asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Government Veterinary Inspectors in Ireland are on a much inferior footing with regard to pay, privileges, and allowances, to officials on the corresponding English Staff; whether it is a fact that Irish Veterinary Inspectors are liable to dismissal (without reason being assigned) at a week's notice, and without retiring allowance or compensation, even should they become incapacitated from the effects of accident occurring or sickness contracted whilst in the discharge of their duties; whether it is a fact that their monthly pay is issued most irregularly, sometimes ten days after it is due, instead of the first of every month, as is the case with other officials; and, whether, under the circumstances stated, the Government will make such improvements in the pay, pensions, and status of these officers as will assimilate them to their English brethren?

I believe, Sir, that it is the case that Government Veterinary Inspectors in Ireland receive an inferior scale of salaries and allowances to those in England. It is a mistake to suppose that they are liable to dismissal, without reason being assigned, at a week's notice. If the services of any of them should be no longer required, he may be discharged on re- ceiving a week's notice, and is not entitled to a gratuity or superannuation. No case has occurred, so far as I can ascertain, of an Inspector having been dismissed on account of his having become incapacitated from the effects of accident occurring or sickness contracted while in the discharge of duty. With regard to the issue of their monthly pay, I find that it is almost invariably issued within the first week of each month. The salary lists have to pass through three Departments, and some slight irregularity consequently arises. I will see whether this cannot be remedied. The scale of salaries was fixed in 1878. No objection was raised to it at the time, and I do not think it now requires revision.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Richard Garland, a Sub-Commissioner under the Land Law Act, still holds the office of Coroner for the county Armagh; whether, since his appointment as Sub-Commissioner, he has performed any of the duties incident to the coroner's office and received salary for same; whether, in view of the frequent occasions where the services of coroners in Ireland are required, he will call upon Mr. Garland to elect which office he will continue to hold, and require him to resign the other?

Sir, Mr. Garland does, I find, still hold the office of Coroner for the County Armagh. Since his appointment as a Sub-Commissioner, he has not acted as Coroner. He has received part of the salary duo for the half-year, and has paid one of the other Coroners of the county for doing the duty. The Land Commissioners were under the impression that he had resigned the Coroner ship. He will now be called on to resign either one appointment or the other.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether men serving in the Auxiliary Force of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and belonging to the First Class Army Re- serve, will, in the event of the Reserves being called out, forfeit their situations in the former Service?

No, Sir; the Reserve men in the Irish Constabulary will not be called out.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any complaints have been made to the Inspectors of Fisheries as to obstructions to the public rights of fishing in that portion of the River Shannon which runs through the county of Clare, by stakes and poles driven into the shores, which imperil the lives of the fishermen and cause injury to their boats and nets; and, whether he will direct the necessary steps to be taken to have such obstructions removed and prevented in future?

Complaints have been made on the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, and the matter is now in the hands of the Crown and Treasury Solicitor, who will lay a case on the subject before the Law Officers?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a report of the case of Fyffe v. Beatty, in the "Irish Law Times" of 15th instant, where the county court judge of the county Fermanagh applied to the Land Commissioners to pay a valuer appointed by him to assist him, but was informed that they had no power to do so, and that the expense must be borne by the litigants; whether it is the case, as reported, that he then remonstrated with the Commissioners on this decision, and requested to be provided with a competent valuer, as was done in the cases of sub-commissions and other county courts, but was informed that all their valuers were engaged; whether this was the result of the joint action of all the Commissioners, or the act of Mr. Commissioner Litton alone; and, whether the county court judge strongly animadverted on the position in which he was left, and the injustice to litigants?

Sir, I have seen the report referred to in the Question of the hon. Member, and am informed that it is correct. The Land Commissioners have no power to pay a valuer appointed by a County Court Judge. The case of a County Court Judge requiring the services of an independent valuer is provided for by the 37th section of the Land Act. Under that section the costs must be paid by one of the parties or by both conjointly. The Land Commissioners have been most anxious to assist the County Court Judges, and relieve them from the necessity of employing valuers, and whenever the services of a Court valuer has been available they have been placed at the disposal of the Judges; but for some time back they have not found it possible to spare any of their valuers, as the services of all have been imperatively required in the appeal cases. The Land Commission acted in this matter on the general instructions of all the Commissioners. I see from the number of The Law Times referred to by the hon. Member, that the County Court Judge is reported to have made certain animadversions, which, however, appeared to be directed against the law rather than against the Land Commission.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true, as recently stated in several newspapers, that a Ministry has recently been appointed in Bulgaria, of which the President and the Home Secretary are both Russian Generals, quite recently introduced into the country; if it is true that M. Zancoff, the head of the late Liberal Ministry, is still in prison, and has only been given the option of taking up his abode in Russia, which he has refused to do; and, if it is the intention of the Government to intercede on behalf of M. Zancoff?

Sir, we have no positive intelligence of the formation of a new Ministry; but the British acting agent has reported that it was in contemplation to appoint General Sovoleff to the posts of President of the Council of Ministers and Minister of the Interior. He is a Russian general officer. General Kaulbars has also arrived at Sofia, and is to be Minister of War. M. Zancoff is still interned at Wratza. We have no confirmation of the report that he has been given the option of taking up his abode in Russia. Her Majesty's; Government are not prepared to make any isolated representations on behalf of M. Zancoff, as they consider that if any such stop is adopted it should be taken in concert with the other Powers who are parties to the Treaty of Berlin.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that, when a hut was about being erected by the Ladies' Land League for an evicted tenant, James Stephens, of Derrylea, near Monasterevan, county Kildare, Mr. Sub-Inspector Purden stated to the persons who were engaged in the work that he would not permit them to erect the hut; and, if they persisted in doing so, he would have it pulled down again; and that he would not permit it to be erected within three miles of that place; if it is a fact that the constable of the district stated that—

"If a penny of the; Ladies' Land League Fund were expended on a house for this man, Stephens, there would be a decided objection to it;"

In this case, Sir, the Constabulary, acting under the directions of the Resident Magistrate, prevented the erection of the hut referred to pending the receipt of the Lord Lieutenant's decision. The facts of the case were duly brought before the Lord Lieutenant; and, as it is alleged that the hut was about to be erected for purposes of intimidation for an evicted tenant on property of his landlady and against her wish, the Lord Lieutenant has directed the Sessional Crown Solicitor to proceed to the scene and investigate the matter and report the result. The Sub-Inspector and constable both deny having used the language attributed to them by the Question.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is proposed to bring in a Supplementary Estimate on account of the cost of the change recently made with regard to the salaries of post messengers; and, if so, when?

I believe, Sir, it will be necessary to bring in a Supplementary Estimate.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has made inquiry into the circumstances under which a charge against a man named Daniel Courtnay, at the last Coolmagort Petty Sessions, in Kerry, of presenting a loaded revolver at several persons, was summarily dismissed by the only justice present, The M'Gillicuddy; whether the charge was substantiated by several witnesses, whose evidence was in no way questioned; whether the justice in question was also the landlord of the accused; and, whether he proposes to make any representation to the Lord Chancellor on the subject?

Sir, no representation on the subject referred to in the Question of the hon. Member has been made to the Government. Any charge of misconduct against a Justice of the Peace ought to be addressed to the Lord Chancellor, who alone has jurisdiction to deal with it; and there are no facts before the Government to cause them to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the result of his inquiries respecting the composition of the bench of magistrates at Listowel, on Monday the 10th instant, before which Mr. Harrington and others were brought?

The further inquiries I have made into the the matter referred to in the Question of the hon. Member have satisfied me as to the necessity for the presence of two Resident Magistrates on the occasion. The case was an important one, and it was thought necessary that there should be a strong Bench. The local Resident Magistrate, being required as a witness, could not preside.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the time has not arrived for recommending to the Crown to exercise the Royal Prerogative, in order to release from prison the Rev. S. F. Green, who has now been imprisoned for more than sixteen months?

Sir, in reference to this Question, I have to say that the Prerogative of pardon is exercised in respect of past offences, and the sentence is commuted where there is reason for doing so. But in the case of a committal for contempt of Court the thing is totally different. It is not a past, but a continuing offence. The committal is in order to enforce the authority of the Court. If, then, the Crown were to discharge a prisoner who had not purged his contempt, the Crown would set aside the authority of the Court. As far as I know, within the Constitutional period no such pardon has been granted, because the prisoner himself is still in open and continuing defiance of the authority of the Court and of the law. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Green should be delivered from prison; but, as a right rev. Prelate very properly observed, his prison door is locked on the inside. He can open the door whenever he chooses to declare his desire to conform to the law, and I know nothing is more difficult than to get a man out of prison who insists upon keeping the key turned on the inside.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, If he can now state to the House the number of theatres and other places of public entertainment which have been reported upon as to the existing means of escape in case of fire; and, if he can further state what steps he proposes to take to enforce the necessary structural changes during the autumn, when such changes can be carried out with the least loss to the proprietors or lessees?

Sir, the number of places of public enter- tainment actually reported on, and with regard to which the Board have been able to take action, is 11 theatres and four music halls; but I am happy to say that the Reports of Captain Shaw on the whole of the remaining theatres in the Metropolis are on the point of completion, and will, I believe, be presented this week. With regard to enforcing the necessary structural changes during the autumn, I can only say that everything will be done to press matters forward; but much depends on the prompt compliance of owners with the Board's requirements, and on their carrying out the alterations without having recourse to arbitration as provided for in the Act of 1878.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is contemplated to do anything to increase the pay and position of the Sick Berth Staff of the Royal Navy?

Sir, all I am able to say is that the matter referred to by the hon. Member is under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether a demand has been made on established men in Her Majesty's Dockyards for payment of an Inland Revenue stamp, such payment not having been demanded when they received their appointments, and what is the reason of such a demand?

The payments referred to by the hon. Member are required by the Civil Service Commissioners in pursuance of an Order in Council of March, 1879, which authorizes them to claim certain fees from all candidates who receive from them the necessary certificate of qualification. These fees are exigible in the Dockyards from all men appointed or promoted after June 1, 1881. The stamp referred to is merely the form in which, for convenience, the fee is collected.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, By whose authority and advice there has been, for the first time, inserted in the Commission of Gaol Delivery for the Summer Assize the following proviso:—

"That, whenever any prisoner in our said gaol shall have been committed for trial at any sessions of the peace within the said county, you shall not deliver the said gaol of such prisoner, but shall order such prisoner to the gaol to take his trial at the quarter sessions to which he is committed;"

This Proviso has always been in the Commission of Gaol Delivery of the Winter Assize. It has been till recently omitted from the Commissions of the other Assizes; but about a year ago there occurred this scandal and inconvenience—that a number of prisoners had been committed for trial at the Sessions; and when the Assizes came on, and there was a gaol delivery, the persons prosecuting being only bound over for the Sessions did not appear, and seven out of 12 prisoners were discharged without any trial at all. Therefore, it was thought better to make the Commission the same both for the Winter and the Summer Assizes. All that should have been done in this case was that the magistrate who committed the prisoner after the Quarter Session, and before the Assizes, should have committed them to the Assizes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will fix next Saturday for the Second Reading of the Police Superannuation Bill?

I am as anxious, Sir, as the hon. and gallant Member can be to promote the progress of this Bill; but I think the House has not yet sufficiently recovered from the Sitting of Saturday last to contemplate another, which might lead to the superannuation of the House itself.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the Report of the Royal Commission on Agriculture, which was published in the "Times" of Saturday, will be distributed to Members of this House?

said, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had assured the House that Reports should not be given to any newspaper before they were distributed to Members. He wished to know whether they might receive the same assurance from the Home Secretary as to the future?

wished to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he himself had received the Report referred to in the Question?

Sir, the proper course in reference to the Report on Royal Commissions is that they should, in the first instance, be forwarded to Her Majesty, and after a Report has been forwarded to Her Majesty it is presented to this House. The Report in question was received at the Home Office to-day from the Commission, dated the 24th of July. I immediately forwarded it to Her Majesty, and it will be presented to the House this afternoon. I am unable to say how the Report in question was communicated to the newspapers; it was not done by my authority or with my sanction.

asked whether the Report published in The Times was correct?

I have not read either the official Report or the newspaper account of it, so that I am unable to say.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that attempts are being made to induce the Trustees of the Parochial Charities of the City of London to make grants from the charity funds held by them to defray the expenses of a Private Bill brought in in opposition to a Public Bill which has been approved by a Select Committee of this House; whether he is aware that the Charity Commissioners have already expressed their disapproval of such an application of charitable funds; and whether he will be prepared, if any trustees should be certified to him by the Charity Commissioners as having committed a breach of trust by so applying charitable funds, without any statutable authority for doing so, to proceed against such trustees by filing an information in the usual way?

, in reply, said, he had no official knowledge of the circumstances, and he did not know what steps the Charity Commissioners would take in the matter. He could not pledge himself to the adoption of any particular course, but he would receive with careful attention any recommendations made to him. He might, however, mention that Lord Eldon had given a decision to the effect that such payments as those referred to in the Question ought not to be made out of charitable funds.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will be so good as to direct the release of Mr. William Eiliff, who was arrested on the 24th of April, and is now detained as a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, the district from which he was taken being perfectly quiet, and other persons from the same neighbourhood who were arrested at the same time having been released some weeks ago?

William Eiliff is detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act on reasonable suspicion of shooting at with intent to murder. His case comes on for reconsideration to-day.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Vine, photographer, of Athenry, County Gal-way, 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;"

John Vine was found under very suspicious circumstances after midnight in the public streets of Loughrea. He was a stranger, and refused to give his name or any account of himself, and was arrested under the ordinary powers of a peace officer under suspicion of being about to commit a felony. He is at present in custody on remand, pending inquiries which are being made regarding him. There is no foundation for the newspaper statement quoted in the Question. The Sub-Inspector of Constabulary stationed in Loughrea informs me that the markets are as large as they usually are at this time of the year, and no stranger has been arrested there except Vine. Consequently, no such instructions as those alluded to in the final paragraph of the Question are called for.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what conditions Mr. Francis Gentleman, of Ballybunnion, was released from Kilkenny Prison?

There were no conditions imposed on Francis Gentleman on his release. He was released with a warning, on the ground of his health failing.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Has any final decision yet been arrived at on the recommendations made to im- prove the pay and position of the Officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

A Bill dealing with this matter is at present in the draftsman's hands, and I hope to be able to introduce it in a few days.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that two policemen regularly attend the meetings of the Ladies' Land League of Castlecomer, in the county of Kilkenny, contrary to the wishes of the members of the same; and, whether he will take steps to have such action on behalf of the Constabulary discontinued for the future?

I am aware, Sir, that these meetings have been attended by members of the Constabulary, and I consider this supervision is still necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Times" of the 20th instant, that a van on the Water-ford and Limerick Railway, containing a large number of rifles and a quantity of ammunition, was broken into at Waterford, and the rifles as well as ammunition carried off; whether any of the stolen property has been recovered; and, whether it is true that the van was left without a military guard?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman will be glad to hear that there is no truth in the report to which he refers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is true that it is not intended to observe the provision of the Queen's Regulations, by which, when a brigade of Guards is ordered on active service, the brigade shall be commanded by a Guards' General?

Yes, Sir; Major General the Duke of Connaught will command the Guards' Brigade. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to quote the paragraph in the Queen's Regulations to which he refers? At the risk of being considered hypercritical, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no paragraph in the Queen's Regulations on the subject. The Guards' rules are different from the Queen's Regulations.

gave Notice that on the Vote he would call attention to the Regulation which had been violated, and in particular to the manner in which three distinguished general officers with from 32 to 34 years' service had been passed over. He would also ask whether these three were not men all of whom had been promoted for distinguished service in the field, and what were the influences to which the Government yielded in committing this act of favouritism?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that last week upwards of 350, No. 12 gauge, double-barrel fowling pieces were purchased at Birmingham through Major King-Harman, R.A., Assistant Superintendent for Small Arms Factory, from Messrs. Webley and Son, Robert Hughes, Charles Pryce, and others; and, whether he has any information as to the purpose and destination for which those guns are intended?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I know nothing of the details of the purchase, but that I have authorized a certain number of double-barrelled guns to be bought for use by the soldiers employed on personal protection duty, in preference to the single-barrelled rifle they now use.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has heard that Major King-Harman purchased these 350 guns, and if their destination is intended for the Orangemen?

No, Sir; I cannot state the destination of any guns purchased except for the Public Service. I know nothing of this particular circumstance. I could not know except it was for the Public Service.

Might I ask if Major King-Harman is entitled to use his position as Superintendent of the Small Arms Factory to buy guns for private persons?

The hon. Gentleman must give me Notice of the Question. Speaking at the moment, I should say that the usual duty of a public officer is to act only in the Public Service.

I shall give Notice of that Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the correspondent of the "Times" at Alexandria, that "perfectly respectable inhabitants have lodged complaints that they have been robbed and their houses pillaged by English soldiers;" and, whether he will take measures to secure the prompt punishment of soldiers guilty of acts of violence or pillage?

The hon. Member does not state in what issue of The Times the assertion which he quotes was made, so I have not verified it; but Sir Beau-champ Seymour and Sir Archibald Alison have ample powers to repress and punish acts of violence and pillage.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is now able to state to what extent the Government are prepared to carry out the recommendations of the Departmental Committee with regard to higher education in Wales?

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether any decision has been come to relative to the measures to be adopted for the promotion of Higher and Intermediate Education in Wales.

In reply, Sir, to the Questions of my hon. Friend and of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire, which are similar, I beg leave to remind the House that the recommendations of the Departmental Commission related to—first, higher grade board schools; secondly, grammar schools; thirdly, Colleges. I am now in a position to state that a Circular will shortly be issued by the Education Department to the school boards of Wales, explaining the facilities which we are prepared to give for the establishment of these higher elementary schools. The establishment of grammar schools will require legislation. As regards Colleges, I may say that a sum of £2,000, being the first half-yearly payment of £4,000, will be placed on the Estimates for the Aberystwith College this Session, and a sum of £4,000 a-year next year for each of two Colleges, one in North and the other in South Wales. This grant will not be continued beyond the 31st of March, 1884, unless by that time satisfactory progress has been made towards their establishment, and a scheme approved for their management and maintenance. Legislation for the establishment of grammar schools must stand over till next year. Thus two of the three recommendations of the Commission will at once come into practical operation, if the liberality of the Government meets with an adequate response from the inhabitants of the Principality.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the new scheme of the Charity Commissioners as to Christ's Hospital is matured; and, when the same may be expected to be laid upon the Table; and what is the cause of the delay?

Sir, the Charity Commissioners have furnished me with the following statement in reply to the inquiry of the hon. Member for Chelsea:—

"After the publication of their draft scheme for Christ's Hospital, the Commissioners received from the governors of the hospital certain objections on points of great importance and difficulty, with which it was found to be impossible to deal without minute inquiry into the account books and other records of the hospital from the latter part of the 16th century down to the present day. This inquiry was undertaken by Mr. Fearon, and, together with the writing of his report thereon, occupied him during the greater part of the months of November and December, 1881, and January, February, March, April, and May, 1882. His report, covering upwards of 100 pages of printed folio, has been in the hands of the Commissioners for about a fortnight, and will require very careful attention. In these circumstances, it is impossible to say how soon the Commissioners will be in a position to submit a scheme to the department."

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and, if so, what, sum has been authorized by the Government to be expended out of Imperial Funds, by the proper authorities in the Islands of Cyprus and Malta in aid of the refugees from Egypt; and, whether, up to this date any expenditure has been incurred by such authorities from sources other than those of private charity?

Sir, as to Cyprus, our information is that the Cyprus Government has spent some very insignificant amounts in aiding the refugees, and that the great bulk of the refugees there are not destitute. As to Malta, the Government there is drawing out of the Island Exchequer considerable sums, and the Colonial Office is at this moment in communication with the Treasury as to what assistance should be given from Imperial Funds.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What are the grounds for his statement that—

"The outrages which had taken place on Jews in Roumania and in Russia, and the burning of their houses, were the reaction of a poor and necessitous population against the gombeen men;"

Sir, I know not from whence the hon. Member has drawn the words which he puts in inverted commas. I do not think he heard me, or he could not possibly have put these words into my mouth, and I am by no means prepared to adopt them. The fact is this, I was not making charges against the Jews or anybody else engaged in money-lending. I was apologizing for the "gombeen" men, as they are called. I was pointing out that these money-lenders, though they may have in this case used their power unmercifully, are probably discharging a necessary function, and that their unpopularity does not prove that they were mischievous persons. I made no charge against the Jews.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of the reports of terrible massacres of Europeans throughout Egypt, made to the Khedive by Omar Soufti Pasha, and affirmed by the correspondents of all the English papers in Alexandria, and of the "critical position of 12,000 Europeans," described by the "Daily News"—

"At Port Said, many of them women and children, now at the mercy of Egyptian soldiers and fanatical Arabs;"

"After providing for the safety of the town and palace, we have now five thousand men available for operations in the field, and two more regiments are expected to arrive here to-night. Were it not for orders from home this force would be able to put an end to the Egyptian difficulty in twenty-four hours,"

It is believed that Europeans have been massacred in the interior of Egypt. The European population of Port Said are, I understand from the Admiralty telegrams, by no means at the mercy of the Egyptian troops and the Arabs, but can be perfectly protected by the English and French forces at Port Said. The remainder of the Question of the hon. Member comes within the terms of the statement made by the Prime Minister on Thursday last.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will state the correct figures of the special war charges mentioned by him in the Budget speech as having fallen upon the years 1880–81, 1881–2, and 1882–3, respectively?

said, he might explain that some confusion had arisen from the fact that, owing to some accident, the speech in question had not been sent to his office for revision. The correct figures were—For 1880–81, £2,347,000; for 1881–2, £3,842,000; and for 1882–3, £1,570,000.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Papers from Lord Dufferin as to the sole action of the several European Powers pending the deliberations of the Conference?

Sir, a proposal made by the Italian Ambassador at the third meeting of the Conference on the 27th of June, that it should be understood that, while the Conference lasted, the Powers would abstain from any isolated enterprize in Egypt, was accepted under the reserve of force majeure, such as the necessity of protecting the lives of their countrymen (nationaux). At the next meeting, on the 30th of June, Lord Dufferin declared in distinct terms that Her Majesty's Government would consider any attack upon the Canal or any sudden change or catastrophe which menaced our special interests as comprehended under the term of force majeure embodied in the reserve appended to Count Corti's proposition. No comments were made in the Conference upon this declaration.

asked Mr. Attorney General, With what object it is proposed by Clause 7 of "The Supreme Court of Judicature Amendment Bill, 1882," to extend the operation of the Winter Assize Act of 1876 to the month of February, seeing that the special assizes held by virtue of that Act now take place in the months of October and November; and, whether that proposed extension aims at the application of the grouping system to the ordinary civil and criminal assizes now held in January and February, notwithstanding the provision in the Spring Assize Act of 1879, that separate assizes in and for each county shall still be held twice a year?

said, if Parliament gave its sanction to Clause 7 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, he thought there would be power to group Assizes for both civil and criminal business, and he thought such grouping would not necessarily interfere with the provisions of the Assize Act of 1879.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If the Government have received the plans and estimate of cost of a naval harbour at Famagusta prepared by the engineer of the Cyprus authorities; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay the same upon the Table of the House?

These Papers have been received, and will be laid on the Table of the House very shortly.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice. There was a despatch from Sir Beauchamp Seymour which appeared twice—namely, in the recently published Foreign Office Papers, and in the Report of Sir Beauchamp Seymour, which was laid on the Table on Saturday by the Admiralty. As these sets of Papers were to some extent discrepant, an omission occurring in one of them, while the other was apparently complete, he wished to know which of them was correct; and whether the omission had been made intentionally?

, in reply, said, that the Papers in question had been prepared in extreme haste by the Admiralty and the Foreign Office together. It bad been thought advisable to omit certain references to the subjects of a foreign Power, but these had not contained matter of any importance.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether his attention has been called to the testimony of Sir Beauchamp Seymour and other British officers that the disturbances at Alexandria on the 11th of June had no political significance, but are only the consequences of a riot between Greeks and Arabs; whether those authorities have not praised the steady behaviour of the Egyptian troops and the good faith of the Government of Alexandria in dealing with the rioters; and whether the Government will take any steps to contradict the unfounded accusations of massacre that have been brought against the Egyptian National party?

We have no information as to the latter part of this Question. With regard to the first part of the Question, referring to the statement of Sir Beauchamp Seymour in the despatch written hurriedly on the next day after the riot that it had no political significance, I have to tell the hon. Member that later information, in the possession of the Government, entirely contradicts that opinion. Sir Beauchamp Seymour was imperfectly informed as to the state of affairs when he sent that despatch.

asked whether the troops had not assisted to put an end to the riot?

Four hours' delay occurred before the troops, who were in very large force, took any steps to suppress the riot. As soon as they appeared on the streets, the actual attack on Europeans entirely ceased; but looting continued.

asked whether, on the day of the riot or the following day, there was not a meeting at Alexandria of the British authorities and others, in which they expressly recognized the fidelity with which the Governor had kept his undertaking to protect the lives of Europeans till the time the troops entered the town?

The conduct of the Governor was approved; but the Sub-Prefect of Alexandria was one of those most gravely compromised.

said, he could fully understand the anxiety with which the House awaited the next exposition of the Liberal Estimates of a War Expenditure. The experience of the House went to show that Liberal Expenditure bounded up at the rate of £1,000,000 every two hours, and, therefore, the House was necessarily anxious to know what might be the wants of the Government at this hour. He was quite sure, if the full truth were known, that the typical £6,000,000 had been already exceeded. He rose for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the Prime Minister—that he could not draw any distinction in favour of the appeal of his hon. Friend the Member for the County of Waterford (Mr. Blake). He thought there was a strong reason for drawing a distinction between his appeal and that of others. The Secretary of State for India had given Notice that he would to-morrow move to burthen the revenues of the unrepresented people of India with large sums towards the expenditure of the war which now seemed the necessary consequence of the piratical bombardment of Alexandria. [Cries of "Oh!"] Surely that ought not to be done without some opportunity being given for examining into the grievances from which the people of India suffered. There was a special reason why the grievances of the people of India should not go unattended to—because it was seething with discontent at this moment. Everyone knew that in the mosques prayers were being offered up to Allah for the success of the enemies of England. During the last 10 years the Mohammedan population of India had increased from 40,000,000 to 45,000,000.

The hon. Member is not confining himself to the Motion before the House. I must call upon him to confine himself to the Question which is now before the House.

said, he would readily accept the ruling of the Chair. He was bringing forward an argument why the House should redress the grievances of the people of India—[Cries of "Question !"]—and why they should not accede to the Prime Minister's Motion. To his mind nothing could be more appropriate to the Question. He asked that the House should take into its own hands the consideration of Indian subjects. ["Order!"] The complaint he had raised was not only made by an Irish Member, but one of the most important, most liberal, and most thoroughly English of the newspapers of India declared—[Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]—

The hon. Member is now anticipating the discussion of a Motion of which Notice has actually been given by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. The hon. Member must confine himself strictly to the Question before the House.

said, he had not the slightest intention of anticipating that discussion. He presumed that the interruptions of hon. Gentlemen had prevented the Speaker from hearing the words he used. He confessed it was singularly embarrassing to a Member of that House to find that not only what he was stating should be objected to, but what he was about to say should be predicted for him by the presiding Authority and then decided upon—[Loud cries of "Order!" "Name!"].

was about to speak, when Mr. GLADSTONE rose.

said, he understood the Speaker had called upon him.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman rises to a point of Order.

I rise to Order—to take notice of the closing words of the hon. Gentleman.

I rise to a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. [Cries of "Order!"]

The words appear to me to be totally destructive of all authority. I move that those words be taken down. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and had condemned those words. ["No, no!"] I move, Sir, that those words be taken down.

Before you put the Question, Sir—["Order!"]—I rise to Order—

It appears to me to be the general sense of the House that the words adverted to be taken down, and I have directed the Clerk at the Table to take them down.

I wish to know whether it is competent for the right hon. Gentleman to make that Motion after some interval of time has elapsed between the observation being made? You, Sir, after an interval of time, called upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), and he had already begun to address the House. [Cries of "No, no!"]

I wish to raise a point of Order. It has been decided in Committee that if a Member of the House—even the Prime Minister—rises to a point of Order while a Member is speaking, and after the Member to whose words the point of Order refers has concluded his speech, he cannot be heard. That has been decided by the Chairman of Committees. The Prime Minister did not rise until after the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had finished his speech—the right hon. Gentleman waited until he had consulted with the bellicose Home Secretary. [Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]

I am bound to say that I did not catch the concluding words of the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). When he sat down the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) rose, and then immediately the right hon. Gentleman rose. I concluded that the right hon. Gentleman desired to address the House on a point of Order; and thereupon I called upon the right hon. Gentleman. The proceedings are perfectly regular.

I beg leave, Sir, to rise to another point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]

The words as taken down are as follows:—

"The Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them." ["No, no!"]

I wish to move, Sir—if this is the regular course—that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow.

The Question is, "That those words be taken into consideration to-morrow."

I wish to ask you, Sir, as a matter of Order, whether the words to be taken down are to be the exact words used by the hon. Member, and not the interpretation put upon those words by the Prime Minister or any other Member of the House? The words attributed to my hon. Friend by the Prime Minister appear to me to be a distortion of the actual words used, and to have no resemblance to the words of my hon. Friend. That being so, I ask you, Sir, to decide whether this Motion which has been made by the Prime Minister, is a Motion that can be submitted to the judgment of this House? [Cries of "Order!"] I respectfully ask you this question, Sir, whether the words which are said to have been used by an hon. Member, and which, on the Motion of the Prime Minister, were taken down, must be the exact words used by the hon. Member? If that be so, as the words quoted by the Prime Minister are not the words used by my hon. Friend, I wish to ask you whether the Motion can be put from the Chair?

It is for the House to say whether those are the exact words or not.

I know they were not.

rising together—

I think the House will agree with me—

I call upon the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy).

Sir, I observed that when the Prime Minister made his Motion there was a departure from the usual practice, which has hitherto been that the Question should be put, "That the words be taken down." The Prime Minister has simply moved that the words be taken down, and the Question was not put to the House in the usual way. This appears to me an extraordinary state of things. Does it arise out of the New Rules which we shall be discussing, I presume, at the Autumn Session? If a Motion is made that certain words be taken down, is that to be carried into effect without more ado, and without the House saying "Aye" or "Nay" on the Question being put from the Chair? Does the Prime Minister incorporate in himself the functions of the Chair? Can the Prime Minister arrogate to himself duties which do not belong to him?

I wish to put the hon. Member right on that point. When a Motion is made that words be taken down, it rests with the Chair to collect the sense of the House whether the words should be taken down. I so collected the sense of the House, and had the words taken down. This proceeding is quite according to the usual practice, and there has been no departure from the usual course.

I rise to Order.

I suppose it is no departure from the usual course that a man may be allowed to continue his speech. I wish to ask you, Sir, then, by what process that collection takes place? ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that the presiding Officer of this House is outside the range of argument. I do not think so. I presume it is open to an hon. Member to question the Speaker and to argue with him. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite state their opinion. I state mine. When a Motion was made to take down some words of my own this week, the Question was put from the Chair, "Is it your pleasure?" and a shout of "Ayes" and "Noes" took place. Well, such an unholy din was being made in the House at the time when my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) concluded his speech that I am utterly at a loss to know—no Question having been put, and it being possible to interpret the various noises heard by hon. Members in any way you please—in what way the sense of the House could be arrived at. Upon the Question that the words of the hon. Member for Dungarvan be considered to-morrow, I wish to know whether the Main Question before the House is not that all future Business shall be postponed till the end of August? How, then, can a Motion be interpolated that words used by an hon. Member shall be considered to-morrow? I wish to know whether any hon. Member can move that the Prime Minister's words be taken down, and then interrupt the proceedings of the House by moving that those words should be considered to-morrow? There ought to be such a thing as regularity, even in the present extraordinary proceedings. The Prime Minister has stated what the words used by my hon. Friend were—

I did not state the exact words. I gave the best account of them I could.

The right hon. Gentleman says he gave the best account of the words he could; but I am bound to say it was a very bad account. We had the garbled account of the Prime Minister—["Order, order!" "Withdraw!"] I suppose that by-and-bye it will not be allowable to say a word about the Prime Minister. I presume he will become as sacred as Vishnu. I did not use the word "garbled" in a sinister sense; but certainly the words the right hon. Gentleman used were "garbled." Then the Clerk at the Table was directed to take down words which had not reached the Speaker's ears, and which, owing to the din which prevailed, he (the Clerk) could not have heard—

The hon. Member is not entitled to make such observations, and I call upon him to withdraw those words.

I withdraw the expression, Sir, that the Clerk at the Table did not hear the words. I presume you must have some knowledge of the fact that he did hear the words. At all events, the words read out from the Table gave me the impression that he could not have heard them—because they were not the words I heard. We have, therefore, got into nice questions in what I may call auricular science. We hear hon. Gentlemen sitting next the hon. Member for Dungarvan giving one account of the words he used, the Clerk at the Table giving another, and the Prime Minister stating that he gave them to the best of his ability. I would suggest that a telephone or phonograph should be used in this House. Well, the Question is, that these words be taken into consideration to-morrow, and I am disputing the advisability of so taking them into consideration, and am showing that the Prime Minister, who is only half the distance from my hon. Friend that the Clerk at the Table is, did not hear the words with sufficient accuracy to give an exact account of them; whilst hon. Members are prepared to give it as their emphatic knowledge that the words taken down are not the words used. As far as I am able to judge, the words of my hon. Friend certainly do not merit the importance which the Prime Minister has attached to them; and instead of being taken into consideration to-morrow, it appears to me very desirable that the question should be postponed until the Autumn Session—["Oh, oh!"]—well, that is my opinion—and I think we shall then be more likely to have the opportunity of taking them into consideration than we shall to-morrow. If it does come on to-morrow it will interrupt the course of Business, and the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) will not have the opportunity of making his important statement, to which hon. Members are looking forward with some impatience. My objections, then, are these—first, the difficulty of hearing the words in question; secondly, their relative unimportance; and, thirdly, the interruption to Business which is likely to follow. The words imputed nothing derogatory in any sense to the Chair—they imputed to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, and in old times such a spirit was considered a qualification of exceeding excellence. It appears, however, from the statement of the Prime Minister, that if, in addition to the ordinary qualifications, hon. Members attribute to the Chair the spirit of prophecy, that is to be considered an imputation on the Chair. ["Oh, oh!"] My opinion is that it is not derogatory to the high conscientiousness of the Chair—

I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for Wexford, under the pretence of defending—[Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"]—the hon. Member for Dungarvan, is not absolutely repeating in substance the imputation on the Chair?

I rise to move that the words of the hon. Member for Oldham be taken down. [Cries of "Name, Name!"]

I must ask the hon. Member for Wexford to confine himself to the Question before the House.

I submit that the hon. Member for Oldham imputes to me a pretence. I altogether disclaim that. If, however, it be the general sense of the House that the hon. Member is not out of Order, I will proceed. I fail to understand the interpretation of the hon. Member for Oldham, who always distinguishes himself in this House by calling out "Question!" and "Order!" [Cries of "Question!" and "Name, name!"]

I must caution the hon. Member—for the forbearance of this House has its limits—and I must distinctly call upon the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Question before the House.

That is exactly what I will do, Sir. As I understand the Question before the House, it is that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be taken into consideration to-morrow; and that being so, I am stating that the words are not of sufficient importance either to be taken into consideration to-morrow or at any other time. In my view, the words of the hon. Member did not impute to the Chair the slightest disrespect—["Oh, oh!"]—and I add, further, that you, Sir, were unable, owing to the interruptions which occurred—["No, no!"]—to follow my hon. Friend in his argument. This House has many more important things to consider besides the words of my hon. Friend, whose remarks in this case have not the importance gone-rally attached to them. It is to be deprecated that the Prime Minister should constantly be in the habit of bringing in these small matters, and of interrupting the proceedings of the House by diverting its attention to personal issues. It is not the first time that the right hon. Gentleman has done so, and I think it too much to ask 500 or 600 Gentlemen to come down here to take into consideration, not the words of an hon. Member, but an erroneous account of some chance words used in debate, and in the heat of the moment.

said, he rose to express a hope, which he believed was shared by the great body of the House, that some means might be found of terminating a scene which was hardly creditable to that Assembly. They were assembled for the purpose of transacting very important Business. Not only the House, but the country, was expecting most important statements; and yet they had been, for he was afraid to say how long, engaged in a wrangle of a character which could not but lower the House in the eyes of the country, and, he might almost say, in the eyes of the civilized world. He understood the position of the ease to be this. The hon. Member for Dungarvan made use of some words which were objected to as reflecting on the conduct of the Chair. The Prime Minister moved that these words should be taken down, and they were taken down. [Cries of "No!"] At all events, some words were taken down, the precise accuracy of which was disputed by hon. Members who sat in that part of the House—and he was bound to say that he did not hear the words precisely as they were taken down, although the expression was to the same effect. A Motion was then made by the Prime Minister that the words should be considered to-morrow. This was a wise provision, which the House had always observed, in order to avoid as far as possible the heat of the moment; and it would be perfectly competent for the hon. Member for Dungarvan to explain or to qualify the words when the question of their consideration came on. But no good could result from the course now being pursued. They were now creating difficulties for themselves, that could only end in some unpleasant result; and he would earnestly request hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to divide, if they liked, against the Question of the words being taken into consideration—that was their affair—but, at all events, he hoped the House would be allowed to go on with the important Business before it.

said, he desired to make a suggestion in consequence of what the right hon. Gentleman had said. The defence of the Member for Dungarvan, as far as he understood it, was that the words were not intentionally insulting to the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman were to get up and say that he did not intend to insult the Chair, probably the Prime Minister would not press his Motion.

wished, on a point of Order, to ask whether the words which had been taken down might not be again read from the Chair? There was considerable interruption at the time, and he could not hear all the words which were read by the Clerk at the Table; but that part which he did hear certainly did not tally with the words actually used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Nobody could be more anxious than he himself was to support the authority of the Chair; but he feared that in the noise and confusion which prevailed some injustice might have been done, and he hoped the words might be read again by the Clerk at the Table. Then, perhaps, the suggestion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle might be adopted.

said, the practice in these matters was laid down in Hatsell's Precedents, a book of great authority. An incident very like the present one was therein recorded. On a particular occasion Sir George Hungerford made use of certain words, and a cry was raised of "Write them down," several Members repeating the words, and all differently. Afterwards a Member asked the Clerk to read the words he had written down, and Sir George Hungerford then made some apology. He ventured to say that that was a very good precedent for the present case. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) said that the words used by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) were not intended to be insulting to the Chair. The impression of the great body of the House was that they were intended as an insult to the Chair. They understood that the hon. Member for Dungarvan, after having been called to Order by the Chair, and directed to address himself more closely to the Question, instead of doing what any other Member of the House would be disposed to do and bowing to the ruling of the Chair, proceeded to attack that ruling, and to state that the Speaker had not only condemned that which he (Mr. O'Donnell) had said, but had predicted what he was going to say, and having so predicted had condemned it. ["No, no!"] Whether those were the exact words, that was the substance of what the House under stood the hon. Member for Dungarvan to say. It was quite true, as the hon. Member for Wexford had remarked, that the House had very important and most momentous Business before it, which it could not transact. They could not transact important Business if Members were to be permitted to insult the Chair. The very first condition for the transaction of Public Business was that there should be regularity, and that the authority of the Chair should be supported. Either the hon. Member for Dungarvan had intended to challenge the authority of the Chair—in which case it was plain that the House must support the Chair; or he did not intend to do so:—and if he got up and said that it was not his intention to do so, the House would be very willing to accept such explanation and apology.

As I have been asked by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to read the words I will do so; they are to this effect:—"That the Chair had made a prediction of the words he was about to speak, and then decided upon them."

asked whether it would not be proper that the hon. Member for Dungarvan should be called upon to declare whether the words as taken down by the Clerk were accurately reported to the House?

said, he was sitting immediately opposite to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, and paid great attention to his speech, and immediately after the utterance of the words in question wrote them down as follows:—

"It was very embarrassing to a Member when, not only were his words prevented reaching the Chair, but they were predicted for him before they were uttered by the presiding Authority."

(who rose after repeated calls from the Ministerial Benches): Sir, as I have not been asked by the presiding Authority, since these charges were made against me, as to my version of the words I used, I wish only to say at the present moment that in anything I did say I had not the slightest intention of any insult against the Chair. I did intend—and I dare say when my words are read to-morrow it will be seen that I intended—to convey a very decided and strong protest against the disorderly and habitual interruptions which prevented my words reaching the Chair.

I think, Sir, that although the different versions of these words vary materially, so far as the words are concerned, they are completely coincident as regards the sense. From the statement last made it appears that the Speaker, having called a Member of the House to Order, was told by that Member that he had predicted what that Member was going to say—["No!"] I may be quite wrong; but I understood that there was a distinct statement that the Chair had condemned words which had not been uttered. I cannot conceive a more distinct slight or offence conveyed to the Chair. Sir, the hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he did not intend any offence to the Chair. It is not my desire to interfere for the purpose of pressing a division in the circumstances in which we stand; but I venture to express a hope that, whether intended or not intended as an insult to the Chair, no such words will ever be used again in this House.

said, that he was in possession of the House when the Prime Minister, a short time ago, rose and interrupted the proceedings, and prevented him concluding his protest against the taking away of private Members' days. In view of the uncalled-for attacks on the Land Act in "another place," and of the Motion of which Lord Brabourne had given Notice, in view, also, of the questions asked in this House in the landed interest, with the object of putting forward opinions hostile to the Land Act, he wished to know from the Government whether an opportunity would be altogether denied the Irish Members of stating the tenants' view of the Land Act? The territorialists possessed great power in that House, and uncontrolled power in "another place;" and the effect of taking away private Members' days, and giving no oppor- tunity to hon. Gentlemen representing the tenants of counteracting these attacks, would be that the Land Commissioners would be intimidated into making their decisions, not in accordance with the evidence, but in accordance with the opinions put forward in Parliament by certain distinguished persons. They were told that respect for the law ought to prevail in Ireland, yet hon. Gentlemen representing the landlords were allowed to speak of the Sub-Commissioners in that House as "confiscators." If hon. Gentlemen representing tenants were given the opportunity they would be able to show that the Sub-Commissioners did not deserve the names given them by the landlord party. [Cries of "Order!" and "Name, Name!"]

It must be quite plain to the hon. Member that he cannot, upon a Motion like this, challenge the conduct of the Land Commissioners.

I think I may say, without venturing to dispute your authority, that I was doing nothing of the kind. [Cries of "Name!"]

If the hon. Member will not pay attention to my direction I shall have no alternative but to adopt a decided course.

desired to repeat, with all respect, that he was doing nothing of the kind. [Cries of "Name!"] He was only pointing out what the effect would be if the Land Commission could be assailed as it had been, and private Members were deprived of the opportunity of vindicating it. If their time were annexed by the Government they would be compelled to take up time intended for Committee of Supply.

said, the Corrupt Practices Bill contained a great deal of good matter, and it would require a considerable time to discuss it. With 150 Votes in Supply to be taken, with debates on Egypt, and a great number of other matters to be disposed of, it was impossible that adequate time could be devoted in the next three weeks to the consideration of the Corrupt Practices Bill; and, therefore, he hoped it would not be persevered with.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the question as to which he had appealed to the Prime Minister on going into Committee of Supply.