asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will use his influence with the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs to induce them to confine the Lord Mayor's Show entirely to Cannon Street, Queen Victoria Street, and the Thames Embankment; the return journey through the narrow streets, as last year, being generally in the dark, and of no amusement to any one except the pickpockets of London?

said, the Question was put upon the Paper last night, and there had not been time to communicate with the Lord Mayor upon the subject. Under the circumstances, he should not like to give a positive answer to pledge the Home Secretary; indeed, he did not know that it was in the power of the Government to interfere in the matter; and, even if it were, he should be sorry to take any steps which would curtail the very limited enjoyment of those who remained in London during the month of November. He ventured further to remind the noble Lord that there were other persons than pickpockets to whom the "show" afforded amusement.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps have been taken to carry out the policy of "universal disestablishment" and concurrent endowment enjoined upon the Governors of the West India Colonies in the Despatches of Earl Granville and Earl Kimberley in 1869–70 (printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 269, of Session 1871)?

replied that this was a question of detail in each particular colony, and as such was under consideration.

said, that in consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply he had received, he should bring forward the subject next Session.

asked the Attorney General for Ireland, in the absence of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary, three Questions with reference to the answer of the Chief Secretary on the 18th March, 1870, Whether the revision of the List of the Irish Magistracy, "with a view of clearing the List of the names of the persons who ought not to be there, or who had ceased to be able to act," which was then stated to be "yet going on," has been completed; and, if so, has any effect been given to the said revision in any one county in Ireland; if not completed, what progress, if any, has been made in such revision? whether any effect has been given to the opinion of the then Chief Secretary, "That the Government should use their influence" to have advantage taken of "all fair and proper opportunities to reduce the inequalities," then admitted to exist in the undue disproportion of Protestants to Catholics on the magisterial bench? and, whether the attention of the Irish Executive has been drawn to the character of all the appointments to the Magistracy for the county of Louth since 1867, and the exclusion of Catholics from the magisterial bench, including, amongst others, of a Catholic Peer, the son of the immediate predecessor of Lord Rathdonnell in the Lieutenancy, and one of the largest landed proprietors in the county? He remarked that perhaps the only person who could give full and accurate information in reply to the two first Questions was the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, who had not left London on Friday evening. With respect to the third Question, it was six months since he personally called attention to the sectarian character of all the appointments which were being made in Louth, and the exclusion of Catholics from the Bench, notwithstanding there was a grievous lack of magistrates. Among those excluded, he might name the Hon. Captain Lubbock, and also the Chairman of the Dundalk Town Commissioners, who was recommended by the county magistrates and by the late Chairman.

said, it was exceedingly inconvenient to put into a Question controversial matters such as this Question contained; and then, in putting it, to make additional statements which were not in the Question, and to mention additional names, because such a course rendered it impossible to obtain full information and to give a satisfactory answer. The Question appeared on the Paper for the first time on Friday, when the Chief Secretary stated in reply that he had not had time to obtain the information required, and personally he was precisely in the same position as the noble Lord—he had nothing to say on the subject. He was unable to give any information beyond this—he believed, the revision had not yet been completed. With respect to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the hon. Member for Dundalk appeared to be better acquainted with his movements than himself. He had not seen the noble Lord for the last few days, and was not likely to see him for some time.

said, it appeared the hon. Member for Dundalk desired to increase the number of Roman Catholic magistrates.

asked Mr. Speaker whether the hon. Member was in Order?

said, the House was engaged in putting Questions, but the hon. Member was entering into a debate.

declared he did not wish to go into a debate on the subject, but merely to point out that as regarded the administration of the laws the appointment of magistrates was a matter of the deepest importance.

The hon. Member is quite out of Order.

I wish to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, whether, on the appointment of magistrates professing the Roman Catholic religion, any inquiry will be instituted as to the extent to which they recognize the canon law of Rome and the authority of His Holiness the Pope as being supreme over that of the laws of this country which they are appointed to administer? I wish to ask, whether he will cause such inquiry to be made of any Roman Catholic magistrate?

I have stated that as Attorney General I have nothing to do with the appointment of magistrates; that is in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, and I hope there will never be a Lord Chancellor who will ask any magistrate so absurd a question.

asked, whether the subject, as far as regarded the revision of the list of Louth magistrates, might receive attention during the Recess?

said, no doubt it would, if it became a matter of pressing importance as affecting the good government of the country.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the qualifications of Inspectors of Mines, the maximum limit of age of 40 years was absolute and imperative, or was open to relaxation; and, if open to relaxation, at whose discretion and under what circumstances?

said, he had not had an opportunity of making particular inquiry; but, speaking from recollection, he believed the age was not 40, but 45. Such matters were determined by the Home Office, the Secretary to the Treasury, and the Civil Service Commissioners. A general rule was laid down, and it would not be competent to them to relax it for the purpose of meeting the case of a particular individual; but it might be re-considered on general grounds, if circumstances called for such re-consideration.

said, he wished to put a Question in reference to/a statement made on the previous day by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that a person known as Tichborne—[Laughter]—yes, the person known as Tichborne—["No, no!"]—["Mr. SPEAKER: Order, order!]—would have the same advantages as regarded his defence as any other prisoner who was charged with a like offence. He desired to know, Whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the existence of the Act 30 and 31 of Her present Majesty, ch. 35, sec. 3, whereby any person charged with any offence whatever was entitled to demand from the magistrate by whom he was committed, such assistance as might be necessary to enable him to bring forward material witnesses; and whether this man, having been committed not by a magistrate, but by a Judge, was not, by that circumstance, deprived of the advantages which, under that Act, any other prisoner would enjoy of having the expense of his witnesses defrayed out of the public funds?

If this man thinks that he has any statutory rights, he can try and enforce them in the ordinary way in one of the ordinary Courts. It is not the duty of the Home Office to interpret statutes.

My Question is, Whether, by having been committed by a Judge at Nisi Prius, he is not deprived of the advantages to which he would have been entitled had he been committed by a magistrate in an ordinary Court?

That is a question of law, and the Home Secretary cannot decide it.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is in a position to inform the House when it is likely that the prosecutions against the Bishops and priests in Ireland would be held; when it is likely that intimation would be given to the parties concerned that they might prepare for their trial; and, also, where it is proposed the trial shall be held?

Intimation will be given to the parties who are to be tried, and every facility will be afforded them for obtaining full information as to the charges which will be brought against them. It is possible, if the parties themselves so wish, that the trial may be held in the course of the next Michaelmas Term. If the ordinary course be followed this is not likely to take place, as the venue, in the first instance, must be laid in Galway, and the trial cannot be held anywhere else, unless the venue be changed either on the application of the Crown or of the defendants.

said—My Lords, and Gentlemen, By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now read, we do, in Her Majesty's Name, and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Friday the 25th day of October next, to be then here holder; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Friday the 25th day of October next.