As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland is not in his place, perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland will be able to answer the Question of which I gave Notice yesterday—namely, If the Chief Secretary is correctly reported in the "Times" of the 17th instant, as having stated in a speech at York on the 16th instant, that amongst the applications made to the Government in reference to the prevalent distress in Ireland were applications "to provide every person in Ireland with a comfortable meal at all hours of the day;" and if he would lay upon the Table Copies of the applications thus referred to?

The best answer I can give to the hon. and learned Member is to read the context which contains the quotation mentioned in the Question, and which will show exactly what my right hon. Friend intended to convey. I read the following from The York Heraldof yesterday:—

"But we unfortunately must admit and deplore that through adverse seasons and other causes a sad calamity now overhangs Ireland. That calamity has afforded an" opportunity which has been nobly taken advantage of all over the United Kingdom at large, and I am thankful to think not only the United Kingdom, but the world at large, has come forward and displayed its sympathy with the people in its suffering. (Cheers.) We have seen that contributions have flocked in from many Continents that have succeeded in alleviating, to a great extent, the sufferings of Ireland. The duty of a Government under conditions like these is not to chill the heart of charity. It is, I should rather say, to stimulate charity. (Cheers.) We occasionally—I am thankful to think only occasionally—see it alleged that the Government should spurn charity, and sec that the British taxpayer—who, Heaven knows, has enough to do to look at himself just now (a laugh)—should bear all the burden upon his shoulder; that we should spurn all charitable aid, and that the Government should undertake to provide every person in Ireland with a comfortable meal at all hours of the day without recourse in any shape or form to charity. Now the Government, I am thankful to think, not only endeavoured, but, I may say without presumption, succeeded in obviating the occurrence of a single case of starvation. (Applause.)"

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman able to say whether the report in The Timesis incorrect, or if it is from the correct report from which he quotes?

Not being the speaker, I cannot say which is incorrect; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has referred me to this particular speech in giving an answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If Mr. Marcus Allen, Acting Staff Surgeon of H.M.S. "Albatross," with seniority as Surgeon in the Navy of November 1870, was admitted as a patient in Haslar Hospital in November 1878, and after remaining some time under treatment was reported by Dr. Watt Ried (now Medical Director General of the Navy) as suffering from incurable disease and a fit subject for survey, with a view of his being invalided out of the service; whether it was true that such survey was not granted by the late Medical Director General; whether Mr. Allen was subsequently' discharged from hospital as "relieved," not cured, and detailed for service afloat; whether, on his applying to the Admiralty for permission to be surveyed at Haslar as to his fitness for duty, he was surveyed at the office of the then Medical Director, and being pronounced fit to serve, and having taken up his appointment, his health completely failed, and he tendered his resignation in consequence; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will be given any compensation for his services, or whether his case will be referred back to Dr. Watt Ried, the present Medical Director General?

Mr. Marcus Allen, while a patient in Haslar Hospital in 1878, was recommended for survey by Dr. Watt Ried, on the ground that he was suffering from an incurable disease, but one which, nevertheless, was not beyond remedial measures. This survey, however, was not then ordered by the Medical Director General. On Mr. Allen's discharge from hospital he was appointed to a Coastguard cruiser. In accordance with the practice of the Ser- vice, he was medically surveyed in London, and not at Haslar, as he had requested, and was reported fit for active service. On this he requested permission to resign, as not equal to the responsibilities of the position either mentally or physically. His resignation was accepted, and he never joined his ship. It is not customary to give compensation to officers who resign, nor to re-consider their cases with a view to their re-admission into the Service, for which an Order in Council would be required.

said, as the Attorney General for Ireland had not given him sufficient information on the previous day, as to the date when Returns of the number of scheduled unions in Ireland would be in the hands of hon. Members, he would ask him now to say, If he had any additional intelligence as to the time when they would be issued?

in reply, said, he had received that morning a communication from the Board of Works in Ireland, stating that the great pressure of business caused the delay; but the Returns would be sent in on Saturday.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is prepared to take immediate steps to obtain further information as to the method by which the official corn averages are now taken, and into the fluctuations of the Tithe Rent Charge?

The Board of Trade during the last two years have been taking various steps to elicit information and communicate it to the public respecting the corn averages, and lately we have been in communication on this subject with the Tithe Commissioners and the Inland Revenue Department, by whose officers, mainly, the Returns are collected, and the inquiries are still proceeding. Some weeks ago my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Essex (Colonel Brise) informed me that he proposed to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter on the 23rd of this month; and I told him that, as the subject was a very complicated one, and one which naturally excited great interest in many parts of the country, I thought it was very desirable that such a Committee as he proposed should be appointed, and that such an appointment should have the support of the Government. I have every hope of being able, when Parliament re-assembles in the month of May, to support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Essex in proposing such a Committee to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether there was any correspondence in 1879 between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Dominion of Canada respecting the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway; and, if so, whether he will lay such correspondence upon the Table of the House?

in reply, said, there was some correspondence in 1879 upon the general question of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, but not upon the particular point to which he thought the Question referred—namely, the proposal that this country should assist by a guarantee, or in some other shape, in the construction of that railway. Some confidential and informal communications had passed between himself and the Members of the Canadian Ministry who visited England last autumn upon that subject; but those communications never assumed the form of correspondence, and led to no result.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a Reuter's telegram published in the "Daily News" of Tuesday, March 16th, to the effect that

"The condition of affaire in Basutoland is regarded as critical in consequence of the determination of the Cape Government to insist upon the disarmament of the Natives;"

I think the hon. Member is under some misapprehension as to the relative position of Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Government in this matter. We have sanctioned, more than a year ago, legislation based on the general policy of securing the Cape Colony against the grave dangers resulting from the indiscriminate possession of arms by the large Native population within its borders. But the question of the time and manner of the application of that policy to particular Tribes is a matter for the discretion of the Cape Government, who, so far, have applied it with great care and success in various parts of the Colony. I have no doubt that the Cape Ministry will continue to act with the caution they have hitherto shown in the case of the Basutos; but I think that great mischief might arise from any attempt at further interference on our part than the impression of caution upon them, for they are quite aware that the responsibility in this matter rests with them, and that they will have to bear it.

in asking the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is the intention of the Government that the Minutes of the Education Department altering the Educational Code, which was laid upon the Table this month, should be laid upon the Table of the House in the next Session of Parliament for one month before they are put in force? explained that the Act of 1870 provided that all new Minutes of the Department should lie on the Table of the House for one month before they became valid; and it was a question of doubt whether the lapse of time was to be calculated from the date of the presentation of the Minutes, or whether, in the event of a Dissolution taking place before the expiration of the month, the full period was to be completed in the next Parliament. He assumed that, according to the spirit of the enactment, the period would run into the next Parliament.

I am glad to see, from the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, that he assumes that the administration of the Educational Code will in the next Parliament be con- tinued by the present Government; and, believing that this assumption is the correct one, I will to-night lay upon the Table a Minute, by which the application of all changes, or proposed changes, will be postponed for three months; and, therefore, they will not come into effect or apply to any schools to which grants were made before the 1st of July. There will, therefore, be ample time for the discussion of the matter.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to inform the House how far the negotiations for peace which are reported to have been instituted by General Roberts with the Chief Mahomed Jan, have been successful, or otherwise; and, if he can state what prospects there are of an early termination of hostilities in the various Provinces of Afghanistan, and the terms upon which Her Majesty's Government hope to conclude peace?

I am not in a position to answer the last part of the Question; but, in regard to the first, I can only say that General Sir Frederick Roberts is now taking all possible steps to ascertain the precise state of affairs at Ghuznee. The Government, however, have nothing to report in regard to negotiations with Mahomed Jan.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, according to "The Bank Holidays Act, 1871," 34 Vic. c. 17, any business transacted on Easter Monday will be legal?

in reply, said, he was informed that the Ballot Act did not refer to Bank Holidays, but only excluded Sundays, Christmas Day, Good Friday, and any days set apart for public fast or thanksgiving. It did not appear that Section 3 of the Bank Holidays Act in any way applied to elections.

said, the Report of the Depart- mental Committee on Brewers' Licences had only been sent in that morning, and until he saw it he could not say whether it was one which ought to be presented to the House.

I wish, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a Question of which I have not given Notice, and I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in explanation of it. I do not wish to move the adjournment of the House; but if it be necessary I will do so. The Question refers to an answer which was given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday to a Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) with regard to the Papers on the subject of Greece. The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have said that certain Papers for which my hon. Friend asked could not be produced at present, inasmuch as they referred to negotiations still pending. In the debate on the Address the right hon. Gentleman went in considerable detail into an account of the transactions with regard to the Greek Frontier; and he referred in his speech to certain proposals which had been made by the Government of France, through M. Waddington, on the 19th of December, and which were renewed by M. de Freycinet on the 7th of January. He also stated that Lord Salisbury had, in the course of January, made a proposal for an International European Commission, which, in his opinion, would form a more satisfactory mode of bringing this matter to a conclusion; and he added that the result of these negotiations would be indicated in the Papers shortly to be laid upon the Table. Since that time, two Questions have been put to Her Majesty's Government by Members on this side of the House, evidently pointing, and intended to point, to the Papers referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and the answers which were given have been such as to lead us to suppose that as soon as the Papers were complete they would be laid upon the Table, and that the Correspondence relating to these matters would be included. The right hon. Gentleman is, however, reported to have said yesterday that these Papers, for the production of which my hon. Friend asked, related to negotiations which have not been concluded, and therefore could not, in accordance with the usual practice, be produced. The Question I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, Whether he adheres to that answer; and whether we are to understand that until these negotiations are brought to a conclusion—which the House will see may be a very long time—we are to have no further information than that which is contained in the Greek Papers already presented? If so, I think the House is entitled to some explanation why the right hon. Gentleman referred in his speech, contrary to the usual practice, to Papers which he was not prepared to lay upon the Table of the House.

I have referred back to what I stated in the debate on the Address, and I see that, in answer to some observations that had been made, I stated the general position at that time of the negotiations with regard to the Greek and Turkish Frontier. There had been some misapprehension as to what had taken place; and in order to state what the case was, I informed the House that the matter had been lately under the discussion of the Greek and Turkish Commissioners at Constantinople, and that the details would be contained in Papers that would be very soon presented to the House. I then said that the first meeting was held on the 7th of November, and that other meetings were from time to time suggested, but were put off until the 29th of December, at which time the Conference seemed to have come to an end. In the meanwhile, on the 19th of December, M. Waddington communicated to Her Majesty's Government the proposal of a line of Frontier which he recommended, and that proposal was submitted to the other Great Powers. I then explained what took place in consequence of the resignation of the French Ministry; and I stated that M. de Freycinet had informed Lord Lyons that the French Government adhered to M. Waddington's proposal, and that Lord Salisbury had since discussed the matter with the French Ambassador, and that the result would be found in one of the Papers which would be presented to the House, in which Lord Salisbury expressed himself in favour of proceeding by an International European Commission. I stated that the matter would be more clearly shown by Papers which would be laid upon the Table; and I probably led the House to suppose that in the first Paper that would be presented those proceedings would be included. I can hardly say from memory whether it was in my mind that that would be the case, or whether it would be possible to lay on the Table the Papers containing all those proceedings. That was stated on the 5thof February; but, four days afterwards, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) put a Question to me when the Papers promised with reference to the Greek Question would be laid upon the Table: and in answer to that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said they were in print, and would be issued soon; but active negotiations were at present going on between the Powers. Therefore, it would be impossible to lay the Papers on the Table until the negotiations were terminated. That is in accordance with the general practice, that whilst negotiations are going on Papers with reference to them ought not to be presented, and especially that they could not be presented without the concurrence of the French and other Governments concerned in the matter. I had thought, when speaking in February, that we might have been able to bring the matter to such a point that the Papers could all have been laid together, and that the negotiations would have been sufficiently advanced for that purpose. But when we were pressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham the Foreign Office found it impossible to lay on the Table those which were connected with negotiations that were then pending; and the result has been that, in order not to delay information which could be presented to the House with regard to that part of the proceedings which had terminated, we laid Papers bringing the matter down to the end of last year; but it was impossible to include in those Papers the Papers that had reference to the new negotiations which were taken up on the basis suggested by Lord Salisbury. That is the explanation of any discrepancy that may appear in the answers that have been given on the subject.

I do not wish to be unduly pertinacious in this matter; but I wish to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, as no representative of the Foreign Office is present, to impress upon the Foreign Office to give as soon as possible so much of the Papers relating to these negotiations as may be possible. We know very well that Papers are frequently produced bearing upon negotiations before those negotiations are absolutely and finally concluded. Now, the Papers which have been presented contain no information whatever as to the negotiations with regard to Greece which have passed between the Powers. They are simply a record of the abortive negotiations which took place between the Turkish and Greek Commissioners. It is quite evident that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke on the 5th of February he did not have it in his mind that any public inconvenience could be caused by the production of these despatches. If it had been otherwise, he would not have referred to Papers which he was not prepared to lay upon the Table. I cannot help thinking, also, that although the negotiations may not have been entirely concluded, and although some Papers cannot possibly be produced, it would be in the power of the Foreign Office, before the new Parliament re-assembles, to give some information as to what has taken place. I only press the right hon. Gentleman to make inquiry as to whether some information cannot be given upon this important question.

I will endeavour to ascertain from the Foreign Office, before the House meets to-morrow, whether any of the Papers could at this stage of the negotiations be produced.

wished to ask a Question with reference to the Rammingen Naturalization Bill, the object of which naturalization, he understood, was to enable the Baron de Rammingen, a foreigner, to marry the Princess Frederica of Hanover. The Princess Frederica, being an English Princess, required to obtain the approval of Her Majesty in Council to this marriage; and he wished to know, Whether it was intended that any proposition would be submitted to the House in the nature of a demand for a dower for the Princess?

That is a Question which should not be put without Notice; but I should say certainly not.

I will repeat the Question to-morrow, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer gives only his own opinion.

It had better be put on the Paper.

drew attention to the incidence of the probate and succession duties, observing that he did not think that when the whole subject was carefully inquired into real property would have any reason to shrink from the investigation. There were, however, cer- tain details in which a modification of the existing rules was desirable.

expressed the opinion that, amid a choice of difficulties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had chosen to make financial proposals the least disturbing to the general interests of the country. He trusted, however, that the whole of our financial system would be reviewed in a new Parliament.

complained that, under the operation of the Bill, the incidence of the tax was increased on personal property only. The succession duty was not above 3 per cent of the annual value; whereas the probate and legacy duties together were already 3 per cent, and it was intended by this Bill to increase them, so that they would be something like 3½ per cent. The result would be that for the future personal property would pay, in the shape of probate and legacy duty, seven times as much as real property. But that was greatly aggravated by the fact that leasehold house property was treated differently from freehold, and was subject to probate and legacy duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in dealing with the subject in this hasty manner, was greatly aggravating the injustice which already existed; and he (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), if he should have the honour of being a Member of the next Parliament, would take every opportunity of calling attention to the grave injustice that was caused and aggravated by this Bill. The worst of the matter was that this was not a mere temporary tax. They could not increase the probate duty without making a permanent addition to the burdens of the country, and in making it it might have been possible to solve some of the questions on which complaints were made. He should protest against the Bill in its present shape, and against the course which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had taken in introducing it at such a period of the Session.

said, he would not follow the hon. Member for Beading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) into the questions which he raised before and had now briefly revived again. He admitted that there were some points referred to by the hon. Gentleman which were deserving of consideration at a future time. With regard to certain details mentioned by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory), his hon. Friend had communicated with him. He was aware that they were matters worthy of attention, and he would be glad to communicate with his hon. Friend to see what could be done to mitigate the inconvenience.

said, he did not wish, at this very critical period of the Session, to offer any opposition; but he would like to know what would be the effect of the Lords' Amendments?

explained that they only rendered the provisions of the measure more clear, and did not affect its principle at all. The most important of them only described more clearly what would be the rights of a tenant upon removal or ejectment between terms.