asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In how many counties or districts in Ireland Mr. Clifford Lloyd has been employed in 1881 and 1882; if he can inform the House of the number of outrages, &c. committed in those districts during Mr. Lloyd's magistracy, and for the corresponding periods before he took charge; and, what was the date of Mr. Lloyd's appointment as resident magistrate originally; what were his qualifications; by whom he was recommended; and in what district he first acted?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd has been employed in the following districts during the years 1881 and 1882:—Belfast, up to the 22nd of January, 1881; Longford, from the 22nd of January until April or May, 1881; Kilmallock district, County Limerick, from the 10th of May to the 27th of December, 1881, when he was given entire charge of the County Limerick as special Resident Magistrate. At the same time he was appointed special Resident Magistrate for the County Clare; and on the 28th of June last he was appointed in a similar capacity for the County Galway. I have endeavoured to obtain a Return of the outrages alluded to in the second paragraph of the Question; but the Inspector General of Constabulary informs mo that, as the Constabulary districts are not conterminous with those of Resident Magistrates, the Crime Records in his office do not afford the information asked for. The information could, of course, be obtained from the local Constabulary officers; but it would be a work of much time and labour, which should not, I think, be imposed on those officers, who are already heavily weighted with important duties. Mr. Lloyd was originally appointed on the 19th of February, 1874, to the Ballynahinch district, in the County Down. There are no official records to show by whom he was recommended, or what qualifications were submitted to Goverment at the time. It appears, however, from a Return now being prepared in pursuance of an Order of this House, that he held various legal and executive offices in British Burmah; that he passed "with credit" lower and higher standards in law, as laid down by the Government of India; and that he also passed in 1873 the examination for call to the English Bar.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Catholics of Tyrone number about two hundred and sixteen thousand, and those of other religions about ninety-one thousand; whether in this county there are nearly one hundred and thirty magistrates, of whom only two are Catholics; and, whether, as there are many Catholics in the county qualified to act as magistrates, the Government will consider the advisability of recommending the Lord Chancellor to select them for future appointments?

The Roman Catholic inhabitants of Tyrone number under 110,000, and those of other religions number 87,916. The total number of County Magistrates is, I have reason to believe, correctly estimated. The Government does not interefere in the appointments of County Magistrates. They are made by the Lord Chancellor, who usually acts on the recommendation of the Lord Lieutenant of the county. Only one Roman Catholic gentleman has been recommended by the Lord Lieutenant of the County Tyrone for the commission of the peace this year, and he has been appointed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the three sub - commissions appointed on the 10th of November last will be retained beyond the year of their appointment?

I cannot at present answer this Question. No definite conclusion has yet been come to on the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Luke Armstrong, of Tubbercurry, county Sligo, a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, has had two days' solitary confinement inflicted upon him by the Governor of that Gaol, without any cause assigned; and, if so, what was the cause, and why it was not stated to Mr. Armstrong before the infliction of the sentence; whether Mr. Armstrong has now been over six months in gaol, to the great injury of his business, on suspicion of inciting to intimidation; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant has reconsidered his case, as promised on the 3rd instant; and, if so, with what result?

It is the case that Luke Armstrong, now detained in the Enniskillen Gaol, has been punished by stoppage of exercise and association for two days, having been charged by one of the warders with pulling down the stove pipe in a room used by the prisoners under the Protection of Person and Property Act. He was duly informed of the charge against him; has sworn an affidavit denying it; and upon his application the Inspector of the Prisons Board is to hold a sworn investigation into the matter. He has been in detention since the 2nd of January last on reasonable suspicion of intimidation to prevent payment of rent. His Excellency considered his case on the 3rd instant, and decided that he could not at present order his release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many suspects, arrested in the county Sligo, charged with no graver offence than intimidation or inciting thereto, continue still in custody; whether there are any peculiar causes, either in the condition of the several districts from which these suspects came, or in that of the county of Sligo, which oblige the Lord Lieutenant still to defer the execution of the pledge, given by the First Lord of the Treasury ten weeks since, with reference to the early release of persons not suspected of direct association with crime; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant, in now considering the cases of suspects of the farming class, will take into account the great importance to their families and themselves of releasing them in time to conduct the harvest work upon their holdings?

In addition to Luke Armstrong, alluded to in the last Question, there are three persons in custody from the County Sligo, who are declared to be suspected of no graver offence than intimidation against the payment of rent. The Lord Lieutenant is considering their cases, and will take into account the importance to themselves of their being at large at this season of the year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Colonial Office has received a letter signed by six out of the eight elected members of the Legislative Council of Malta, expressing an intention of leaving the Council, on account of the arbitrary acts of the Government, and the continued neglect of the Petitions of the Maltese people for reforms in the administration; and, if Sir Victor Houlton, the Chief Secretary, is opposed to these reforms; and, if Her Majesty's Government intends to take any steps in the direction desired by the resigning members of the Legislative Council?

The letter has been received; but it does not express an intention of leaving the Council at present. A reply will shortly be sent, repeating the desire which Her Majesty's Government have constantly expressed, that full attention should be paid to the wishes of the elected members in all purely local matters. As to the Chief Secretary, whatever his private views may be, he has no responsibility apart from the Government of which he is a Member, and I cannot enter into any discussion as to his opinions. I will very shortly lay on the Table of the House the answer to the letter above referred to, as well as an answer sent to a Petition received last year, and they will show the views of the Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. Meek, who was appointed a Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act mainly on the recommendation of Sir William Conyngham, took a prominent part in organizing and accompanying to London a deputation from the Irish Estate of the Drapers' Company, to urge upon their Court the appointment of Sir William Conyngham to the post of agent for the said estate then vacant; and that Sir William Conyngham was shortly afterwards nominated to the office; and, whether the testimonial given by Sir William Conyngham was written previous to or subsequent to the interview referred to?

said, before the right hon. Gentleman answered, he should like to ask the hon. Member what grounds there were for bringing so grave a charge against a gentleman occupying so high a position in his (Sir Hervey Bruce's) county?

said, he simply had to state that the information as it stood in the Question was supplied to him from a trustworthy source; and he thought it desirable, under the circumstances, to put the Question, in order to afford an opportunity for an explanation.

Mr. Meek was not appointed an Assistant Commissioner mainly on the recommendation of Sir William Conyngham. I quoted Sir William Conyngham's testimonial to show the opinion held of him by a leading Conservative in the County Derry. That testimonial is dated the 1st of April last. I do not know anything about the other matter alluded to in the Question. Mr. Meek was appointed by my Predecessor; and if there is any objection to the appointment, I think it ought to be brought before the House in a shape which will enable the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) to explain an appointment of a person as to whose qualifications he was satisfied. As there is a feeling about Mr. Meek sitting on a Sub-Commission with a gentleman before whom he had given evidence as a valuer, I expect that the Land Commissioners will appoint him to another district after the Vacation. I may mention that no complaint has been made as to Mr. Meek's conduct as Sub-Commissioner in any quarter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the holding occupied by Mr. Thomas Meek contains more than 45a. 3r. 29p at a rent of £39 10s. per annum; whether the Government valuation of same is £40 15s. for the land, and £3 for the house and offices; and, whether he is the bona fide tenant of any other holding, or part of a holding, not comprised in the farms of other tenants, who have temporarily sublet portions to him at conacre rents?

I have learned from the Land Commissioners, by telegraph, that they have received a letter from Mr. Meek, stating that his holding is correctly described in the Question. He is uncertain whether the division of the valuation between land and buildings is correctly stated, as he has not the figures at hand. He states that he is the bonâ fide, tenant of another holding taken from a head landlord for a term of years at full letting value—and further, that he has often rented land for one year for growing flax and for grazing—he had 70 acres in this way last year, but has none at present.

asked Mr. Attorney-General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Mr. Joshua Clarke, Q.C., County Court Judge of Queen's County in the land case of Diegen v. Adair, tried before him June 13th, as reported in the "Irish Law Times and Solicitors' Journal:"—

"I know nothing about land. If I went out in the fields to look at them and had some sods cut up, I would not he one hit wiser than are some of these land commissioners. I would take Griffiths' valuation and the landlord's rent. Suppose Griffiths' valuation to be £20 and the rent £30, I would simply split the differences and settle the new rent at £25, thus giving half the valuation to the tenant. That is my fixed rule and one I will not depart from, and it is just as well you should all know it in case I come here again;"

, in reply, said, he had not had an opportunity of seeing the number of The Irish Law Times in which the remarks in question were said to be reported; but the County Court Judge had favoured him with a statement of the facts, which ho certainly should not have thought of calling for. His statement was shortly this. At the last Abbeyloix Quarter Sessions there were three small cases in which the tenants sought for a reduction of rent. As that depended on an inspection of the land, the Judge stated that he himself was not a good judge of the value of land, and suggested to the solicitors for the landlord and the tenants whether they could not come to some arrangement. They professed themselves willing to do so. He said—

"I suppose the tenant will want Griffith's valuation, and I suppose the landlord considers the present rent a fair one. Now, gentlemen, if you put your heads together don't you think you could split the difference?"

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the report of the official valuator appointed by the Commissioners under the Land Act to assist them on the hearing of appeals is a public document, accessible to both parties to the appeal, and their counsel, and produced in Court for the information of all parties, as well litigants as judicial; and, whether, if this be the case, he will state to the House what objection there is to including the information given by these reports in the returns of appeal and judicial rents recently asked for?

The Land Commissioners inform me that the Reports of their official valuers are considered public documents after they had been handed to counsel on the hearing of an appeal and when the evidence is closed. They state that there is strong objection to including the information given in a valuer's Report in any Return to Parliament of judicial and appeal rents, as such information would be altogether misleading. The valuer values a holding as it stands, without reference to the provisions of the Land Law Act; whereas the Commissioners are bound to apply the principles laid down in the Act to the case before them, and to take into consideration all the evidence given—evidence of which the valuer is necessarily ignorant when making his Report. His valuation, taken apart from the provisions of the Act and from the evidence, and so given in a public Return, might produce a totally false impression.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in a rumour which has been circulated, to the effect that it is proposed to suspend the sittings of the Sub-Commissions under the Land Act, at the conclusion of the present circuits, for a period of several weeks' vacation; and, whether, in view of the fact that the proper season for the inspection of land is when it is carrying the crops, during the long days of summer and autumn, and when the capabilities of land, which is submerged in winter time, can be estimated with the crops or stock upon it, and with the object of preventing, as far as possible, the repetition of inspections of land under the most unfavourable conditions, he will represent to the Land Commissioners the expediency of continuing the sittings of the Sub-Commissions throughout the summer and autumn months, and fixing the period of vacation during those winter months when it is impossible that a satisfactory inspection of land, or true estimate of its value, can be made?

rose to a point of Order. He wished to know whether an argumentative Question like this ought to be placed on the Paper?

said, he saw no ground for the objection raised by the hon. Member.

, in reply, said, he had submitted the Question to the Land Commissioners, and was now in correspondence with them on the subject. He would rather say nothing about it until the correspondence had come to some result. Probably he should be able to answer the Question on Monday, and possibly to-morrow.

said, he would repeat the Question on Monday.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will state to the House the reasons which have induced the Lord Lieutenant to permit the erection of a Land League hut, near Collins-town, Westmeath, on the boundary of Mr. Barlow Smythe's property, for the family of Richard Biggs, who was arrested immediately after the murder of Mrs. Smythe, and has since been detained in prison as a suspect; and, whether he will inform the House what arrangements have been made to pre- vent intimidation arising from the erection of such hut?

The hut in question has been erected for the family of Richard Biggs, who is now detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act. It is two miles from the farm from which Biggs had been evicted. The Resident Magistrate was directed to make such arrangements as would prevent any intimidation resulting from its erection. The Sub-Inspector of the district reports that there is no danger of intimidation at present, and there is a police protection hut on the evicted farm.

asked the Chief Secretery to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there is any truth in the statement that the constabulary authorities in Ireland are desirous of employing the soldiers stationed in that country as spies, by inducing them to give secret information of what they may hear and see when drinking in public houses; whether any orders have been issued, or been prepared for issue, inviting soldiers there to assist the constabulary as spies, under a vague promise of money rewards; and, if such is the case, whether the orders in question have met with the approval of His Excellency? The hon. Member said, his object in asking the Question was to ascertain if the soldiers were to be used in the detection of crime.

If I answer Questions referring to the detection of crime, the refusal in any subsequent case to answer would be regarded as an admission. With all respect to the hon. Member, I can answer no Question whatever on this subject.

remarked that he had received a letter from an officer in the Army who protested against his men being employed in such service.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the necessity of some protection for foreign emigrants passing through London to save them from extortion and robbery on the part of touts, runners, watermen, lodging-house keepers, and others; and, if not, whether he will make inquiries to ascertain if such necessity exists; whether the Board of Trade have any authority over the lodging-houses frequented by emigrants; and, how many distinct and independent local authorities there are controlling such houses in the Metropolis?

, in reply, said, the emigration officers were always willing to assist emigrants, and advise them as to any question of difficulty about contract tickets, and also in the way of securing passages in the event of the emigration agents breaking their contracts. The Board of Trade had no control whatever over lodging-houses. They were entirely within the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could state how many independent local bodies there were who had authority over lodging-houses around the Port of London?

replied, that he could give no information on that subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieuteuant of Ireland, Is it the fact that the Royal Commissioners, in their recent Report on Endowed Schools in Ireland, call attention to the fact that the Royal Commissioners 1854-8 had stated that the Swords Borough School, the benefits of which were intended to be conferred without religious distinction, ought not to be entrusted to the management of an exclusive Board, and especially of one on which Catholics, the most numerous class of the inhabitants, were entirely unrepresented, yet that no effect had been given by the Legislature or Government to this recommendation; can he state under what statutable or other provisions are the governors authorised to now transfer the funds and management of these schools as proposed; if the governors be so authorised, would ho object to lay upon the Table of the House the Inspector's Report and a Memorandum of the terms on which the proposed transfer is to take place; and will any opportunity be given to the inhabitants of Swords, for whose benefit this charity was intended, to be heard, and claim, as recommended, that there should be some Catholic representation from Swords, and the objects of the endowment, as stated in the charter, carried into due effect?

I find that the Royal Commissioners in their recent Report on Endowed Schools in Ireland did allude to the Swords Borough School in the terms stated in the Question of the hon. and learned Member; but he is under a misapprehension in supposing that a compliance with the application of the Governors to have the school placed under the Commissioners of National Education would involve any transfer of its funds or management. If the inhabitants of Swords desire to make any representations to the Board on the subject of the application now before them, it will, I have no doubt, receive every attention; but, as I have pointed out, the application does not involve any change in the management of the school or its endowments.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to lay the Inspector's Reports on the Table of the House?

The Royal Commissioners inform me that with regard to the Inspector's Reports, which I cannot find just at this moment, but about which I have had some communication, they consider them as confidential. I shall be glad, however, to show these Papers to the hon. Member later on.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, after notice has been given of an intended marriage at the Superintendent Registrar's office, and the parties are desirous afterwards of being married at a licensed place of religious worship, it is necessary that a fresh notice of the marriage, of twenty-one days, should be given; and, if such fresh notice be necessary, whether Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of proposing further legislation on the subject?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to inform him that the Statute expressly requires that at the time of giving notice of marriage, the party giving the notice shall state in the notice the church or other building in which the marriage is to be solemnized, and any person who solemnizes the marriage in any other place than that specified in the notice is guilty of felony. It is quite clear that if parties wish to be married at some other place than that specified in the original notice, a fresh notice is necessary; and as the object of this is to prevent clandestine marriages, I do not think I can hold out any hope of any alteration being made in the law.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any truth in the report that the three Regiments of Foot Guards are at the present time considerably below their proper establishment; and, if so, what numbers would be required to make up the deficiency?

In reply to the hon. and gallant Member, I have to state that the battalions of the Foot Guards are usually somewhat below their establishment of 744 men, and at the present they are on the average short by about 50 men. This is in a great degree due to the territorial system not being applicable to the Guards, and to the consequent disadvantage in which they stand as compared with the Line Regiments, and partly to their high standard—5 feet 8 inches. The new system of recruiting only came into operation on the 1st of this month, and I have every hope that recruiting in the Guards will shortly improve.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Governor of New Zealand has furnished to the Colonial Office the Report respecting-the native disturbances of 1879 and 1880, and the measures taken by the Government of New Zealand in consequence of them, which appears by the New Zealand Parliamentary Papers of 1881 to have been required by Lord Kimberley's Despatch of 22nd October 1880; and, whether this Report and the subsequent Despatches on the subject will be presented to Parliament?

Yes, Sir; the Governor of New Zealand has furnished the Report to which the Question refers, and it will, together with other Papers, be soon presented to Parliament. As I said in the House on the 19th of June, the delay has arisen from the fact of Papers being awaited from New Zealand which will complete the history of the transactions, and especially the Bill for disposing of the trial of the Chief Te Whiti.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If ho is aware that, in the last issue of Egypt papers, four of the London newspapers were furnished with advance copies, all of the others and the whole provincial press, with perhaps one exception, being left out; and, if ho will take care that in the issue this week, and in future, the Central News and the Press Association be also supplied with copies?

In order to prevent complaints of undue preference, instructions have been issued to the effect that no Papers shall be published until they are in the hands of Members.

As the Foreign Office has now renounced this objectionable practice, I beg to give Notice that I shall put a similar Question to every other Government Department that continues it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will state the substance of any Correspondence which has lately taken place between the Homo Government and the Government or Legislature of the Dominion of Canada with respect to recent Resolutions of both Houses of the Parliament of the Dominion, on the subject of Legislative Independence for Ireland; and, whether he will lay a Copy of such Correspondence upon the Table?

I do not think it will be a convenient course for me to state the substance of this Correspondence; but I will lay before the House the Address and the answer sent by the Home Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any communications, besides those which have been already published, have been received from Sir H. Bulwer, giving the names of "the persons in the Colony of Natal who desire to see Cetewayo restored," to whose interference he attributes the agitation which has caused the disturbances in Zululand, and stating the nature of such interference, and the means (if any) adopted to check action which if continued may seriously affect the peace of Natal; and, if so, whether such communications will be presented to Parliament?

The despatches describing the interference referred to have been received from Sir Henry Bulwer, and they will be presented to Parliament. Sir Henry Bulwer, however, does not mention or suggest the adoption of any means for checking the action complained of.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, referring to his promise of 4th August 1881, he can now state what arrangements, if any, he has made for providing our Army with corps of mounted Riflemen?

I presume the hon. and gallant Member was not in the House on the 4th of May, when I answered fully the Question he now puts, which then was put by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton). May I suggest to hon. Members who may wish to ask me Questions of this character that they should first communicate with me privately? The same Question is often proposed to be put three, four, or five times in a Session, and most hon. Members are now good enough to speak to me before placing their Questions on the Paper.

As I did not hear the answer, would the right hon. Gentleman mind repeating it?

Yes; I should mind very much, Sir, considering the abuse to which the system of Questions has been carried.

I trust hon. Members who ask Questions are as good judges of the matter as the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can see his way to order the discharge from custody of Mr. Patrick E. Leonard, of Kiltoom, county Roscommon, who was arrested on 21st November, and charged with being "suspected of inciting to intimidate not to pay rent?" The hon. Member said he desired to ask further, whether the right hon. Gentleman did not think that eight months' imprisonment was quite sufficient punishment for being suspected of inciting to intimidate not to pay rent?

His Excellency is about to reconsider the case of Mr. Patrick Leonard. I will let the hon. Member know the result.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any steps have been taken by the Dutch Government, on representations made to them by Her Majesty's Government in February last, in reference to the importation into Holland of artificially-coloured raw sugar, and the consequent increase in the bounty on the exportation of refined sugar from that country?

The representations of the British Sugar Refiners' Committee as to the increase of duty bounty on the exportation of sugar from Holland were communicated to Her Majesty's Minister at the Hague by the Foreign Office on the 14th of March last. No answer has been received, and the Board of Trade are not aware of any steps having been taken by the Dutch Government in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask for an answer?

I do not think it is a case in which we should feel ourselves justified in pressing for an answer at the present time. We thought it right to communicate the observations made by the Refiners' Association for their information, but not by way of remonstrance; and I may take the opportunity of adding that, as far as our information goes, the exportation of refined sugar from Holland to this country has not recently increased.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the question of establishing a chief office for the receipt and despatch of letters, &c. at Upper Edmonton, in place of their being forwarded by way of Lower Edmonton, which is further from London, and also of establishing a telegraph office at Upper Edmonton, there being no telegraph office at present nearer than White Hart Lane in that locality, which is the chief centre of business for Edmonton, and avoid the extra charge of 2s. 6d. per telegram forwarded after hours on Sundays via Dalston Junction to Upper Edmonton?

The arrangements referred to by the hon. Member are somewhat complicated, and at the present time I have not sufficient information before me to enable me to arrive at a decision. The matter is being carefully examined.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If, at a recent sitting of the Sub-Commissioners at Kinsale, Mr. MacDevitt (the legal Sub-Commissioner) said—

"That, in the absence of the third Commissioner, Mr. T. Walpole, who would be away for a few days on urgent private business, a special delegation had been issued to himself and his brother Murphy to hear applications;"

, in reply, said, the hon. Member had not mentioned the source from which the extract was taken, and ho had no means of knowing whether or not it was true; but ho should say that it was exceedingly likely to be the case, for he was informed by the Commissioners that they did grant to Messrs. MacDevitt and Murphy the authority to hear and decide cases in the absence of Mr. Walpole on urgent private business. They were so empowered to act by the 43rd section of the Land Act of last year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any remonstrance has been received from the Forte, or from any other Power, respecting the bombardment of the Alexandria forts since the bombardment took place, and if the terms of the remonstrances will be contained in the next Papers issued respecting Egypt? He asked to be allowed to supplement this Question. The hon. Gentleman yesterday stated that no remonstrance had been received from the Porte previous to the bombardment of Alexandria. He now wished to ask if any remonstrance, or any communication, had been received during the more recent proceedings?

No remonstrance has been received from any Power except the Porte. The Porte, in a remonstrance, stated that the British fire at Alexandria would not be returned. The remonstrances will be published in due course, but not in the next series, which only goes up to the meeting of the Conference.

Has any remonstrance been received from the Italians about it?

None at all.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has now received any information with regard to the Mustafirrin, or Military Police, having bayoneted many Europeans during the recent disturbances at Alexandria; if not, whether he will at once telegraph to the British Consulate for information on the subject; if he is able to state whether great pressure was or was not placed on all British subjects by members of the Consulate to induce them to leave Alexandria; and, whether any steps have been taken to reinforce the British Consulate of Alexandria, many of its officials being reported to be ill or on leave? The hon. and gallant Baronet explained that his last Question was mainly answered by the hon. Gentleman the other day. He would, therefore, now ask in what position the British Consulate at Alexandria now were?

The evidence of the Medical Commission which visited the hospitals shows that many Europeans received bayonet wounds. The general evidence on the subject of the massacres, which is being collected with great care, is yet too far from completion to enable me to make any detailed statement with regard to it. I have already informed the House that British subjects were advised to go on board ship. As the hon. and gallant Baronet himself states, the third branch of the Question has already been fully answered in reply to the noble Lord on the Front Opposition Bench. The hon. Member further asks me as to the present position of the Consulate at Alexandria. Mr. Jago, Her Majesty's Consul at Damascus, is now in charge, and the Consul at Khartoum is the second official. These gentlemen are, of course, on board ship—at least they were yesterday.

Is the hon. Gentleman able to give us any information as to the present condition of Alexandria; and will he tell us why it is that no steps were taken to prevent the destruction of life and property there?

That is not a Question on the Paper, and therefore I am not in a position to answer it. If the right hon. Gentleman gives Notice of his Question he will receive a proper reply. I would suggest that the Question be put either to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary to the Admiralty, because all the communications on the subject come through the Admiralty.

The Government have not answered my second Question, which I asked on ac- count of a reply given by the hon. Gentleman, in which, I believe, he said that no pressure had been put on British subjects in June to leave Alexandria. Now, I have in my hand information from Alexandria stating that decided pressure had been put on British subjects early in June to leave Alexandria by the British Consulate there.

Of course, the hon. Baronet will see that I could not gather from his Question as it appears on the Paper that he wished to know the particular date when the pressure was applied. We have no information from the British Consulate at Alexandria, or generally from our Re-presentatives in Egypt, as to any such pressure having been exercised at an early period in the month of June. No instructions at that time were given.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Treaty has been concluded between Korea and the United States, one Article of which is to prohibit the importation of opium; and, whether a similar Treaty is being arranged between Great Britain and the Korea?

Information has reached the Foreign Office by telegram of the conclusion of a Treaty between the United States and Korea, but the full details have not yet arrived. A Treaty was also signed on the 6th of June by the Admiral (Willes) on the station between Great Britain and Korea, which secures the same privileges as have been granted to the United States, and also the most Favoured Nation Treaty treatment. It is understood that the importation of opium is forbidden.

asked the Secretary of State for War, What is the amount of the Vote that he has obtained for the autumn manœuvres?

The charge for the autumn manœuvres in the current year's Estimates does not appear as a separate item, but is included under various heads. It somewhat exceeds £30,000. The second page of the Estimate will show the items carried up under one head.

wished to ask, with respect to the money voted for the autumn manœuvres, whether, in the event of the money not being applied to the purpose for which it was voted, it could be otherwise applied without the sanction of Parliament?

Speaking generally, the War Department, with the approval of the Treasury, have the power of provisionally setting off excesses on one Vote against savings on others, subject to the approval of Parliament.

What authority have you for that?

The technical rules on this subject could hardly be stated in a reply to a Question.

I believe the transaction is an exceedingly irregular one in a financial point of view, and I give Notice that, on the next stage of the Budget Bill, I shall draw attention to the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as reported in the papers of Wednesday last, an arrangement has been made with the Chinese Government on the question of the Li-kin duties, and in completion of the Treaty of Chefoo; and, if ho would state the nature of such arrangements, if made?

The negotiations with the Chinese Government are still in progress, and no arrangement ha3 been as yet concluded.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the working of the Land Law Act, in respect of holdings adjoining or near villages or small places, and to the manner in which such holdings have been excluded from the benefits of the Act by being improperly designated "town parks;" and, whether the Government intend to propose any amendment of the Land Law Act as regards holdings of this description?

With regard to this matter, I am assured that not very many cases have come before the Sub-Commissioners, and that in fewer still of these had the applicants been excluded from the benefits of the Land Act. The general practice has been not to exclude them unless it was held that the holdings were enjoyed for the convenience of residence in an adjoining town, and not for the ordinary purposes of farming.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has agreed to any modification of the proposed First Rule of Procedure, or whether he can give an assurance that the House will at least have an opportunity of expressing its opinion in favour of the principle laid down in the Rule as originally proposed, viz. the right of the majority to control debate?

wished to ask a counter Question—namely, Whether it would not be possible to have the opinion of the House as to the compromise that seemed to be alluded to, because if the House were in favour of it, it might do away with the necessity for an Autumn Session?

It is a little difficult, upon a matter which does not stand for practical consideration, to make an answer between a Question and a counter Question, in such a way as not to run the risk of raising a discussion. That is my desire, and, in truth, I do not think the time has yet come when I could with convenience enter upon this subject. It might come on before the adjournment of the House, and, without doubt, the House should have more particular information and further light as to the intentions of the Government; but I do not think that I am yet in the position to make any statement on that point. I am, however, bound to say, lest I should seem to give encouragement to hopes that I do not think can be realized, that the opinion generally promulgated by the Government has been that the larger and more important part of the question of Procedure is not that which relates to restriction and abridgment of liberty, but is that which relates to the multiplication of the working power of the House by means of delegation. That is a question so considerable that I am by no means prepared to express the opinion that we could escape the necessity of an Autumn Session merely by settling a question of the character indicated by the hon. Gentleman.

inquired whether the reason why the Government were unable to make a statement was because they had not yet made up their minds?

It is not that they have not made up their minds upon a matter under deliberation, but because no occasion has arisen for the further consideration of a question upon which, when it appeared to be a practicable one, they had made up their minds.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government, before proposing the adjournment of the House from August to October, to move the discharge of the Orders for all Government Bills which they do not intend to proceed with before such adjournment; whether, before the adjournment in August, it is the intention of the Government to place in a Continuance Bill all Acts which would naturally expire at the end of this Session; and, whether it is the intention of the Government, before proceeding further with the Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices in the future, to ask the House to read a second time the Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices in the past in the Cities of Canterbury, Chester, Gloucester, and Oxford, and the Boroughs of Boston, Macclesfield, and Sandwich?

In the first place, we should propose to move the discharge of such Government Bills as we do not intend to proceed with before the Adjournment. As to whether we should, before the Adjournment, propose to place in a Continuance Bill the Acts which would naturally expire at the end of the Session, I do not wish to be absolutely bound at present to the full extent of the Question; but I may say generally that the hon. Member seems to indicate the reasonable and proper course which would naturally be taken in the prosecution of the plan I have generally sketched to the House. With regard to the third Question of the hon. Member, it would be most desirable, if possible, to deal with the question of corrupt practices as affecting certain cities; but I am bound to say that we do not contemplate attempting reading that Bill a second time before we proceed with the Bill dealing with corrupt practices in the future.

gave Notice that he would oppose the further progress of the Corrupt Practices Bill.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, when arranging the new scale of pensions for the widows of seamen and marines killed in the discharge of duty, he will provide that the same pension shall be given to motherless children of those killed; and, whether he can now state when the new scale can be laid upon the Table of the House?

All I can say in answer to the hon. Member's Question is that this matter is still under consideration; but I hope to be able before the end of the Session to announce the decision arrived at.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has now considered the question of destroying telegrams, and thereby insuring the same freedom and secrecy for telegrams as for communications by letter?

The practice of the Post Office has hitherto been to refuse to produce telegrams in Court except upon a request by the sender or receiver, or upon the order of the Judge. Some doubt having been expressed as to the legality of the course followed by the Department, I propose to insert a clause in a Post Office Bill about to be introduced which will bring telegrams under similar provisions as to secrecy as are now applicable to letters.

I wish to ask the Government a Question—I am not quite sure whether it ought to be addressed to the Prime Minister or the Secretary to the Admiralty—Whether the Government can give us any information as to the serious events reported to have taken place since yester- day at Alexandria? I wish also to ask whether any steps were taken in order to prevent the consequences of the anarchy which seems to have followed upon the action of the day before; and, if there were no such steps taken, whether that was due to the decision of the Admiral, or in consequence of any orders he may have received? I may also inquire whether the Government have any information as to the position and safety of the Khedive?

Perhaps the most convenient course would be for me to state to the House the events which have occurred since I last communicated the news received by the Government. In the course of yesterday an inquiry was addressed to the Admiral by telegraph, in which he was requested to report whether the operations were complete; and in the afternoon Lord Northbrook was commanded by Her Majesty to send the following telegram:—

"The Queen desires to know how the wounded are."

"Operations not completed. Flag of truce hoisted on opening fire this morning on barracks, battery, earthworks; struck on terms being refused; hoisted again 4 afternoon, after firing one shot into Mexs lines."

"What wore the terms referred to in your telegram No. 112?"

"Send any news you have of Khedive, and condition of affairs in Alexandria."

"July 13, 9.25 A.M., Thursday. Immense conflagration in Alexandria last night. Forts apparently abandoned, and entire garrison withdrawn under flag of truce, leaving Bedouins to pillage and fire the town. Invincible, Monarch, Penelope, and gunboats inside harbour; other ironclads under weigh off New Port. Decoy gone to Port Said for information. Weather bad. Communication difficult."

"Off Alexandria.—Terms were to surrender forts, as first demanded."

"Use made of flag of truce considered disgraceful. Nothing known of Khedive; but believe he is still at Ramleh, where Turkish steam yacht is now anchored apparently waiting until weather will allow embarkation; but this quite conjectural. Wounded, as far as I can learn, are doing well."

"Am now moving Chiltern nearer harbour to facilitate communication with Admiral, keeping Cyprus and Malta cables at work. For 'Bedouins' in former telegram (No. 113), read 'convicts.'"

"July 13.—Opposition having ceased, do not dismantle forts or disable guns. Endeavour to open friendly communication with the Khedive, and invite him to assert his authority for restoring order in Alexandria, concerting with Dervish Pasha if expedient. On invitation or with concurrence of the Khedive, or, in his absence, of any Egyptian authority in Alexandria, you may land seamen and marines for police purposes, to preserve order, acquainting commanders of European ships of war, if any present, and inviting their co-operation."

With reference to the permission to land seamen and marines for the preservation of order, is that instruction new, or was it within the instructions previously given to the Admiral to take such a step on his own responsibility?

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly repeat his Question?

What I mean is this. Supposing that the Admiral had felt it to be desirable to land seamen for the purpose now indicated, would he have been justified by his instructions in doing this, or would he have been prevented by his instructions?

He certainly would not have been prevented by his instructions. I cannot say directly that he would have been justified by his instructions, because his previous instructions were given in view of a state of facts in which there was a Government, though a Government of merely military force, in Alexandria. Therefore, he had no instructions referring specifically to the case in which that Government should have disappeared. The telegrams have explained to the House those results, and the House will understand the mode in which that Military Government disappeared, and the views which appear to be taken by the Admiral and the Naval Commanders as to the disappearance of that military force. Whether the Admiral would have been approved in the exercise of his discretion is a question which the right hon. Gentleman probably does not wish to raise, and which, at the present moment, is purely hypothetical.

I wish to ask why measures were not taken in anticipation of the contingency that has arisen?

I wish also to ask whether it was within the discretion of the Admiral to land such a force?

I wish also to ask whether Her Majesty's Government consider, or have considered, whether, by the self-denying Protocol, they were debarred from landing troops or not?

It is, Sir, impossible to answer a series of Questions like this without having time to make inquiry as each one is put.

I asked simply why measures were not taken in anticipation of this contingency?

I wish to ask a Question arising out of the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) has made a statement to the effect that the Admiral has been instructed to land a force for police purposes, to co-operate with the authority in command of the town. What I wish to ask is, whether, should Arabi return, the Admiral, under the instructions given here, would put himself in communication with Arabi?

No, Sir. These are instructions given on the disappearance of Arabi Pasha and of the weak and lawless power he represents. They certainly have no reference to the case of Arabi, although I will not say what the words embrace. They will be interpreted by the Admiral according to the best of his judgment. As to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), why no instruc- tions were given in anticipation, it was because it was quite impossible to shape beforehand all the contingencies which might arise, and nothing but error and confusion could have arisen from an attempt to provide for them before we had some indication of the character they might assume. I stated just now that there were no instructions specifically applicable to the landing of troops by the Admiral. I ought, perhaps, to have stated that there were general instructions, not specifically applicable to a case of this kind, which are actually before the House, and which, perhaps, I had better read. They are dated 15th May, and are from the Foreign Office—

"Communicate with the British Consul General on arrival at Alexandria, and in concert with him propose to co-operate with the Naval Forces of France supporting Khedive, and protecting British subjects and Europeans, landing force if required for the latter object, such force not to leave the protection of the ships' guns without instructions from home."

What would be done in the case of part of Arabi's Army returning? Would this force that is to be landed be available for more than police purposes?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will have the goodness to give Notice. Admiral Seymour has not an Army with him at Alexandria; and the case in view is not the case of fighting with an Army, but is the case of subduing certain disorderly and riotous persons among the population.

Is the force intended for police purposes?

Might I ask if the instructions of the l0th of May, which the right hon. Gentleman has just read, stating that the troops were to be landed after communication with the French Naval authorities, held good after the departure of the French Fleet from Alexandria? How could the Admiral, after that event, be in communication with the French Fleet?

In my opinion those instructions did even then hold good.

I understand from one of the telegrams read that the Khedive is to be invited to establish his authority. It is quite clear the Khedive has no means of establishing that authority at Alexandria. I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the Government to order that the troops about to be landed shall be landed for the purpose of re-establishing the authority of the Khedive; and, if so, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to ask the other Powers to assist them in re-establishing the authority of the Khedive, which ho is invited to re-establish himself, having no power?

No, Sir. The question is not of the character which the right hon. Gentleman has described. The instructions to Admiral Seymour and the request for co-operation which might, if there were other vessels on the spot, be addressed to their Commanders are strictly limited to the purpose described in the telegram, and does not attempt to deal with any of the difficult political questions which lie beyond it.

I should like to know exactly the hour and the date at which the telegram containing the instructions was sent? Was it after the Government were informed that Alexandria was in the hands of convicts, and was the Khedive invited to "assert his authority for restoring order in Alexandria" by means of convicts?

Is it not a fact that the Government had intimation that convicts were being released yesterday, before the conflagration occurred, and whilst Lieutenant Lambton with a flag of truce was on shore?

No, Sir. I have read all the telegrams, and given the hours at which they were sent. The first mention of the convicts was in the telegram in which "Bedouins" was used by mistake. It was sent at 9.25 this morning. The telegram despatched at 11.40 says for "Bedouins" read "convicts."

When was the Government's telegram sent?

In the course of to-day. I cannot tell the exact hour; but it was after the receipt of these two telegrams.

After the receipt of the telegram saying that Alexandria was in possession of the convicts?

Those were not the words used.

Well, "Bedouins." Was there not a telegram saying Alex- andria was in possession of "Bedouins?"

I had better, I think, read the telegram again; and it must, I should say, be remembered that this telegram came from the Admiral's secretary, who is out at sea. The hon. Gentleman then read the telegram a second time.

I wish to ask whether the Government consider, in the instructions which have been read, that Admiral Seymour had authority to land seamen and marines on Tuesday evening after the bombardment, and when the conflagrations broke out and the disorder had begun?

Have the Government any information as to the position of Arabi, or whether the Egyptian Army have retreated?

said, the House was in possession of all the information which the Government had received.

The Government were apprised that the only people in possession of Alexandria were "Bedouins," who, as the 9.25 telegram says, were pillaging the town. Subsequently they learnt that these "Bedouins" meant "convicts." Was it after that that the Admiral was instructed to invite the Khedive to co -operate in restoring order? If it was before that that the telegram was sent, I should like to know whether the Government, having now got fuller knowledge, have sent any further instructions?

The Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman contains a description of the telegrams which I am not able to accept. The order of the telegrams was expressly given by my hon. Friend (Mr. Camp-bell-Bannerman) when he read them; and I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not perceive it. The telegram which contained the word "Bedouins" and which was afterwards corrected by having "convicts" substituted, reached the Government, I think I may say, this forenoon. The Cabinet met at 12 o'clock, and then sent the telegram which has been read. They did not send any telegram of instructions relating to disorder in Alexandria until they were informed that disorder.

Does the Government consider that Admiral Sey- mour had authority on Tuesday evening, after the bombardment had ceased, and after the fires broke out, to land marines and bluejackets to preserve order under the instructions of the 25th of May?

The Government had no information with regard to fires in Alexandria on Tuesday evening; but if the right hon. Gentleman will give Notice of any Question of the kind, I shall be glad to answer it.

If there should be no Egyptian authority to make a request, and if the excesses in Alexandria should still continue, has Admiral Seymour authority, without such request, to land seamen or marines?

I have given the House all the authority Sir Beauchamp Seymour possesses. We have no specific information as to the excesses in Alexandria; what the right hon. Gentleman may state on other authority we can neither confirm nor deny. We have read the only instructions sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour; and with regard to the interpretation of those instructions, I shall be glad to answer a Question on Notice.

The right hon. Gentleman—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"and "Order!"]

I would submit to the House that it is inconvenient that Questions on a subject of such gravity should be put without Notice.

I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a telegram which appears as having been received from the Admiralty is correctly reported, in view of his statement just now that the Government have no official information respecting atrocities? The telegram is reported as having been received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and is as follows:—

"Alexandria, July 13, 9.25 a.m. Immense conflagration in Alexandria last night. Forts apparently abandoned"—[Cries of "Read!"]—and entire garrison withdrawn"—["It has been read !"]—"under flag of truce, leaving convicts to pillage and fire the town."

One more Question arising out of the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Ho stated that Papers would be in the hands of Members in a few days, which would bring the Correspondence down to the meeting of the Conference. I would ask the Government seriously whether they do not consider the time has arrived when the House should be put in possession of Papers of a later date and of Papers relating both to the Conference and the bombardment of Alexandria?

The instructions to the Admiral, and all the facts which have come into the possession of the Government with regard to the bombardment of Alexandria, have been placed before the House from day to day. The whole of the instructions have been given; therefore, as regards them the House is in possession of as much information as the Government itself. As regards other Papers, the Conference decided at its first meeting, not upon the proposal of England, that strict secrecy should be observed with respect to its proceedings; and the Ambassadors informed their Governments of this decision, and begged their Governments to observe the same secrecy as they observed themselves. In these circumstances it would be impossible to lay Papers on the Table.

Are we to understand that all the orders to the Admiral have been given to the House from day to day?

The orders relating to the bombardment. I do not say that everything that has been sent to the Admiral has been publicly stated.

I beg to point out that my observations just now were directed, not against putting Questions—I have no right to prevent that—but against putting Questions upon matters of serious gravity without giving Notice.

asked whether the Government were in a position to confirm the report in The Times of that morning that two of the Alexandra's guns burst during the bombardment, and that in consequence the Alexandra had been sent to Malta for repairs?

That is a Question of which, I think, Notice should be given.

I wish to ask the Government whether, in view of the intelligence received from Egypt to-day, they have taken any steps for securing the safety of the Suez Canal?

I stated yesterday that Her Majesty's Government had made such communications to Foreign Powers with regard to the Suez Canal as they deemed it necessary to make. With regard to the preparations, I must refer the hon. Member to the answers that have already been given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State and myself.

I will repeat the Question to-morrow.

gave Notice of his intention to-morrow to ask, whether Her Majesty's Government would instruct Sir Beauchamp Seymour to ascertain definitely the position and condition of the Khedive, and whether he were in need of succour?

intimated his intention to-morrow to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention had been called to the statement of The Times correspondent off Alexandria, that he saw several of the Inflexible's shells burst right over the centre of the town, and also to his further statement that the town appeared to be burning in three places?

asked if the Electric Lighting Bill would be taken to-night?

replied, that he had put down the Bill, but it had been blocked by one or two hon. Members. Ho did not understand that there was any general opposition to the principle of the Bill, but that the opposition of the hon. Members he referred to was duo to their desire that the Bill should be taken when there could be a reasonable discussion of some of its provisions. This was a Bill of exceptional urgency. There were 30 or 31 Bills introduced dealing with the question of Electric Lighting, and they were all referred to a Hybrid Committee, presided over by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope). Evidence was heard, parties were represented by counsel, and very great expense had been incurred. These Bills had now either been withdrawn or the clauses dealing with electric lighting had been withdrawn, in view of the introduction of a Bill by the Government, It would be a pity that all this money should be thrown away without the business being finally dealt with this Session. What ho proposed was, that this Bill should be put down for a special Sitting taken on Saturday, as it was evidently impossible that urgent Government Business like that now before the House should be made to give way to it; and if the House should assent to this proposal, then the Government would endeavour to take a stage of certain other Government Bills to which there was not anything like any general opposition. Ho might name two of them as most important—the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill, and the Government Annuities Assurance Bill.

asked when the Motion would be made for the Sitting on Saturday?

replied, that it would be made at the close of the Sitting.

asked if the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would be taken to-night?

said, that the Government desired to reprint, the Bill with Amendments; but the House could not go into Committee pro formâ until the Bill had been read a second time. As that stage was blocked by Notice of opposition, if the opposition were withdrawn, the Bill read a second time, and formally committed and reprinted, the discussion which hon. Members desired to raise on the second reading might, perhaps, be taken on the Motion to go into Committee.

said, ho thought the opposition to the proposal of the Government, as a whole, would come better on the second reading. The question of moneys voted for one purpose and applied to another purpose without the knowledge of the House would involve very serious discussion, and it was impossible that it could be taken at a very late hour.

said, that, as ho thought it was utterly impossible that a general and satisfactory discussion could take place upon the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill at the fag end of a Saturday Sitting, he begged to give Notice that unless a proper discussion could be secured, ho should renew his opposition to going into Committee and. the subsequent stages.

inquired whether any other measures than those referred to by the President of the Board of Trade would be set down at the Saturday Sitting?

No other Opposed Business is intended to be set down.

wished to know whether the arrangement for the Saturday Sitting was dependent upon the Arrears of Pent Bill having passed before that day, inasmuch as there was an Order of the House, giving that measure precedence over all other Business whenever it was set down?

gave Notice that in the event of the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill coming on that night after half-past 12, he would move the adjournment, in order that it might be taken at a more reasonable hour.

said, that he should, under no circumstances, ask the House to take the Arrears of Pent Bill on Saturday, as he did not think it would be reasonable to do so, considering the amount of time the House now devoted to the measure.

asked a Question arising out of the answer of the Prime Minister in regard to the Autumn Session. He understood the Prime Minister to give the House to understand that the only question to be taken into consideration during that Session would be the Rules of Procedure of this House. If that were so, he wished to ask whether it would be necessary for the House of Lords to sit?

I have no difficulty in answering the Question. It will not be necessary for the House of Lords to sit on account of anything that may be proposed or done with reference to the Rules of Procedure in this House. Of course, it will be within the discretion of the House of Lords to regulate its own proceedings as to adjournment, if it should think fit to have an adjournment at all.

rose on a point of Order to ask the Speaker whether the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill could be taken after half-past 12, in the event of a Notice of objection to that Bill still appearing on the Paper?

The hon. Member is aware, no doubt, that this Rule as to taking Opposed Business after half-past 12 does not apply to Money Bills. I must point out to the House that there is a difficulty in the way of taking the second reading of the Bill referred to and the Committee at the same Sitting.

said, that he had not proposed to do so.

said, that he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to state his intention to do so.

asked whether, in view of the protracted Obstruction offered to the Arrears of Pent Bill by the Conservative Party, the Government would propose Urgency in proceeding with that measure?

A great many hypothetical Questions have been put to me to-day. I have been desirous of escaping from them, and I hope I may be excused from answering this Question also.