asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a Memorial, of the date of March, 1881, from Her-Majesty's Inspectors of Factories, respecting salaries and allowances, was received by the Home Office; whether any reply was made to that Memorial; and, if not, whether he will explain the reason; and whether the contents of that Memorial have yet received the consideration of the Department, and what are his intentions with respect to the grievances set forth in the document?

Sir, the Memorial referred to was duly received; but it has not been practicable as yet to make any definite reply thereto, as the suggestions required careful examination, which, owing to various unavoidable causes, it was impossible to conclude in time to admit of proposals being made to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury for the last financial year. The Secretary of State is now in communication with the Treasury, and trusts soon to be in a position to return an answer to the Memorialists.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that it has been the practice in certain boroughs and cities, such as Sheffield and Norwich, for the magistrates to grant an extension of hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors, during the whole or part of the Christmas week, to all publicans applying for the same, and without regard to the position and neighbourhood of the public houses; whether it is necessary for the applicants to apply separately for an extension, under the twenty-ninth section of the 35th and 36th Vic. c. 94; and, whether Christmas week is a "special occasion," under the said section, justifying the magistrates in granting general extension to all publicans?

Sir, the attention of the Secretary of State has not been called to the matter referred to; and he has not had the opportunity of considering what the true interpretation of the Statute may be in regard to the various legal points raised.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state whether Colonel Maceo capitulated to the Spanish Forces at Guantanamo in June 1880; whether the capitulation took, place in the presence of the British and French Vice Consuls for Guantanamo, in accordance with a previous agreement between the Spanish and Cuban Commanders; whether the British and French Vice Consuls took part in the act of capitulation as the guarantors of the carrying out in good faith of the terms on which the surrender of the Cuban Force was arranged; whether, under the terms of surrender, General Maceo and a number of his companions were permitted to embark on board the merchant steamer "Thomas Brooks;" whether, at the time of the embarkation of General Maceo and his companions, the steamer "Thomas Brooks" was flying the British flag astern; whether the "Thomas Brooks," having proceeded to sea, was followed and overhauled by a Spanish gunboat, and General Maceo and his companions made prisoners, and conducted to Porto Rico, in violation of the terms of their surrender; and, whether the steamer "Thomas Brooks" is the property of an English subject; and, if not, whether the Government will inquire into the circumstances attending the use of the British flag on the occasion of the embarkation of General Maceo and his companions?

, in reply, said, that, with regard to the first part of the Question, there was no information at the Foreign Office as to the date of this particular capitulation; but in July, 1880, the Acting Consul General at Guantanamo reported that he thought the insurrection had virtually terminated. They knew nothing of a capitulation having taken place in presence of the British and French Vice Consuls. With regard to the fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh paragraphs of the Question, the Government know nothing at all. They had never heard of the ship called the Thomas Brooks, or of any facts relating to that question.

asked whether the Government would undertake to inquire into the truth of the statements in question.

said, that the Government had no evidence before them; but if the hon. Member would supply him with any evidence on the matter the Government would see whether it was necessary to make inquiries.

said, he would take an opportunity of placing certain information on the subject in the hon. Baronet's hands.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any application had been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Spain for the release of General Maceo and the other Cuban refugees?

said, that, under the circumstances stated on Friday by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, no such application had yet been made to the Spanish Government; but the Report from the Commission of Inquiry had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown.

asked whether the Government had received any information as to the statement which had appeared in the newspapers that the trial of Arabi Pasha would come to an end at once, he being exiled, but retaining his rank and sword?

I have received no information on the subject since I answered a similar Question yesterday.

wished to put to the hon. Baronet a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he had noticed, in the correspondence of the "Standard" of that day, a statement to the effect that there was not an atom of direct or documentary evidence to connect Arabi Pasha with the riot at Alexandria on the 11th of June; and whether the hon. Baronet would take any steps either to sustain or withdraw the charge which he had brought against Arabi in the House of Commons of complicity in the riot at Alexandria?

The only words I ever used in this House in regard to the riots at Alexandria on the 11th of June are perfectly justified by the intelligence in the hands of the Government.

said, that the words which the hon. Baronet was reported to have used were to the effect that he had no doubt that Arabi Pasha was one of the leaders who had been guilty of complicity in the attack on the Europeans at Alexandria on the 11th of June.

said, his words were that there was grave reason to suppose that he had been guilty of complicity in the riot.

asked whether the Government had received any information from Lord Duffer in about the trial of Arabi Pasha?

said, the Question was so vague that he could not give an answer to it.

gave Notice that on the first day of next Session he should ask a Question, which, perhaps, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might answer at once. It was, Whether his attention bad been called to a statement in the "Contemporary Review" of last month, to the effect that Mr. Roussell had recorded his opinion that the Kurbash was a necessary instrument of government in dealing with a Native population; and whether the Government had in consequence intimated to Mr. Roussell their disapproval of his conduct? The hon. Member also took occasion to complain of the manner in which the Clerks of the House had dealt with the Notice of a Question which he had given on Friday, and which Mr. Speaker bad declared to be in Order.

said, he had not seen the article referred to in The Contemporary Review.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If any Report and Returns showing the working of the system of public prosecution for England, sanctioned by the last Parliament, was accessible to Members of the House, or would be laid upon the Table?

said, he was not aware of the existence of any such Return or Report. There were regulations on the subject which were accessible, and he should be glad to give the hon. Member any information in his power if he would communicate with him.

said—