I rise, Sir, to give a Notice of importance. On Mon- day next, it is my intention to propose a Vote of Credit for the purpose of enabling Her Majesty to strengthen her Forces in the Mediterranean. Supposing that Vote to be granted we shall ask the House immediately thereafter to proceed with the Tax Bill for the year, in which we shall propose a modification intended to make a provision for meeting the charge which the Vote of Credit will entail. Of course, it will be open to hon. Gentlemen to make any observations on this modification they may please. Having given this Notice, I wish to make a strong appeal to the House with respect to the multitude of Questions relating to Egyptian affairs now put down on the list to be addressed to the Government, in the hope that with the prospect before them they will not put these Questions. I hope it will be understood that I do this not upon any ground of inconvenience to the Government, because that is a limited and insignificant matter, but because I am quite convinced with my Colleagues that putting Questions of that kind, in great multitudes and from many quarters, not merely when it is done in restrained terms by Gentlemen who have been responsible for the conduct of public affairs, but when it is done in the extensive manner—on which I do not pronounce any blame—which has of late, perhaps naturally, grown up, leads to inferences being drawn and impressions created which tend to weaken the action of, I might almost say, public law and authority with regard to this important question, and is undoubtedly very injurious to the public interests. I am desirous to make this appeal, rather than fall back upon what becomes an exceedingly odious task if it is to be many times repeated—namely, the right of the Minister to say that a reply to this and that Question would be injurious to the public interests. In making this appeal—which I hope is not an invidious one—I beg to except from it any Questions which may be put with regard to any account which may have appeared in the newspapers, or reached this country in regard to any new fact of great public interest or importance which may be said to have occurred. I ought, perhaps, to mention to the House that a despatch reached the Government to-day, from which it appears that the Sultan has agreed to join the Conference. He has accepted, and, therefore I presume, may be at present considered actually a participant in the Conference; but the terms of the despatch do not contain any direct reference as to the sending of troops to Egypt. I mention this as a matter of fact. Of course, it would not be right to withhold intelligence of that kind; but I trust that as regards argumentative Questions and Questions of inference, the appeal which I have made may not be without effect. I may say that on Saturday I shall give Notice of the precise amount of the Vote of Credit.

As I have the first Question on the Paper with respect to Egypt, I beg to say that after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman I will willingly accede to his request, provided, of course, it is not wished by the Government that I should ask the Question; but as I believe it is one which would be rather a help to the Government than the reverse, I leave it on the Paper now, and will put it to the hon. Baronet, on the understanding, of course, that I do not press for an answer if he does not desire it?

If the right hon. Member will ask the Question when it is reached, it is the wish of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it should be answered.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question with respect to the Vote of Credit of which he has given Notice. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, on Saturday, he will inform the House of the amount of that Vote. I wish to ask whether in doing so he will convey information to the House as to how the Vote will be applied—whether it is intended for the Suez Canal or for the general occupation of Egypt?

I think the amount of the Vote is the only point upon which it is usual to give Notice. Explanations as to the purpose for which the Vote is to be taken will arise upon the statement that the Government may make when they introduce the Vote.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that dog licences are payable in Ireland on each 31st March; whether petty sessions' clerks are bound to transmit the amounts in their hands before the 1st May in each year; whether, notwithstanding this, the local authorities entitled to the surplus in relief of taxation do not usually receive it for twelve months afterwards; whether it is the fact that in some years the net surplus for Ireland has amounted to over £17,000; whether the surplus is over invested by the treasurer; what is the cause of the long delay between the despatch of the tax by the petty sessions' clerks and the transmission of the surplus from the treasurer back to the local authorities; whether steps will be taken to have the surplus paid 'on the 31st March last sent to the several counties and cities by the treasurer at once; whether there is a considerable falling off in the Irish Dog Tax in recent years; whether, in the county Cork alone, the falling off amounts to a thousand pounds per annum; whether this is duo to the decrease in the number of dogs, or to the want of vigilance on the part of the Constabulary, owing to eviction duty and patrol work; and, whether, as the surplus obtained through the dog tax goes largely in relief of taxation paid by tenant farmers, an explanation will be asked from the police authorities as to the falling off in the receipts?

Sir, dog licences in Ireland are payable before the 31st of March in each year, but a considerable number are issued at other times during the year, which is not complete till the 31st of December. The next three Questions I answer in the affirmative. The surplus has always been invested temporarily, and the dividends paid over to the local authorities. The year ends on the 31st of December. The accounts are made out up to that date, and the suggestion contained in the seventh Question cannot be adopted. With regard to the rest of the Questions, I find that there was a decrease in 1880 from the previous year of £3,500, but since then there has been a slight increase. In the County Cork in 1881 there has been an increase over 1880 of £207 18s., representing 2,079 dogs. The decrease in 1879–80 may be attributed partly to the fact that a number of persons had their dogs destroyed in consequence of the bad harvest of 1879. I do not think it necessary to call on the Constabulary for the explanation suggested in the final Question.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Government have come to any conclusion as to renewing or modifying the powers now exercised by the Charity Commissioners with regard to Endowed Schools, as to which he stated that the matter was under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is intended to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of Canon Robinson, one of the Charity Commissioners?

Sir, the re-organization of the Endowed Schools Commission which had been in contemplation cannot be accomplished during the present Session. It is, therefore, intended to renew the present Act for a period of one or two years. It is also intended to fill up the vacancy occasioned by the lamented decease of Canon Robinson.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a new form of Agreement, which the School Board of Rosskeen, in the county of Ross, is compelling its teachers to sign, under pain of dismissal; and, if so, if he could state whether that Agreement prescribes, as part of the payment of teachers, such fees as they themselves may collect, the Board being, under no circumstances, liable to make good arrears of fees not collected by teachers; whether such contract is in conflict with the provisions of section fifty-three of the Education (Scotland) Act; whether the Agreement proposes to enforce on the teacher's collecting, as part of his emoluments, "such fire-money and other extras as the Board may authorise;" and, whether it is legal to impose such charges or compel the teacher to collect them?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the form of agreement adopted by the School Board of Rosskeen, and I find it opposed in certain particulars to the Education Act and to the regulations of the Scotch Education Department. I have communicated with the School Board on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he will suspend the appointment of Chaplains in that country, and direct that no grants not already promised be given out of public revenues for the building or repair of churches until the Government of India has had an opportunity of reporting on the complaints which have been made on this subject and the changes which may be desirable in the present system?

in reply, said, that this subject had been engaging the attention of the Government of India, but they had not yet been able to come to any definite conclusion upon it. Under these circumstances, he did not think it would be a convenient course that he should give an undertaking to the effect asked for by his right hon. Friend.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that, out of 287 cases in which judicial rents were fixed in the Union of Armagh, at the recent sitting of the Sub-Commission, appeals have been lodged in 167, or 70 per cent of the whole; whether the per centage of appeals from the decisions of Messrs. Foley, Meek, and Davidson exceeds that from any of the other Sub-Commissions; and, whether, in view of the proceedings of this Sub-Commission, he will make any representation on the subject to the Chief Commissioners?

Sir, the number of appeals lodged and the percentage of the appeals is stated with substantial accuracy by the hon. Member in his Question. The percentage of appeals from this Sub-Commission is higher than the percentage of any other Sub-Commission. The result of these appeals has not in any case been decided, so that it yet remains to be seen how far they were made on sufficient grounds. That must also be my answer to the last part of the Question.

inquired whether, in view of those repeated attacks in the form of Questions upon the Sub-Commissioners, and also in view of the fact that Notice of a Motion on the subject had been given in "another place," the Government would afford any opportunity for discussing the general character of those attacks?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will favourably consider the case of Mr. Lawrence Daly, who has undergone more than three months' imprisonment on the alleged suspicion of having incited to the nonpayment of rent, his prolonged imprisonment being the cause of great injury to the working of his farm, and of much suffering to members of his family who are dependent on his labour?

His Excellency considered Mr. Lawrence Daly's case on the 18th instant, and decided that he could not at present order his release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will be so good as to direct the release of Mr. James Seery, a suspect now confined in Naas Gaol, he having undergone nearly seven months' imprisonment, and his district, Ballinea, in the county of Westmeath, having then been, and being now, in a peaceable condition?

James Seery is detained on reasonable suspicion of inciting to murder. His Excellency had his case under consideration on the 21st ultimo, and then decided that he could not order his release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will favourably consider the case of Mr. Michael Daly, now a suspect in the gaol of Enniskillen, his imprisonment having lasted for more than three months, and his absence from his farm at this season of the year being a cause of great loss and injury to him and to his family?

His Excellency has just considered Mr. Michael Daly's case, and decided that he cannot at present order his release.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a resolution recently passed at a meeting of the National Teachers' Association at Drogheda, to the effect that—

"Notwithstanding the partial amelioration of the teacher's condition effected in late years, his annual salary is still only one-half that of the English, and less than half of that of the Scotch teachers;"

No, Sir; the resolution referred to has not been received in my Office, and, consequently, has not come under my consideration. I may point out, however, that a great deal has been done within the last few years to ameliorate the condition of these teachers, and that the question of the equalization of salaries is one of great magnitude and difficulty, affecting many branches of the Public Service.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Harrel, who is now acting as special resident magistrate in Belfast; and deciding cases between the people and the police was lately the chief detective officer of police in Belfast; if it is true that there is no Roman Catholic stipendary magistrate in Belfast at present; if the Government in the year 1865, after the report of the Special Commission presided over by the pre-sent Baron Dowse and the present Mr. Justice Barry, agreed that two resident magistrates not connected with the people of Belfast, one a Protestant, and the other a Roman Catholic, should be permanently appointed for Belfast; if the Government will at once appoint a lawyer as one of the resident magistrates for that town; if the Government also agreed to appoint a certain number of Protestant police officers for Belfast; if the present magistrate, Mr. Harrel, was one of the Protestant policemen so appointed, and as riots are again proceeding in Belfast, will the Government remove Mr. Harrel, or direct him not to adjudicate in party cases; and, if the Government will at once appoint a Roman Catholic magistrate for Belfast?

Sir, Mr. Harrel is not acting as special Resident Magistrate in Belfast. He was sent there as he knew the town well for a few days during the July anniversaries, but has since returned to his station in the County Mayo. There are no special Resident Magistrates in Belfast at present. I cannot find any record of the Government having pledged themselves to the arrangements mentioned in the Question with regard to the Resident Magistrates and police officers in Belfast; but it has been usual for some years past to have a Protestant and Roman Catholic Resident Magistrate stationed there, and the Government has no present intention of departing from that custom. There are at present three Protestant and one Roman Catholic Sub-Inspectors stationed there. The two Resident Magistrates whose station is Belfast are, and have been for some time, employed on special duty elsewhere, and I cannot give any pledge of appointing a lawyer as one of the magistrates in any redistribution of districts; but the matter will be carefully considered.

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?

Sir, the Land Commissioners calculate that the present circuits of the Assistant Commissioners will terminate about the 15th of August, and it is intended that the next circuits shall open about the 18th of September. The Assistant Commissioners must get some holiday, and I think it best that they should take it all at one time. Otherwise it would be necessary to make it a rule during a considerable part of the year for the Sub-Commissioners to sit two instead of three together, or else to consolidate the Sub-Commissions in successive groups, which would cause great inconvenience.

asked what would be the objection to their taking the holiday in winter time?

said, he thought that would be rather hard on the Sub-Commissioners. Moreover, they were so mixed up with legal proceedings in Ireland, that it would be better for them to take their holiday during the legal vacation.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it harder still for parties who are waiting to have their cases heard?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is intended to renew "The South Africa Act, 1877," which expires in August next?

No, Sir; it is not.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether His Excellency has again examined the testimonials as to the character, and the prayers for the release, of Mr. O'Loughlin, of Lisdoonvarna, who, together with Mr. Hogan, of Ballyvaughan, county Clare, has been confined in Galway Gaol for the last three months, under an Act of King Edward III.?

His Excellency is causing further inquiries to be made into Mr. O'Loughlin's case; but they have not yet been concluded.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Memorials concerning the recent increase of tolls on the River Shannon have been considered; and, if so, with what result?

The question referred to in these Memorials has been considered; and, although it has not yet been definitely decided, I can say that the tolls will be fixed at no higher figure than that sufficient to restore and maintain the solvency of the trust.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that there are still several American citizens confined under the Protection of Person and Property Act of 188l; whether many of them have been now detained over twelve months; whether it is the intention of the Government to try them for the offences of which they have been "suspected;" and, whether Mr. Henry O'Mahony, of Ballydehobb, county Cork, who was arrested on the 4th June 1881, has yet been released; and, if not, whether, considering the length of his imprisonment, the Lord Lieutenant can order his discharge?

Sir, there are some persons who are American citizens still detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act, one of whom—Daniel M'Sweeney—has been so detained for over 12 months. His Excellency has caused it to be intimated to these prisoners that he is ready to order their release on condition of their leaving the country; but he cannot, consis- tently with his duty, allow them to be at large in Ireland at present. It is not intended to put them on their trial. These remarks also apply to the case of Mr. Henry O'Mahony, who was rearrested on the 10th of December, 1881. He had, during his first detention, been nearly four months in custody.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether an agreement has been arrived at with any Foreign Power with respect to the protection of the Suez Canal; if so, what are the terms of such agreement or convention; whether it is true that the French Government desire to provoke a deliberation of the Conference with regard to the Suez Canal; whether an agreement in that sense has been concluded with the British Cabinet; whether Her Majesty's Government still intend that the deliberation of the Conference shall be limited to the Egyptian Question, and will not extend to the Suez Canal, and that the whole subject of the neutralization and control of the Canal is a matter that shall never be referred to the Conference; and, whether it appears to Her Majesty's Government to be wholly outside of the purpose of the Conference?

This Question, Sir, appeared on the Paper on Tuesday; but it was not asked, in consequence of the adjournment of the debate being moved. Though it will not be in my power to answer, after the appeal of my right hon. Friend, any further Questions growing out of this matter, which will be debated on Monday. I think it is, perhaps, desirable to answer this Question now. Her Majesty's Government took naval measures for the protection of the Suez Canal, as has been frequently stated in this House. At the meeting of the Conference on the 27th of June, a reservation as to force majeure appended by the English and French Ambassadors to the declaration against isolated action was added for the purpose of leaving perfect liberty of action to their respective Governments in the presence of any emergency whatever, including danger to the Suez Canal; and on the 28th of June Lord Dufferin was instructed to mention to his colleagues the object with which the reservations had been added. On the 17th of July the following communication was made by England and France to the Powers:—

"Our proposals respecting the restoration of order in Egypt are already before the Conference. The security of the Suez Canal, although connected with that subject, is a separate question, and is not equally embarrassed by political considerations. Setting aside any question which might arise as to the possible duty of any of the Powers individually, if sudden and grave danger should arise in the absence of any provision for united action, Her Majesty's Government think it desirable that any action to be taken should receive the sanction of Europe, and, if practicable, of Turkey. France and England propose, in consequence, to the Conference to designate the Powers, who should be charged, in case of need, to take the measures specially necessary for the protection of the canal. In order to save time, the Powers so designated, and who should have accepted the mandat, should be authorized to decide on the mode and the moment of action. This action would he exercised in every case on the principle of the self-denying protocol."

But no agreement has been come to between France and England, I understand.

This is a declaration to the Powers in the name of Franco and England.

Have Her Majesty's Government any guarantee that the arrangements out of which that declaration grew with the Do Freycinet Cabinet will be maintained by any French Ministry which succeeds the Cabinet of M. De Freycinet, who has resigned?

After the appeal of my right hon. Friend, I certainly must decline to answer that Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the terms of the joint Note lately presented to the Porte with respect to Turkish intervention in Egypt; and, when an answer is expected?

Yes, Sir, it is as follows:—

"Impressed with the necessity of applying a prompt remedy for the troubled state of Egypt and of restoring confidence in that country, the great Powers, assembled in Conference, have decided to appeal to the sovereignty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan by inviting him to intervene in Egypt, and assist the Khedive by sending forces sufficient to re-establish order, put down the usurping faction, and put an end to that state of anarchy which is desolating the country, has led to the effusion of blood, the ruin and the flight of thousands of European and Mussulman families, and compromised at once national and foreign interests. While assuring by their presence respect for the rights of the Empire, and the re-establishment of the Khedivial authority, the Imperial forces will allow, at the same time, according to the method to be determined hereafter by common consent, of the adoption of wise reforms in the military organization of Egypt, without prejudicing by their intervention the prudent development of the civil, administrative, and judicial institutions of Egypt, so as not to conflict with the Imperial firman. In addressing themselves to His Majesty, the great Powers of Europe have full confidence that during the sojourn of the Ottoman troops in Egypt the normal status guo will be maintained, and that there will be no interference with the immunities and privileges of Egypt guaranteed by previous firmans, or with the regular working of the administration, or with the international engagements and the arrangements which result from them. The sojourn in Egypt of the Imperial troops, the commanders of which will have to act in concert with the Khedive, will be limited to a period of three months, unless the Khedive should ask for its prolongation for an additional term, to be fixed by agreement with Turkey and the Powers. The expenses of the occupation will be defrayed by Egypt, and the amount will be determined by agreement between the six Powers, Turkey, and Egypt. If, as they hope, His Imperial Majesty the Sultan responds to the call made to him by the great Powers, the application of the clauses and conditions above enumerated will form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the six Powers and Turkey."

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If his attention has been called to statements by the correspondent of the "Standard" that the English Church at Alexandria received a shell from the English Fleet; to statements of the correspondent of the "Daily News" that a shell from the English Fleet penetrated the General Hospital; and to statements of the correspondent of the"Times"that—

"Shells from the 'Inflexible' burst right over the centre of the city, "that" the next house to the Palace of Menasce had been hit by a shell and was in flames, "and that" the Free Schools, built at an expense of £14,000 by the European community, have one wing completely battered away;"

"In the Arab quarter all the shells missing the Pharos Fort had fallen. Here the houses are in chaos. There has been terrible destruction everywhere about the locality. My Arab informant stated to me that in this quarter the people awaited the result of the bombardment quietly for some time, thinking the shells would not reach them. In a short time, however, the destructive missiles flew in among them, and they fled in great fright, leaving dead, wounded, and property behind them. There was great slaughter here, many persons besides soldiers being killed. ^*** I learned from another Arab that the shells fired over the Isthmus had fallen wildly, killing many people near Fort Napoleon, and wrecking the houses;"

Sir, in common with all readers of newspapers, I have seen many statements made by special correspondents within the last few days, but of the accuracy of those statements I have no knowledge. Some of them, I observe, are quite contradictory of each other. We have certainly no information which induces us to believe that shells from our guns set fire to any part of the town; but we expect, as I said the other day, full and detailed accounts in the Admiral's despatches.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will consider the desirability of placing the House of Commons in telephonic communication with the Telephone Exchange, and also of placing one of the Exchange telegraph instruments in the House for the convenience of Members?

I shall endeavour, during the Recess, to make arrangements in the direction aimed at by the hon. Member. The only difficulty is the want of a suitable room for the purpose.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Sub-Commissioners Messrs. Greer, Headlake, and Ross, while investigating the cases of the tenants against the Salters' Company at Magherafelt, stayed at the house of a Mr. Young, employed by the Salters' Company; whether he is aware that the tenants considered that this must tend to prejudice their case; and, whether he will cause the Land Commission to give instructions that Sub-Commissioners should avoid having relations with either party to the cases which may be brought before them?

Having referred this Question to the Sub-Commission alluded to, I have received a report from Mr. Greer, stating that they have not investigated a single case on the estate of the Salters' Company, no such cases ever having been listed to that Commission. The Sub-Commissioners are staying in lodgings in the house of a Mr. Young, where they were recommended to go by the County Court Judge, who also occupied them. They did not consider it desirable to put up at the hotel, as it was filled with solicitors, valuators, and other persons interested or concerned in the cases before them. Mr. Greer adds that he has never spoken to Mr. Young, and would not know him if he saw him. With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, the Land Commissioners inform me that they have determined in their own case, when they go circuit to hear appeals, to decline absolutely all hospitality offered to them, and they have earnestly recommended each of the Sub-Commissioners to adopt the same rule.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Vine, photographer, of Athenry, county Galway, who had come to Loughrea, county Galway, for the purpose of seeing some friends, was arrested as a "stranger" by Head-constable Payne, Loughrea, at eleven o'clock last Sunday night, and was remanded for a week to Galway Gaol, and upon what evidence, and by what magisterial power, this process was accomplished, seeing that the Crime Prevention Bill had not yet passed into Law; whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 14th instant:—

"The condition of Loughrea is deplorable. The markets, which were very good, have latterly dwindled down to nothing. The country people are afraid to come in, as the police are arresting every stranger on suspicion;"

I have learned by telegraph that John Vine was arrested under the ordinary law and remanded on suspicion of being about to commit a felony; but I have not yet received any adequate information on the subject.

said, he hoped that in his further communication the right hon. Gentleman would inquire whether Mr. Vine was not a most respectable inhabitant of Athenry.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he still adheres to his statement, purporting to be founded on conversations between Count Kalwoky and Sir Henry Elliot in Vienna, and between Count Karyoli and Lord Granville in London, that Austria had declared that the action of Her Majesty's Government at Alexandria was perfectly legitimate; and, whether the substance of those conversations will be included in the Papers shortly to be laid before Parliament?

Sir, I feel some wonder that my hon. Friend should ask me this Question, as he knows, from previous experience, that if I saw reason to qualify my statement I should have done so without waiting for a Question. As, however, he asks me the Question, it is necessary that I should read to the House the despatches which have passed on the subject. On July 10 Sir Henry Elliot wrote as follows:—

"I have called upon Count Kalnoky to inform him that, in consequence of the Egyptians continuing' to arm the forts of Alexandria, Sir Beau-champ Seymour was to announce this morning that, unless they were temporarily surrendered to him for the purpose of disarmament, he would open fire in 24 hours. His Excellency replied, without hesitation, that he thought Her Majesty's Government perfectly right in the step that was being taken, and nothing could he more complete or cordial than the manner in which he declared the action to be perfectly legitimate, as it was impossible for us to permit the threatening preparations to he carried on without interference,"

"The Austrian Ambassador told me this afternoon that he had received from Count Kalnoky an account of the language which he had used to your Excellency in regard to the bombardment of the forts at Alexandria by the British Fleet. Count Kalnoky described himself as having stated that the Austrian Government were disposed to consider the bombardment of the forts an act of self-defence, caused by the provocative and menacing attitude of the Egyptian authorities, and as an incident which might be without any detrimental influence on the diplomatic situation, provided England limited her action to the disarmament of the forts in accordance with her declared intention. Count Kalnoky added that in the absence of any sufficient authority at Alexandria, where the orders of the Sultan were ineffective, sufficient reason could be found to explain and justify action in self-defence, which, under other circumstances, would not have been legitimate. The Austrian Government were the more inclined to adopt this view, as it seemed the best and most practical mode of settling the matter, and coincided with the general desire of the Powers to endeavour to effect a pacific solution of the general question."

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, so long ago as last December or January, representations were made from Cairo to Her Majesty's Government, to the effect that, in the opinion of many of the English and other Consular officers in Egypt, any attempt at forcible intervention in that Country would be met, unless full precautions were taken, by a massacre of the Christian populations of Cairo and Alexandria?

No, Sir; we can find no such representations.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there are not 2,100 Royal Marines now on shore in Egypt; whether another battalion is not going out which will raise the force of Royal Marines in Egypt to nearly 3,000 men; and, whether these men are to be placed under the command of a General Officer of their own corps; and, if not, from which branch of the Naval or Military services an officer will be selected to take the command of this large force of Royal Marines?

There are now 1,000 Marines on shore at Alexandria, forming part of the Force under the immediate command of Major General Sir Archibald Alison. They are commanded by a Lieutenant Colonel of Marine Artillery, and a Lieutenant Colonel of Light Infantry. The rest of the Marines in Egypt belong to the ships of the Fleet, and are ready for embarkation to keep the ships efficient. It is not intended to send out a General Officer of Marines.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table immediately a Paper giving the instructions, in regular order, sent to Admiral Sir F. Beauchamp Seymour, with reference to Egyptian affairs, in the course of the present year? He said he understood the hon. Gentleman to say, two days ago, that he had communicated from time to time all the orders which had been sent to Sir Beauchamp Seymour, and that they had appeared in the newspapers. It was obviously inconvenient to refer to them in that form.

With every desire to meet the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman, the Government are bound to consider that these instructions really form a part of the general policy of the Government in regard to the Egyptian Question. We, therefore, think it desirable that the instructions should be presented at the same time as the other Papers.

That will be in the Recess.

said, he had understood the lion. Gentleman to say that from time to time these instructions had been communicated. Was that so or not?

To the best of my belief, they have been all stated at the Table of the House; but I cannot give any categorical answer.

said, he had given Notice to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the following telegram from Alexandria, which appeared in the "Times" of the 19th instant, was correct:—

"The 'Orontes,' which was supposed to have troops on board, arrived this morning, but through some extraordinary blunder at Malta she has come without a single soldier;"

said, that, unless the Question came under the category of argumentative inquiry, he desired to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Daily News" of the 19th instant, that—

"The Egyptian Ministry hesitates to take the necessary steps to inform the people that Arabi is a rebel and an outlaw."

Sir, it would be difficult to answer this Question without going into debateable matter, and, therefore, I must decline to answer it.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether or not it is the intention of the Government to lay upon the Table the Reports of Sir Beauchamp Seymour of the steps taken by him, and of such forces as the Government had placed under his orders, for the preservation of British life and property at Alexandria on the 11th of June; and, if so, when?

There will be no objection on the part of the Government to laying these documents on the Table.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has seen the following translated extracts from two influential Italian newspapers, which appear in the "Times" of this morning:—The "Diritto," the reputed organ of an Italian Cabinet Minister, says:—

"The damage caused by the bombardment amounts to hundreds of millions, almost all belonging to Europeans. It is now certain that the English bombs were for two days hurled into the middle of the city. What need, then, for seeking elsewhere the cause of the fires? We mention this in order that, before the moment when we shall have to talk about the damages, Europe may be enlightened as to the facts of the case;"

"If England retires from Alexandria when the Powers have decided what action shall be taken, the political consequences of the bombardment may be small. But they will, nevertheless, continue to be most serious from a monetary and material point of view. Upon this head there will, without doubt, arise the question of the damage done to European property, which some one will certainly have to make good;"

asked what the Government proposed to do with reference to the bombardment of Sfax?

The last Question had better be addressed to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with due Notice. With respect to the other Question, certainly the Government would never think it necessary to take any notice whatever of the two anonymous paragraphs.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the "Times" correspondence of this day (Monday), in which it is stated that the Government were advised several weeks ago by their accredited Military agent at Alexandria that, with the view of avoiding the perpetration of any atrocities, it would be necessary that a landing of troops should be effected whenever the bombardment of the town took place; and, if so, what was the date of that communication, and what reply was returned?

My right hon. Friend asks me to answer this Question. In reply to the noble Lord, I have to state that there was no accredited Military Agent at Alexandria before Sir Archibald Alison's arrival. Major Tul-loch, an officer on the Staff at Portsmouth, has been attached to the Staff of Admiral Sir Beauchamp Seymour in consequence of his local knowledge of the neighbourhood of Alexandria. But I must decline altogether to give any information as to the opinions or confidential Reports of that officer.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay Major Tulloch's Report on the Table?

No, Sir. Major Tulloch was neither the adviser nor the agent of the Government, and I should not notice here or place on the Table his opinion on such a subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether a clear and distinct statement of the danger to the European colony to be expected after the bombardment of the forts was in the hands of the Cabinet several weeks ago, on the part of the British residents in Alexandria; and, why the warning of the British residents was disregarded?

Sir, I am sorry the hon. Gentleman has put his Question. At the same time the answer is a very simple one. The representations made by the hon. Gentleman are extremely vague. He does not distinctly indicate the Reports he refers to; but there was a Report on the 30th May, from a committee of British merchants, who represented that the force in the port of Alexandria was so small as not to be able to give protection to the British subjects who were then ashore. Since then, and long before the bombardment, all the British subjects in Alexandria, or nearly the whole of them, were removed from Alexandria, and after that Report was made, an application was made by Sir Beauchamp Seymour for an additional force, which was complied with, and the force was largely augmented.

asked what steps the Government had taken for the relief and support of the refugees at Cyprus and Malta?

Sir, I think this Question has already been answered. Provision has been made, and is being made, on the subject, and the proper Department is in communication with the authorities of both those Colonies, or rather with the Colony of Malta and with the Island of Cyprus, whatever the proper designation of it may be.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether general warrants of search have been issued to all the inspectors and sub-inspectors of police in all the twenty counties to which the search of domicile Clause in the new Coercion Act has been applied by the Lord Lieutenant's proclamation; and, how many of these warrants have been issued?

Sir, in answer to the first paragraph of the Question, I can say that such is not the case. In answer to the second paragraph, I think I must decline to make any statement.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the present state of the Law enables Mrs. Lawder, of Lawderdale, parish of Fenagh, county Leitrim, to obtain compensation for the herd of cattle, value £168, lifted off her farm on the night of the 6th instant; and, if not, whether the Government contemplate any alteration in the present Law, in order to compensate owners of cattle for their losses; whether the Government intend taking any immediate steps to check the growing practice of cattle stealing; and, if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the number of head of cattle stolen within the last twelve months, specifying the counties in each case, and the number that have been recovered through the aid of the Police, or otherwise?

Sir, the present state of the law does not enable the owner of cattle or any other goods which have been stolen to obtain compensation from any person except the robber. The Inspector General of Constabulary informs me that the official Returns do not show an increase in the number of cases of cattle stealing. The number of cases reported in the six months ended the 30th of June, 1881, was 83. The number reported in the six months ended the 30th of June, 1882, was 72. It would be impossible to give an accurate Return of stolen cattle recovered in the past 12 months through the aid of the Constabulary without reference to the various districts; but I have desired a Return to be made out and sent over by tonight's post, which I can let the hon. and gallant Member have to-morrow, showing the number of cases of cattle steal- ing reported from each county in each of the last 12 months.

asked that the Return might be supplemented by a similar Return from the counties of England?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is now able to state if it is intended to continue the appointment of the Sub-Commissioners appointed in November last for one year?

Sir, there were nine Assistant Commissioners appointed in November last for one year, and the Land Commissioners inform me that, in their opinion, their re-appointment at the end of the year will be necessary.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has observed that, under the "block system," it has been impossible for the House to have an opportunity of considering the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill, which has come down from the Upper House; whether he can suggest any mode by which that Bill can be considered; and, whether, failing any such opportunity, he will recommend to the Crown the exercise of the Royal prerogative, in order to determine the imprisonment of a clergyman, not charged with any offence against the Criminal Law, which has now lasted for sixteen months?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will extend the facilities asked for the discussion of the Imprisonment for Contumacy Bill to the discussion of the Contumacious Clerks Bill, so that the whole question may be disposed of?

Sir, I must answer the Questions separately, because, although they refer to the same subject-matter, I think the two Bills mentioned are materially different in the purpose they have in view. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), I believe this Bill to which he refers has come from the Upper House, and which, although it alters the general law, alters it with the special view to the case of a particular individual—the Rev. Mr. Green—apparently under the idea of releasing that gentleman from prison, on the ground that, whatever may have been the merits or demerits of his original conduct, he has suffered severely for that conduct, and it would be a becoming act to release him. In these circumstances, I see it stated by my hon. Friend that the Bill has been blocked. Without presuming to censure any Member, I would make a respectful appeal to anyone who may have blocked it, and would represent that it hardly seems satisfactory that, where the question is the continuance of imprisonment—which, on the one hand, is thought just and proper, and, on the other, harsh and improper—it should be decided virtually without discussion by the simple blocking of a Bill, and the prolongation of the imprisonment thus obtained. I cannot help hoping that clemency may touch the heart of any Gentleman who may have blocked that Bill, and that he may be induced to allow the House to deal with it. I know enough of the good temper and good feeling of the House to be sure that they would not mind the inconvenience of dealing with the Bill at a late hour in order to give an impartial judgment upon it. As to the second part of the Question, I may say it is not within my recollection that the Prime Minister has ever intermeddled in any way in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative. So far as I know the method of all Governments, it is desired to keep out of the political arena all questions of this nature; and, therefore, I am not prepared to give any answer to that part of the Question. With regard to the other Bill, it aims at an alteration of the law, I believe, on the same subject-matter; but it has not the same direct reference to the case of this gentleman as the first Bill has. It certainly does not come to us in the same way, commended not only by the assent of the other House, but by the fact that this Bill, being an ecclesiastical subject-matter, was introduced by the heads of the Episcopal Body, and, therefore, has very special claims upon our attention. I should be very glad if my hon. Friend can obtain a discussion of his Bill; but I am afraid, if I were to entangle myself by giving any promise as to the discussion of the Bill, I should have a good many other claims made upon me in the same direction.

said, the block of the Bill from the House of Lords stood in his name, and he should be happy to remove that block if any assurance were given that the Bill should come on at a time when it could be properly discussed.

had also blocked the Bill, so that it might not be smuggled through. His only desire was that it should be fairly discussed.

understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that Ministers did not interfere in matters of this kind.

said, the Question related to the exercise of the Prerogative of Mercy, and all cases of that nature were dealt with departmentally, and not by the Cabinet as a whole.

said, that, as he understood the Premier to refer to the Home Secretary as the proper authority to be appealed to in regard to the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, he would on Monday put a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state what steps have been taken with reference to the unanimous acceptance of the House, on 13th May 1881, of the Resolution declaring it advisable—

"That the functions of the Executive Government which especially relate to Agriculture and Commerce should. as far as possible, be administered by a distinct Department, and be presided over by a responsible Minister of the Crown?"

Sir, the hon. Baronet is quite justified in putting this Question, for undoubtedly the Government were under a pledge to proceed with this as with many other subjects during the course of the present Session, and they would have been quite prepared to do so. We had, indeed, before Lord Spencer left for Ireland, a general outline of our proposal; but a measure for altering the functions of a Department I must consider as falling within the same category, practically, as a Bill of the Government; and I am sorry to say that in the present state of Business we have been obliged to drop everything except what is of immediate necessity, or where there is little difference of opinion, as the Corrupt Practices Bill, which represents almost the universal desire of the House. We should not feel justified in asking the House to consider this matter during the present Session.

May I ask whether my right hon. Friend would be prepared to make any recommendation to the House before the end of the Session?

My answer would be to say that this subject must, so far as the Government is concerned, drop along with so many of the other engagements which we have been obliged to abandon.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the precarious state of the weather, the Government are preparing to afford labour to the working classes of Ireland during the ensuing autumn and winter months?

No, Sir; I cannot say that it is the intention of the Government to afford labour to the working classes of Ireland during the ensuing winter, and I am almost surprised that this Question should have been put to me.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the great number of tenants, estimated at 350,000, whose claims will have to be heard under the Arrears Bill, he will endeavour, on Report, to amend that part of the fifth clause which requires a double investigation, viz.: firstly, the inquiry to be made by fit persons appointed to "investigate and report," and secondly, the investigation of such reports by the Land Commission itself; and, whether such double investigation could be avoided?

Sir, the hon. Gentleman's figures are very far in excess of the estimate which the Government, on close examination, are prepared to make. I believe that the figure of 200,0(10 is really about the basis of the question, and it is a matter in some degree of speculation what number out of this 200,000 are in arrear, and are consequently more or less in a condition primâ facie to fall within the operation of the Bill. But with respect to the question of the double investigation, I think the hon. Member may dismiss his apprehensions. It is by no means intended that there shall be a double investigation. On the contrary, the supposition is, the work will, in the first instance, be properly and thoroughly performed; but it is absolutely necessary to reserve power of a re-investigation, in order to insure that it will be properly and thoroughly performed. If the Commissioners make judicious appointments, I have no doubt the double investigation will be a rare occurrence; but, at the same time, it is necessary to reserve power that it should be ordered.

I should like to ask the Chief Secretary if there is any truth in the report of Colonel Brackenbury's resignation?

Sir, it is true that Colonel Brackenbury has resigned, but not for the reason alluded to in The Daily News. The resignation has nothing to do with anything relating to the Irish policy of the Government. In questions of employment there are always two parties. In this instance the Government is one, and Colonel Bracken-bury is the other. As Colonel Bracken-bury has resigned, but on no public grounds whatever, I think the Government are not only absolved from making a statement, but they have no right to make a statement. We are actively engaged in making the arrangements arising from this resignation.

asked the Postmaster General, What will be the annual cost of the increased pay and allowances at length granted to the letter carriers and auxiliary letter carriers of the United Kingdom; and, when it will be in his power to publish the details of the new scheme for the information of those whom it affects?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that no time will be lost in bringing the new scheme into operation. The work will necessarily take some time, but I hope it will be completed in the course of a few weeks. Until the application of the new classification has been finally determined it is impossible to give a precise estimate of the expense involved. I may say, however, that the cost of carrying out the new scheme, so far as it affects letter carriers, porters, and the other persons to whom I referred in answering a Question on Tuesday last, will certainly be not less than £60,000 a-year.

asked whether the Secretary to the Treasury would take measures for having the Finance Accounts of last year laid before the House as speedily as possible. They were already more than a month behind the usual time of publication?

said, he would make inquiries on the subject.

asked whether the Prime Minister, when he stated that the Corrupt Practices Bill had the unanimous approval of the House, was aware that there were 25 pages of Amendments on the Paper with regard to the Bill?

said, he was aware that there was a largo number of Amendments on the Paper; but he understood they were directed in perfect good faith towards the improvement of the Bill.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended to proceed with the Bill that night?

said, not unless it could be taken at a convenient hour.

asked what the right hon. Gentleman considered a convenient hour?

Half-past 12.

said, he begged to give Notice that if the Bill was called on after 11 he would move that the Chairman do report Progress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What arrangements he proposes to make in order to secure, in accordance with the declarations made in former Sessions, the discussion of the Indian Budget at a reasonable period of the Session?

said, that this was another of the engagements that remained necessarily unfulfilled in consequence of the deplorable position in which the House stood with regard to its duties. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India, however, would do his best, and the Government would assist him to bring it in before the dregs of the Session. He hoped those hon. Gentlemen who put these Questions, which he was continually obliged to answer by pleading the impotence of Parliament, would give their best assistance when they came to the proposals for relieving the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, seeing that the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill was introduced into this House by private Members, at the instance of and by the recommendation of the Government, and that every opportunity has been sought for pressing it forward, he will afford facilities for getting this measure passed into Law during the present Session?

I am afraid, having been obliged to state already that we have been unable to redeem direct engagements, it follows a fortiori that we cannot take cognizance of indirect engagements. I heartily wish well to my hon. Friend in his undertaking; but I am afraid I can say no more.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he proposes to take the Estimates, and in what order; when he will take the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill; and, when it is intended to bring on the Indian Budget?

With respect to taking the Estimates in exact order, I think it would be more convenient that we should not bind ourselves absolutely; but Notice will be given of the order in which we wish to take them. I have already stated that the House will pro- ceed to deal with the Custom and Inland Revenue Bill immediately after the Vote of Credit.

said, preference would be given to the Navy Estimates.

I believe there is a distinct pledge on that subject.

asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to what he had characterized as the deplorable state of Public Business, and of the desirability of the early adjournment of the House, and of a Sitting of the House in autumn, he was prepared to propose some arrangement to expedite the Business of the Government immediately in hand.

said, that when the time had arrived when, in accordance with precedent, a proposal of that kind should be made, he would be prepared to make it. On Monday he would move that the Government should have Tuesday evenings.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what was Government Business? Was the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill one of the measures to be carried through?

said, he would make a statement on the subject on Monday.

said, that the Prime Minister had just stated that he would ask that Tuesday evenings be taken for Government Business. There was a Notice of Motion with regard to the distressed agricultural population of Oude and Behar standing for next Tuesday evening. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford County (Mr. Blake) had secured that evening for it, the question was most important, and many Members of the House took an interest in it. Would the right hon. Gentleman refrain from taking next Tuesday evening from private Members? If he understood the right hon. Gentleman, he stated that a Vote for increasing Her Majesty's Forces in the Mediterranean would be taken on Monday next, and that on that Vote the House could discuss the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt. Would not the Premier consider it advisable to give the House some other opportunity of criticizing the past policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt when the criticisms upon it would not be liable to the misrepresentation that they were brought forward at a time that would interfere with the drafting of Supplies to Her Majesty in an urgent matter of foreign policy? The hon. Gentleman was repeating the same Question, amid some signs of impatience from the House, when—

said, that the hon. Member must confine himself to asking the Question, and must not repeat it.

stated that, as the question was somewhat difficult and complicated, he was trying to explain it.

said, that the question was, no doubt, difficult and complicated; but when the hon. Gentleman repeated it with a view to make it clear, it had only become still more difficult and complicated. The most legitimate, convenient, and constitutional opportunity for discussing the past policy of Her Majesty's Government in Egypt would be on the Vote on Account on Monday. He did not think the Motion of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), relating to Behar and Oude, afforded a sufficient reason for departing from a proceeding called for by the general convenience of Public Business; but his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India would be happy to give his best attention to any statements with which he might be favoured by the hon. Member or his Friends.

gave Notice that he would oppose any Motion for the appropriation by the Government of Tuesday evenings.

said, he understood there was to be a Sitting on Saturday. Could the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information as to the Business that would be taken on that day?

said, he regretted that the President of the Board of Trade, who had charge of the Electric Lighting Bill, was not present. But it was the intention of the Government to propose a Sitting on Saturday, and the Business to be taken on that day would, he believed, be the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill, the Scotch Entail Bill, and the third reading of the Electric Lighting Bill. If there were other measures to be proceeded with, they would be only of secondary importance, and not involving questions of a disputatious character.

begged the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that during the last two months and more all the nights of private Members had been taken away. He hoped, therefore, private Members would not have their rights further interfered with.

said, it was entirely a matter for the general consideration and convenience of the House. He did not undervalue the consideration of the rights of private Members.

asked whether the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could give any information as to the reported resignation of M. de Freycinet?

I believe the report is true that M. de Freycinet has resigned.

Is it untrue that M. de Freycinet has reconsidered his determination to resign?

The only telegram I have received was one which came about 3 o'clock, in which it was repeated that he had resigned. I have not received any official telegram since that time. I have seen various rumours to that effect in the newspapers, but nothing of so positive a character.

wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy a Question, of which he had not been able to give him private Notice. He would be glad to know if, seeing the House was asked to facilitate Scotch Business by having a Saturday Sitting, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy would return the compliment, and not block English Business that did not apply in any way whatever to Scotch affairs?

Sir, I have no intention of blocking any Business whatever in which I have no distinct and immediate concern.

Sir, I do not wish to raise any controversial point; but the Prime Minister has stated that he would be prepared, on the consideration of the clause relating to the appointment of the fourth Commissioner, to state the name of the person so appointed. As this Report relates, among other matters, to the salary of the fourth Commissioner, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can now tell the House who that Commissioner is to be?

In the regular course, unless there be some special reasons, it is better not to enter into the particulars of the clause upon this Report; indeed, that is not usual. It will, however, be competent for the right hon. Gentleman, on the Report of the Bill, to comment at once on the name to be announced, and on the particulars of the clause.

I would, of course, acquiesce at once in the course indicated by the Prime Minister, if it were not for the great surprise with which the announcement that a fourth Commissioner was to be appointed came upon hon. Members. The Bill had been before the House for several weeks, and there was never a whisper of a suggestion that a new Commissioner was to be appointed, until it incidentally dropped out in a remark of the Prime Minister the previous day. I quite think, in these circumstances, that we ought to know the name of this Commissioner, and have at least two or three hours' notice before being called upon to discuss the appointment in connection with the clause. I am informed, rightly or wrongly, that it is an hon. Member of this House, and I do not wish now to say anything for or against the appointment; but unless the Government wish again to take us by surprise, it is absolutely necessary that we should have the name of the gentleman.

I think, after what has been said, that the best way would be, when we come to the clause to-day, to mention the name of the fourth Commissioner, but without asking the House to adopt the name. It would be quite practical to re-commit the Bill to-morrow, before the third reading, for the purpose of dealing with this clause, and that would give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a little more time to consider the question.

If there is to be a second re-committal of the Bill, it will scarcely meet with the concurrence of the House. The Prime Minister will at once realize that it would not be fair to the House or to the person selected that his name should be suddenly sprung upon the House, or that the House should suddenly be called upon to form a judgment upon the appointment.

I must join the Front Opposition Bench in protesting against all this mystery. Why cannot the House of Commons know at 6 o'clock what the Prime Minister admits must be told at 10 or 11? What reason have they for keeping it a secret? Are they ashamed of the gentleman's name? If not, why not tell us now? The matter is of quite as much interest to us, and perhaps of more interest than it is to hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. Strange rumours are about. We are told that it is a person who sits on those Benches. I should like to ask, is the name of the gentleman the name of an hon. Member representing a county in the South-West of Ireland, who generally sits on these Benches? If the Government refuse to allay the laudable curiosity we feel regarding this matter, I think we would be justified in refusing to proceed with this particular Business.

As I have explained, my only reason for wishing to delay mentioning the name is that I thought it would be more convenient to consider the matter in connection with the Bill itself rather than on the Report dealing with salaries. In compliance, however, with what appears to be the desire of the House, I may say that the name of the gentleman who accepts the office of fourth Commissioner is Lord Monck.

said, that as so much of the personal matter had been disposed of, he desired to know something about the emigration proposals of the Government. They were placed in a very unfavourable position. Unless they knew what the Government intended, they would find themselves agreeing to what they really objected to, and should be deprived of two opportunities of impeding the progress of this matter.

said, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in possession of the views of the Government, and would, when moving the clause, explain them fully to the House. Resolution agreed to.