that would interfere with the Business of the day. Of late the practice had sprung up of debating those Motions, and therefore he could not run the risk of such an interference with the regular Business of the House.

asked what would be the Business taken at the Morning Sitting on Friday?

said, that the Motion for the Adjournment of the House would take precedence, and after that they intended to proceed with Supply.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would cause inquiry to be made during the Recess into the practicability of protecting the Revenue, and, at the same time, repealing the 3rd chapter of 1 & 2 Will. IV., which prohibits the growth of tobacco in Ireland?

I have already stated that the whole subject of the home growth of tobacco is one which I shall have to consider, not only in reference to Ireland, but to the whole United Kingdom. The matter will receive my best attention.