asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Governor of Ceylon has in compliance with the Despatch of the Earl of Derby of the 26th January, 1883, republished a list of the Government officers in Ceylon having the privilege of franking letters and omitting there from the name of the Bishop of Colombo; and, if not, if he will inform the House why the directions of the Secretary of State for the Colonies have been disregarded; and, whether it is the intention of the Secretary of State to allow any further delay in carrying out his instructions?

The new list of the Government officers in Ceylon having the privilege of franking was published and issued at Colombo on the 20th of April.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how far the recommendations of the Local Government Board, as stated in their Letter of the 18th November, 1882, addressed to the Irish Government, have been carried out as to the limiting of each party of emigrants to a number not exceeding fifteen families in each ship, and as to the emigration of whole families at a time, and the appointment of suitable agents, male and female, at the ports of embarkation and reception; and, if he will cause weekly Returns to be prepared, showing the rate at which the people are being assisted to emigrate, and the districts from which they come?

Sir, the hon. Member quotes from a letter written in the earlier stages of the proceedings. Later experience showed that it was neither practicable nor necessary to limit each party of emigrants, as proposed, to 15 families. Shipping Companies sent their vessels out of the ordinary route to enable emigrants to embark conveniently, and it could not be expected that they would do this for the conveyance of small parties. The contemplated necessity for the limitation of numbers has been obviated, in consequence of the arrangements made that no persons should be allowed to go to the United States except those who could show that they had there friends in a position to assist them. The other proposed arrangements—namely, as to emigration by families and the appointment of agents—have been carried out. I am informed that it would be very inconvenient to have weekly Returns prepared as suggested, as the time of all persons engaged in the emigration work is fully occupied, and they find it difficult to keep pace with the duties already devolving on them. I have, however, numerical Returns prepared, which will show the state of the case up to the present time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the telegraphic account of the proceedings of the Legislative Council of Calcutta on "Mr. Ilbert's Bill," which was furnished to the Eng- lish Press through Mr. Reuter's agency, was authorised and its transmission directed by the Government of India; whether the expense of transmission was defrayed out of the revenues of India; and, whether, if it was so authorised, there will be any objection to lay it upon the Table of the House, so that it may be compared with any fuller reports since received?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the summary of the Debate in the Legislative Council on Mr. Ilbert's Native Jurisdiction Bill, which was telegraphed by Reuter's Agency on 12th March, was supplied to the Agency and its transmission paid for by the Indian Government; whether several or most of the speeches in opposition to the Bill, including those of General Wilson and the Lieutenant Governor, were either entirely omitted or inadequately reported, while those made in support of the Bill were reported at much greater length; whether Reuter's Agent at Calcutta, who sent it, now states that the report "was sent on account of Government as an exposition of their views;" and, whether he will cause to be printed and laid upon the Table of the House an inadequate and impartial report of the Debate in question?

Sir, reference having been made to the Viceroy, he has replied that the telegraphic account of the debate of March 9 on the Jurisdiction Bill was authorized, and its transmission paid for by the Government of India, in the same manner as the telegraphic summary of the Budget Statement. There is no objection to laying a copy of the telegram on the Table. The full Report of the debate has been received, and will be presented to-day. Perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtonshire will accept this as an answer to his Question also.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has been made aware of the circumstances under which a pauper of the name of William Davis, with his wife and three children, were removed from Plymouth Union to that of Londonderry, which place he left fourteen years ago; whether it is true that he had resided at Plymouth ten years continuously, and at the time of his removal was engaged in weekly service, earning 22s. a-week, and was the holder of a tenement furnishd by himself; that about the 1st of May he was ordered to proceed to Ireland; that a few days afterwards, owing to his refusal to leave Plymouth, his wife and children were forcibly seized by policemen and placed on board ship for Dublin; that the pretence or ground for such proceedings was that during two or three months absence of Davis from work, in hospital owing to ill health early in this year, the wife was allowed out-door relief of 4s. 6d. per week; that this man had a pension as a retired gunner in the Royal Artillery, in which he served fourteen and a-half years, and had a good character and possessed two good conduct badges; whether the Plymouth guardians could not have recouped themselves the small amount of relief expended on this family by applying for repayment out of Davis's pension; whether the conduct of the Plymouth magistrates and guardians was legal; and, whether he will take any steps open to him to prevent a renewal of such proceedings under the present Law?

in reply, said, he wrote a letter on the subject, and had received an answer only a few hours ago. On a comparison of the question and answer some legal points had arisen which would require consideration; and, therefore, he would request the hon. Gentleman to be so good as to give a little further time before requiring a definite answer.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an official inquiry into the alleged misconduct of Mr. Sub-Inspector Smith, of Moville, has recently been held; and, whether the result of that inquiry has been entirely favourable to that officer, and goes to prove that he has been attempted to be injured on account of the faithful performance of his duty in the preservation of la wand order, and in the suppression of illegal proceedings?

Sir, the charges against Sub-Inspector Smith were contained in anonymous letters. He, however, courted the fullest inquiry with regard to them; and they were searchingly investigated by a Court of Inquiry which was sitting with reference to the discipline of the station. By the finding of the Court Mr. Smith was exonerated in the fullest and most emphatic terms.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Under what circumstances did an Irish policeman named Coleman meet his death, on the 18th April 1883?

Sir, Sub-Constable Coleman, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, committed suicide by cutting his throat with his own razor on the morning of the 18th of April. It does not appear that any reason can be assigned. During the previous month he had been somewhat silent and desponding; but nothing was observed in his conduct to lead his comrades to believe that he was insane.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will state if any, and, if so, what steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Government with the view of carrying out Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin, by which the Bulgarian Government was substituted for the Ottoman Government in the liability to pay to the Varna Railway Company the annual subsidy of three and a-half millions of francs (£140,000), and which sum, guaranteed by Turkey in the original concession, is now nearly five years in arrear, and amounts to about £670,000; and, if he will state why the only Article of the Treaty of Berlin directly affecting British subjects is so long allowed to remain in abeyance?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have repeatedly urged on the Bulgarian Government the necessity of coming to some definite arrangement with a view to a settlement of these outstanding claims. They are at present awaiting the reply of that Government to a proposal which Her Majesty's Agent at Sofia was instructed to make on the 14th of March last, that the whole question involving the interpretation of Article X. of the Treaty of Berlin should be referred to the signatory Powers of that Treaty, and settled in conference by their Representatives at Constantinople. Mr. Lascelles has also been instructed to press that some payment on account should be made at once to the Varna Railway Company. Some delay has been caused by recent Ministerial changes at Sofia.

asked whether the noble Lord was aware that a similar answer had been given nearly six months ago; and whether the Government would press the payment of the money to the suffering bondholders, who were nearly starved out, owing to the way in which they had been treated?

said, that he was fully aware of that; but there were great difficulties in the way of the Foreign Office. Would the hon. Gentleman put the Question again?

asked, how soon should he repeat the Question?

said, he would communicate with the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has heard that Mr. Wylie, a legal Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act, intends to stand at the next Election for an Ulster County, in which he was recently employed in the judicial reduction of rents; and, whether he will at once ascertain the accuracy of this report, and take steps to prevent or discourage such a grave judicial scandal?

Sir, I have in my hand a copy of a letter written by Mr. Wylie to Mr. Commissioner Litton, in which he denies in the most absolute and emphatic terms that there is or ever was any foundation whatever for the rumour referred to in this Question. He expresses himself warmly at it being supposed that he would be capable of making use of his judicial position to further such an object. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) and the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) will probably think this a sufficient answer to the Questions on the same subject which stand on the Paper in their names. I think it is only fair to Mr. Wylie to add that this disavowal was quite spontaneous on his part, and was received from him several days before Notice of these Questions was given; but, as the report appeared in the newspapers, no one can wonder at the Question having been put.

said, that, though the answer was satisfactory, he bogged to give Notice that in Committee on the Corrupt Practices Bill he should move a provision to make such a thing as that referred to in the Question impossible.

asked the Chairman of the Select Committee on Public Petitions, Whether, considering that the Committee have reported to the House in their tenth Report of this Session that, in the case of no less than twenty-eight Petitions on various subjects, many of the signatures are in the same handwriting, the Committee will take the facts into their further consideration, with a view to the suggestion of some means for preventing for the future such breaches of the Orders of the House?

Sir, in answer to the Question of my hon. Friend, I regret to state that not only in the 10th, but also in previous Reports during the present Session, the Committee on Public Petitions have been obliged to notice serious irregularities in connection with the signatures to the Petitions. The Report to which he more specially refers contains upwards of 30 cases where the signatures are in the same handwriting, with other informalities, such as signatures on slips of paper attached afterwards to the Petition. Such facts, no doubt, constitute a breach of the Orders of the House, which, according to our invariable practice, have been set forth in our Reports. But in answer to the further Question of my hon. Friend as to—

"Whether the Committee will take these facts into further consideration, with a view to preventing for the future such breaches of the Orders of the House?"

I have to state that, in the opinion of the Committee, this is a Question rather for the House than for us. Our special function is to examine the Petitions to see if the Standing Orders have been complied with, and to report to the House any infraction thereof. There, properly speaking, our duty ends, though we are always ready to follow any direction of the House on the subject. I may here remind my hon. Friend that in the Session of 1879, in response to the general feeling of the House, on behalf of the Committee I proposed and carried a new Standing Order, providing that those names only should be counted as to which the addresses of the parties signing were given. This Order has been rigorously followed, though it has not hitherto answered all our expectations in correcting these irregularities. Then, again, the House has not un-frequently vindicated its privileges, on the Report of the Committee as to these tainted Petitions, by discharging the Order for their lying on the Table, while in more serious cases the offenders have been visited by severe penal treatment. Such an instance occurred in the first year of my Office as Chairman of the Committee, now nearly 20 years ago. I refer to the well-known Azim Jah Petition, where a deliberate system of fraud and forgery was proved, parties having been hired to get up Petitions by a payment of so much per sheet, and where, after full investigation, the offenders were committed to Newgate for the remainder of the Session. Certainly, if the ancient Constitutional right of Petition is not to fall into contempt, some further safeguards are required to suppress these practices. This would necessitate a revision of the Standing Orders. Looking to the period of the Session, the state of Public Business, and to the fact that the pressure of Petitions is over for the present, we think that further action had better be deferred till next Session. My hon. Friend has, however, done good service by calling attention to the subject; and we will take care, meanwhile, that full publicity is given to the Rules and Standing Orders of the House with respect to Petitions, so that all Petition-mongers may be warned as to the risks to which they expose themselves when they attempt in any way to contravene them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, "Whether, notwithstanding that the Roman Catholics in the County Limerick Gaol are 90 per cent. of the inmates, the governor, chief warder, schoolmaster, and other high officials are all Protestant; and, whether, in consequence of the resignation of the governor, a remedy will be applied to that inequality?

Sir, the General Prisons Board inform me that of the 18 officers in Limerick Male Prison, 10 are Roman Catholics; and of the three principal officers—namely, the Governor, chief warder, and clerk, the two former are Protestants. It is impossible to appoint a chief warder who is a Roman Catholic; and I know very well the reason why. [Cries of "Why?"] The reason is, because there is no available officer for that position who is disposable from any other prison. A Governor has not yet been appointed; but I think it will be difficult to make arrangements by which the office can be given to a Roman Catholic.

Can a Catholic schoolmaster be appointed?

The answer I have received does not mention the schoolmaster.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House why there are no officers disposable for promotion to the position of chief warder?

The reason is that the prisons ranking as first class are not very numerous in Ireland; and, consequently, the officers available for the position of chief warder are not very numerous either.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Limerick is a first-class prison at all?

It has been made a first-class prison.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the Lord Chancellor has come to any decision in the case of Mr. M'Farlane, the magistrate against whom a verdict was recently had for blowing up his neighbour's premises with dynamite?

Sir, the transaction referred to took place about three years ago. The action against Captain M'Farlane was for assault and trespass. The acts complained of were done in the assertion of a right of way through the plaintiff's ground, in the course of which Captain M'Farlane blew down a portion of a wall and the pier of a gate, which he alleged obstructed his right of way. The jury found that no assault was committed by Captain M'Farlane. They also found that the right of way existed, but that it was not substantially obstructed by the pier and wall referred to, and they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, with £100 damages. Nothing transpired in the hearing of the case to warrant the Lord Chancellor in withdrawing the Commission of the Peace from Captain M'Farlane.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, seeing that the season has now arrived when the Metropolitan Cattle Market is generally largely attended by buyers from the South Coast watering places, and in view of the largely increased supply of live stock now coming from Canada (probably more than in any former year), it is not possible to place that market upon the same footing as the other large cattle markets in Liverpool, Manchester, Wakefield, &c.?

Sir, I am sorry to say, in the present unfortunate prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease in the country, the Privy Council do not deem it expedient to remove the restriction on the movement of cattle out of the Metropolis which have been exposed in the Metropolitan Cattle Market. It has happened that on each occasion when the restrictions have been modified, and animals have been allowed to be removed, though only for the purpose of slaughter, and then only by licence, that diseased animals have been moved into the country.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can furnish the House with any information respecting the Treaty alleged to have been completed between the Governments of Peru and Chili?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have reason to believe that the news which has recently appeared of the conclusion of a Convention between the Chilian Government and General Iglesias is correct; but they have no official intelligence. As, however, the authority of General Iglesias is not undisputed, it would be premature to assume that the Convention will lead to the restoration of peace between Chili and Peru.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When it is proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Borough Boundary Commissioners (Ireland), as embodied in their Report issued last Session?

Sir, I can give no pledge on this subject. Having regard to the intricacy of the interests involved, the pressure of Public Business has been too great to allow the matter being taken up this year; but the Government hope to be able to consider it carefully before next Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that recently a female officer in the Infirmary Department of the Belfast Workhouse was detected in the act of concealing a pauper wardsman of that institution in her bedroom for immoral purposes; if so, whether, on the matter being reported to the guardians by the master, they took any steps to reprimand the female in question, or to discontinue her services; and, whether he, as a member of the Local Government Board, will undertake to have the system adopted by some unions, of employing pauper labour, discontinued, in order to prevent a repetition of such scandals, and, in this particular instance, undertake to have the officer referred to disqualified from holding any position of emolument under the Poor Law Board?

Sir, it is the case that a few weeks ago a pauper inmate of Belfast Workhouse was found secreted in the room of one of the nurses, who at once left the employment of the Guardians and sent in her resignation. The woman having resigned, nothing further can be done; but her conduct has been noted in case she should seek employment again in the Belfast or any other Union. The Local Government Board do not think that the employment of paupers as wardsmen and wards-women can be wholly discontinued, especially in large workhouses like Belfast; and the fact of one irregularity having occurred would not justify a change in the management of workhouses, which would entail a large expenditure in the salaries of additional subordinate officers.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House, a Copy of the Case on which a legal opinion was taken by the Privy Council as to the powers of the Government under the Act to prohibit the importation of cattle from Foreign Countries where there is reason to believe foot and mouth disease exists, and which was mentioned by Lord Carlingford in his reply to the deputation from the Central and Associated Chambers of Agriculture?

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, "Whether the Privy Council is prepared to lay down any rule of action in respect of the powers vested in the Department by the Act of 1878 for prohibiting the importation of live animals from Countries where contagious diseases prevail; for instance, whether the Privy Council will put in force its powers after one cargo of animals has been landed affected with foot and mouth disease; and, if not so prepared, whether he will state how many diseased cargoes will be admitted before the Department takes the same action as it did in prohibiting importation from Portugal, Spain, and France?

said, he should also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether it is not the case that the Privy Council had undoubtedly power, under Section 35 of the Act of Henry VIII., by General or Special Order, as they may see fit, to prohibit the landing of animals from any specified country whatever?

Certainly, Sir; in answer to the first Question, I have to say that no case was stated by the Privy Council. The legal opinion referred to by Lord Carling ford to the deputation was the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, whom he had consulted. The Lord Chancellor repeated that opinion on April 16, and it will be found in the Reports of the Proceedings of the House of Lords. The existence of a power to prohibit importation from time to time from specified countries in the case of any contagious disease exists has not been doubted. That power, indeed, has been exercised against France; and I may inform the hon. Member that although France, in consequence of the action taken by the Privy Council, has recently informed us that she has adopted stringent precautionary regulations, we are about to renew that prohibition—at all events, until we see these measures fairly established and in working order. Prohibition is enforced against the importation of cattle from Germany; and we are now in communication with the German Government respecting the importation of sheep from that country. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire (Mr. J. Howard), I have to say that the Privy Council have no power to lay down one General Rule prohibiting or regulating the importation of animals from all countries in which contagious disease prevails. The powers conferred by Section 35 of the Act have been exercised from time to time as regards specified foreign countries and parts of foreign countries; and, as I have just shown, the Privy Council propose to exercise those powers as circumstances may render necessary. I should wish to add, for the assurance of hon. Members interested, that after the recent attack of foot-and-mouth disease, which entailed such heavy losses on the country, the Privy Council are more than ever alive to the necessity of proceeding with vigilance and determination in this matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state why the police hut erected and the constables stationed for upwards of nine months, at Rathfaland, Newmarket on Fergus, county Clare, have not yet been removed; if Mr. Denis O'Neill, for whose protection they were provided, has repeatedly declared to the authorities that he requires no such protection, and requested their removal as a useless and heavy burden upon a peaceable locality; if it is a fact that not only this district but also the surrounding places have been free from serious crime within the time which has elapsed since the erection of said hut; and if, bearing in mind the peaceful character of the neighbourhood and the cordial feelings which exist between Mr. O'Neill and the inhabitants of the locality, immediate orders will be given to remove both hut and police?

Sir, it is the case that Mr. O'Neill states that the police at Rathfaland are not required for his protection. However, they do not appear to be there for that special object. I am informed that they are stationed there for the general preservation of the peace of the district, and that their presence is considered necessary to secure a continuance of the peaceable conditions now prevailing. The hon. Member is mistaken in supposing that the cost is charged upon the locality.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the composition of the Commission of Inquiry which, as has been stated, was examining into the question of free representation in the Island of Jamaica; and, what are its instructions, when did it commence its labours, and when may its Report be expected?

Sir, the Commission of Inquiry consisted of Colonel Crossman, R.E., and Mr. Baden-Powell as Commissioners, with Mr. Harris, of the Colonial Office, as Secretary. Under their instructions they were to inquire into the public revenues, expenditure, debts, and liabilities of the Islands of Jamaica, Grenada, St. Vincent, Tobago, St. Lucia, and of the Leeward Islands. They commenced their work on the 6th of January in Jamaica. They have recently arrived home, and it is anticipated that their Report will be completed before the end of next month.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether a Petition has been forwarded to him by the Governor of Ceylon from Toulba Pasha, praying Her Majesty's Government to change the place of residence assigned to him by Her Majesty's Government, in accordance with his parole given to Lord Dufferin in December last; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intends to grant the request?

Sir, the Petition has been received, and it was proposed to Toulba that he should proceed to the Cape of Good Hope under the same conditions as those under which he resides in Ceylon. Her Majesty's Government have, however, been informed by telegram that Toulba has declined the offer; but they have not yet received the Governor's despatch stating the reasons for Toulba's refusal.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John O'Connor, who had recently been imprisoned in Cork for refusing, at the secret inquiry, to give evidence outside the scope of the offence set forth in the summons, was on a few days after his release arrested in Tralee, where he had been on commercial business, and whether he was again on the following day arrested in Listowel; whether the policeman who arrested him in the latter place alleged that Mr. O'Connor was a suspicious stranger, and whether Mr. O'Connor pointed out that he was in the habit of visiting the town for the past eight years, while the constable in question was only a short while in the locality; whether the police on each of these occasions insisted upon searching Mr. O'Connor's trunks, and so spoiled two of his business days; and, whether the Government will give Mr. O'Connor any compensation for this loss of his time?

Sir, Mr. O'Connor was arrested at Tralee, and again at Listowel. He was searched. The only luggage searched was a small hand bag. He had no trunks with him. He was in custody 40 minutes on one occasion and 20 minutes on the other. It does not, therefore, seem probable that two business days were spoilt. The arrest at Listowel was under the 12th section of the Prevention of Crime Act, which relates to suspicious strangers. Mr. O'Connor has been, I believe, in the habit of visiting most of the towns in Kerry; but he was not known to the Sub-Inspector at Listowel, who has been stationed there for the past six months.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that cases listed for hearing before the Kerry Sub-Land Commission so far back as November, 1881, by tenants on the Crosbie Estate, have not yet been heard; whether those cases stood on the list in January last as numbers 74, 75, 76, 77, and 78, but at the recent sitting of the Commission, held in the present month, were placed back on the list to numbers 106, 107, 108, 109, and 110, and consequently did not come on for hearing; whether he can explain why those cases were placed so far back on the list as not to come before the Commission; whether it is true that, in some of those cases, the rent was increased as late as 1880, and whether this increased rent is still demanded; and, if so, whether, in the event of those tenants failing to pay any time before their cases are heard, they are liable to lose their holdings?

Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that no cases listed for hearing before the Kerry Sub-Commission so far back as 1881 remain unheard, but that there are cases which were lodged at that time still undisposed of. The facts as to the adjournment and re-numbering of certain cases are as stated, the reason of the change in the numbers being that all the earlier cases on the April list were cases adjourned from previous sittings. No cases were taken out of their turn. The Commissioners cannot say whether the rent in any of these cases had been raised in 1880, as the cases have not yet been investigated. The tenants are liable for the old rent until judicial rents are fixed.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Mr. Crosbie on the last occasion, by having his name changed, succeeded in getting his cases postponed?

I have no objection to inquire into the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following paragraph in the "Leinster Gazette:"—

"The Authorities have apparently conceived the notion of selling the great Heath of Maryborough. They have, through the Inland Revenue Department, instituted inquiries as to the probability of the adjoining owners and occupiers becoming purchasers if the common were to be offered in small lots;"

and, if there is any foundation for the statement contained in the above paragraph; and, if so, whether the Crown is prepared to show a title to Maryborough Heath?

I have to say, Sir, that the Crown has not conceived the notion of selling Mary borough Heath, neither has it instituted inquiries as to the probability of the adjoining owners and occupiers becoming purchasers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Hassan Bey Sadyk, whose appointment as Governor of Sanaar is announced in the Egyptian Gazette, is the same person who was under the orders of Omar Pacha Tufti, the Governor of Alexandria, on June 11th, when the massacre in that town occurred; and, if so, whether he has ever been placed on his trial?

Sir, Hassan Bey Sadyk was Sub-Prefect of Police at Alexandria on the 11th of June last. Sir Edward Malet informs Lord Granville that no charge has been made against Sadyk, and that he has, consequently, not been put upon his trial.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are taking any steps to remedy the Criminal Procedure in Egypt, under which an accused man is not allowed to bring witnesses for the defence before the Court, nor even to appear himself; and if, in the meantime, any measures are being taken to ensure fair trials throughout Egypt pending the institution of the New Law Courts?

Sir, the procedure adopted in Egypt in criminal cases is that of the French Code; and I have already pointed out that this Code does not prevent the prisoner bringing witnesses for his defence before the Court, or appearing himself at the trial. The laws, however, relating to criminal procedure in the Native Courts of Egypt are undergoing revision at the present time; and the services of Sir Benson Maxwell have been engaged by the Egyptian Government to assist them in this task.

asked if the noble Lord meant it to be understood that the political prisoners now to be tried would be tried under the law of the French Code?

said, that they would have the fullest power to call witnesses at the trial. The objections made the other day only applied to what was known as the "instruction," as distinct from the trial itself.

asked the noble Lord whether Mr. Mark Napier had not complained that prisoners would not be allowed to call witnesses?

said, that he did not think that Mr. Mark Napier's statement was so carefully written as it might be, if he might say so of a man of known ability. He did not think that Mr. Napier intended to imply that the prisoners would be prevented from calling witnesses at the trial.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ira-land, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return specifying the fees paid to each of the Counsel for the Crown for their services at the late Commission in Green Street, together with the fees paid to Counsel assigned for the prisoners; and, whether he will furnish a Return of the sums paid or intended to be paid to Crown witnesses in Ireland, in respect of trials at the last five Commissions in Green Street?

Sir, I find, on inquiry at the English Public Offices, that it has not been a custom to give returns of the fees paid to counsel; and the Government cannot consent to do it in this case. A Return of the sums paid to witnesses cannot be granted.

Will the right hon. Gentleman adhere to his determination when I tell him that, according to good information I have received, the fees paid to the Attorney General for Ireland were a retainer of £1,200 and a refresher of £150?

asked if the Chief Secretary would admit or deny the statement in the newspapers that day that one informer, named Farrell, had received no less than £1,000?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether buckshot ammunition has been supplied to a man named Michael Fitzgerald by Constable Egan, of Longhill station, county Limerick, at the public expense; and, whether licences for fowling pieces to protect their crops are refused to the surrounding farmers?

I am informed that there is no foundation for the statements made in this Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to state the result of his inquiries respecting the statement that policemen were employed in ploughing an evicted farm on the estate of Mr. Desmond Fitzgerald at Tullyglass, county Limerick, and whether such employment has his sanction?

I am informed that no policemen have been employed in this case. Perhaps the hon. Member has definite information that he would give me?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Lord Granville has written a letter to Mr. Errington, expressing satis faction at the success of his representations to the Vatican respecting the state; of affairs in Ireland?

No, Sir; no such letter has been written. I am asked by Lord Granville to add that, in answer to the Question put to me by the hon. Member on Thursday, I was directed by him to state that he had sent no letter of congratulation to Home. By that Lord Granville meant to convey that he had sent no letter of congratulation to Mr. Errington, who is in Rome, or to anybody else. He wished me to express his regret that, from the fact of the answer having been more comprehensive than the Question, any trouble should have been given to the House.

I wish to ask the noble Lord, whether any Correspondence has taken place on public affairs connected with the Vatican between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington; and, if so, whether such Correspondence has been deposited in the official archives of the Department, or whether it is of a private character, and has not been deposited in the official archives for the information of future Secretaries of State? If the noble Lord cannot answer the Question now I will give Notice of it.

I will ask my hon. Friend to give Notice of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any communications, in the nature of advice or instructions, has passed between the Lords of the Treasury and the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, as to the future application of that portion of the Vote in Supply for National Education hitherto used in support of model schools, and suggesting less expenditure thereon in future, in order to have funds to carry out certain intended arrangements for separate denominational training of teachers; and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of any such communications?

It is the case, Sir, that the Treasury, in a letter to the Commissioners of National Education, threw out a suggestion that one source of economy might be the gradual conversion of the model schools into national schools. The Commissioners, having considered this suggestion, passed a Resolution to the effect that, in their opinion, it would be highly injudicious to interfere with so important an element in the national system of education as the model schools, and that it would tend to embarrass the inauguration of the proposed training colleges.

Am I to understand that the Government have an objection to lay on the Table a Copy of the communication?

Yes, Sir; I think it would be extremely inconvenient to lay on the Table Correspondence between the Treasury and other Public Departments.

I beg to give Notice, in view of the widespread interest on this subject in Ireland, that I shall move for a Copy of this Correspondence.

May I ask whether the new training colleges will be treated like the Marlborough Street Schools?

The subsidy paid to training colleges in Ireland will be of precisely the same terms as the subsidy paid in England and Scotland. I believe the money will be paid out of this year's Votes.

My Question was not whether new training colleges would be treated like training colleges in England and Scotland; but whether they would be treated in the same way as the existing training colleges in Dublin?

I think the hon. Gentleman had better ask the Question somewhat in detail. I do not know whether he refers to Lancaster Buildings.

I will put the Question on the Paper.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If his attention has been called to the grave cause for dissatisfaction given to the junior members of the Indian Medical Service by the enormous per centage of them at present on "unemployed pay"; if the "unemployed pay" of a surgeon in the Indian Medical Service, namely 286. 10 rupees per month, is not the lowest scale of pay awarded to any commissioned or covenanted officer in the Indian service; and, if the Government intend to take any; and, if so, what steps to remove this grievance, and to fulfil the terms of the printed conditions upon which men have been induced to enter the service?

The attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the exceptionally large number of junior medical officers in India, drawing what is called unemployed pay. This is due partly to the unusually small number of medical officers at present absent from India on furlough; partly to the largo number of young officers admitted to the Service consequent on the Afghan War; and partly to the recent reduction of 22 Native regiments, with the consequent reduction of the medical staff attached to regiments. The unemployed pay of a surgeon in the Indian Medical Service is not the lowest awarded to any covenanted or commissioned officer in the Indian Service. An unemployed lieutenant would draw 256 rupees a-month; while an unemployed surgeon, if under five years' service, would draw 286 rupees; or, if over five years' service, 304 rupees a-month. The present difficulty is being met by a large decrease in the number of appointments, there having been 18 for last year and 13 for this; as compared with 39 and 49 for the two preceding years. The published conditions under which officers accept employment in the Indian Medical Service are accurately fulfilled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Regulations prescribed for the Director of Public Prosecutions under "The Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879?"

I believe, Sir, that the Papers were presented in 1880; but I am afraid, by some oversight, they were not printed.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman undertake that the Vote for the Public Prosecutor shall not be taken until the information required is given?

was understood to say that the House should be supplied with the information required.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Who is responsible for the present state of the centre of London, and for the inhabitants being deprived of the use of the main thoroughfares at a time of year when they are more required?

I am afraid, Sir, I can give no other answer than that the responsibility rests with the present system of the government of London.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether any examination of the cadets on board H.M.S. "Britannia" has been held during the past year; and, whether the Reports of the Examiners can be laid upon the Table before the Vote for the "Britannia" is asked for?

Sir, the cadets on board the Britannia are examined twice a-year; and the examinations in non-professional subjects are conducted by men of position in the Universities. It does not seem desirable that the Reports of the Examiners should be laid on the Table, as, if this practice was followed, there might be less disposition on the part of those gentlemen to give to the Board of Admiralty the benefit of their full and frank opinion on the subjects submitted to them.

gave Notice that when the Vote relating to this matter was brought forward he should oppose it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the fact that vessels from Bombay have lately been put in quarantine by the Anglo-Egyptian authorities, although these vessels have clean bills of health and have no illness on board?

Sir, the International Quarantine Board referred to by the hon. Member is not Anglo-Egyptian, but is composed of the delegates of the different nations interested. In consequence of the complaints received from various shipping firms in this country, Sir Edward Malet was instructed to protest against the detention of ships bound to ports of the United Kingdom with clean bills of health, and they are now allowed to pass through the Canal without delay. The general question of quarantine in Egypt is receiving the earnest attention of tier Majesty's Government.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any truth in the report that has appeared in the newspapers to the effect that, as the number of men required to complete the Indian Establishment is 9,000 men, it is proposed to offer a bounty of £10 to time-expired men as an inducement to extend their service for 12 years with the colours; and, whether it is further proposed to extend the same terms to time-expired men at home, and to reduce the standard of the Guards from 5ft. 8in. to 5ft. 7in. and the chest measurement from 35in. to 34in.?

Sir, in the absence, through illness, which I much regret, of the Secretary of State for War, perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Questions of the noble Lord. The number required to complete the Indian Establishment is not 9,000, but under 5,000. Communications are taking place between the War Office and the India Office as to the expediency of offering a bounty as an inducement to men of between four and six years' service, now serving in India, to extend their Colour service at once to 10 years. In reply to the noble Lord's second Question, I may say that it is not proposed to extend the same terms to time-expired men at home. In reply to the third Question of the noble Lord, I have to say that the standard height for the Foot Guards has been already reduced from 5 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 7 inches; and the alteration of the chest measurement applies only to gunners of the Royal Artillery.

asked if it was intended by the Secretary of State for War to make any general statement on recruiting, and if the statements in newspaper reports were founded on facts?

said, that in the course of the Army Estimates the Secretary of State for War would, no doubt, make a general statement upon recruiting. He was unable to answer any Questions as to newspaper reports without dates, as he did not know to what the noble Lord alluded.

inquired whether time-expired men in India had been offered a bounty of £5 to rejoin for another term with the Colours, and had refused?

asked for Notice of the Question.

asked whether the Indian bounty was to be a temporary remedy; and whether it was intended to take any other steps to remedy the shortcomings of the short service system?

in reply, said, that, so far as he understood the purport of the Question, he had already answered it, by saying that further communications were still pending between the War Office and the India Office on this subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, before acceding to any suggestion for the renewal of the Coal and Wine dues, he will consult the opinion of the inhabitants of the Metropolis who have no direct representation in any authority now dealing with these funds, and who are unwilling to sanction the re-grant to authorities not under their own control of taxes producing several hundred thousand pounds sterling per annum?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government, before giving an answer to the application for an extension of the London Coal and Wine Duties, will take into consideration the claims for exclusion from future taxation of the manufacturers and consumers of coal in the towns and places in the "outer area" of the Metropolis, who though taxed are not represented in the application of the tax; and, whether he will receive a deputation from those important interests?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is aware that, when the Coal and Wine Duties were prolonged in 1867 for the purpose of providing moneys for improvements in the Metropolis, a compromise was agreed to by those residing outside the area of the Metropolitan Board of Works, yet liable to the Coal and Wine Duties, by which the Duties were extended one year in order to free the bridges of Staines, Hampton, and Kew, and thus in some way compensate the outer circle of coal and wine consumers for the payment of taxes from which they otherwise derive no direct benefit; and, if he will take into his consideration that any attempt to overthrow the compromise and understanding thus arrived at must result in imposing heavy taxation upon communities who are neither represented by the authority taxing them, nor benefited by the taxation imposed?

Sir, my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has asked me to answer these Questions. We lately received a deputation from the Metropolitan Board and the Corporation of the City of London on the subject of the renewal of the Coal and Wine Duties when they expire in 1889. Some points were raised by the deputation into which we shall have to inquire; but I may say, in general terms, that the suggestion appears to us to be altogether premature, and that if the Coal and Wine Duties should be renewed—as to which we have grave doubts—even in a restricted form, such renewal could only follow a decision by Parliament to allow the construction by the local authority of the Metropolis of some very costly communication between the districts North and South of the Thames, below London Bridge, such as has lately been under discussion. Until then, we do not think that the extension of the Coal and Wine Dues could be even considered. The question of the area within which these dues should be leviable would have to be seriously considered at the same time; and full opportunity will be given to those interested to make known their views.

asked, Whether the Government would not consider the propriety of giving some decision as to their views, in order that the works below London Bridge should either be proceeded with or abandoned?

said, that would be putting the cart before the horse. Parliament would have first to decide whether those extensive works should be undertaken; and then it would be for the Government to say whether they would advise Parliament to assist the local authorities in the particular way proposed.

gave Notice that on the earliest opportunity he would move that, in the opinion of the House, increased facilities of communication between the North and South of the Thames East of London Bridge were urgently required.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will direct such arrangements as will enable the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill to be taken pari passu with the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, or at least such as will prevent a measure of such importance being relegated to a late period of the Session, when the attendance of Members is sparse and their energies exhausted?

Sir, I cannot undertake that the Scottish Bill should go pari passu with the English Bill; and I think the hon. Member hardly expects that. But, undoubtedly, we shall take the best means in our power—as we place the two substantially on the same footing—to bring it forward at an early date, and to insure its having a full discussion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Cork Herald," May 24th, of a meeting of the Limerick Board of Guardians, in which the following passages occur:—

"Several guardians expressed themselves to the effect that in the Union district there was, owing to excessive emigration, a great paucity of labourers, and only the old and infirm seemed inclined to remain in the country. The chairman said the emigration from Ireland had assumed such vast proportions that every five out of seven one met now in a village were either old or infirm…Mr. M'Inerney. There are forty labourers required in my district for drainage, and other works but we can't get a man. Colonel Westropp. In my district it is the same. It is impossible to get a labourer;"

and, whether, in view of the alleged decrease of the labouring population in the most fertile districts of Ireland, the Government will persist in the policy of subsidising emigration and disregarding the demand for legislation to improve the condition of the remaining industrial population?

Sir, the Limerick Union has not received any grants from Government for the purpose of assisting emigration. Such emigration as has taken place has been spontaneous, and not promoted by public funds. There is no reason to believe that, in the county of Limerick generally, there is any deficiency of labouring men. No general increase in agricultural wages has occurred, such as must have followed such a deficiency, if it existed. There may be particular places where there is a scarcity of labour; but such a scarcity, in parts of a county circumstanced as Limerick is, would afford no reasonable ground for discontinuing the assistance to emigration in other less favoured districts in Ireland, where the population is much too large, and where the emigration is a very great advantage.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the total Exports and Imports of the Island of Jamaica from 1851 to the present date?

Sir, the hon. and gallant Member will find in full detail the information which he seeks in the Statistical Abstract of the Colonial and other Possessions of the United Kingdom, which is annually laid on the Table.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether compensation will be granted to Lieutenant General Wilby, C.B. for removal from the command of the Forces in Ceylon, two years before the completion of the five years for which he had been appointed, he being then only sixty-two years of age?

In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Devon-port, I have to say that a Royal Warrant is under consideration, which will provide compensation for any net loss sustained by removal from a Staff appointment on account of age, as in the case referred to.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When it is proposed to take the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Bill, which was ordered to be printed on the 16th February?

I am afraid, Sir, I cannot undertake to answer this Question to-day; but I will do so tomorrow.

gave Notice that he would ask whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill during the present Session to deal with what were known as "the peccant boroughs?"

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister a Question as to the Business to-night; and, at the same time, I wish to call attention to what took place at the Sitting of the House on Friday last. At the beginning of Business on Friday last, I asked the right hon. Gentleman what Business was to be taken, and drew his attention to the fact that no Notice had been given to take effective Supply; and, therefore, presumed that other Business would be taken. I was informed that the Government intended to proceed with the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill; in fact, that they were very anxious to go on with that measure. We proceeded with the discussion of the first Motion that had been given Notice of on the Motion to go into Committee of Supply. That was disposed of at an early hour, and there was reason to suppose that there would have been ample time for the consideration of other Business. The House was, however, counted out; and, as far as I am able to understand, no effort was made on the part of the Government to keep a House. In view of the many innuendoes and suggestions that are thrown out about Obstruction, it is just as well that attention should be drawn to this subject.

Sir, I do not quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's mode of proceeding. I suppose I must understand his remarks as being in the nature of a Question, and that I must myself cast them into the form of a Question, though they were rather in the nature of a charge.

I meant to ask what Business was to be taken to-night.

The right hon. Gentleman did what he seldom does—he forgot the object for which he rose. With regard to the Business of this evening, we propose to go on with Supply, and then to proceed with the Irish Constabulary Bill. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to ask whether any efforts were made to keep a House on Friday. What happened was this:—At 8 o'clock I rose to address the House on the subject of Armenia. The House was counted immediately after my rising, and the number present was, I think, a little over 40, of whom 18 were Members of the Government—not, I think, a bad proportion; of the remaining 24 or 25, two belonged to the Opposition; the other 23 being on this side of the House. Under these circumstances, I think that is a tolerable indication that efforts were made by the Government, and that it was their misfortune, not their fault, if the House was counted. I admit that I myself left the House at half-past 8. I was not, therefore, in the final count; but I understand that the number of Members present in the final count was 35, of whom 16 were Members of the Government. We regretted the count very much. We set up Supply a second time immediately. The reason why we did not put down effective Supply was, because we were under a strong impression that the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Dublin (Dr. Lyons) would be discussed for nearly the whole evening.

asked whether they were to understand that the promise of the Government to keep a House was limited to the attendance of the Members of the Government only, or were they to understand that the Government had no power to obtain 40 supporters when they desired to keep a House?

asked if it would be possible to record the names of Members present when the House was counted out. If that were done, he thought it would be found that soma Gentlemen who were very fond of talking about Obstruction were very often absent when the House was counted.

As to the question of printing the names, that is a matter which depends upon the machinery of the House, and not on the will of the Government. With regard to the Question put by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ritchie), I do not understand that the engagement of the Government is confined to official Members; but the hon. Gentleman must know that my noble Friend near me (Lord Richard Grosvenor) is able to bring stronger pressure to bear on official than on non-official Members. My noble Friend reported to me on Friday night that, from the strong feeling of the independent Members, as they are called, he should have the greatest possible difficulty in keeping a House.

wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had forgotten to answer the Question which the Leader of the Opposition forgot to put.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has evidently forgotten to listen to my reply.

wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he could give any information to the House as to the suppression by the police of Mr. Harrington's newspaper, the "Kerry Sentinel," and the seizure of the printing press and other plant connected with the establishment?

Sir, this being the case of a judicial inquiry still pending, it is not possible to say very much with regard to it; but I think I can say enough to answer the natural inquiry of the hon. Member. On Sunday, the 20th of May, certain notices were posted about Tralee of a nature which I do not think it necessary for me to bring before the House; but they were notices of a most serious and improper nature—I might really apply to them much stronger epithets—and, if I read only a sentence or two from them, they would, I am sure, excite a feeling in the House of something like horror. [Cries of "Read!"] I do not wish to raise a debate on any judicial question—at all events, on any points upon which hon. Members who raised this question are aggrieved; but the notice was treasonable, and something very like murderous in its nature. This notice was, as the authorities believed, printed in the office which published The Kerry Sentinel. That office was searched, and the press and types which, in the opinion of the Government, were the instruments by which this notice was printed, were seized under the 14th section of the Prevention of Crime Act. That section ordains that arms, ammunition, papers, documents, instruments, or articles suspected to be used, or to be intended to be used, for the purpose of, or in connection with, any secret association existing for criminal purposes when seized shall be forfeited to Her Majesty. The Government Advisers were clearly of opinion that under this section the press and type with which they believed the notice to have been printed might be seized. It must be remembered I am not speaking now of this notice, as re-printed in The Kerry Sentinel, in common with a great many other newspapers; but as to the notice itself, with regard to its being afterwards posted in the neighbourhood of Tralee, having been printed by this press, an operation which, in the opinion of the Government, constituted nothing less than a crime. For this crime they intend to proceed against individuals; and if these individuals are convicted of having printed and posted this notice, I believe it is undoubted they will be guilty of a very serious crime in the eyes of the law. The district is one which is in a very critical condition. A very serious attempt at murder was perpetrated in the county within less than 48 hours before; and a document of the nature of that which was posted about Tralee constitutes a crime of a very serious description indeed. I wish it clearly to be understood that it is on suspicion of having printed this document for the purpose of being posted about, and not because The Kerry Sentinel re-printed it as several other papers had done, that this seizure has taken place.

The right hon. Gentleman has explained very clearly, and at considerable length, the way in which the Government have thought themselves justified in using a particular section of the Crimes Act, the use of which, I venture to think, was not at all contemplated at the time the Act was passed. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of guilt not being-brought home to any person in the employment of Mr. Harrington, his printing press will be restored, and compensation rendered to him by the Government for this destruction of his means of livelihood?

The Government will undoubtedly feel it their duty, in that contingency, to give the matter their grave consideration.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the warrant was not issued so far back as the 9th of April, although he now pretends it was issued on the day of the seizure?

Sir, the warrant was issued on the day to which the hon. Member refers. It was a perfectly regular warrant used for a perfectly regular purpose.

In consequence of the nature of the answer, and of the extraordinary charge which has been made against me as proprietor of the paper, The Kerry Sentinel, perhaps the House will listen to a few words of personal explanation from me. I recognize, Sir, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, the gravity of the notice which has been posted about the town of Tralee, and I agree fully with him in condemning it as monstrous. [Cries of "Order!"]

I must point out to the hon. Member that if he enters into debatable matter he will be doing that which is irregular.

I admit fully, Sir, that the position of the right hon. Gentleman so far has been right; and I have no desire whatever to contest the description which he has given of the notice in question. I will go a little further, and say the notice was not only of a scandalous character, but that it was in itself perfectly absurd, and contained evidence that it could not have been printed at my office. [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member is not in Order in these remarks. If the hon. Member desires to bring forward the matter, he can do so in the form of a substantive Motion with Notice.

I think there is sufficient sense of fair play in the House to allow me to make my explanation. I desire to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of drawing attention to the seizure of The KerrySentinel, which I claim to be a matter of public importance.

The hon. Member should bring up in writing, the definite matter of urgent public importance which he desires to bring under the notice of the House.

accordingly, having stated the matter in writing, asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance—namely, the seizure of The Kerry Sentinel newsnaper at Tralee.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) be now heard?

called on those hon. Gentlemen who supported the Motion to rise in their places.

declared that the Question could not accordingly be put.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether those hon. Members who wish to hear the hon. Member for Westmeath cannot now divide the House on the Motion?

In answer to the hon. Member for Louth, I have to say that the Standing Order upon this matter terminates with these words—

"Unless, if fewer than forty Members and not less than ten shall thereupon rise in their places, the House shall, on a Division, upon Question put forthwith, determine whether such Motion shall he made."

Therefore, if ten Members think proper to rise in their places, the matter may be determined upon Question put forthwith by a Vote of the House.

Sir, I am deeply grateful for being afforded this opportunity of making the explanation which, if the House had permitted me, I should have made earlier, so that it might now have been at its ordinary Business. In the most emphatic manner I wish to agree in the condemnation which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland made of the threatening notice posted up on the pillars in the town of Tralee; and I wish furthermore to state that, were I in my place as editor and proprietor of The Kerry Sentinel, and if the right hon. Gentleman, or any representative of his, believing that that document emanated from my office, applied to me for the necessary facilities to find out its author, I should, in the fullest possible manner, have placed every facility in his way, and would have been deeply grateful to the authorities if, having found the guilty persons in my office, they weeded them out. But the course which the authorities have taken is a very unusual, and, towards me, a very harsh and unprecedented course. Without any communication whatever with me, or with my brother, who conducts my business, or my foreman, 50 policemen entered my office, acting under a warrant signed six weeks before this threatening notice was issued. They seized not only the printed copies of my newspaper, but the type. They arrested the foreman, they turned out of the office every employé I had, and sent throughout the Three Kingdoms, if not over the world, the statement that I was responsible for this scandalous document. I think in no civilized country in the world except Ireland could such things occur. I do not believe that any person who knows me would concur in the infamous allegation that I or any person belonging to me could be responsible for the issue of this infamous document. I will not offend the House by reading it; but I might be permitted to read two sentences which will show that the document was a decoy, issued for the purpose of injuring me, or some other equally innocent individual, by an enemy, and not by one who agreed in the so-called sentiments expressed therein. The notice in question states that a meeting of "Invincibles" would be held in a particular street in the town, naming the street and the part of the street, and it says—"Secret drillings are going on there." Does the right hon. Gentleman affect to believe, or do the police, who moved, I presume, under his instructions, believe, that any sane man, however criminal, and desirous of attacking the Government in Ireland, would issue a bonâ fide notice calling a meeting of "Invincibles" at a particular place, post it on the pillars of a public building, and thus reveal the place of meeting to the police? On the face of it this notice is absurd. The police, when they originally moved under the warrant, saw the document in type in the newspaper, in which they must have seen, too, that the editor wrote condemning it. It has been said that the notice must have been printed in Tralee, because its size corresponded with the width of the columns of the local newspapers. But anyone acquainted with the technicalities of a printing office knows that type can be set up to any width. The Government, I believe, seized my paper because they saw this document in the news columns; and when they perceived their mistake, although they returned the type first, yet, true to that instinct by which they persecuted every man in Ireland on whom they lay hands, they determined not to retrace their steps, and so they again seized and carried off everything there. Perhaps I am speaking more strongly than I ought; but I must say that these proceedings by the police are not to the credit of the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been wiser and more creditable to the right hon. Gentleman, and it would have better tended to advance good government in Ireland, had the right hon. Gentleman investigated the facts, and visited on the police who acted in this manner what censure they deserved. This seizure took place on Tuesday last. On Wednesday the police surrendered to my representative in the office the type they had seized; but they went to my writing office and took away all my letters, account books, and library. For what? Simply because someone has been wicked enough, and foolish enough—criminal enough, if you will—to issue such a notice. Even if the contention of the right hon. Gentleman were correct, and that without my cognizance, or that of my representative, the document was printed in my office, as might have been done by the merest boy in the office, is it because I had an unfaithful person in my employment that the representatives of Her Majesty's Government should come into my office and seize everything absolutely which belonged to me, carry away my property, and blacken my character, which is dearer to me than anything else? I beg to move the Adjournment of the House.

I am bound to state that the observations of the hon. Member have, to a considerable extent, disappointed the expectations which I personally, and those who had supported the hon. Member's Motion, had formed of the hon. Member's intention in rising to address the House. The suspicions of the authorities may have been erroneous—that I do not deny—but, at all events, the case is a very doubtful one, and I had thought that it had been the intention of the hon. Member to make a personal explanation in reference to this subject. It was in that belief that I and others had supported the hon. Member's Motion. The hon. Member, however, has certainly gone very much further than that in entering into a matter which is still before the Courts of Justice. I expected from the hon. Member nothing more than an assurance that he, as a Member of Parliament, disapproved strongly of this Notice, and that he knew nothing of the matter. Had the hon. Member stopped there it was an explanation which he might fairly have been permitted to make, and I should not have regretted the vote I had given in favour of his Motion.

I can assure the House that I did not intend to do more than the right hon. Gentleman has indicated. And I may say that if there is to be a judicial investigation of the matter, I shall willingly place myself at the right hon. Gentleman's disposal at any moment.

As the hon. Gentleman's intention coincided with our expectation of what he would have said when he stood up, I hope he and his Friends will now allow this debate to close, and the Business of the House to be proceeded with. The hon. Member has been permitted to say what as a Member of Parliament he might be fairly expected to say; and any prolongation of the discussion would be quite unnecessary and uncalled for.

I think my hon. Friend could not have done anything less than he has done as regards the nature and extent of the remarks which he made to the House. It was right that he should have expressed his abhorrence of the notice in question, his belief that nobody connected with his office had had anything to do with its publication, and his entire want of any knowledge as regards the publication of the criminal document. But it was also right that my hon. Friend—and I cannot help thinking that the House, in allowing him permission, acted to some extent from this point of view—should have an opportunity which is afforded by the Rules of the House of protesting against an act of the Executive which is entirely unprecedented even in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that a prosecution is going to follow; but if we are to go by precedents in cases of this kind in Ireland, the only prosecution which can purge the Government from the consequences of their action will be a successful prosecution of my hon. Friend himself. No newspaper has ever up till now been seized in Ireland without its seizure being followed by a successful prosecution of the owner to test the legality of that seizure. We have not been told whether any person is to be prosecuted at all; we have not heard from the Irish Executive if there is any person charged by the local police authorities with being implicated in the publication of this most objectionable notice. The right hon. Gentleman only informed the House that a judicial inquiry was going on. Is my hon. Friend to lose his means of livelihood because the Government desires to make a judicial inquiry? Cannot the Government make a judicial inquiry without seizing the printing presses, the types, and the library of my hon. Friend—without practically suppressing his newspaper, without practically destroying his property—property that it has taken years of his life, in his humble position as a country journalist, to acquire? Cannot the Government do everything necessary to find out the authors of this infamous document without destroying the means of livelihood of my hon. Friend, and without doing that which renders freedom of the Press in Ireland a perfect farce? Now, the Government, in passing the Prevention of Crime Act, gave a material concession with regard to the Press Clauses. The Press Clauses, as they originally stood, gave the Lord Lieutenant power to suppress any newspaper he pleased by putting the editor of such newspaper under rule of bail. Subsequently it was conceded that the Lord Lieutenant should issue a warrant, and give upon that warrant some detail of the offensive passages. This Press Clause was not considered sufficient in the present case. If the action of the Government was legal, and, no doubt, so extraordinary are the clauses of the Crimes Act that they can be used in most extraordinary directions; but if the action of the Government was legal, it is possible for them to seize the printing press and destroy the machinery of any newspaper they please without going to the trouble of observing the provisions of the Statute enacted by Parliament for the purpose of curbing newspapers. Now, I wish to point out the section of the Act under which the Government acted in this case; and I think it must have astonished the right hon. Gentleman himself to hear that the police authorities had availed of this particular section. It is Section 14, and states that from time to time, and so forth—

"The Lord Lieutenant should have power to seize in any proclaimed district any arms, ammunition, papers, documents, instruments, or articles suspected to be used or intended to he used for the purposes of or in connection with secret societies or secret associations."

Now, would anybody in his senses have supposed that these powers were to be used for the suppression of newspapers? Seizing type and destroying the means of livelihood of members of the community. When this Bill—the Crimes Bill—was introduced into this House, the Home Secretary said this provision was to be used for the purpose of discovering the machinery of murder—the crape masks, the pistols, the daggers, and the other weapons of crime. We were told nothing then about printing presses or about public newspapers. Now, I would ask the Chief Secretary, I would ask any Member of the Irish Government in the exercise of common sense, in the exercise of ordinary judgment, which, indeed, I must say seems to be conspicuously absent from the Government of Ireland at the present time, to examine this document and say whether he thinks the members of any criminal secret organization would have printed and published such a notice as this? Why, Sir, the place in which the conspirators were to meet was published for the information of the police by these "Invincible" conspirators. The locality indicated for the meeting was the very one in which the foreman printer of the newspaper lived; and is it likely, if the paper was implicated in the publication, that they would throw suspicion on the foreman printer by assigning the locality in which he lived as the one in which these alleged illegal drills were to take place? The whole case is thoroughly preposterous. But since it is to be the subject of a judicial inquiry, I will not discuss it—I would prefer to base my contention upon the unprecedented action of the Executive, under a section of the Crimes Act, for a purpose for which it was never intended to be used when the Act was being passed. In conclusion, I submit that my hon. Friend has fairly made out his case against the Irish Executive, and that the Irish authorities have grossly abused in this instance the powers intrusted to them by Parliament for a very different purpose.

asked the House to take note of the purpose for which this Motion had been made, and the language which had been made use of, and of the action which the Government had thought right to take in supporting the Motion for Adjournment. They had had assurances from time to time that under the New Rules the Adjournment of the House would not be moved except upon a matter of urgent public importance. Under that name they had had dragged before the House a private explanation—an explanation which was said to be legitimate by the Government; they had had an attack on various clauses of the Crimes Act—["No!"]—a distinct attack on the police in Ireland, and one of the most malicious papers in the South of Ireland advertised throughout the length and breadth of the country. ["Oh!"] It seemed to him——

rose to Order, and wished to know if the hon. Gentleman was in Order in speaking of a newspaper which he had never read as a most malicious newspaper?

called upon the hon. Member for West Surrey to proceed.

proceeding accordingly, declared that it was an abuse of the Forms and Privileges of the House that they should be called upon to discuss at length and prejudge a judicial matter such as this was to be. If the regular Opposition had taken such a course upon so trivial a matter—for the hon. Gentleman would have had an opportunity of vindicating himself in the ordinary course—they would have been charged with being guilty of the grossest Obstruction? He submitted whether it was desirable that this precedent should be set almost at the beginning of the New Rules——

asked whether it was in Order for the hon. Gentleman to put such questions to the House, and virtually to ask the House to reverse the decision which it had come to?

The hon. Member is quite in Order.

only wished further to say that the Government had assisted the House to stultify itself by proceeding to pass, upon a Division, a Motion which less than 40 Members in the House had risen to support being brought forward.

said, he did not agree with the concluding words of the hon. Member who had just sat down, because it was quite plain that the House did intend, by the closing words of the Standing Order, to reserve to itself such power of deciding whether, upon a particular occasion, although 40 Members might not rise in support of the Motion, it might not still be proper to give to an hon. Member the power of speaking upon the Adjournment. But, speaking generally of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, he rose for the purpose of saying that he did not at all complain of the criticism of the hon. Gentleman upon the action of the Government in this matter. His right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and himself had formed the best judgment they could in a case arising suddenly, one which at the moment they thought doubtful, but a case in which they thought they were best upholding the general spirit and feeling of the House by removing that doubt as far as they could. That was the whole motive that actuated his right hon. Friend and himself. Undoubtedly, when the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) rose in his place to speak, he, for one, distinctly understood him to say that he did not rise for any contro- versial purpose, and that he did not intend to make a charge against the Executive Government, or against anyone. They inferred, whether rightly or wrongly, that his purpose was to disclaim, on his own part, imputations which might have grown up out of certain recent circumstances, and which he deemed injurious to his character. The exact nature of the language which the hon. Member used did not allow the Speaker to recognize the matter as within the limits of personal explanation, and the hon. Member thereupon pleaded that he ought to be allowed to speak on the Adjournment of the House. He must admit, with the hon. Gentleman opposite, that he had been somewhat disappointed in the result of the course they took; and he would go so far to meet the hon. Gentleman who had just animadverted upon their proceedings as to say that perhaps they should be very cautious indeed upon a future occasion. For, undoubtedly, he thought the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), although he had nothing to complain of at all in his finding fault with the Government, contained nothing which justified or warranted a Motion for Adjournment. With regard to what had been stated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he might appeal to those who thought with him, and expressed the hope that they, considering the position by which the power of making such a speech was required, would not, if he might use the expression without any disrespect, abuse the power which they had obtained. As to the hon. Member for Westmeath, he made no animadversions upon him, because his intention was to limit himself to an explanation. He (Mr. Gladstone) admitted that they had acted injudiciously on this point, whether rightly or wrongly he knew not; but they had acted in conformity with the very general course which the House was always inclined to pursue in a personal matter, and even to strain a point on behalf of individual Members to enable them to place before the House any matter that affected their personal character. It was only in the interests of general equity that he, like his right hon. Friend, asked that the debate should not be continued.

said, that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had thought that the explanation of the hon. Member for Westmeath was to be a personal explanation he might have made a personal appeal to the House, and it would have been at once regarded, because the House never rejected an appeal of that land, but was always most anxious and willing to listen to a personal explanation. But this case was entirely different. No one was louder in his cries of "No!" than the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

I beg pardon, Sir. That statement is entirely without foundation.

said, that if he was wrong he was exceedingly sorry; but that was his full belief. At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman did not rise in his place as he should have done. It was an afterthought—after the Speaker had stated that the Question would be put—which induced the right hon. Gentleman to change his mind and his opinion. But he wanted to go further than that; and he appealed to the Speaker, and also to the right hon. Gentleman himself whether, when the New Rules were under discussion, it was stated that there might be some particular case at some particular time when 10 Members standing up should have the opportunity of dividing the House—not to be heard, but simply to divide, to place on record what their views and opinions were with regard to those particular circumstances. That, he believed, was the understanding of the House at the time, and not that after 40 Members had not been found, 10 Members standing up should have the full opportunity of getting as many Members as they could to support them, and reversing the decision which the House had originally come to. If the Leader of the House led them into the position they were then in, he did not know where such a course might end.

said, he would admit the justice and wisdom of the request that the question should not be further debated. It should be clearly recollected, however, that the hon. Member for Westmeath, was a new Member, and that he was not familiar with the Forms of the House. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) thought, in justice to his hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath, it should be stated that he had not at first any intention of entering into the dis- cussion of a question that was under judicial investigation. All he wished to do was to make a personal explanation. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated the Executive believed that from the office of The Kerry Sentinel had been issued a publication inciting, not merely to treasonable offences, but to murder. This was a terrible suspicion for any Member of Parliament to labour under; and his hon. Friend desired to state that he was the proprietor of the newspaper at whose office it was supposed these bills had been printed, but that he knew nothing of their publication; that he wag in London when they appeared; that he had no sympathy with the announcement; and that, as far as he was able, he would assist the Government in detecting those who had been instrumental in giving publicity to the incriminated placard. This was a fair and candid statement; and if the House had permitted the hon. Member to make it, he would have done so in a few minutes, and the matter would have ended there. But the House, in a very unusual way, refuse to accord him the privilege it accorded on all other occasions to Members who, when their personal honour was at stake, asked for an opportunity for explanation. It was from the refusal of this privilege that the Adjournment was moved; and during the discussion his hon. Friend had entered at more length than he originally intended into the case which so nearly concerned his interest and reputation. But it should be remembered that he was a new Member of the House, and not versed in its Forms as older Members were; and some allowance should be made if he had gone beyond the limits that custom assigned for such remarks. All must admit the frankness and candour with which he had denied all knowledge of, and repudiated all sympathy with, the offending publication. It should be recollected, also, that in this controversy he had everything at stake. The Government suspected that an objectionable publication had issued from his office. They had not commenced proceedings in the ordinary way against him for such publication. They would have done that in this country, and it was a fair way. If the Messrs. Harrington had broken the law, by all means let them suffer for it; but to punish them before they were convicted was a strange description of justice. And that was what the Government had done. On suspicion that the circular had come from The Kerry Sentinel office, everything in the office had been seized by the police—presses, paper, type, books, furniture—and most of them conveyed to Dublin. And all this was done before it was proved that the hon. Member or his relatives had been guilty of the offence that the Executive suspected them of. The savings of a lifetime were at issue. It might be a matter of amusement to some hon. Members, but it was ruin to his hon. Friend. He and his brothers had honourably built up a prosperous business, and they now saw, by the action of the Irish Executive, their property scattered and the savings of years destroyed. The circular itself, apart from being criminal, was absurd; and it was unreasonable to suppose that any sensible and responsible man would sanction its publication. It was quite possible to suppose that it might have been done by an enemy of his hon. Friend. He had rivals in Tralee, and someone might have got into his office surreptitiously and used his type for the purpose of printing such a document. But it would be unfair to hold him responsible for that. Not long ago a very offensive item of intelligence was published in The Times. It was grossly indecent, and there was little doubt it was done maliciously. No one would hold the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) responsible for the publication of such matter. Someone with an evil design had availed himself of the facilities of The Times office to annoy the proprietors. It was quite as likely in Ireland, where Party passions ran so high, that some political rival had entered the office of The Kerry Sentined and used the type there with similar designs and for like ends. They could not accuse his hon. Friend of it, as he was in London, and they had his repudiation of the act. There were numerous newspaper proprietors in the House of Commons; and was it reasonable to hold them criminally responsible for the action of persons in their office who might seek to damage them by publishing illegal or offensive matter? Everyone knew that in England such a course would not be pursued. Yet in Ireland they did it, and did it without question. As far as his knowledge went, there was no case in this century in the United Kingdom where a newspaper proprietor had been used so harshly and unjustly as his hon. Friend had been; and it was natural that he should avail himself of the opportunity the Motion for Adjournment afforded to put his case before the House and the country.

said, he would not have spoken on the subject but for a remark made by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). If the question had simply been whether the newspaper belonging to the hon. Member for Westmeath had printed a certain notice in regard to the "Invisibles," he should have left the matter alone; but when this newspaper was held up as one that was being conducted on principles of extreme peace and order, and when it was implied that on this solitary occasion some enemy found his way into the office and printed a few objectionable passages, he felt compelled to say that he could go much further, and could produce to the House a column and-a-half published in the paper on the 8th of May, which would fully justify any Government in seizing it.

desired, as the only Member present on that side of the House who rose to support the hon. Member for Westmeath, to say that he thought the hon. Member was entitled, under the circumstances, to make an explanation, and he was very glad the Government supported him.

wished to ask a question of the Attorney General for Ireland, as he understood it was supposed in this case that a placard which appeared on the walls had been printed in the office of The Kerry Sentined. It was customary among proprietors of country newspapers that they also carried on a general printing business in their offices. Well, in this particular case, not only was the type seized because it was supposed that this type might also have printed The Kerry Sentinel, but a further step took place—the actual issue of the newspaper itself was seized. What he wished to ask the Attorney General for Ireland then—because it was very important that they should understand what the law was in those matters—was whether, if the printer who printed a placard or any other document happened to be a newspaper proprietor, not only the presses and type might be seized in accordance with the law as it now stood in Ireland, but also the actual issues of the newspaper itself.

said, the question the hon. Member had put to him was one in respect to an alleged matter of fact about which he had not the information the hon. Member appeared to possess. He was not aware whether the issue of the paper referred to had been seized or not. If the issue of a paper containing those atrocious publications was seized, he thought that seizure perfectly justified, whether the printing presses were used for printing other things or not.

said, that with the permission of the House he would withdraw his Motion.

said, he wished to draw attention to the grave inconvenience caused by the Government not keeping a House on last Friday night. The Prime Minister that evening, in answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), had tried to throw the responsibility on the Opposition side of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman must see that they were not bound to keep a House to pass Government measures. He should have thought that it would have been a good opportunity, when the Conservative Benches were empty, for the Government to pass some of the pernicious measures which they wished to palm off upon the country. He trusted that they would not hear again of "veiled Obstruction."

wished to urge upon the Government the advisability of putting Supply on the Paper on Friday nights. He was quite certain that if there had been Votes of Supply to be discussed on Friday night some progress would have been made. He hoped the Government would adopt the practice of always putting Supply on the Paper on Fridays.