asked the Secretary of State for War, If he received any report from the medical or other officers of the Kilmainham Hospital, Dublin, respecting the recent outbreak of typhoid fever in that institution, and its supposed origin; and, if not, will he cause an inquiry to be instituted, and a report to be made, as to the number of cases of typhoid fever that occurred in the hospital this year, the class of residences in which they occurred, the opinion of the medical officer, Dr. Carte, and of the medical gentlemen who were consulted as to the immediate cause of the outbreak, and place such report upon the Table of this House for the information of the sanitary authorities of the Kingdom?

, in reply, said, the Reports relating to the Hospital were not laid before the War Office, but before the Commanding Officer in Ireland. A communication would be made on the subject to the Commanding Officer, who, he had no doubt, would furnish the desired information, and he anticipated there would be no objection to laying the particulars before Parliament.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Re- turn relative to the General Election ordered on the 20th March last, will be presented; and, in case particulars have not yet been received from every county, division of county, and borough, to give the names of the counties, divisions of counties, and boroughs from which particulars have not been received, and to state what course he proposes to pursue with reference thereto?

, in reply, said, that the Returns were now practically complete, with the exception of those relating to the counties of Anglesey and Carnarvon, and the boroughs of Chelsea and Grantham. He hoped the Returns would be ready for circulation in a very short time.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, "Whether he has considered the Report of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury with respect to the abolition of First Fruits, and the re-adjustment of Tenths; and, if so, whether the Government are prepared to take the recommendations contained in that Report into consideration, with a view to legislation next Session?

, in reply, said, he could not promise that the Government would bring in a Bill on the subject, as there would be so much to be done next Session; but it was undoubtedly a subject which deserved the attention of Parliament. The hon. Member himself would be rendering great assistance, with a view to legislation upon this subject, if he would submit a Bill embodying his views.

asked the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether it be true, as stated in the "Morning Post" of the 5th instant, that Mr. Richmond, E.A., has examined the two water-glass pictures by the late Mr. Maclise in the Royal Gallery of the Palace of Westminster, and has ascertained that they are not permanently injured; and, whether it be true that the "efflorescence" which exhibited itself some time ago has been removed?

Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Longford County, I have to say that the "efflorescence" in question on the magnificent frescoes of Maclise of the meeting of Wellington and Blucher commenced to show itself shortly after the picture was completed in 1861, and from that time it has unhappily spread over the whole face of the picture. For myself, I wish I could say positively that the picture is not permanently injured. More than a year ago Mr. Richmond examined the picture, and he stated that in his opinion by a delicate treatment he could remove the "efflorescence" without injury to the rest of the picture. That opinion, however, was contradicted by other artists as eminent as Mr. Richmond, and the matter was allowed to drop. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would only ask the hon. Member to call this afternoon at the Royal Gallery, and he will see for himself most painfully that the "efflorescence" has not been removed.

said, he wished to call attention to what he regarded as the dictatorial nature of a speech which had been made by a Member of the Government in "another place" on the previous day. The noble Lord in question had endeavoured to pledge the Government not to reconsider the question of the jurisdiction of the House of Lords as the final Court of Appeal, but to re-introduce the Judicature 'Bills in the shape in which they had been withdrawn.

reminded the hon. Baronet that there was no Question before the House.

said, in that case, to put himself in Order, he would move the adjournment of the House. He believed that the withdrawal of the Bills had given great satisfaction to the Judges and to the Bar both in Ireland and Scotland, and certainly to the Bar in England. In Ireland, the abolition of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords was looked upon as uncalled for, unnecessary, unconstitutional, and revolutionary; and it was considered that the Court which was proposed to be constituted in lieu of the House of Lords was unsatisfactory, and would certainly not carry with it that dignity, weight, and experience which attached to the Upper House. He trusted the Government would not allow themselves to be dictated to by the noble Lord to whom reference had been made, and who, with another noble Lord, had adopted a most dictatorial course.

wished it to be understood that the hon. Baronet had not expressed the general feeling of the Irish Members, and he trusted that the Government would not listen to the hon. Baronet's suggestion.