reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

resuming, said, he had been explaining to the House the position of this matter. On the 13th March it was ordered by the House—

"That the Committee of Selection do appoint a Committee, not exceeding Seven in number, to whom shall be referred all private Bills promoted by Municipal and other local Authorities, by which it is proposed to create powers relating to Police or Sanitary Regulations which deviate from, or are in extension of, or repugnant to, the general Law; and that it be an Instruction to such Committee to make a Special Report to this House in respect of any such powers as the Committee may sanction, together with the reasons on which the grant of such powers are recommended and the recent precedents applicable to the case."

That Order was acted upon, and these Bills were referred to a Committee of hon. Members specially selected for the purpose; and, so far as he (Mr. Hop-wood) was concerned, he would join in bearing his testimony to the able manner in which the Committee had discharged their duties, and had complied with the general directions of the Instruction they had received from the House. Nevertheless, he had still to call attention to some matters, although not in a sense of hostility, in these Private Bills which had not been reported upon by the Committee, in the hope that in future precautions would be taken to prevent the inconvenient course adopted in the present case from becoming a precedent. The House knew what the general mode was of introducing Improvement Bills of this sort. The Bill itself usually had in view some special wants of the town in connection with which it was introduced, such as gas, or water, or possibly highways. There might be some special demand which called for legislation, and for legislation which might be properly applied locally. But when the Bill was brought in due form before the Corporation, some member of the Corporation, who had some "fad" upon some other general subject—perhaps of health—availed himself of the opportunity of converting the measure into an Omnibus Bill, so as to include in it a number of other matters on which he thought legislation might be fairly and effectively introduced. The Corporation thereupon set to work to see how this was to be done. It was provided by the Legislature under Leeman's Act that due notice should be given to the town affected, that a meeting should be called to discuss the proposal, and that nothing whatever should be done without proper information having been conveyed to the people of the town who were interested in the project. But the way in which that provision of that Statute was carried out was to insert a sort of advertisement in the newspapers, intimating that a Bill was about to he promoted in Parliament, containing provisions respecting gas and water, and "for other purposes." Then, under the "other purposes," most important clauses were introduced, often infringing the personal liberty of the subject, and placing every sanitary and police regulation under the exclusive control of a certain class of persons who were, as a general rule, able to introduce such measures as "unopposed." He was sensible that the subject was one to which he could not induce the House to devote all the attention it deserved; but he, nevertheless, felt himself bound to call attention to the matter, and to show the evils which the existing system engendered. As he had already stated, a Select Committee had sat upon these various Bills, and it would probably interest the House to show the nature of the provisions which the Committee had considered it right to cut down. He would refer for an example to the Dundee Police Bill. That Bill contained clauses of this sort—that every person who committed, or attempted to commit, falsehood, fraud, or otherwise, in the course of an investigation before the magistrates, should be liable to imprisonment for 60 days; and that a pawnbroker or broker should, under certain circumstances, be punishable as the receiver of stolen goods. Then there were provisions in regard to disorderly houses, and powers enabling medical men to inspect and examine every house and premises, and every person residing in such house or premises, in order to ascertain if anyone was suffering from any infectious or dangerous disease. There were powers also to issue and enforce regulations in regard to the prevention of disease. A number of these powers were struck out by the Committee before whom the Bill was sent; but not only the Dundee Police Bill, but the Newcastle-on-Tyne Improvement Bill, and various others, contained a number of similar extravagant provisions. He could not say that such provisions were actually applied for by the Corporations interested, because he understood that when a town wanted an Improvement Act, it was the practice to send up general instructions to a Parliamentary agent, who thereupon set to work and included in the Bill every possible provision which any other town in a distant quarter had ever either obtained or sought for. The object of the Act was to try these propositions again before a Committee, who might feel that, in the event of the Bill being unopposed, they were to be passed without question, and in that way a Bill, containing provisions which the Legislature never intended, was passed by a Committee upstairs and became the law of the land. It was as well that the House should know that a Private Act was just as much an Act of Parliament as any public one. It was not generally supposed to be so; but, as a matter of fact, it certainly was so, and hence it was that they had an accumulation of provisions in Private Acts which were contrary to the generally received law of the land. Owing to the adoption, by means of such Private Acts, of peculiar legislation, the law had become as diverse in form in many localities as the numerous laws and jurisdictions which characterized France prior to the Revolution. He believed that, in the Resolutions they had arrived at, the Select Committee had done excellent service; but, although they had rendered excellent service in certain respects, they had thought it right to sanction two long series of sections in the Bill before them, which made a considerable addition to the Sanitary Code, and they had done so, in his (Mr. Hopwood's) opinion, without hearing the people who were interested on the other side. They had trusted altogether to the suggestions of the Local Government Board; and, in doing so, he submitted that they were entirely in error. He would admit that there was great value in having some Department of the State responsible to the House for what was passed in the shape of these Local Bills; but when he found that the Local Government Board were prepared to go in advance of the public mind in regard to sanitary legislation, he contended that a Committee of this kind ought to have exercised its own independent judgment in the matter. He would not go the length of saying that the Committee, in this instance, had not done their duty; but what he did say was that certain objectionable principles which had been pointed out by him had been left untouched, and that alterations of the general law ought not to be made in the shape of Private Statutes. The Committee, in their Report, stated that—

"Anomalies and irregularities have undoubtedly received the sanction without the full knowledge of Parliament; and it appears to the Committee that such provisions, whether punishable or otherwise, should not, as is too often the ease, by the mere fact of being unopposed, escape the publicity which their importance demands."

They then proceeded to say that they had examined the clauses of the Bills submitted to them, and had struck out a large number of clauses proposing to give powers which might be already obtained by means of bye-laws under general Acts. Their defence for sanctioning the two particular sets of clauses they had inserted was, in the first place, in regard to the sanitary regulations, that they were asked for mostly by the medical officers of the Corporations interested. Now, the medical officer of a corporate body might be one of the ablest of men, or he might be, as was too often the case, a practitioner subordinate to many others in the same town, quite inexperienced and unskilled, and yet it was proposed to give him these exceptional and extraordinary powers at his own request. He would give the House one quotation from the evidence to illustrate what he meant. It was the case of Bolton, and a medical officer was called before the Committee in support of a clause conferring exceptional powers in regard to infectious diseases. The clause provided that if any person had resided in a house, or any part of a house, in which there had been within six weeks previously a person suffering from an infectious disease, which house had not been disinfected to the satisfaction of the Corporation, &c., and no person residing in such house, or part of such house, should receive books, &c, on loan from any such house, any person offending being liable to a penalty of 40s. The witness was a Bolton practitioner, who was called in support of the Bolton Bill; and his evidence was to the effect that it was desirable to legislate to prevent the transmission of disease by means of books, letters, pamphlets, and so on. Being asked to give an instance in which a disease had been so transmitted, the witness stated that, about a month or six weeks previously, a case came before him which clearly established that small-pox had been transmitted by that means. The case was that of a young lady engaged in the distribution of tracts from house to house. She caught the disease, and subsequently died; and the witness thought it was quite possible that the work she was engaged in—of distributing tracts in the district—contributed towards the spread of the disease. This was the evidence of a gentleman who was to be charged with the administration of one of these Private Acts which sought to add to his power; and this was the way in which he was prepared to deal with these most important questions. A Member of the Committee asked the witness on what theory he submitted that the young lady had caught the infection from the tracts, and not from contact with any individual she might visited; and the answer was, that she might have done so, but she might also have taken it from the tracts; and he thought the distribution of tracts, under the circumstances, ought not to be allowed. The same Member of the Committee asked him if he had known, in the course of his experience, a case in which an infectious disease had been taken from a monthly magazine. The witness said he could not quite recollect a case in which such a thing had occurred. The question was repeated—"Did you ever know of a case where a disease or disorder was taken from a magazine?" and the answer was—"I do not know of one. "Yet, in the very district to which this evidence applied—namely, Bolton, it had transpired, within the last few days, that a medical gentleman had sent a patient whom he was attending to a small-pox hospital; and yet the patient turned out to be suffering only from measles. These were the men who clamoured for these violent and stringent Acts—persons with peculiar "fads," at whose instance respectable people were to be conveyed from their residences to hospitals for the treatment of infectious diseases, often in a state in which they were totally unfit to be removed.

said, he rose to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hopwood) was illustrating his case by quoting a series of clauses which had been disallowed by the Committee, and which were not, therefore, in any of the Bills now before the House. He would ask the Speaker if it was competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, to apply his argument to provisions which had been struck out of the Bills referred to the Select Committee?

hoped he might be allowed to explain the reasons which induced him to refer to these matters.

said, the Question before the House was the consideration of the Blackburn Improvement Bill. He did not gather from the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that his remarks had any relation to that Bill; but he was bound to say that the conversation which was being carried on generally throughout the House prevented him from gathering accurately what the hon. and learned Member's statements exactly were.

said, he regretted, as much as the right hon. Gentleman, the indisposition of the House to listen to the discussion of these Bills; and he could assure the House that he had undertaken a task which was likely to be of very little profit to himself, and for which he expected to receive a very small modicum of thanks. He begged, however, that for a short time longer the House would extend their forbearance to him, because he felt himself bound to point out certain facts, although he was not in the least degree disposed to enter at length into matters which had been taken from the purview of the House by the very beneficial action of the Select Committee. His illustrations were only meant to show that the authority which had power given to it by one of these Bills to carry into operation very exceptional clauses was a power that was not fit to be entrusted, in an arbitrary manner, with such extraordinary provisions as were sought to be included in Acts of this kind. He only desired now to make one or two observations upon the sanitary regulations dealt with by the Committee. The Committee stated that—

"It must be noticed that the Local Government Board, who are the Department charged with the execution and supervision of the Public Health Acts, have been parties to similar enactments in Provisional Order Bills passed by their authority through Parliament, notably in the case of the Manchester Provisional Order Act, 1878."

He (Mr. Hopwood) thought this paragraph afforded proof that Imperial legislation was demanded on the question; and that neither the Local Government Board nor any other Department should be allowed by Provisional Orders to sanction regulations deviating from the general law. He believed very few hon. Members knew what was contained in the body of a Bill for giving effect to a Provisional Order. A Bill for confirming a set of Provisional Orders was often addressed to half-a-dozen different centres of population; and in the instance referred to it had dealt with contested matters which were, at that moment, proposed to be dealt with by more than one general Public Bill. He might also point out that the Select Committee, in the conclusions they had arrived at, had not before them the judgment of the population with which these Bills dealt. The people of the localities had not been in the least degree consulted. He had already shown how these things were done; and he would submit that in none of the towns directly interested were the inhabitants generally made acquainted with the nature of the regulations sought to be imposed on them. The Local Government Board recently held an inquiry, with the view of adopting the notification of diseases at the request of the Office of Health, at Rochdale; and there the medical men of the locality, in a large majority, assembled and protested against the proposed action of the local authorities. In Liverpool, when it was attempted to enact similar provisions, 248 signatures against the proposal were immediately obtained representing the immense majority of the medical gentlemen of the town. In Nottingham and in Bolton clauses of this kind had been inserted into Local Bills; but in both places similar objections had been expressed by a numerous section of the inhabitants, and he was satisfied that the vast majority of the medical practitioners of London would resent any such attempt as this to impose exceptional sanitary and police regulations upon the people. A Return had been presented by the Local Government Board as to the effect of legislation in Private or Local Acts upon the question; but such a Return was asked for under circumstances which would insure a favourable answer. Therefore, the answers which had been returned were of a most favourable kind; but the sole proof attempted to be given of the satisfactory working of the regulations was that the death-rate 10 years before they were passed had been so much, whereas during three, five, or six years after their passing it had only been so much. But it did, not follow that the improvement was the logical result of the passing of the Acts. There might have been a hundred other causes at work in producing satisfactory sanitary results, such as the pulling down of houses which were unfit for habitation, the improvement of the sewerage, the provision of a better supply of water, and the increased cleanliness of the district. All of these things were causes which might have had a preponderating effect upon the sanitary condition of a town. He had in his possession figures which ho might quote in illustration of his argument; but he did not propose to inflict them upon the House. But a comparison between Liverpool and Bolton might be drawn, one town having these provisions, and the other not; and the statistics were strongly in favour of the city of Liverpool, which had steadily refused to have such clauses, and against Bolton, which had possessed them, perhaps, as long as any town. The figures clearly proved that the death-rate had diminished much more rapidly in Liverpool than in Bolton during the same period of time. So much, then, for the value of these Returns, which he certainly would have dealt with at much greater length, if it had not been for the impatience of the House. Of course, it was only to be expected that Returns obtained under such circumstances would be favourable to the continuation of these powers. The persons from whom they were obtained were the very persons who had either brought or carried Bills before the House asking for similar or greater powers. He submitted that Returns gathered from such a source were not reliable, and that there ought to have been evidence taken on the spot in the various towns to show what the general feeling of the inhabitants was. The Select Committee referred to some of the other powers which these Corporations sought to obtain, and especially to those which were to empower Corporations to close schools and to exclude scholars from schools during the prevalence of infectious diseases. The Committee said that—

"These, though plausibly urged, seemed to the Committee objectionable and unnecessary; first, because the managers of public elementary schools (which form the vast majority of day schools within urban districts) ought to be held exclusively responsible for the exercise of a proper discretion on so important a matter; and secondly, because the managers have been, recently, under the 98th Article of the new Code, expressly required by the Education Department (presumably as a condition of participation in the grant) to conform to any intimation they may receive from the Sanitary Authority in regard to the necessity of such closing or exclusion."

Then, in the Appendix, the Committee give a classification of diseases, and empowered the Corporation to pay a registered medical practitioner, who sent in a certificate or declaration, a certain fee. The Report also contained observations in reference to certain educational provisions, and in this respect the Select Committee had allowed clauses which were of a somewhat doubtful character. All must feel that education was a matter which could not be rightly dealt with in a Local Bill. Nevertheless, the Select Committee sanctioned, in regard to the Manchester Bill, very important provisions as to juveniles employed in hawking newspapers, &c. Now, he (Mr. Hopwood) believed himself that the grounds for this legislation existed just as much in London, and in some of the other large towns, as in Manchester; but it appeared that some of the most benevolent people in Manchester had arrived at the conclusion that it was wise to adopt in that city the clauses of the Scotch Education Act in regard to young children. His only protest was that such provisions ought not to be contained in a Private Act, and that Parliament should not attempt to do that in a Private Bill which should only belong to a public measure, to be applicable to all places. He believed himself that the public law of England, as contained in the Elementary Education Act of 1876, did all that was necessary in regard to this matter. In the first place, any child under 10 years of age was prohibited from being employed, and anybody who took such a child into his employment rendered himself liable to a penalty of 40s. That being so, the Act of 1876 applied to all employments. It appeared, however, that two years after the passing of the Act of 1876 the Elementary Education Act for Scotland was passed, and it seemed to have been thought necessary in that Act to establish some prohibition in regard to casual employment. But he submitted that, as the general law applied to all employments, there was no necessity for a special intervention in regard to casual employment. Then, in addition, there were several other clauses in the Act for England, and others in the Act for Scotland, which, to a certain extent, ameliorated the severity of this provision; and yet they had not been adopted by the Select Committee. The Select Committee had only selected that portion of the Scotch Act which imposed a restriction upon children under the age of 14 years, and provided that after the passing of the Act no child under that age, unless he had obtained a certificate of ability to read and write, and a knowledge of elementary arithmetic in terms of Section 5 of the Elementary Education Act, should be employed in any casual employment after 9 o'clock at night from the 1st day of April to the 1st day of October, and after 7 o'clock at night from the 1st day of October to the 1st day of April. The Committee, however, had left out an important part of the Act of 1876, and that was the provision which enabled a boy or girl to be employed, if he or she had completed the requisite number of attendances at a school under the Act of 1876. He did not know why that should have been done; but it illustrated the inconvenience of legislating in this manner. There were other parts of the English Act, equally important, which were excluded from the operation of the Manchester Local Bill; and altogether he thought it would be far more convenient to deal with such important questions by general legislation. He had now stated very shortly the points to which he desired to call attention, for he felt bound to enter a protest against some of the conclusions to which the Committee had arrived. No doubt, it was a very thankless task he had undertaken; but he should regret to see any other hon. Member, who had, from a sense of public duty, to undertake a similar task, received with so many interruptions by those in the House who took more interest in the questions which were to follow. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment—

"That it is inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Accrington Improvement Bill, or any of those included in the Reference to the Committee on Sanitary and Police Clauses of March 13th 1882, unless such portions thereof as create local Sanitary or Police Law exceptional to the Law of the Realm be omitted therefrom."

I wish to point out to the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) that the House is now considering the Blackburn Improvement Bill, whereas he has been speaking of the Accrington Improvement Bill.

wished to know if the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was entitled to take a vote of the House upon the Blackburn Improvement Bill, seeing that the greater part of his remarks were not relevant to the Blackburn Bill at all?

said, the Amendment he proposed to move was a comprehensive one, and included all the Improvement Bills, of which the Blackburn was one, which stood for consideration upon the Paper. He had risen the moment these Bills were called on, and if the Accrington Bill had been passed, it was because his opposing voice had not reached the Chair, and he had understood that he was making his observations upon the Accrington Bill. He was certainly in his place before any Private Bills were taken at all; and he thought that the House generally, from the terms of his Amendment upon the Paper, was fully aware of what his intentions were. He would, however, if the Accrington Bill had already been disposed of, substitute the Blackburn Improvement Bill, which stood next on the list.

I do not understand, from the remarks of the hon. and learned Member, what Amendment it is, precisely, that he proposes to move.

referred to the Amendment itself upon the Paper, and he proposed to move that it was inexpedient to proceed with the consideration of the Blackburn Improvement Bill.

said, he would put the Amendment accordingly.

said, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) complained that he had undertaken a thankless task in asking the House to reject these Bills; but the hon. and learned Member would remember that the House was much obliged to him three months ago, when he first raised this very important subject. At the hon. and learned Member's instance, the House relegated the whole of these Bills to a Select Committee appointed in a peculiar way. That Committee had taken evidence, and had considered the Bills with great care and attention, having perfect freedom to deal with them under the direction of the House. They had so dealt with them, and, according to the admission of the hon. and learned Member, they had done good service by striking out a great deal of objectionable matter. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would have done well if he had refrained from opposing these Bills on the present occasion, especially seeing the indisposition of the House to re-open the question. It was to be presumed that hon. Members interested in the subject had read the Report of the Committee. That Report was extremely clear, and it laid down propositions which he thought would be supported by the House; but if all the result of their labours was to be rejected, upon the floor of the House, after half-an-hour's discussion, it would be very difficult in future to get Committees to undertake these laborious duties. He submitted to the House that they should now allow these Bills to go forward. Considering that the attention of the House had been called to them, and that they had already been cut down from the shape in which they were originally presented, and that certain provisions, which had excited a good deal of observation and opposition, had been struck out of them, the Report of the Committee should receive the sanction of the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested that the Committee should advise the House as to the manner in which they had dealt with all the questions submitted to them. For his own part, he did not think that that was the duty of the Committee. The Committee had made certain recommendations, and he should be prepared—if no other hon. Member did it—after the close of the debate to give Notice of a Resolution, in the shape of a Standing Order, to carry out in future years the same policy which had been adopted this year in regard to the present Bills. He would suggest that the precedent Parliament had established in regard to the important Private Bills submitted to the Select Committee during the present Session should hereafter be adopted in regard to all similar measures. He was satisfied that great good had resulted from the labours of the Committee, although he did not expect that every hon. Member would be satisfied. Some hon. Members would think the Committee had done too much; while other hon. Members would think they had done too little. What he contended was that the House was not in a position to do justice to the important questions contained in the Report of the Committee. They ought, therefore, to allow the Bills to go forward, in order that they might be sent up to the House of Lords, where there would be another opportunity of re-examining them.

said, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) was scarcely reasonable in putting half-a-dozen Bills together, and asking the House to vote "Aye" or "No" upon the whole half-dozen. It was quite clear that many hon. Gentlemen might approve of one Bill and dissent altogether from another. It seemed to him that it was absolutely impossible to vote at one time upon half-a-dozen separate Bills. Personally, he had only one word to say in respect to the Manchester Bill. He understood that that Bill was objected to on account of clauses which dealt with the hours of labour of young children in the streets at night. There was a very strong feeling in Manchester on that point, and he believed the hon. and learned Member would admit that there was nothing in the Bill, as it stood originally, of an exceptional character in regard to the law of the Realm. There was nothing novel in it, and nothing that could not be perfectly well understood. He, therefore, thought it was scarcely reasonable that a Bill of so much importance as the Manchester Corporation Bill should be rejected, because it limited the hours of labour of young children in the streets, and he trusted that the Bill would receive the support of the House.

begged to move that the debate now adjourned. It was quite clear, from the statement of his hon. and and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), who moved the Amendment, and from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Sclater-Booth), that the questions involved in the consideration of the Bill were of the utmost importance, and it was also clear that there was an indisposition on the part of the House to enter into a debate of that kind at the present moment. He begged, therefore, to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, the House would recollect that when these Bills were referred to a Select Committee, of which his right hon. Friend (Mr. Sclater-Booth) was Chairman, it knew that it was imposing upon that Committee a formidable and onerous task. He was quite sure the House would agree with him, when he added that the Committee had performed that task in an admirable manner, and that they were entitled to the thanks of the House. After the great labour of the Committee, he trusted the House would support the Committee, and that, without any attempt to adjourn the debate, they would proceed at once to a decision. All these Bills had received an unusually full and careful consideration. He knew of no Committee to which Private Bills had been referred, except, perhaps, the Committee upon the Electric Lighting Bill, which had given the matter referred to it so much exhaustive attention. He, therefore, trusted that his hon. Friend (Mr. Pugh) would not press the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, that, on the part of the Local Government Board, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the Committee for the labour they had bestowed upon these Bills; and, in doing so, he wished to point out that the objections raised by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) upon the clauses contained in the Bills would apply to similar clauses which now existed in Acts of Parliament relating to 23 of the largest towns of the country. He thought if his hon. and learned Friend had inquired, he would have found that the clauses, to which he so strongly objected, had given great satisfaction in the towns to which they had already been applied. He did not think that his hon. and learned Friend would find that a single Petition had been presented against the proposed clauses; on the contrary, he (Mr. Hibbert) held in his hand Reports from 23 towns, and, in almost every case, the strongest opinion was expressed as to the satisfactory working of these Acts. There was a general concurrence of opinion that they tended very much to prevent the spread of disease; and he knew, further, that it was from the knowledge gained of the working of these Acts in these 23 towns that other towns were anxious to have similar provisions. His hon. and learned Friend said they ought to wait until Parliament could pass some satisfactory general law; but they knew what the difficulty was of getting any legislation at all through that House; and he thought that after the trouble bestowed by the Select Committee, it would be most undesirable to throw the whole of their labours away by refusing to adopt their Report.

said, he agreed with the spirit of the Amendment, although the town he represented was one of the places which had a Bill included in the Resolution. At the same time, he believed it would be very inconvenient to delay the passing of that Bill, which proposed to carry into effect very considerable local improvements in reference to parks and other matters. Nevertheless, he was in entire sympathy with the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, that it was undesirable, under cover of Local Bills, to bring forward general legislation. But the point they had to consider here was, how they could possibly obtain a discussion of these Bills? He thought it would take as long as the discussion upon an Irish Coercion Bill. The Bills themselves raised all sorts of questions, and in a case of such importance, involving many details, he thought his hon. and learned Friend should be satisfied with lodging his protest against what had been done, and taking reasonable means in future to secure the end he had in view. It must be borne in mind that all parties concerned in these Bills would have an opportunity, in "another place," of raising the points in dispute, and probably they might be able to secure an alteration in regard to some of them.

said, that under the circumstances, and trusting that the discussion would not be continued at any length, he would withdraw the Motion he had made.

said, he fully felt the force of the appeal which had been made to him, and he had no desire to waste the time of the House, although he knew very well that the subject was capable of a great deal more being said upon it than had already been said. As he had been allowed to make a protest against the provisions contained in most of these Bills, and as he knew that the House desired to proceed to other Business, he would now withdraw the Amendment.

pointed out that the Motion for the adjournment of the debate must first be withdrawn.

said, he had already intimated his willingness to withdraw it.

I will now withdraw my Amendment.

having given Notice that he would to-morrow ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Sir Edward Malet has been instructed to take any, and what, steps to exact punishment and reparation for the murder of the British subjects killed in Alexandria during the riot of the 11th instant; and whether any provision, beyond the stationing of a gun-boat at either end of the channel, has been made, or is contemplated, for the protection of the Suez Canal; and, also, whether Sir Edward Malet has been any party to the arrangement under which Ragheb Pasha has formed a new Egyptian Ministry, in which Arabi Pasha remains Minister of War; and, whether, in view of the recent Anglo-French Note demanding the removal of Arabi from Office, and his exile from Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will recognize any Ministry of which he still forms a part?

gave Notice that he would ask, with reference to the last Notice, What right Her Majesty's Government have to interfere with the Egyptian Ministry?

gave Notice that he would to - morrow renew his previous Question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, unless the hon. Baronet could answer it then—namely, Whether the list of those killed in the disturbances at Alexandria was complete as regarded British subjects?

Sir, the hon. Member (Mr. O'Kelly) asks me a mere question of fact, and I will answer it now. The Question was asked previously, and, therefore, it is equivalent to Notice. In answer to it, I have stated that six British subjects have been killed. In addition to these, two Maltese, who were also British subjects, have been killed. I will take this opportunity of stating that I have tried to give the House the latest possible information by answering Questions of fact without Notice; but that course of procedure has produced so large an increase in the number of Questions put, and so much inconvenience and loss of time, that I propose in future, under no circumstances, to answer any Question whatever without full Notice.

asked the Judge Advocate General, The number of punishments for drunkenness, or for offences arising out of drunkenness, in the Army during the year 1881; and, if it is true that in the Recruiting Circular recently issued through the Post Office, four special advantages are offered to soldiers enlisting, one of which is that "Beer may be obtained from the Regimental Canteens at very low rates?"

in reply, said, that the total number of punishments inflicted on soldiers for drunkenness by court martial and by commanding officers in 1881 was 43,606. The total number of individuals so punished during the same period was 23,255. That number, he was sorry to say, was somewhat in excess in each case of the numbers returned for the year 1880, though very considerably less than the average for the last 10 years. As to the number of punishments for crimes arising out of drunkenness in the Army during the same period, he regretted that he was quite unable to give it, as there was no separate record kept of such offences, and it would be exceedingly difficult to make out such a record; but he might say that, as in the case of civilians, a very large proportion of the crimes of violence and insubordination committed by soldiers were committed by them while under the influence of drink. As to the second part of the Question of his hon. Friend, it was quite true that the purchase of beer, tobacco, &c, from the regimental canteen at low rates, together with other privileges, such as the use of a library, recreation room, and gymnasium, were offered as inducements to recruits to enlist by the Post Office Circular referred to in the Question; but he might say that the beer so supplied was of a very wholesome quality, and cases of drunkenness arising from its consumption were most rare; in fact, almost unknown. He would add that no spirits were sold in canteens at all, and he thought he might say that the real cause of drunkenness in the Army was certainly not the beer sold in the canteens, but the abominable stuff which soldiers obtained, under the name of spirits, in the low public-houses in the neighbourhood of their barracks, and for which the beer was intended, as far as possible, to be a substitute.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that there have been six police stationed at a place called Amagarra, Ballylanders, county Cork, for a considerable time; and, whether there have been any outrages committed near the place; if not, what is the reason that the police continue to be stationed there, and upon whom their maintenance is charged?

Sir, a protection post was formed a short time ago at Amagarra, County Cork, on account of certain outrages that had been committed in the neighbourhood. There are five police stationed there, but there is no extra expense occasioned thereby, as they are charged for as other men of the county force.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. H. A. Blake, R.M. is the same person as the Mr. Blake, who was charged with taking forcible possession of a house at Carrigbarahane; whether Mr. Blake was summoned to the Petty Sessions at Stradbally therefor; whether it was alleged that a revolver was presented at the caretaker; and that he was also assaulted; if a copy of the evidence taken at the time can be laid before the House; and, whether Mr. Blake will have any special powers under the Crime Bill?

Sir, the matter to which the hon. Member refers related to a private and family affair, and is such as most certainly does not call for the cognizance of the House. I have frequently, in the course of the debates, stated the position which special Resident Magistrates will hold under the Prevention of Crime Bill. They will not have judicial authority.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, If proceedings between landlord and tenant could be of a private character; and, whether a man who took forcible possession in the way indicated, and who presented a revolver at the head of the caretaker, was a proper person to occupy the position of Resident Magistrate under the Bill?

in reply, said, he would not enter into the question as to whether Mr. Blake did or did not take possession in the manner stated, and would merely state to the House that the circumstances of the case were not of a nature, as he thought the House would acknowledge, of which they could take cognizance.

said, he had received a letter from Mr. Blake, giving a total denial to the circumstance, as stated by the hon. Member, of the use of a revolver.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the "Belfast Morning News" of June 9th, to the effect that the police at Castleblayney have for some days past been perpetually watching a local contractor; that a constable remains at his side during his working hours, and afterwards hovers about his residence; and, if he can state the object of this surveillance, and by whom and for what object it has been directed?

Sir, it is quite true that the police have been carefully watching the person referred to; but I must decline in the public interest to say upon what grounds they are doing so.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any recent information as to the intentions of the New Zealand authorities with regard to Te Whiti, the Maori Chief, who has been lying in prison for several months past on a charge of sedition; and, whether they have considered the expediency of offering their good offices to the Colonial Government to settle the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast?

also asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will furnish to the House the Papers relating to the late proceedings with the Native Maori Tribes at Parihaki, in New Zealand, and the arrest of Te Whiti and others; and, if the speech of the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, at the opening of the Assembly in May last, announced the fact that an Act would be applied for to enable the Government of New Zealand to continue to detain him without his being tried or convicted of any offence?

Sir, the Colonial Office has received no official information as to the dealings of the New Zealand Government with the Maori Chief, Te Whiti, later than the Report which informed them that he had been committed to gaol on a charge of sedition in last December. Her Majesty's Government do not think it advisable to offer any intervention in the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast. Those questions lie entirely within the province of the Colonial Parliament and the Colonial Government. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), I have to say that we have not received the text of the Governor's speech; but the Press telegram, which is all that has arrived, indicates that the course contemplated is not continued detention of Te Whiti in prison, but only prohibition to visit and agitate a particular district. Papers will be given, if the hon. Mem- ber presses for them; but there must be some delay till the arrival of the documents from New Zealand, which will make the action of the New Zealand Government fully understood, and the Government would rather wait until that information comes to hand.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware of a communication having been addressed to the Education Department by the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools, Oldham, setting forth objections to the erection of a School Board in close proximity to their schools; whether he is aware that the Department promised that these objections would be considered when the Oldham School Board applied for permission to erect such school; and, whether he is aware that the Department have since authorised the Board to purchase the site; and, if so, what are the reasons that induced the Department to give such authority in the face of the objections lodged by the managers of St. Mary's Schools?

Sir, I am acquainted with the correspondence which has passed between the Education Department and the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools at Oldham, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the remonstrances of the managers have had my careful consideration. The St. Mary's Roman Catholic School supplies the requirements, not only of its immediate neighbourhood, but of numbers of Roman Catholic children resident elsewhere. Of two schools quoted in the manager's letter, one provides no infant accommodation whatever, and the premises of the other are not such as can be recognized as efficient. Without reckoning these schools, there is an undoubted deficiency, and both Her Majesty's Inspector and the Board consider that a school is urgently required in this district.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land, If the attention of His Excellency has been directed to the case of Patrick Slattery, who has been in prison since the 25th of July last year, on suspicion of being concerned in an unlawful assembly at Bodyke, on the 1st of June preceding; whether Patrick Slattery is the witness who, at the investigation into the death of John Moloney at Bodyke, on the said 1st of June, identified a sub-constable named O'Grady as having struck the deceased man two blows on the head with the butt end of his rifle; whether the arrest of Patrick Slattery did not take place until after his evidence against the sub-constable; whether Patrick Slattery is an American citizen, and whether he was offered his liberty on the 24th of April last on condition of his at once leaving the Country and returning to the United States; and, whether any sufficient reason exists for his continued detention in prison on any charge?

Sir, the offence for which Patrick Slattery was arrested was that of being reasonably suspected of riot, and shooting with intent to murder. The riot, which took place on the 1st of June, was a most serious one; the police were fired on, and the County Inspector's horse was shot. The circumstances otherwise are as detailed in the Question. He is a naturalized American citizen, and has been offered his release upon condition of his leaving Ireland and returning at once to America; but that condition has been objected to, and His Excellency cannot at present permit him to be at large in Ireland.

said, he still wished to know if it was not a fact that Slattery's arrest did not take place until after he had identified a constable as having struck a man, who died, twice with the butt end of his gun?

in reply, said, that he had already answered the Question. Patrick Slattery was arrested be-cause he was reasonably suspected of being a principal in a most dangerous riot.

gave Notice of his intention of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he was not arrested at the instance and upon the identification of the colleagues of the policeman?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Sullivan v. Bowen. lately decided by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in which that tribunal decided (reversing the judgment of the Irish Land Commission) that a tenant's application under the 21st section of the Irish Land Act, to break a lease forced on him by threat of eviction should be dismissed on the ground that, at the date when the lease was forced on the tenant, the notice to quit served on him as a preliminary to eviction had expired, and thus determined the yearly tenancy under which he had previously held, and that, therefore, one of the elements necessary for the success of a lease-breaking application, viz. the existence of a yearly tenancy at the date of the acceptance of the lease, did not exist in the case; whether, having regard to this further evidence of the failure of section 21 of the Land Act, he can state the intentions of the Government as regards the amendment of this section; and, whether he will have any objection to the granting of a Return setting forth the number of lease-breaking eases actually adjudicated upon by the Land Commission, the result of each case, and as regards cases in which the tenant's application was dismissed, showing in each case which of the three elements necessary for the success of such an application under the section as it stands, viz.: (a) existence of a yearly tenancy at date when lease was accepted; (b) threat of eviction or undue influence by landlord; and (c) existence in lease of unreasonable terms, was wanting, so as to cause the dismissal of the application?

Sir, as I have obtained a Report from the Land Commissioners dealing with the matters of fact referred to in this Question, I may, perhaps, be permitted to answer it. With regard to the first paragraph of the Question, it is the case that a judgment of the Irish Land Commissioners was reversed by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland as detailed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, the Return could not be given. If it were granted, it would im- pose on the Judicial Commissioner the necessity for perusing the notes in every one of the 600 or 700 cases which have been heard. The duties which he has to discharge render his doing so a physical impossibility. I will, however, look into the question further, and see if the Return can be given in a somewhat different form. The second paragraph of the Question deals with a matter of policy, upon which I cannot give the hon. Member any information.

having subsequently repeated the Question, and addressed it again to the Prime Minister,

Yes, Sir. Probably I failed to make myself understood on a former day; but I may now state that the question of the Lease Clauses was one of those I had in view, when I said that, at a certain time, the Government would think it right to state their intentions with respect to various points of importance connected with the Land Act. These points are the Purchase Clauses, the Lease Clauses, and the Clauses with respect to Labourers. I do not, however, think it would be of any advantage to make a statement on the subject, until we see our way to the conclusion of the proceedings connected with the two Bills now before the House—namely, the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Bill dealing with Arrears of Rent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will include emigration?

No, Sir; I am not in a position to say whether the Government will make any statement with regard to emigration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police, at Rhode, King's County, recently prevented by threats the erection of a hut, provided by the Ladies' Land League to shelter the family of an evicted labourer named Kavanagh; whether, in consequence of the conduct of the police, Kavanagh, his wife, and his children, who, as notified to the police, were ill of measles, had to avail themselves of the shelter of a shed or stable without door, window, or chimney, and have lived there for the last fortnight; whether the result has been that exposure has caused the death of one of the children, and that another is now lying at the point of death; whether the coroner of Queen's County, in accordance with the Law, issued his precept to the police directing them to provide a jury to inquire into the death of the child, and giving them twenty-eight hours' notice for the purpose; whether the police disregarded the precept, and failed to provide the jury, in consequence of which no inquest has yet been held; and, whether the Executive will take notice of the conduct of the police, and institute further action in the matter?

in reply, said, he had just received a voluminous telegram from Ireland in relation to the matter, and he was anxious to look over it carefully, as it touched the conduct of several Government officials. He would answer the hon. Member to-morrow.

said, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a proportionate share of the moneys voted by Parliament to the Royal Irish Constabulary in compensation for loss and hardship in connection with special service since the year 1879, will be paid to those members of the force who served during the years 1879 and 1880, but who happened to have left the force previous to the introduction of the Compensation Vote in Parliament; and, whether it is not the fact that many members of the force who had to retire from various causes since January 1881 suffered severe pecuniary loss and injury to health in connection with the exceptional service in the years 1879 and 1880?

Sir, the grant of £180,000 referred to will be confined to members of the Force who were serving in the Force on the 24th of April last. It is probably the fact that many members of the Force who had retired prior to that date did suffer pecuniary loss and injury to health; but their cases have been disposed of when they retired on pension or gratuity, and cannot now be re-opened.

in whose name the following Notice appeared on the Paper:—

"To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has any information as to the movements, since their release, of those suspected of crimes of violence, which would show whether they had or had not gone to reside in those neighbourhoods in which murders have been committed since their release;"

said, that before he put his Question he wished to ask the Speaker's direction on a point of Order. That Question had undergone very severe expurgation at the Table. As originally handed in by him, it was in these terms. He proposed to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, How he reconciled the release from prison of John Ryan and Michael M'Sweeney, who had been arrested on suspicion of murder, with the assurance which he had given on the 8th of May that none of the "suspects" who had been charged with murder would be released? The point he desired to submit to the Speaker was, how an hon. Member was to proceed when he wished for information on a Question, an answer in reference to which given by the Representative of a Department in the House was at variance with a statement in the printed Papers published by that Department?

in reply, said, he thought the course taken by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was rather an unfair one. The first form in which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had seen the Question was the form in which it appeared on the Paper. He thought the usual course in a case of the kind was first to inquire privately whether there was any alteration in the Question. ["No, no!"] Ho had not been a party to any alteration of the Question.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman was not bound to answer any Question other than that on the Paper, unless he desired so to do. With regard to the point of Order, no doubt certain expressions might, and had been struck out of the Question by the Clerk at the Table, because they involved matter of controversy and might cause debate. If anything was imported into a Question which necessarily must lead to debate, or involved such debate, that part of the Question was properly struck out. He apprehended the hon. Member had been informed of it.

No, Sir.

The hon. Member should have been informed of it.

asked whether it would not be desirable to make an arrangement for some information to be given to hon. Members where they inadvertently and unwittingly offended against this unwritten law as regarded putting down Questions?

asked whether there was any appeal from the decision of the Clerk at the Table?

said, there was an appeal, no doubt, to the Chair.

Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in explanation to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that I gave public Notice on Thursday last of the Question, in the terms in which I put it on the Table. I would now ask, whether I would be in Order, on a future occasion, in asking the right hon. Gentleman, if he adheres to the statement made in answer to a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), that no men charged with murder were released during the month of May, in face of the fact that John Ryan and Michael M'Sweeney were so released?

The hon. Baronet puts a Question to me on a matter which has not yet arisen. I am bound to say that I can assure the hon. Baronet and the House that I have quite enough to do to answer Questions upon points of Order when they arise; and now the hon. Baronet puts to me a hypothetical Question, which I must decline to answer.

Sir, I was not aware that the hon. Baronet had given me Notice. I have felt rather keenly the reflection implied by the Question of the hon. Baronet, as I always try to be accurate in answering Questions, and more so, as regards this one, as it is a somewhat serious one. With regard to the Question on the Paper, if I may assume that it is confined to the case of prisoners released by the present Lord Lieutenant since he assumed Office, my answer is simply that the murder of Mr. Bourke in the Gort district, County Gal-way, is the only murder that has taken place since His Excellency released any prisoner, and that no prisoner from that district suspected of a crime of violence has been released.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the Mediterranean Squadron off Alexandria is not strengthened by such armour-clads as the "Audacious," "Defence," "Penelope," and "Resistance," whose draught of water will permit them to enter that harbour, in addition to or in place of the "Alexandra," "Inflexible," "Superb," and "Temeraire," which draw too much water to leave it with certainty or safety?

Sir, I regret that I can make no other answer to the Question of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) than this—that the Admiralty are taking the steps which they consider best for the disposition of Her Majesty's Naval Forces in the Mediterranean, including Alexandria, and I must ask the House to allow me to decline entering into any particulars on the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the death of Robert Mills, an engineer student on board H.M.S. "Marlborough," at Portsmouth, from the results of a severe chill caught in the execution of his duty; and, whether it is intended to attach a medical officer to the "Marlborough," or to make any improved arrangement for the supervision of the health of the engineer students?

Sir, I regret to say that it is the case that Mr. Robert Mills, engineer student on board the Marlborough, died on the 24th of May, from acute and rapid congestion of the lungs, the result of a chill sustained on duty in the Sultan on the 22nd of May. Until the morning of the 24th, although showing some symptoms of ill- ness, he had been going about as usual. He was then seen by a medical officer, who placed him on the sick list, although the illness was not believed to be serious. In the evening he became worse, and, notwithstanding all that the doctor in attendance could do, rapidly succumbed to the disease. As the death was unusually sudden, an inquest was held, and the facts were fully investigated, with the result that the jury expressed an opinion that he had received all possible care. It was with great regret that the Admiralty learnt the melancholy and premature termination of this young student's career; but they do not see in the facts of the case any reason for attaching a special medical officer to the Marlborough, the duty being efficiently performed by one of the medical officers of the Asia, and the medical officers of the Yard.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the increase of pay to lieutenants after joining their regiments is postponed in the case of the Artillery till after a period of three years' service, whereas a similar increase was made to lieutenants of the Line after a period of two years only; and, whether the Government will consider the expediency of placing the Artillery in this respect on a footing of equal advantage with the Line?

Sir, the reason is that before the 1st of July, 1881, a second lieutenant of the Line was entitled to his increase of pay after three years' service, or on promotion to the rank of lieutenant; whereas, in the Artillery, there were no second lieutenants, and the increase of pay to lieutenants was due after three years' service. The Warrant abolished second lieutenants, and made the rule for the Line the same as that for the Artillery; but, inasmuch as it was found that, on the average, promotions from second lieutenant to lieutenant took place in about two years, second lieutenants then serving in the Line were exceptionally granted this increase after two years. Lieutenants appointed on and after the 1st of July, 1881, will serve three years before their pay is increased.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state what progress has been made in the formation of the new Corps of Ordnance Artificers, for which a sum of £4,800 is taken, for pay, in this year's Estimates; and, also, the number of men who have qualified, in accordance with the Deputy Adjutant General's Circular, dated the 16th May 1878; the number at present actually enrolled; and when he expects the corps will reach its full intended strength?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the arrangements made in 1878 for this corps were not entirely successful; indeed, only 12 men volunteered. A different system has now been adopted, and it is expected that the corps will be fully established during the current financial year.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many persons have been arrested under the Coercion Act of last year up to the fifteenth day of this month?

Sir, 917 persons have been arrested under the Protection of Person and Property Act up to the 15th instant. Of these 23 were arrested a second time.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the shooting and driving prizes for 1881 have been paid to the Artillery; and, if he could manage that, for the future, these prizes should be paid when awarded?

Sir, I have inquired into this matter, and I find that there has been this year a delay of an unusual character in issuing these prizes. The Order will appear in a few days, and I have given instructions that the prizes be in future years issued not later than in February.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the place of residence of Michael M'Queeny, who was lately confined in Enniskillen Prison on reasonable suspicion of murder, and has lately been released, and what was the name of the person he was reasonably suspected of having murdered; and, if there is any intention of putting M'Queeny upon his trial, according to Law, for the offence of which he was suspected?

Sir, Michael M'Queeny's place of residence is Attygowlas, in the Boyle district, County Roscommon. I must decline to disclose the name of the person he was suspected of having murdered. As to the last paragraph of the Question, I must beg the noble Lord to put it to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

I am not aware that any information has been laid before me respecting this case.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Yates Thompson ever visited Kilmainham Prison during the incarceration of the suspects either in his own or an assumed name; and, if so, was he in any way in communication with the Member for Cork or any of the other suspects, and on what dates? He said it had been his intention to withdraw the Question, as he had been credibly informed that the gentleman referred to had nothing to do with the matter. It was, however, only just and courteous to the gentleman that he (Mr. Elliot) should put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman, in order that he might give it an explicit and official denial, as he (Mr. Elliot) understood he desired to do.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is very handsome of him to accede to my desire. Mr. Yates Thompson is one of the oldest friends I have in the world, and I am anxious to read a few lines from the following letter, which I have received from him, dated June 16:—

"Dear Trevelyan.—I see in The Times that you are to be questioned again this afternoon about my famous visit to Kilmainham. I should be much obliged if you would say in your answer that you have my authority for stating that I have not been in Ireland for the last 18 months, nor had any communication, verbal or otherwise, with any members of the Land League, or the Member for the City of Cork."

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that the Petroleum Act of 1879 for the United Kingdom fixes the flashing point, for safety, at 73 degrees Fahrenheit, and that the same standard was adopted in the Indian Act of 1881; and if he intends to permit so low, or even, as is now proposed, a lower standard for a country where the mean temperature of the year is at least 25 degrees above that of this latitude, and the summer temperature for eight months often exceeded 100 degrees Fahrenheit?

Sir, the standard of the Act of 1881 for the test of petroleum was fixed by the Indian Legislature after full consideration, and with the approval of the Secretary of State. There is not, and has never been, any proposal to permit that standard to be lowered.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the place of residence of John Ryan, a suspect, recently confined in Dundalk Gaol on reasonable suspicion of murder; what is the name of the murdered person; and, whether the murder took place in the neighbourhood where Ryan now resides?

Sir, John Ryan is reported to me to reside in the town-land of Ballykeeran, parish of Lecker-rig, barony of Loughrea, county of Gal-way. Ryan was not confined, as stated in the Question, on reasonable suspicion of murder, but on reasonable suspicion of being accessory to murder. I must decline to give the further information asked for in the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an investigation was recently held in New Ross into charges made against Constable Thomas Byrne; and, whether the finding of the Court of Inquiry was not that Constable Byrne was not guilty; and, if so, whether he will state the reason for his immediate transfer to Monaghan?

Yes, Sir; there was such an investigation. The constable was charged with neglect of duty. The Court considered that his fault arose from an error of judgment, and found him "Not Guilty." The Inspector General considered it necessary, for disciplinary and other reasons, to transfer him to another county. He was given his choice between three counties, and has chosen Kildare, to which he has been removed.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in view of the great importance to the working classes of the new scheme with reference to Government Annuities and Insurance, which is embodied in the Bill of which he has given notice, and of the serious delay which may arise in bringing the scheme into operation if the consideration of the Bill be much longer postponed, he is able to state whether the Government propose to afford any, and what, facilities for the early discussion of the measure?

in reply, said, he need scarcely assure the House that he should be very glad if an opportunity could be found for consideration of the Bill. In the existing condition of Business, however, he feared he must look rather to facilities being afforded by private Members than by the Government. At any rate, he felt there would be very little use in asking the Prime Minister to give him a day for the consideration of the Bill, or any special facilities at the present time. He was, however, in some hope that the private Members who had given Notice of opposition to the second reading of the Bill might afford facilities, and he had given private Notice to those hon. Members on Friday that he should make an appeal to them on the subject; and, with the permission of the Speaker, he would ask their indulgence for a single moment while he made that appeal. He based his appeal on this ground—that the Bill affected a great number of people, in bringing facilities before them for obtaining life insurances and obtaining annuities. It was the result of the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee; but the strongest ground of his appeal to the hon. Members who had to remove their blocking Notices was this—that the important change to be effected by the Bill was the linking of the annuity and the life insurance business with the Post Office Savings Bank. As he understood, that part of the Bill was unanimously accepted. The only point to which objection was taken was simply the limits of insurance and annuities, and he ventured to submit that that might be considered in Committee. One hon. Member who had given Notice of opposition to the Bill had most kindly said ho would remove his Notice. Ho referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth (Mr. Alderman M'Arthur). He addressed a similar appeal to the hon. Members for Cambridge (Mr. W. Fowler), Wolverhampton (Mr. II. Fowler), and Bridport (Mr. Warton), and could say that if the second reading of the Bill were taken, he should spare no efforts to secure a proper discussion of the points to which they objected when the Bill should reach the Committee stage.

said, he had no objection to the Bill, so far as it related to the alteration of the machinery of the Savings Bank. His only objection to the Bill was in respect to the limits of insurance—[Cries of "Order!"]

It is only with the indulgence of the House that the hon. Member can speak.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can quote any provision of "The Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act" under which suspects can be retained in prison without regard to their own guilt or innocence, but on account of the alleged state of the districts in which they were originally arrested?

Sir, a person reasonably suspected of having committed a crime in a proscribed district may be legally arrested and legally detained under the Act until the 30th of September, 1882. In determining whether the period of arrest can be abridged, the main consideration of the Lord Lieutenant is, whether a release will have a prejudicial effect or otherwise on the state of the district, and its actual state must be a most material ingredient in coming to a determination.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, since he stated that Mr. M. Finucane, Bengal Civil Service, "bad never been manager of the Durbungha Raj," he has learned that Mr. Finucane appears in the India List for 1880 as assistant magistrate at Durbungha, in the India List for 1881 as "manager of the Durbungha Raj," and in the India List for 1882 as "manager of the Durbungha Raj;" whether be will inquire why the letter of resignation which Mr. Finucane addressed to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Sir Ashley Eden, declining to carry out enhancements of rent on the estates of the Maharajah of Durbungha, cannot now be produced; whether he will inquire if the salary of Mr. Finucane, while attached to the administration of the Durbungha Raj, was 1,500 rupees a month; whether he will inquire if the salary of the relative of Sir Ashley Eden, appointed to the administration of the Durbungha Raj, is 2,000 rupees a month; whether Sir Ashley Eden is now a member of the India Council in London; and, whether he will inform the House the name of the Indian official on whose authority he stated that Mr. Finucane was never manager of the Durbungha Raj?

in reply, said, he had had the facts relating to these appointments before him; and was satisfied that the statements contained in the Question were inaccurate, He had all the particulars of the ap- pointment of this gentleman; but he trusted the House would not consider it necessary for him to go into the details of dates and figures. If the hon. Member thought it worth while to raise the question on any fitting opportunity, he had no doubt he should be able to satisfy him that a former reply he had given the hon. Member on the subject was correct. As he had said before, nothing was known of the letter of resignation, and ho could not undertake to make inquiries with regard to a letter of the existence of which he knew nothing. By referring to the Returns the hon. Member would see what the salaries were.

said, that he was prepared to accept the challenge of the noble Marquess on the very first opportunity he could give him.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the refugees on board the ships provided by Her Majesty's Government are to be landed at any place they may select; and, whether, whilst on board, they are to pay for their own living?

Sir, we have no doubt that Sir Beau-champ Seymour, in communication with the Consular authorities, is taking all necessary steps, and making the necessary arrangements in this matter; but we have no detailed information on the subject.

I wish to ask what are those steps, particularly with regard to payments by refugees?

I have already said that Sir Beauchamp Seymour, in communication with the Consular authorities, is the proper person to decide such questions, and although the hon. Member asked the same Question the other day, I cannot conceive that at this moment it would be desirable for us, when Sir Beauchamp Seymour is the responsible person, to trouble him with telegraphic inquiry on such a subject.

As this is to a certain extent a financial Question, I shall repeat it to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Thursday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Edmund Stuart, a suspect confined in Clonmel Prison on the ground of shooting and hounding, has been lately released; and, if he is to be put on his trial for the offence with which he was charged?

Sir, Edmund Stewart was released on the 30th of May by order of the Lord Lieutenant. For an answer to the last part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

With respect to the latter part of the Question, I am unable to say whether this person was put upon his trial, because I cannot recollect whether the information was submitted to me or not. Until I have received intelligence respecting that, I cannot give an answer.

asked the Financial Sceretary to the Treasury, Whether he will give instructions to the Office of Public Works in Ireland not to press landlords who have not received their rents to pay immediately their instalments due for land improvement in Ireland; and, whether he is aware that that Department is now threatening legal proceedings against several landlords who have not received their rents, in respect of instalments only due last April?

Sir, the Board of Works have already been authorized to act in the sense indicated in the Question of the right hon. and learned Gen-leman. I [have no knowledge of any cases in which legal proceedings have been taken in contravention of this order.

said, he had seen letters threatening legal proceedings within the last few days.

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would furnish him with details, he would make inquiries.

said, he should be glad to do so.

asked, whether, in deciding in this matter, account would be taken of those landlords having oppressed their tenants?

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the recent experiment in giving Volunteer Captains and Field Officers instruction in Military tactics was a success, what numbers in Scotland and England respectively attended, what proportion passed, and what proportion passed with honours; and, if there is to be another opportunity for those who did not attend, or who failed to pass?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that the papers of the Volunteer candidates for examination in tactics are only now being received, and as between 600 and 700 officers were examined, it will be some weeks before the results can be known. There will be further periodical opportunities for examination afforded to officers of the Auxiliary Forces.

asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether Coolie immigration from India to Reunion has been stopped; and, if so, will he state at what date the order of the Indian Government to that effect took effect?

Sir, emigration from India to Reunion has not yet been stopped. There is nothing to be added to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Kendal (Mr. Cropper) on the 23rd of May.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By whose orders the patrols were withdrawn from Phoenix Park on May 6th, and in what way the Government have noticed the conduct of the person responsible?

Sir, there were no police patrols withdrawn from the Phœnix Park on the 6th of May. I have answered the general purport of this Question before, and I am sorry to have to revert to it again.

said, he had listened with the greatest care to all the right hon. Gentleman's replies on this subject. His Question, to which he had not yet received a distinct answer, was, Whether there were ever, at any time, police patrols placed in Phoenix Park before the assassinations; whether those police patrols were withdrawn; and, if so, by whose authority they were withdrawn?

This is a matter in which the feelings of others are involved. I thought I had answered it fully before. Practically, the protection was withdrawn at the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) left Ireland. The effective protection was withdrawn then. I am sorry to have to repeat that which, I think, I indicated in a longer answer.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question—Who was responsible?

said, the subject was one which excited a good deal of interest in Dublin. It was not a question of general effective protection. But it was generally stated in Dublin that on the morning of that deplorable occurrence the police were removed from the Phoenix Park—that the Park was absolutely stripped of police to an extent previously unknown. What they wanted to know was, who ordered the police on that fatal morning to leave the Park?

I have made a careful inquiry into that point, and such was not the case. The police who were withdrawn were the police for the protection of the late Chief Secretary, while my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) was in Dublin; and, as I explained to the House, my late lamented Predecessor had not sufficient protection taken for his safety. I gave two reasons, which weighed with the Lord Lieutenant in his consideration of this subject.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the late Mr. Burke, late Under Secretary, was also under special protection, and whether his special protection was also withdrawn; and, if so, by whose orders was the special protection withdrawn which had been given to the right hon. Member for Bradford?

The late lamented Mr. Burke was under special protection, or what he considered sufficient special protection, at the time of his death. I do not know what word to use; but he had escaped the protection of the police, who walked behind him, by his taking a car. The policeman who ought to have met him was diverted from his duty by a drunken person who came across his path. That drunken person has been traced, and it has been ascertained that he could not have been connected with the persons associated with the murder. Mr. Burke would have had a policeman walking behind him if he had not taken a car at the point he did. When at the Gough Memorial he got off, and joined Lord Frederick Cavendish.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the action of Captain Gorges Hely, landlord of the townsland of Ballyonskill, in the county of Kilkenny, who, having been paid his rents by the solvent tenantry, in a great measure through the intervention of the local clergy, and upon an understanding that he would forbear as to those unable to meet their engagements, until an Arrears of Rent measure should be passed, has nevertheless, during the past week, proceeded with evictions of those tenantry so unable to pay; whether the Military and Civil Forces have been employed on several occasions at these evictions, although even the Conservative local organ testifies to the peaceable and orderly demeanour of the people of the locality as well as the evicted tenantry under the irritating circumstances of being deprived of their homes and of the crops recently sown in their holdings; and, whether the Government can take any action in the matter?

Sir, I have received a telegram from the local Constabulary, stating that Captain Hely did not make any such undertaking as the Question states. On the 7th instant, he evicted nine tenants; but first offered liberal abatements—for example, in one case he offered to take six months' rent where four years' was due. Some of the evicted tenants have now paid, and have re-occupied their holdings. On the requisition of the Sub-Sheriff and Resident Magistrate, military and police protected the Sub-Sheriff and his bailiffs in the service of writ and eviction. The Government does not intend to take any action in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps were taken by Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and Her Majesty's ships under his command, last Sunday, for the protection of British life and property at Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government nourish the belief that the repetition of such steps will be sufficient to preserve British interests in that City in case of the renewal of hostilities?

Sir, the despatch of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which will answer the first part of the Question, is on its way home. One preliminary despatch was received at the Admiralty this morning. With regard to the second, instructions have been sent, which, we believe, will meet the exigencies of the case. In the opinion of the Admiralty, however, it would not be right for me to state the purport of these instructions. Questions on this subject, strictly speaking, ought to be addressed to the Admiralty.

gave Notice that he would repeat his Question to-morrow.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can, without inconvenience, state what particular object or purpose Her Majesty's Government had in view in ordering the Fleet to Alexandria; and, whether Her Majesty's Government were aware, when ordering the Fleet to Alexandria, that the depth of water on the bar was not such as would allow any other than the smaller vessels to enter the Port?

Sir, the object with which the Fleet was sent to Alexandria was stated by me on the 23rd ultimo. The second part of the Question should more properly be addressed to the Secrerary to the Admiralty; but the replies which have already been given in the House on the subject show that the statement now made is not correct.

wished to know whether he should be in Order in taking the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the inaccuracy of the replies on this subject of the hon. Baronet? [Cries of "Order!"]

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador in Rome to Her Majesty's Government in reference to the speech alleged to have been made in Rome by Signor Mancini on the 12th June, and in which the following passages occur:—

"The policy of the Government could be summarized thus: To absolutely refuse armed intervention on the part of certain Powers, to favour the meeting of a Conference with a definite object. To affirm the competence of the European Concert to share in the final settlement…and, if armed intervention should become necessary, to give preference to that of Turkey as the lesser evil of the two…That the Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had hitherto acted in perfect union. He regarded that union as a happy one for Italy, and he hoped it would bring forth good results;"

and, whether those communications, and any information with regard to the nature of that agreement, will be included in the Papers to be laid upon the Table?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the British Representative at Rome has made any communications to Her Majesty's Government respecting the statements of Signor Mancini—

"The policy of the Government could be sumn arized thus: To absolutely refuse assent to armed intervention on the part of certain Powers;"

and again,

"The Italian Government were firmly resolved to maintain the agreement that subsisted between them and the Three Powers with whom they had acted hitherto in perfect union;"

and, if so, whether such communications will be printed with the Papers about to be laid upon the Table relating to Egypt?

Sir, in reply to the Questions of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), I must follow the usual course in declining to express any opinion with regard to statements made by the Ministers of foreign countries in foreign Assemblies. I may, however, state that both the hon. Members appear to quote from the same report, which is a very inaccurate one, of Signor Mancini's speech. We have an official report in Italian, of which an English summary will be included in the Papers to be laid before Parliament.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before the proposed Conference takes place, Parliament will be informed what the bases agreed upon are; and, what are the limits within which discussions are to be confined?

Sir, with respect to the limits within which the discussions at the Conference ought to be confined when the Conference meets, they are limits marked out by the Egyptian Question. A great number of other questions have been suggested to be introduced to the Conference; but the condition of Egypt is the limit of discussion at the Conference. With regard to the bases, those bases are no further determined than is shown in the Correspondence of the Governments, and especially that between the Governments of England and France. They have frequently been described in this House as having for their object the maintenance of all established rights in Egypt, with a due regard to the reasonable development of the institutions of that country.

The Question we should be very glad to have answered is this, Whether the limits within which the discussions are to be confined will be the limits of the Egyptian Question proper—that is, the condition of Egypt—or whether they will include any question as to the Suez Canal?

No, Sir; I think the purpose for which the Conference is summoned is undoubtedly limited to the Egyptian Question proper.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he could state to the House what are the "best means" (as stated in the House on Friday last) which the Government are taking for protecting British subjects in Egypt; and, whether the Government will make a full disclosure of their policy on matters relating to safety of British subjects as the best means of allaying the present exited feeling in that country?

Sir, I can only repeat that very full instructions have been sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour within the last few days, which will, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, fully meet the exigencies of the case. I must also repeat that I believe it is the opinion of the Admiralty, who have sent these instructions, that it would not be proper to state their exact terms to the House just now.

When were the instructions sent?

The latest instructions to Sir Beauchamp Seymour were sent either on Friday or Saturday. I saw them myself on Saturday.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give an assurance to Parliament that, in the event of a Conference upon Egyptian affairs, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war?

Sir, there is no intention to deal with the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal. It would be outside the purposes of the Conference.

said, he was anxious to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It related to the alleged separate action of the Consuls General of Germany and Austria in Egypt. He thought that, in view of that alleged separate action to which the newspaper accounts referred, it would be satisfactory if his hon. Friend could state, What was the attitude of the Governments of those two Consuls General?

in reply, said, his right hon. Friend had given sufficiently long Notice to enable him to answer without breaking through the rules which he had laid down earlier in the evening. The answer would be best put by saying that the German Government yesterday accepted the invitation of England and France to the Conference, and that the Austrian Government accepted that invitation to-day. The Russian Government had previously accepted, and Italy had previously declared that she was ready to go with the other Powers. So that substantially the invitation of England and France had been accepted by all the Powers.

I understood that the Question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) was, whether Germany and Austria had pressed a Minister on the Khedive without consultation with the other Powers? I think we are entitled to know how far that is true; whether those two Consuls General acted without reference to the other Powers; and, whether in the face of their action, the European Concert is still maintained.

I can give no further answer without Notice. ["Oh, oh!"] I have answered the Question of my right hon. Friend, it being strictly within the rule I laid down. ["No, no!"] Well, my right hon. Friend is of opinion that I have answered it. At any rate, his Question was, Whether, in face of the statements in the newspapers of the separate action of the Austrian and German Consuls General, I would give any information as to the attitude occupied by the Austrian and German Powers in Egypt? and I have stated, in answer, the acceptation of the Conference by those Powers.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the Question I lately asked him, whether the Great Powers have assented to the exclusion of the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war from the subjects to be considered at the Conference?

Sir, so far as the limited purpose of the Conference has entered into the preliminary declarations of the Great Powers, we believe it to be, and I think I may say we know it to be, undoubtedly as far as any positive evidence has gone, decided by all those Powers that the operation and the action of the Conference should be confined to the Egyptian Question, within the limits just now described by the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote).

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, With reference to the Green Book issued by the Italian Government on the 12th instant, from which it appears that, on the 16th September last, the British Embassy in Rome communicated a Despatch from Lord Granville proposing a Convention, to be negotiated under the auspices of England, of which the first Clause contained the formal recognition by Egypt and Turkey of Italy's Sovereignty over Assab Bay, and to the Bill introduced in the Italian Parliament on the same day by Signor Mancini, declaring Assab to be an Italian Colony, making it a free port, and giving the Italian Government the right of making concessions of land and concluding treaties with the neighbouring rulers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government regards Assab Bay as now belonging to Italy or to Egypt?

Sir, the Papers about to be laid on the Table will show the view taken by Her Majsety's Government of this question. We have endeavoured to promote an agreement which would be advantageous to all parties; but it has not yet been accepted by the Egyptian Government.

asked the hon. Baronet to answer the last part of the Question. Did Assab Bay belong to Italy or Egypt?

The Italian flag was hoisted in Assab Bay, as I have already frequently stated, in the month of January, 1880, by an Italian frigate and an Italian corvette. There has been no transfer of Sovereignty at Assab Bay, and the view Her Majesty's Government take of the present condition of affairs can only really be judged by reading the Papers.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequor, in view of the very large profit made by the Mint on the coinage of silver during 1881, amounting to £166,823 (after charging £46,000 to the account for loss on old silver coins), Whether he would keep the exceptionally large net gain from the Mint for 1881 in a "Suspense Account," excluding it and subsequent gains from the credit side of the National Finance Accounts until the Government has had time to consider what may fairly be done with these Mintage gains to meet, either wholly or partially, heavy impending losses to the community through the abrasion and deterioration of our gold currency?

Sir, I may say it is not a matter at the discretion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the Treasury, it being provided by the existing Act of Parliament, under which the whole of the expenses of the coinage at the Mint are defrayed from the Consolidated Fund, that the receipts also shall be paid in full into the Exchequer, and carried to the credit of the Consolidated Fund.

said, that on account of a leading article in The Times of to-day, reflecting on the conduct of the Department over which he had the honour to preside for some years, and containing statements which were entirely of a misleading character, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for War some Questions, of which had given him private Notice. The statement in The Times was—

"When we remember that in l879 some 200,000 rifles were sold by the War Office, and, in spite of the protest of the then Irish Secretary, were allowed to find their way into Ireland, and that these very weapons are now in the hands of the miscreant bodies with which Ireland swarms, we may well doubt whether one landlord the less will be shot, or one official the less be struck down, in consequence of Saturday's seizure."

He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman—First, Whether any arms at all were sold by the War Office in 1879; secondly, whether any sale of arms had taken place since the protest of the Irish Government was received at the War Office in July, 1879; and thirdly, with reference to the seizure of Saturday, whether he could state if the arms seized at Clerkenwell were manufactured by or for the Government?

Sir, in reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that his two first Questions have been already answered, I think, satisfactorily; but, in order to relieve his mind, I will answer them again. No arms were sold by the War Office in 1879, and no arms have been sold since the objection made by the Irish Government in that year. The arms seized at Clerkenwell are in course of examination this day; but I have heard a few minutes ago, that none of them were manufactured either by or for the Government.

said, that in consequence of the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Eustace Cecil), and the answer given by the Secretary of State for War as to the sale of arms, he should ask, Why the Irish Government remonstrated in July 1879, respecting the sale of arms, if no arms had been sold; and, whether it was not the fact that a very unadvised and a very large sale of arms took place in 1879, under the auspices of the Conservative Government?

Sir, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) makes a reference to the remonstrance addressed by the Irish Government to the War Office in 1879. I may say at once, without taking any further notice of the subject, that I did make a remonstrance against the sale by a private individual in Sheffield of some arms which bore the Government mark, and which had been previously in the possession of the military authorities. That was what the protest referred to.

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any further information about the seizure of arms; and as there is considerable anxiety among the public as to the fact that only one person has been apprehended, whether he can explain how it came to pass that the police were unable to apprehend other persons concerned?

Substantially, I may say that the accounts in the newspapers are correct. A very large number of rifles and a great quantity of ammunition and revolvers were seized by the police. I do not, however, think it would be desirable that I should at present make any further statement on the subject. The person who was admittedly in custody of these arms was arrested; and what further information can be obtained with reference to those with whom he was connected I do not think it would be wise to communicate.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether it was his intention to proceed to-morrow with the Motion in reference to the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill, of which he had given Notice; and, if so, whether he would give an explanation as regards the general Business.

Sir, it was in consequence of noticing a remark made by the right hon. Gentleman, and like- wise an observation of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that I postponed until to-morrow the Notice that I had given in the House; but I will, to-morrow, in making that Motion, state, as far as the actual condition of circumstances permits, what views the Government have in regard to the Business of the House. I shall only be able to do it in a form somewhat general tomorrow; but it will undoubtedly be made in a form more specific when we have made further progress.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he intended to make his statement at a Morning Sitting, or at 4 o'clock.

answered, at a Morning Sitting.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is true that the proposals made by the Postmaster General to the Treasury for increasing the pay of the letter carriers have been rejected, but that the right hon. Gentleman is still pressing for an equitable settlement of the question; and, if not, what delays the announcement of a decision so often promised and so anxiously expected?

Sir, the statement quoted by the hon. Member is inaccurate. The proposals which have been made and discussed included many details. Most of these have been settled; one or two are still pending, but an early decision may be looked for.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question, of which I have not given him Notice, but the propriety of answering which he will probably admit. It is, Whether the rumour, rather widely circulated yesterday, that Sir Edward Malat is seriously ill at Alexandria is correct?

I am happy to say, Sir, that Sir Edward Malet is not seriously ill. He has a mild attack of fever, which will probably incapacitate him for work for about a week.

said, there was a slight verbal error in the Amendment which stood upon the Paper in his name. It should read in this way—"In page 4, line 36, after the word 'if,' insert" at any time after one hour later than sunset and earlier than one hour before sunrise.'" The clause under discussion gave power to any constable to arrest any stranger under suspicious circumstances in a proclaimed district, and bring him before a Justice of the Peace. Ho (Dr. Commins) thought the clause was too wide and might be very considerably abused, and he saw no reason why the powers given in the clause should be any more extensive than those which were given in the 8th clause as to the arrest of persons found at night under suspicious circumstances. By the present clause, the power proposed to be given was likely to give rise to a great deal of vexation, annoyance, and trouble, particularly during the summer months. They all knew that Ireland was very much resorted to by tourists in the summer months.

That used to be the case, but it is not so now.

said, he had no doubt that tourists would be well able to take care of themselves; but the police-constables, under this clause, might render it almost practically impossible for any person to visit Ireland who was either a tourist or anything else. It would be very inconvenient to require every man to watch the sun, and get indoors imme- diately after sunset. He thought it would be quite sufficient if power were given to stop persons who might be out of their hotels within the same hours as those specified in Clause 8—namely, one hour later than sunset and an hour before sunrise. There was another reason for restricting the power proposed to be obtained by the Government. Hon. Members were aware that an Exhibition of Irish Industry was to be held in Dublin in the autumn, and it was expected that a large number of people from England, from America, and from other parts of the world would visit that Exhibition. Such persons were not likely to be persons known to the police, and it would be a very great annoyance to subject them to the possibility of arrest as strangers found roaming about under suspicious circumstances. He submitted to the Committee that it would be only a fair and proper restriction to limit the power of arrest to that already described in Clause 8, and he, therefore, proposed his Amendment.

said, that in regard to what the hon. and learned Member had said, he (Sir William Harcourt) was disposed to think that the number of tourists who would visit Ireland next autumn would very much depend upon whether this clause were passed or not, and whether they would consider themselves secure from the attentions of the particular class of strangers against which this clause was directed. An innocent tourist going to Killarney was not at all likely to be arrested, and the clause was meant to deal with strangers of a very different description—such, for instance, as strangers with revolvers in all their pockets—and unless there was some power to protect not only tourists, but the people of Ireland, from the visits of such strangers, he did not think it was likely that many tourists would visit the country. The distinction between the 8th and 9th clause had already been pointed out. The 8th clause applied only to the night-time, and the object of that was to prevent it including the inhabitants of the district who might be well-known. The 8th clause gave power to the magistrates as a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to inflict six months' imprisonment. The 9th clause was not intended to apply to the inhabitants of the district at all, and was not primâ facie a punishment clause in any respect. The object of the 9th clause was to enable the police to arrest strangers who could not show that they were in a particular place for a lawful object, and it was the very essence of the section that it should apply to the day-time as well as to the night. Otherwise, it would mean nothing at all. It was not proposed to inflict a penalty under the clause; but all that was done was to require a stranger arrested under such circumstances to find security to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for six months, and, in default, he might be committed to prison until he found such security. The Government felt themselves unable to accept the Amendment.

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had stated that tourists had reason to desire the retention of this clause, rather than its omission from the Bill, implying thereby that they would obtain some sort of security if the clause passed, and that they would be in peril if it did not pass. This was entirely contrary to the well-known character of the Irish people, and the well-known facts of the case. A stranger visiting Ireland was, and had always been, hospitably and well received and was never molested; and, on a recent occasion, testimony to that effect had been borne by an impartial and trustworthy witness—the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone)—who, having travelled through Ireland at a time of considerable excitement, bore testimony to the fact that strangers were more secure and more safe in that country than they would have been in most parts of England. It was not the people of Ireland that strangers and visitors had to apprehend any trouble from; but if this Bill passed they would have to apprehend trouble, annoyance, and interference from the police. The character of the people of Ireland for hospitality to strangers was proverbial, and was recognized all over the world. A well-known Irish song said that—

"In the vales of Tipperary the stranger is like a king."

And so he was among the people. But if this Bill came into force, instead of being treated like kings, all strangers would be treated as if they were malefactors. His own belief was that if the clause passed it would almost entirely put an end to the visits of strangers. Why should such people subject themselves and their families to the insults they would have to put up with from meddlesome Irish constables, stimulated to zeal by their superiors and by the offer of rewards and other temptations. It had already been pointed out that strangers in the coming summer would have a special reason for visiting Ireland. It had been hoped that there would be a large influx of friendly strangers from En gland, Scotland, Wales, and America, and from all parts of the world, to the capital of Ireland. The Irish people were now engaged in getting up an Exhibition of Irish Manufactures. They had been often told to cultivate the virtue of self-reliance in their own country, and they were showing by that Exhibition how self-reliant they were; because, with their own resources, they were promoting the Exhibition without obtaining any help from the wealthier classes. Under these circumstances, it had been expected that, at least, upon the opening of the Exhibition there would be a large number of friendly strangers of their own kith and kin from the United States and other parts of America, and from all parts of the British Empire. But how could these people venture to visit the country in the face of this Act? Among the reasons for visiting Ireland during the coming summer was a resolution which had been passed by the Society for the Preservation of the Irish Language, declaring that it was desirable a Congress, under the auspices of the Society, should be held in Dublin in August, where delegates from all parts of Ireland and representatives of the Celtic Societies of these Islands and the Principality of Wales were invited to attend, in order to consider the present position of the Irish language as a vernacular, and how its use and study might be best promoted. But why should an Englishman, or a Scotchman, or Welshman venture to go over to Ireland on such an errand, after the Coercion Act had been passed into law, when any policeman might tell him, if he ventured to assert that such was the object of his mission, that the Force was not to be taken in by such a story as that? Of course, the constable would bring the stranger who visited Ireland under such circumstances before the magistrate, and, therefore, the Act would be calculated to inflict serious pecuniary harm on every class of the Irish people during the coming year. It would be one of the many Acts passed by the Imperial Parliament that tended not only to hurt, injure, and exasperate the Irish people, but also to pauperize them. Every step that could be taken, time after time, had been taken to prevent the development of Irish resources. If in Ireland it was considered desirable to encourage a manufacture or business of any kind, some excuse was immediately made for Parliament to sweep down upon it and strike a death-blow at it. It was for these reasons that he objected to this clause. But it was only one of many injurious clauses. There were others that tended to the suppression of speech and freedom of action. This would hurt the Irish people in another direction; and, personally, he regarded the entire measure as the worst insult that could be placed upon them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department to state what his definition of a stranger was. Was it a stranger to the locality, or a stranger to the country? Was the right hon. and learned Gentleman disposed to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)? Really, at the present moment, the Members of the Committee, at all events on that side of the House, were totally at sea as to what the position of a stranger was, and how far the word would go. It was desirable to show whether a stranger within the meaning of the clause was a stranger to the country or a person who was only a stranger to the locality. If such a definition were inserted in the clause, he was of opinion that a great deal of future controversy might be avoided.

said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, a few moments ago, placed himself in advance of this provision, because he had stated that tourists visiting the locality were not likely to be regarded in the same light as strangers with revolvers upon them. It was a remarkable thing that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was never at a loss for an extravagant illustration. What were the real facts of the case? He had already named one clause as the "Moonlight Clause." Would he call this "The Ladies' Land League Clause?" The Government had already power to give a man throe months' imprisonment if he were found with a revolver upon him, and, therefore, they did not want this clause at all. "Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what kind of stranger it was who was to come under the clause? Personalty, he (Mr. Healy) was afraid that the clause would really come under the head of the Ladies' Land League Clause. Some members of the Ladies' Land League sometimes went down to the country for the purpose of helping some evicted tenants to put up a few huts. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform the Committee if this was the class of strangers who would come under the operation of the clause? The Government took power under one clause to arrest people in the night-time. By another clause they took power to expel people both by day and night: and by a further clause they took power to expel persons who were foreigners in the country. He wanted to know who was to live in the country after these provisions were put in force? If a stranger could not be out at night nor in the day-time, who was it that was to be considered safe? This was the result of the beneficent Liberal legislation.

said, that in regard to the term "stranger," he was quite willing to take the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that it should mean a man found in any place who did not usually reside there. That would make it quite clear.

thought the Committee were wandering from the particular Amendment before them. He understood the proposal was confined to prowlers by night, and he thought no greater mistake could be made than to deprive the Executive of the power of arresting prowlers during the day-time as well as at night. He had always considered that a great mistake had been made in 1875 in drawing a distinction between day and night with respect to the right of search for arms; and, in this instance, he thought a great injury would be done if they restricted the right of arresting strangers at all during any portion of the 24 hours.

said, he did not think that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had answered the question put to him. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked whether the clause would be applied against the members of the Ladies' Laud League if they went down to the country for the purpose of erecting huts for evicted tenants? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had ingeniously avoided answering that question; but he (Mr. Sexton) wished to hear whether ladies could be arrested under the clause or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had also omitted to say whether aliens might be arrested under this clause. All they knew was that strangers could be dealt with under it, as well as under the clause preceding. There was, however, a special clause for the arrest of aliens, and he wanted to know whether the word "stranger" was separate from the word "alien," or not?

said, the clause would apply to both strangers and aliens.

asked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the Amendment superfluous? On what ground was it to be supposed that strangers were more likely to commit crimes in the day-time than at night? Figures had been frequently quoted in the course of these debates. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant told them that, in regard to other clauses, the experience gained from the working of the Act of 1870 had proved very valuable; but had he any similar figures to produce in regard to this clause? Had he anything to show that the power of arresting strangers had been useful, that strangers had been arrested in large numbers, and that their arrest had produced any effect upon the crime of the country? If the right hon. Gentleman was able to produce such statistics, they would be most relevant to the present discussion. The object of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) was to limit the power of arrest in the same way that it was proposed to limit it in the case of aliens—namely, so that the power of arrest could not be exercised except between dusk and dawn. The Government told them that this was not a punishment clause at all. Perhaps that might be so in the subtle mind of a lawyer, but he (Mr. Sexton) failed to see the distinction. The proposal contained in the clause was that a man should be sent to prison for a month if he failed to give security to keep the peace, and he (Mr. Sexton) thought that would be considered punishment, whatever form the matter might take in the superfine legal mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sent to gaol for a month under its provisions, would he not consider that some punishment?

said, the Secretary of State for the Home Department was prepared to accept the definition of stranger contained in the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), that a stranger should mean any stranger to the town, village, or place, or not usually residing there; therefore, under the term would come persons who only resided in the neighbourhood a month or so during the year.

wished to point out that the hon. Member (Mr. Callan) was referring to the next Amendment, which was not under consideration at the present moment. The present question was, whether the words "at any time after one hour later than sunset and earlier than one hour before sunrise" should be inserted.

said, he simply wanted to point out how indefinite the designation would be, and how necessary it was to limit the power of arrest to one hour later than sunset and one hour earlier than sunrise. He did not think it was possible to argue the necessity for inserting the words proposed to be added, except by showing the inconvenience that would result if those words were not added, and, therefore, in consequence of this proposal, he wished to know what constituted a stranger? Was he a person usually residing in a district, because, if so, the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated that he was prepared to exempt him? They had heard a good deal, on the Sunday Closing Bills for England and Ireland, of the difficulty of defining a bonâ fide traveller. In this case, they wanted a definition of the term "stranger." Was a stranger to be defined as a bonâ fide traveller, three or five miles away from his own home, or would he have a range of, say, 10 miles? They knew that some persons were strangers to other persons when only a mile from their own homes; but, personally, when he was at home, he rarely met a stranger within 20 miles of the place where he resided. What, then, was to be the definition of a stranger? Was it to be a man found five miles from his usual place of residence, or where he was not known? Take this case. A man who had resided all his life in a particular part of Ireland might go into a country village some few miles distant, where he would find a strange policeman who had been brought from a place 100 miles away to the local police station. To that policeman the local resident would be a stranger, although, in reality, it was the policeman who was the stranger; and if he were found under what the policeman considered to be suspicious circumstances, in any of the streets or bye-ways within a mile from his own homo, the constable would have power to arrest him. In point of fact, a policeman would have power to arrest a man wherever he found him, if he only said—"You are a stranger to me," notwithstanding the fact that it was the policeman himself who was the stranger in the district. A Sub-Inspector's district in a well-populated part of Ireland generally embraced a radius of from 7 to 10 miles. Was a man who, in the day-time went into the market-town seven miles away from his own residence to be, at the discretion of the police, regarded as a stranger and liable to be arrested? All he asked for was a definition. The term must be defined in some way. Then, again, he should like to have a definition of the term "suspicious circumstances." What were suspicious circumstances? Was a man going to market early in the morning to be defined as a stranger because he was two miles away from his own residence, and was it to be a suspicious circumstance if he happened to have some agricultural produce under his arm? The proposals contained in the clause were, in his opinion, ridiculous, and worthy only of the ingenuity of the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Law Officers for Ireland. Unless the Government agreed to strictly define what a stranger was, and what were the suspicious circumstances under which he might be arrested, he (Mr. Callan), for one, should certainly vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins).

said, the popular sense of the word "stranger," according to Webster's Dictionary, was "a person belonging to another town, or estate, or property." There was a second definition—namely, "one unknown." The truth was, that this clause had been taken from the Peace Preservation Act. Both the "Moonlight Clause" and this Vagrant Clause were transferred from the Peace Preservation Act; but the Peace Preservation Act laid it down expressly that the person who was arrested should be examined. There was nothing in this clause in reference to an examination. He thought it was desirable that any person arrested should have facilities for tendering himself for an examination, if he wished, in the same way as under the Peace Preservation Act. Ho did not mean to say that under this clause a person arrested would have the power; but, under the Statute of Edward III., when persons had been brought up under it, the magistrates had distinctly refused to hear them when they tendered themselves for examination; and he understood that the Law Advisers of the Crown in Ireland had laid it down that any person brought up under such circumstances was not competent to give evidence.

said, he did not differ very much from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Marum) in the remark he had made, that they had not yet come to the point he was discussing. They were now discussing one single point—namely, whether or not this power was to be taken in reference to strangers in the day-time or at night only. Now, that was a very clear point. The Government could not consent to restrict the clause to acts done only at night-time. It was desirable that these arrests should be made, when necessary, either by day or night. The hon. Member was perfectly correct when he stated that this clause was taken from the Act of 1870, although it was not an exact transcript. The words in the Act of 1870 were—"Any stranger wandering in any district." This clause was a more limited clause than that of the Act of 1870, and he trusted that the Committee would decide it before they entered on any other point.

said, he thought it would greatly facilitate the discussion if the Secretary of State for the Home Department would make some distinct statement as to the meaning of this particular word "stranger." There was no advantage in saying that this was a milder clause than that contained in the Act of 1870. The Irish Members did not believe that any disqualifying word in an Act of Parliament would be administered mildly. As long as the Government had the power, they would use it; and it was not worth a button to argue that the provision was less stringent than that of the previous Act. He had asked—but had as yet failed to get an answer—whether the clause was to be enforced against members of the Ladies' Land League, who might go down to a particular district to superintend the erection of huts for evicted tenants? That was the point he wished to get at; and they ought to have a clear answer to his question—yes or no. He would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the police had already exercised the powers under the Peace Preservation Act. by arresting ladies in the town of Kilinallock, who were members of the Ladies' Land League.

said, there was no Ladies' Land League Clause in the present Bill; but there was no distinction drawn between the sexes. It had already been decided that there should be no distinction made between one sex and the other; but that if a person was found breaking the law, whether it was a man or a woman, he or she should be arrested. He had already intimated that he proposed to define the words "suspicious circumstances," and the clause would apply to any person, whether man or woman, who was guilty of an offence against the Act. At the same time, to say that this clause was directed against the Ladies' Land League, was not correct.

regretted that the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment had not at all met the difficulties which this Amendment was intended to obviate. If the clause were to be interpreted in a strict sense, then any person whatever, who was not resident in a district or town, would be a stranger; and it came to this, that the clause gave power to the police to arrest any person resident in a locality, provided it happened that he was found in a village that was not his own. He thought that was a power that was likely to be abused in regard to visitors to the country; and it was in the interests of the persons who might go to Ireland in the coming autumn to see the Exhibition, or their friends, that he (Dr. Commins) had proposed this Amendment. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should remember that in England, Scotland, and Wales there were more than 1,500,000 of persons who were either of Irish birth or parentage, and every one of them would be a stranger according to this clause, and liable to be arrested, simply because, if a policeman asked any one of them, "Who are you, and where do you come from?" and the man replied, "My name is Jones, or Smith, and I am here on a visit," the constable might at once retort—"That is a very suspicious circumstance. You are going about here under the name of Jones, or Smith. That is quite enough to justify me in arresting you." A stranger coming from Canada or the United States, or from Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, or Sheffield, was liable to be arrested, merely because he happened to be a stranger, and was not able to give satisfactory references in the district in which he found himself, or to find sureties to keep the peace. In the name of all that was wonderful, how was a stranger, under such circumstances, to comply with the provisions of the Act, and to satisfy the police constable that he had no evil intent?

said, the hon. Member must not discuss the whole clause upon this Amendment.

said, he did not propose to do so. He was only endeavouring to show that unless some restriction were placed upon the power of arresting strangers, every person who visited Ireland in the autumn would be liable to arrest.

suggested that the words "under suspicious circumstances" should be placed after the word "district," instead of occupying their present position in the clause. That was the more necessary, as the Government had intimated their willingness to adopt the definition of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), to avoid confusion of language.

thought it would, perhaps, be better that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) should be withdrawn, and moved again later on, in the form that would better suit the wording of the clause. As it stood at present, it would create some confusion in the wording of the clause.

said, he had discovered that his Amendment would give rise to some verbal difficulty in the clause, and did not intend to press it on that occasion.

said, he had intended to move that the term "stranger" in the clause should be defined to mean "a person not usually resident within a radius of ten miles of the place where he was arrested;" but, considering that too great a distance, he now proposed to alter it to five miles. The clause would then read as follows—

"If a constable finds in a proclaimed district any stranger not usually resident within a radius of five miles therefrom under suspicious circumstances," &c.

His proposal would limit the arbitrary power which the clause vested in policemen. The clause would still enable a policeman to arrest a stranger under suspicious circumstances; but when the person arrested gave proof that he usually resided within five miles of the district, he would be relieved from the necessity of giving bail to the magistrate. He had already endeavoured to get an explanation of the meaning of the term "stranger;" but this had not been forthcoming. The clause provided that any policeman might arrest a person under suspicious circumstances who was a stranger, but it did not say whether this meant a stranger to the district or a stranger to the policeman. Now, it was a fact that policemen in Ireland did not remain in any district for a length of time; they were removable, and were frequently sent to places where they themselves were strangers. Hon. Mem- bers would know that it would take months before they became acquainted with the residents in a district. Notwithstanding that, a policeman was to be allowed to arrest any person he did not know, and to bring him before a magistrate, and on the mere statement of the constable that he found the man under a hedge, or sitting in the shade, perhaps, and did not know him, the magistrate would require the individual to give bail for good behaviour, or, in default, would commit him to prison. He (Mr. Callan) wanted that a man should not be required to give bail if he resided within five miles of the district; and this was not at all an unreasonable limit to propose, for it was often the case that people in Ireland had to travel five miles from their homes to chapel. It was clear that some definition of the term stranger must be supplied, and with that object he begged to move the Amendment to which he had referred.

said, although this Amendment was an improvement upon the clause, he was inclined to believe that any single-barrelled or absolute definition of the word "stranger" would be unjust. He thought the definition ought to be alternative; it should be either that a person was unknown in the place or town, or that he resided out of it. It was well known that policemen in Ireland were not, as his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had pointed out, allowed to remain in districts where they were born and bred, lest they should be hampered by former associations in the performance of their duties. It was, therefore, absurd to say that a man should be arrested by a policeman because he was a stranger, for he might be less a stranger in the place than the policeman himself. Suppose a person to be unknown in a village or town—to be merely on a visit—but having letters of introduction to persons living there, he asked, could that person be arrested under the clause? He argued that the word "stranger" should be defined to mean a person living beyond a certain radius; but he considered the limit of five miles, as proposed by the hon. Member for Louth, too short, because any man might take a walk of five miles from home in the course of the day, and, certainly, he could not be called a stranger at that distance from the place where he resided. In his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, the limit should be fixed at a distance beyond that to which the ordinary business of a man might take him; and, as it was quite customary with Irish farmers to travel 20 miles for the purposes of their business, he suggested that that distance should be substituted for that specified in the Amendment of his hon. Friend.

said, he was not in a position to agree to any strict geographical limit of miles, because that would give rise to questions that might be quite inconsistent with the object of the clause. Still, he thought, the point indicated by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) ought to be made clear. It was difficult to conceive how a constable who arrested a person could know whether he lived 18 or 20 miles away or not. It was because it would make it clear that the clause meant a stranger to the district and not to the constable, that he had expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood).

thought the difficulty would be obviated by inserting the word "thereto" after "stranger," having reference to the proclaimed district.

said, the effect of that alteration would be too large. A proclaimed district might mean a whole county.

said, he named the limit of five miles because it was the well-known radius around almost every police barrack. Moreover, it was the radius in Catholic districts, and also of villages in thickly-populated parts of the country. Every shopkeeper, too, would know the persons usually resident within five miles of the place where he carried on business. He repeated that his proposal in no way interfered with the discretion of the constable in arresting a person whom he found under suspicious circumstances; it was simply intended to prevent a person living within the distance specified, and, perhaps, only taking a walk, or going somewhere on business, being compelled to enter into a bail-bond by the Resident Magistrate.

said, it appeared to him that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) would only make the clause more stringent, because the presumption, if the Amendment were adopted, would be that every person resident beyond a radius of five miles was a stranger. It did not appear to him necessary to define the word "stranger" at that stage of the Bill, although it might be properly defined when Clause 27 was reached, and then he thought the words of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), which the Secretary of State for the Home Department had intimated his intention of adopting, or similar words, would meet the case. Probably the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), on reconsideration, would withdraw his Amendment.

said, it would seem necessary to possess the mind of an ordinary supporter of the Government to perceive that an Amendment which excluded from the operation of the clause all persons living within a radius of five miles, rendered the clause more stringent. He (Mr. Healy) thought the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that a stranger to the district was intended, and not a stranger to the police; yet a constable, if he thought a man a stranger, would be bound to arrest him. It was once a matter of congratulation to a man that he was unknown to the police; but, under the clause, the position was reversed, and any man in Ireland who was unknown to the police would, henceforward, run very considerable risks when he happened to be at even a short distance from home. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said he was willing to accept, would still leave this point untouched, and, therefore, it would be in no sense an improvement of the clause. The hon. and learned Member meant to throw the onus of proof upon the person arrested, whereas the practice formerly was to throw it upon the person who made the arrest. Although he (Mr. Healy) himself might be said to be known to the police in some parts of the country, he had not the pleasure of their acquaintance in the district which he represented, nor did he usually reside there. He was, in a sense, a stranger to the town of Wexford; and, therefore, he would he glad to know if, in the event of his going there to address his constituents, he should be liable to arrest under the clause? It appeared to him that unless some better definition were given of the term "stranger," whether or not a man was known in the district, he would be liable to arrest if he was unknown to the police.

said, the following incident would give the Committee some idea of the way in which constables were likely to make use of this clause. Last week, in his county, the police, without any warrant, arrested and searched three respectable men who happened to have been evicted from their holdings on the estate of Lord Cloncurry. It was very clear that this clause was unnecessary, if the police could now arrest, detain, and search persons, and then set them at liberty without bringing any charge against them. On the other hand, if such conduct was illegal, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should see into it.