asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the case of Thomas Perry-man, now under sentence of penal servitude for life, it is true that he has refused permission to the prisoner's solicitor to see the prisoner for the purpose of obtaining his signature to a Petition to this honourable House in which he alleges his innocence and his grounds for so doing, and in which Petition he sets forth a letter lately received from Australia from the relations of the deceased as to her insane tendency, and generally maintaining the theory of suicide; and, if so, why such permission was refused?

in reply, said, it was quite true that permission was refused to Mr. Elworthy to visit the prisoner in gaol; but Mr. Elworthy was not his solicitor. That gentleman was told that it was quite unnecessary for him to obtain the signature of the prisoner to a Petition, because any Petition signed by the prisoner would be forwarded to the proper quarter. If the prisoner's solicitor visited him at the gaol, he (Mr. Assheton Cross) had not the slightest doubt he would be permitted to see him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would be good enough to state the course of procedure by which the evidence taken before a Royal Commission is reported to Her Majesty; whether, in the case of the Royal Commission to inquire into the constitution, custom, and usages of the London Stock Exchange, the Royal Commissioners, directly or indirectly, informed the Home Department that portions of the evidence of Mr. Cooper, and the entire of the evidence of the right honourable Mr. Goschen, in relation to the promotion and the subsequent winding-up of the Imperial Land Company of Marseilles, has been omitted from the minutes of evidence returned to the Home Office, in order to be laid before Her Majesty; whether the withholding of any part of the evidence is in accordance with the terms of Her Majesty's Commission nominating and appointing the said Royal Commission to inquire into the practices of the London Stock Exchange; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will direct that no such keeping back of any portion of the evidence shall take place with reference to the evidence or other proceedings before the royal Commission to inquire into the cause of Agricultural Depression?

Sir, with regard to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, the course adopted is, when evidence has been taken before a Royal Commission, everything is sent to the Home Office by the Secretary of the Commission. Of course, the evidence is submitted to Her Majesty, and afterwards presented to Parliament. As to the second paragraph, I never heard a word about it till this morning. With reference to the Question as to whether Commissions may strike out evidence in any form or shape, I may refer the hon. Member to his own experience of Committees of this House, where sometimes evidence is given and sometimes omitted. A matter of that kind, I believe, rests entirely with the Commission. For the same reason, it would be very improper for me to make any suggestion to the Chairman of the Commission on Agricultural Depression.

Perhaps, Sir, the House will permit me to offer a few words of explanation on this subject. If I had been in my place yesterday, or had Notice of the Question which was put on the Paper by the hon. Member for Dundalk (Mr. Callan), I should have given such information as I could have given with reference to it. Probably, the Question ought to have been addressed, if addressed at all, to Members of the Commission, two of whom have seats in this House—namely, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Spencer Walpole) and the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke). I think the Question is a very fair one to ask of them. What happened was this. Some evidence was given before the Commission in which, as I learned afterwards, my name had been used, and statements made which, in my opinion, were perfectly incorrect. Upon that I caused it to be known to Members of the Commission that I thought justice required that an opportunity should be given me for controverting those statements. The evidence was then communicated to me, as it was also to others whose names had been used. I was not called to give evidence before the Commission; but I insisted upon being heard before it, in order that I might controvert the statements which appeared to me to be incorrect. I gave the facts; but my explanations occupied under an hour, and not a couple of days, as was suggested by the hon. Member's Question. After I had given those explanations the Commission decided that the evidence which I hoped and alleged I had controverted should be struck out and not reported. That was done on their responsibility. When I say that the President was a Judge of the land—Lord Penzance—and that the other Members of the Commission were Gentlemen of the highest character, I feel that the hon. Gentleman may be assured that no undue partiality was shown in the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home De- partment, Whether his attention has, within the last few weeks, been directed to certain affiches which are exposed everywhere, particularly in the streets of London; and, whether he does not think that the time has arrived when he ought to suppress those affiches, which are opposed to public decency and morality?

Sir, in reference to a reply which I recently gave upon this subject—to the effect that if no notice was taken of these publications they would die out of themselves—I must say I did not mean to say that there was not a limit beyond which these things cannot go. I do not retract anything that I said on a former occasion as to the advisability of prosecution in such cases as this, and it is perfectly well known that if the law is transgressed the offenders are liable to prosecution.

said—