wished to give Notice that, on the Order of the Day for the Consideration of this Bill on that day week, he would move—

"That the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee; and that it be an Instruction to the Committee that guano and artificial manures be included in the same class as dung, compost, and all sorts of manures, and that the maximum rate of that class do not exceed one penny halfpenny per ton per mile."

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any successor has been or is to be appointed in the place of Lord Dufferin, who has now left Egypt, or through whom Her Majesty's Government at present communicate with the Khedive and his Government?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report that Major Baring has been or is about to be appointed to represent British interests in Egypt; and, whether it is intended to confer on Major Baring any powers beyond those hitherto exercised by Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General in Egypt, and to give to him any official title, and a higher salary; and, in such case, what title and what amount of salary it is proposed to give him, and what functions he is appointed to discharge?

Sir, in reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, and to that of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, I have to state that Major Evelyn Baring, now Finance Minister in India, will be appointed to succeed Sir Edward Malet at Cairo. His title, rank, and functions will be the same as those of his predecessor. In consequence of the representations of Sir Edward Malet, it has already been decided to raise the salary to £4,000, the amount assigned to the Missions at Lisbon, Rio Janeiro, and Yeddo. It is under consideration to make a personal allowance to Major Baring, in order to diminish, to some extent, the great pecuniary loss which he will sustain in accepting, at the request of Her Majesty's Government and for the Public Service, the present exchange of Offices. The exact amount of this allowance has not yet been fixed; but it is hoped that, by reductions which it is proposed to effect elsewhere, no additional charge will be incurred by the public.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the "Irish Times," of Friday, May 4th:—

"Tilly Fay, a young woman, of 9t, Mecklenburgh Street, was charged with selling porter without licence. There were two summonses in this case, one being for the 5th and the other for the 15th instant. The evidence in both cases was to the effect that both full and empty porter bottles, glasses half filled with porter, and men sitting drinking, were found on the premises. In the yard was a basketful of empty bottles. The prisoner lived with her sister;

"Mr. Keys. I suppose these people are very poor;

"31 C. Yes, sir, poor enough. The father is out of employment;

"Mr. Keys. What excuse did they give;

"31 C. No other means of livelihood, your worship;

"Mr. Keys. I suppose these wretched people are really very poor. I shall impose a small fine, only 10s. I suppose they will make it up in a week in the old way;"

I am informed, Sir, that the report in question is substantially accurate, except in so far as it conveys that only one fine of 10s. was imposed. A similar fine was imposed for each offence. The defendant was a person in extreme poverty, and the magistrate appears to have taken this into account in measuring the money penalty to be imposed. I do not think this can be fairly described as "admitting poverty as an excuse for a breach of the Law."

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, since appointment of Adjutant of Antrim Artillery, the Commanding Officer has been in the habit of incorrectly certifying that the Adjutant kept a horse, thereby enabling him to draw forage allowance; and, whether it is a fact that it is only within the last few weeks that this Officer has been in temporary possession of a horse?

Sir, it has been ascertained that the Adjutant of the Antrim Artillery has been without a horse during certain periods for which he claimed forage allowance. This has been a serious breach of discipline on the part of the Adjutant, of which due notice will be taken. The commanding officer has certified incorrectly that the Adjutant kept a horse. He did so on the faith of that officer's receipt for the forage allowance, which he regarded as equivalent to a certificate that the conditions under which the allowance could be drawn had been fulfilled. When the commanding officer visited the regiment, the Adjutant's horse was paraded for his inspection; but this happened to be at a time when the Ad- jutant was really in possession of a horse. The commanding officer will be informed that it was his duty, before certifying for the forage allowance, to have obtained from the Adjutant a certificate that he was bonâ fide in possession of a horse; and he will be directed to comply with this rule in future.

asked if it was not the duty of the commanding officers of Militia to obtain certificates from Adjutants, showing that they were actually in possession of a horse?

said, he believed the duty of a commanding officer was to satisfy himself, before signing the certificate, that the Adjutant was entitled to forage allowance for a horse.

asked whether they were to understand that the War Office considered the word of an Adjutant a sufficient guarantee in a case of this kind?

asked that Notice of the Question should be given?

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, before introducing into this House the Criminal Appeal Bill, Her Majesty's Government had sought for and obtained, from the Judges of the High Court, any opinion on the principles or details of the measure, or, if not, whether they will obtain such opinion from the Judges, either corporately or individually, and lay it upon the Table, before the House proceeds with the Report stage of the Bill?

said, he was sorry that his hon. Friend, should have put himself to the trouble and inconvenience of asking this Question; because, on the 13th of March, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) put identically the same Question. The Answer which he then gave his hon. Friend would find at page 366 of Hansard's Parliamentary Debates of this year.

asked whether, before the Report stage, his hon. and learned Friend would obtain the opinions of the Judges and lay them on the Table?

said, he stated at the time that he had submitted the heads of the Bill to certain Judges, and among others he mentioned the Chief Justice of England.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has yet arrived at any decision as to the advisability of further widening Piccadilly opposite Hamilton Place and Park Lane, with a view of easing the traffic at those points?

Sir, I have considered the Question referred to by the noble Lord, and have come to the conclusion that the difficulty referred to by him would not be cured by further widening Piccadilly at the bottom of Hamilton Place. The check to the traffic which occasionally takes place there is due to two streams of traffic crossing one another, and not to want of width of Piccadilly—indeed, the south side of Piccadilly is generally quite free. I am not, therefore, prepared to throw into Piccadilly any more of the Green Park. The block at Hyde Park Corner has been entirely removed. The check to traffic at the bottom of Hamilton Place is comparatively trivial, and will be best dealt with by police regulations.

asked whether the First Commissioner of Works had considered the proposal to widen Park Lane?

said, that was a question for the consideration of the Metropolitan Board of Works.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the Table of the House, Copy of Proceedings and Sentence of Court Martial on F. Maxwell-Heron, late Commander of H.M.S. "Clyde," with any Correspondence ensuing thereon?

I regret, Sir, that I am unable to comply with my hon. and gallant Friend's request, as it is not according to usual practice to lay on the Table a Copy of the proceedings of a Naval court mar- tial. I have made inquiry, and find that there is no record of such a publication within the last 50 years.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When it is likely that the Report of the City Companies Commissioners will be laid upon the Table?

, in reply, said, that the Report would be published during the course of the present Session.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If, following the practice of former years, a Return can be furnished of the guards and sentries mounted daily throughout the garrisons and stations at Home, and the purposes for which supplied; also the effects on the minds of men in causing dislike for the Military Service by such guards; and, whether many of these guards could be dispensed with by employing watchmen, and by providing storehouses with good doors, secured by efficient locks, and thus doing away with the necessity of posting sentries?

Sir, it appears to be upwards of 60 years since such a Return was furnished, and then it applied only to the Metropolis. Returns are received monthly from districts and regiments showing the number of guards and sentries furnished, but not the purposes for which supplied. Sentry duty is, doubtless, irksome, and much disliked; but it is a very necessary part of a soldier's training, indispensable in war, and one for which some practice in peace is requisite. Of course, many of the sentries might be replaced by watchmen; but it would be at increased expense to the public. Attention is paid at all times to reducing, as far as consistent with public safety, the number of sentinels; and I had recently under consideration the possibility of a reduction of their number in London, where the duties are exceptionally heavy. But, for reasons stated to the House by the Home Secretary on the 19th of March last, it became necessary, as a temporary measure, to increase largely the sentry duty of the troops, especially of the Foot Guards in London. I cannot help taking this opportunity of expressing my sense of the alacrity with which these additional duties were undertaken by the Household Troops, and of the admirable spirit, temper, and good conduct of the men under conditions occasionally of a very trying character.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state what amount of land has up to the present time been taken by Transvaal subjects from the Bechuana Nation, and been incorporated in the so-called "Stellaland Territory;" whether remonstrances on this subject are still being addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Transvaal; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have still any reason to believe that such remonstrances will produce the slightest effect; also, whether it is true, as stated in a letter written by an Englishman at Taungs, in the Batlahin Territory, on April 2nd, and published in "England" of May 12th, that, about the month of May last year, one of the Captains of the Volunteer Boer Freebooters brought from Pretoria 300 rounds of cannon ammunition for use against Manko-roane, together with a letter, signed by Mr. Joubert, to the effect that the said ammunition was to be paid for to the Transvaal Government by the Boers fighting against Mankoroane, six months after delivery, and that such payment was to bear interest at the rate of six per cent.; and, whether the Transvaal Government still pretend that they are now manifesting, or have at any time manifested, the slightest desire to put a stop to the depredations committed by Transvaal subjects in the Territory of our late Bechuana allies?

Sir, the only information we have as to the amount of land taken by the Transvaal from Bechuana Chiefs is contained in a telegram from the Cape, in which it is said that, according to newspaper reports, there have been about 1,000 farms allotted. But, as most of these are merely farms on paper, this figure gives no clue whatever to the amount of land that has been actually taken. There have been no recent remonstrances addressed directly by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Transvaal, because the whole relations between the two Governments are under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government. In answer to the second Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that statements substantially similar to those contained in the Question have been made by a person with a Dutch name, but who requests his name to be kept secret. He sent the statement through Mankoroane himself to the Civil Commissioner at Barkly, but only quite recently, although they relate to matters alleged to have occurred a year ago. As to the second part of the Question, the Transvaal Government still profess to deplore the existing state of things in Bechuanaland; but maintain that as long as they are precluded by the Convention from taking any direct action in that country, they cannot be held responsible for what is going on there. They, however, recently sent Colonel Ferreira to the Border as their Special Commissioner, with a view—to use the words of his instructions—to "extirpate the band of cattle-robbers once for all," but not to cross the Border unless he secured the co-operation of all concerned. But, beyond restoring 75 head of cattle to Mankoroane, we have not yet heard of any result from this expedition.

Will the Papers to which the hon. Member has referred in his Answer be laid upon the Table of the House before the contemplated discussion on the affairs of the Transvaal? It will be necessary for us to have all the information possessed by the Government in connection with the last phase of that question?

I cannot say positively when the Papers will be laid before the House; but they are being prepared.

, who complained that his Question had been altered, asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, in view of the practical failure of the Training College at Carnarvon in accomplishing the object for which it was established, that of training teachers for schools in Wales, the largo grant of public money now made will be continued for its support?

Sir, we are in communication with the Governing Body of Carnarvon Training College, with the view to such changes in that institution as will render it both efficient and acceptable as a place for the training of Welsh teachers. We shall await the deliberations of the Governing Body before taking any further steps, and we trust that they will concur in our views.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman intended this year to propose a Vote for the College?

Yes, Sir, of course; because the Vote is for work already done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen a statement in the "Cornish Telegraph" of May 24th, to the effect that, on May 19th, in the churchyard of Gwinear, Cornwall, the sexton, acting, as stated by him, under the authority of the vicar, endeavoured to prevent the Rev. J. W. Harbord, Wesleyan minister, conducting a funeral service at the burial of an unbaptised child, and proceeded to lower the coffin and to fill up the grave while the service was being read; and, whether he will make inquiry into the facts of the case; and, if they are found to be as stated, will cause legal proceedings to be instituted against the sexton for obstructing a burial under the Burial Act of 1880?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the facts referred to in the following paragraph in the "Staffordshire Advertiser":—

"On May 3rd Mr. Joseph Kinsey, of Stafford, manufacturer, applied at the Cemetery for burial space for a deceased child, and wished to have the grave made by the side of that of his brother, who died some years ago, and was buried in the consecrated portion. Mr. Kinsey is a Wesleyan, and he stated to the registrar that the service at the grave would be conducted by the Wesleyan minister. To this the registrar objected, and declined to allow a Nonconformist service to take place on consecrated ground. In consequence of the registrar's refusal to sell him the site he preferred, Mr. Kinsey proceeded to select one in another portion of the Cemetery. At this moment two gentlemen, friends of Mr. Kinsey, challenged the registrar's ruling, and ultimately appealed to the town clerk, who, after consideration, modified the objection to the extent of allowing the funeral, but confirmed it as to selling the grave;"

Sir, in reply to the first of these Questions, I have to state that I have received a letter from the vicar disavowing any responsibility for the sexton's action. The conduct of the sexton seems to have been very foolish and improper; but as this was the first funeral in the parish under the recent Act, I do not think we need take any further notice of the matter. To the second Question I have to reply that there seems to have been some misunderstanding between the parties referred to. I have a letter about the matter in which I find that no objection whatever was taken to the burial. A service had been conducted that very day in the cemetery by a Wesleyan minister, and there had been other services of that kind previously. The burial authorities at first doubted their power to sell the land; but that doubt was removed, and the land, instead of being refused, was actually sold, and a receipt was given.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 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 Foreign Department, or whether it is of a private character, and not in any way recorded in the Foreign Office for the information of future Secretaries of State?

Sir, I have nothing to add to the reply which was given by the Prime Minister to a similar Question addressed to him by the hon. Member on February 14 last year. The reply then given still holds good. The Answer to which I refer is a long one; but, if the hon. Member prefers it, I shall be happy to read it to the House. [Cries of "Read!"]

Would the noble Lord be good enough to inform the House whether any correspondence has taken place between the date mentioned in the noble Lord's Answer and the present time?

I have already stated that the Answer given by the Prime Minister on February 14, 1882, still holds good; and I will read that Answer if the hon. Member wishes. [Cries of "Read!" and "No!"]

I should be glad if the noble Lord would road the Answer. After a short pause,

said: The noble Lord said that if I wished it he would read the Answer of the Prime Minister last year. I should like him to read it. ["No, no!"]

I said I would read it if the hon. Gentleman desired it, and accordingly I will do so. The Answer of the Prime Minister is as follows:—

"The House is aware that it is contrary to the usage of Parliament—there may he exceptions, but they are exceedingly rare—to produce or lay upon the Table Correspondence, or a single letter which are not of an official or diplomatic character. That being so, the question is open to another Parliamentary objection upon the details of such Correspondence, because it is well known that the House takes objection—it is an established rule to take objection—to accounts given by Ministers of public documents, which they were not prepared to produce. I am afraid, therefore, I have no course but to decline to go further than the statement already made by my hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) on this subject; but I will endeavour to convey to the mind of the hon. Member with perfect clearness the nature and the aim of such communications as have taken place between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington. I will not enter into the subject as to whether this Question is accurate or in accurate in all its statements—because they are both. It has been said by my hon. Friend near me, as I shall state in the most distinct terms, not only that there has been no appointing of Mr. Errington, and, of course, no remuneration, but that there have been no negotiations with Mr. Errington, no proposal made to him, and no request tendered to Mr. Errington. The purport of any intercourse with Lord Granville by Mr. Errington has been exclusively with reference to his being a channel or medium of information. Mr. Errington is not exclusively the medium of information, because on any occasion of any other gentleman as well qualified as Mr. Errington by character and intelligence to convey just and accurate information to Rome, Lord Granville might, in the same manner, have been induced to think it well to supply him or permit him to be supplied with information of that character. The purpose has been entirely to convey information, and information upon matters interesting to the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, and naturally, as connected with them, to the public at large. That is the purpose, aim, and limit of these communications; and I may say that the journey of Lord O'Hagan to Rome, which was, like Mr. Errington's a private journey, taken entirely on his own motion, might as well have been made the subject of a Parliamentary inquiry as that of Mr. Errington. It was a journey for private objects, with which we had nothing to do; but, with respect to the journey, we did think it useful—and we do think it useful—that many matters of great interest with respect to the question of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her. Majesty should be made known at Rome in conjunction with the very best information that is to be had on the subject.—(3 Hansard, [266] 640–1.)

Sir, the Answer to which we have just listened does not convey any definite meaning to my mind. It has nothing to do with my Question, which I will venture to repeat. [The hon. Member read the Question already given.]

Sir, I consider the Question fully answered by the Answer I have already given. I may add this much:—If my hon. Friend considers I did not answer the latter portion of it, I am of opinion that I did answer it clearly and by implication: and if he wishes for a formal Answer, I would say that the communications referred to in the commencement of the Answer which I read are clearly not communications which have been placed, or could be placed within the terms of the Answer, on what my hon. Friend calls the file of the Foreign Office.

I would ask the noble Lord if no communication has taken place between the Irish Office and Mr. Errington; if the late Chief Secretary, or the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, have not had communication with Mr. Errington? If the noble Lord cannot answer that Question I will put it to the Prime Minister, either to-day, or on a future occasion. I wish, further, to ask if Mr. Errington was not publicly received at the Vatican, along with other diplomatists and Representatives of Foreign Powers, as the Representative of this country?

I would ask the Prime Minister a Question arising out of the Answer of the noble Lord. It is this:—If the Mission of Mr. Errington has had beneficial results in producing a pronouncement from His Holiness the Pope, owing to Mr. Errington having been made the channel of communication between Her Majesty's Government and the See of Rome, whether it would not be of advantage to the Public Service, and of use to a future Government, that a record of those communications should be deposited in the Foreign Office?

Sir, that is asking for an opinion, and an opinion upon a case on which I am not prepared altogether to affirm the accuracy of the statement or implication of the noble Lord. The Answer read by my noble Friend rather tended to show that Mr. Errington had not borne any character whatever, so far as we were concerned, which was not exclusively his own. For example, Lord O'Hagan, who went to Rome at the time I think Mr. Errington first went there, was in a very similar position, and discharged very similar offices on his own account. In the matter relating to the state of Ireland, he took the opportunity, on his visit to Rome, to lay information before the Pope and the Vatican. I may add, Sir, that there are others who have done the same, one a friend of mine, well known to the House, who has been in Rome quite lately. With respect to him, it was by a note received by me from him after he left Rome that I learned of his movements. I am speaking of Lord Houghton. He wrote to me informing me that he had had an opportunity of communicating what he conceived to be information upon Irish matters to the Pope in Rome. Therefore, the noble Lord will see that there is nothing in the nature of the communications between Lord Granville and Mr. Errington which can properly be made the subject of official record. As to communications between Mr. Errington and the late Chief Secretary and the present Lord Lieutenant, I am not acquainted with the facts; but if the hon. Member likes to put down a Question I will endeavour to answer him.

Will the Prime Minister state if it be true that Mr. Errington is received in an official character at the Vatican, and that Lord Houghton was not?

With reference to the Answer of the Prime Minister, will he object to state whether either Lord O'Hagan or Lord Houghton received from Her Majesty's Government a letter of confidence?

I just stated I was unaware, and by implication I stated that my noble Friend (Earl Granville) was not aware, of Lord Houghton having had any communication with Rome until after the fact. With regard to Lord O'Hagan, I think, considering he had just been holding the Office of Lord Chancellor of Ireland in connection with Her Majesty's Government, it would have been quite unnecessary that Lord Granville should have addressed a note to Lord O'Hagan, as he did to Mr. Errington, stating that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, he was a person of character and capacity such as to entitle any statement he might make to consideration.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a licence which was given to Mr. L. E. Morgan, of Bland Street, Moss Side, Manchester, to keep 10 lbs. of explosives for the purpose of an exhibition with experiments showing the various properties of explosives at Victoria Gardens, Tetley, near Sheffield, was subsequently revoked; and, if so, for what reason?

Sir, these are matters entirely in the hands of the local authorities, who are responsible. I suppose that it was not convenient at the time that the exhibition should be held.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, he will have any objection to inform intending contractors for the conveyance of the mails between Holyhead and Kingstown that the clauses in the advertisement and tender form, which provide that "it is essential that the vessels to be employed in the service shall be at least equal in respect of speed, stability at sea, and accommodation for mails and for passengers" to the "present mail boats," shall be understood to mean that the vessels to be employed in the service shall be not less in speed, tonnage, engine power, dimensions, draught of water, stability at sea, and accommodation for mails and passengers than the present mail boats?

Sir, so far as I am able to judge, the words contained in the advertisement are sufficient to secure that boats in no respect inferior to those now employed can be accepted under the new contract. As it is stipulated that the speed shall not be less than that now maintained, I do not see any use in making any stipulation as to engine-power, as my hon. Friend suggests.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the War Office permanently to close the rifle ranges at Wormwood Scrubbs?

Sir, the range at Wormwood Scrubbs has been re-opened; with the restriction that Range A is only to be used by experienced shots.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements made by the Gibraltar Correspondent of the Exchange Telegram Company, and published in many of the London evening papers on Monday last:—

"Gibraltar, Monday.—I have heard of the sale of another slave in Tangier. It was that of a woman who was sold for thirty-seven dollars. Not long since a slave (a woman) was admitted to the French hospital, who had been compelled by her owner to use her bare feet every day in slacking lime. While she was in the hospital her feet fell off, and both of her legs had to be amputated. It is possible, as stated, that thirty or forty slaves only are sold in Tangier, but that is in the capital alone, where these sales are fewer than in other parts of the country;"

Sir, my hon. Friend will observe that the report appears to be given merely on hearsay evidence by a correspon- dent, not at Tangier, but at Gibraltar. If, however, my hon. Friend has any reason for believing it to be true, inquiry will be made into the facts through Her Majesty's Minister at Tangier. The matter would be one to be dealt with by the local tribunals, and would not afford a case for the interference of Her Majesty's Government; the state of slavery, as I have already informed the House, being, unfortunately, legal in Morocco. Her Majesty's Government, I have already stated, have no Treaty rights in regard to the Slave Trade with Morocco.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the position of certain junior clerks in the Education Department who entered that office at the age of fourteen, with a promise of a nomination for a permanent clerkship if they had a good character, and remained there till they were nineteen, but who were deprived of that nomination by the alterations subsequently made in the service; whether they are receiving now above £100 per annum, instead of £200 per annum, and with a rise per annum for any length of service of one-third only of what they otherwise would have received; whether the heads of the Department have recommended some compensation to be made to them; and, if the Government will now make them some compensation for the breach of the conditions on which they entered the service; and, if not, on what grounds such compensation is refused?

Assuming, Sir, that the Question refers to what are called third-class assistant clerks in the Education Office, I have to say that the information furnished to the hon. and learned Gentleman is not correct; and, especially, that no promise was given to these junior clerks when their service began, and that they have, without such promise, received permanent appointments of greater value than stated. It would, however, be impossible, within the limits of an Answer to a Question, to explain the details of such a case; but I may say that it has been carefully inquired into at various dates since 1879; a substantial boon was given in 1881; and there now remains, in the opinion of the Treasury, no reasonable ground of complaint.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact, as stated in a recent issue of the "Freeman's Journal," that the county Kildare Crown Solicitorship now vacant is worth £700 per annum; if it is a fact that the sub-inspectors of police prosecute at petty sessions and the Sessional Crown Solicitors at quarter sessions; and, if so, what functions besides attending assizes for six or seven days a-year, and supplying the prosecuting barristers with copies of depositions taken at petty and quarter sessions, devolve upon the Crown Solicitor; if it is a fact that a movement is on foot amongst Irish Crown Solicitors for an increase of pay; and, if this is the only reason why a sum so disproportionate to the incomes made by country solicitors practising at their profession is paid to the Crown Prosecutor of Kildare?

Sir, the vacant office, to which a salary of £700 a-year is attached, is for two counties—namely, Kildare and Meath. The duties of a Crown Solicitor in connection with Assizes are but imperfectly and inadequately described in the Question. They must be men of skill and experience in their Profession, and they have responsible and important public duties to perform. These were probably the circumstances which weighed with the Treasury authorities in fixing the amount of their remuneration, rather than a consideration of the average incomes of other gentlemen of their Profession engaged in private practice. I am not aware that a movement is on foot among them to obtain an increase of pay.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in reference to the case of Mr. Owen Ryan, at the date of his appointment in the Milford Street Male School, Belfast, which was on the 10th October 1882, there were only six assistants previously employed in the School; and, further, if it is true that the manager of the said School has, on several occasions, written to the Board requesting that Mr. Ryan be recognised as seventh assistant; and, if so, why do the Commissioners regard him as the eighth applicant for salary?

, in reply, said, that the original application of the manager of the Milford Street Male School, Belfast, was for the recognition of Mr. Ryan and another teacher named M'Dermott as seventh and eighth teachers. The Board could not recognize both, as the school was not qualified for an eighth assistant. It was a matter of indifference to them which of the two they recognized as seventh; and in finally communicating their decision they specified Mr. M'Dermott, as his name had been placed before Ryan's in the latest communication which they had received from the manager of the school. It was the case that the manager wrote several times to the Board; but his letters were quite as much in support of his claim for an eighth assistant as in the interest of Ryan. The hon. Member is, perhaps, not aware that the manager had since dismissed Ryan altogether from his service on account of grave misconduct.

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 furnished 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?

Sir, if this were merely the case of an individual, I should not have thought it right to detain the House with the answer I am about to give; but it raises an important question with regard to the Irish poor removal question. The Board have caused inquiry to be made of the guardians as to the facts of the case of William Davis. The clerk to the guardians states that William Davis came to Plymouth, as he is informed, on the 28th of November, 1881, and in that case he "had not resided at Plymouth 10 years continuously." With regard to the question whether Davis, at the time of his removal, was engaged in weekly service, earning 22s. a-week, and was the holder of a tenement furnished by himself, the Board are informed by the clerk to the guardians that Davis was in no employ at the time of his removal, and never had, as far as he can ascertain, 22s. a-week wages. He had two or three days' work at the Tramway Company's stable during the illness of another man. He rented one room, and some of his things were taken out of pawn for him when he left. The person to whom the warrant was entrusted for execution was a policeman on leave, and he did not act in this matter as a policeman, but as the agent of the guardians. The relief of 4s. 6d. per week, the guardians state, was continued after Davis was discharged from the hospital, and he applied for a truss, which was granted to him. As regards the guardians being recouped the relief granted by applying for repayment out of his pension, the guardians state that Davis had a pension of 8d. a-day, but had received the amount to the end of March before the relief was given, and nothing could have been obtained by the guardians until July, and only then if Davis were living. They were of opinion that, considering the state of his health, the family would be per- manently chargeable, and in the case of the man's death would be entirely dependent on the rates for support. The material facts of the case are in dispute; and, this being the case, the Board do not consider that they can express an opinion as to the legality of the conduct of the Plymouth magistrates and guardians. If the guardians of the Londonderry Union think themselves aggrieved by the removal on the ground that the man was not, in law, liable to be removed, and proceed as provided by the 26 & 27 Vict., c. 89, the Local Government Board for Ireland may appoint a person to make a preliminary inquiry into the circumstances attending the removal, and, if they think fit, may appeal, on behalf of the guardians, against the removal. Davis was understood, when before the guardians, to express his willingness to go to Ireland; and the clerk to the guardians states that Davis told him that he did not object to go, but his wife was unwilling. Neither Davis nor his wife made any objection before the magistrates.

inquired, whether the man was actually in receipt of relief at the time of his removal?

said, that, as he understood the statement of the guardians, that was so.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact, as stated by Mr. Dunlop, Medical Officer of Saint Pancras Workhouse, at an inquest held last week, that the practice of re-vaccinating women in the first days after their confinement (even on the day of confinement itself if that should happen on the usual weekly vaccination day) is under the sanction or by order of the Local Government Board?

, in reply, said, he had not received the depositions taken in this case; but he had written to the Coroner to ask for them. He was not aware whether Mr. Dunlop had made the statement attributed to him; but the Local Government Board had neither suggested nor ordered that women should be re-vaccinated during the first days after their confinement,

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is the fact that Mr. Croker, Local Government Board auditor, has disallowed the reduction of twenty-five per cent, granted by the Corporation of Wexford to their tenants owing to the bad seasons, and has reserved to himself the right of surcharging the land agent of the Corporation with the amount of the reduction; and, whether the Local Government Board, bearing in mind the large reductions of rent which have been made by landlords all over Ireland for a similar reason, approves of the action of Mr. Croker?

Sir, the Local Government Board are not yet in a position to give the required information on this subject. They have called upon their Auditor for a Report, which they expect to receive to-morrow.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now in a position to give the House further information respecting the renewal of diplomatic relations with Mexico?

It has been arranged with the Mexican Government that Special Envoys shall be simultaneously accredited to London and Mexico respectively, who will be charged with the duty of conducting negotiations for the renewal of diplomatic relations between the two countries. Sir Spenser St. John, British Minister in Peru, has accordingly been appointed Special Envoy from Her Majesty to the President of the Mexican Republic.

asked whether a Minister would be established with a Diplomatic Staff?

Not at present I think.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether permission has been given to the Committee of Lloyd's to erect a watch house for signalling purposes on Government ground at Dungeness; and, if so, why the contractor employed by the Committee to set up that watch house is not permitted to go upon the ground?

Sir, permission has been given, with the concurrence of the Admiralty, for the erection of the watch house by the Committee of Lloyd's. The ground, however, is in charge of the Admiralty; and it is understood that, owing to some misapprehension on the part of the Coastguard officer in local charge, the contractor was not allowed to commence the work. Steps have already been taken to remedy this, and the work can be carried out at once.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many districts have been declared infected with cattle disease in the Ardee Union, in the county of Louth, and how many in the Trim Union, in the county of Meath; and, on what grounds a licence was granted for the Dunleer Pair, on May 14th, in the former Union, and refused for the Bective Fair in the latter, which was to have been held on May 16th?

Sir, since the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, 14 areas have been, from time to time, declared infected in the Ardee Union, and eight in the Trim Union. In the case of Dunleer Fair, the disease did not exist within, at least, a radius of five miles from the town; and the licence was granted, as it was believed that the fair might be held with safety. The refusal of a licence in the case of Bective Fair was owing to the existence of disease in adjacent places, and the consequent fear of its spread if the fair were permitted to be held. Bective is situate in close proximity to where the Navan and Dunshaughlin Unions—in both of which the disease is prevalent—unite with Trim Union; and four parishes adjoining that in which Bective is situate were infected areas.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Reports of the Government of Bengal and the other local Governments upon the Indian Criminal Procedure Code Amendment Bill have been received; and, if not, when they are expected; and, whether lie will object to laying them upon the Table of the House?

The Reports have not yet arrived; but there will be no objection to laying them on the Table of the House when they do.

asked when they were coming?

I cannot say.

asked whether almost the whole of the officials of the House had reported against the Bill?

I cannot say, as the Reports have not arrived.

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, What saddlery Major Carrè shipped from Smyrna to Egypt; if he could state by whose instructions he bought it; whether he bought it from the contractor who sold him the mules; what he paid for it; whether it was found to be useless on its arrival in Egypt; and, what ultimately became of it?

Sir, as this Question relates to the Department for which I am responsible, my hon. Friend to whom it is addressed (Sir Arthur Hayter) has requested me to answer it. I have replied to several Questions put by the hon. Member on the subject of these mules; and on one occasion I expressed regret that Major Carre should not have acted on the advice of the veterinary surgeon who was associated with him in regard to the purchases that were made. But this inquiry, taken in conjunction with a former Question on the same subject, seems to me to suggest a reflection on the integrity of Major Carrè; and I think it right, therefore, in justice to that officer, who is at present stationed at St. Helena, to state that he bears a high character in the Service, and I would suggest to the hon. Member that if he has any charge to make against him, he should state distinctly what it is, and lay it before the Secretary of State. In answer to the specific inquiries now made, I may say that Major Carrè bought 300 pack saddles, with nose-bags, curry- combs, halters, ropes, and small stores at Smyrna, under instructions from the War Office, and shipped them for Egypt. These articles were bought from the contractors who sold the mules, or rather from their local agent. The sum paid was £480 17s.3d. The saddles were used in Egypt, and were, it may be assumed, ultimately returned into store in the ordinary course.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that France has proposed an agreement with Portugal to the effect that Portugal may take the south bank of the Congo on condition that Portugal will raise no objection to the annexation by France of the north bank; and, whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to recognize such a transfer of the assumed rights of Portugal in that region?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no information of any such proposed agreement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Report of the Royal Commission on the City of London Livery Companies is likely to be presented to Parliament before this Session closes, considering it was appointed nearly three years ago, and the evidence having been closed some time since?

Yes, Sir; the Report will be presented during the present Session.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to the evidence given before the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies, by which it appears that property in the City of Westminster of the estimated value of £17,000 per annum belonging to a charity school in the control of which the Corporation of the City of London have an interest has been for the last 25 years and is lying idle and waste; and, whether he would consider if the cost of elementary education in the City of Westminster could not be wholly defrayed out of such property without necessitating any contribution by rate if such charitable property was utilised?

Sir, I have inquired of the Charity Commissioners as to the statement in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question. They report that the Evidence given before the City Liveries Commission is not yet published, and that they have no knowledge of any School or charity in Westminster possessed of unrealized property to anything like the amount stated. The United Westminster Schools, of which some members of the Corporation are Governors, own considerable property in or near Victoria Street, which, under the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, is being gradually disposed of by sales and leases. More than £50,000 worth of land has been sold since 1876, and a portion of 19,800 square feet is about to be leased for 80 years at £600 a-year, and was advertised in The Times of the 11th instant. Whatever may be the increased income derivable from these sources, it will not be applicable to the payment of the School Board rates of Westminster, but for the development of the present schools and the higher education of children who ought to be benefited by this endowment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state the decision of the Local Government Board with respect to the charges preferred against officials of the Dunfanaghy Union in connection with the seduction of an imbecile pauper inmate and the birth in the workhouse of her illegitimate child?

Sir, the decision arrived at by the Local Government Board was that there was no evidence worthy of credence to sustain a charge of immorality against any official of the workhouse. It transpired in the course of the inquiry that the classification of the inmates had not been sufficiently strictly maintained, and steps have been taken to remedy that defect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If positive instructions have been issued by the Home Office to chief constables, forbidding them to charge fees for granting certificates of fitness to persons who require to keep explosives for private use, or to make any charge nominally for the purpose of covering the alleged expense of making the necessary investigation in regard to the applicant's fitness prior to the grant of such certificates?

, in reply, said, he had often had occasion to explain in that House that he had no power to give positive instructions to constables. The Orders in Council did not authorize him to do so. As far as was known to the Chief Inspector of Explosives, no case had arisen which would necessitate that such instructions should be given.

said, that there were instances in which these charges were really made.

All I can say is, that there is no authority for making them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it be true that in the recent promotions amongst the police in Belfast, two policemen who had acted as sub-inspector's clerks for five or six years, and who, consequently, have no practical knowledge of the duties required of detectives were selected to the exclusion of experienced officers; if it be correct that the religion of the various officers was urged as a source of fitness for the office?

I have received a telegram from the Town Inspector of Belfast, who states that it is not the case that promotions have recently taken place there, but that men have recently been examined for detective duty. He adds that it is not true that men who had acted as Sub-Inspectors' clerks were selected to the exclusion of more experienced men, or that the religion of any man was urged as a source of fitness for office.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, in view of the great advantage in making legislation on the subject of Agricultural Compensation clear and intelligible to the public, he will consent to commit the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill pro forma, in order to insert in the measure all those provisions of the Act of 1875 which it is now proposed to incorporate by way of reference only, and to repeal the remainder of that Act?

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he has considered that, as at present arranged, there will be no possibility of amending the county court procedure sections of "The Agricultural Holdings (England) Act, 1875," about twenty-seven in number, while the new Agricultural Bill, in which they are to be incorporated, is passing through the House; and, if he will act upon the suggestion of the honourable Member for East Gloucestershire to embody in the new Bill those sections of the Act of 1875 which are to form part of the new Act?

, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government had purposely deferred the Bill to a day on which they hoped and intended to proceed with it; and he should be sorry to lose the time that would be involved by re-committing the Bill pro formâ, and re-printing it. All that the right hon. Baronet required could he effected when the Bill was in Committee, or at a subsequent stage; and Notice had been given by the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) to insert in the Bill in Committee the provisions of the Act of 1875, instead of only referring to them. The Government were quite sensible of the advantage of embodying the law in one Act, so that they were not at all averse on principle to the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet; and he might add they were exceedingly desirous, on this as on other matters, to consult as far as possible the wishes of the House; but they must reserve their judgment as to the expediency of adopting this course, or as to the time and mode of giving effect to it, if adopted, until they had made further progress with the Bill. This would also be his Answer to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon).

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Depart- ment, Whether he has had his attention called to the case of Francis Redfern, who was on the 16th of this month, at Uttoxeter, committed to prison for one month with hard labour for cruelty to a pony; and, whether he will take any steps in the matter?

, in reply, said, that this case had been brought to his notice, and that he had received a Report from the magistrates. On consideration, he did not see his way to interfere in the matter.

asked whether the prisoner's father was not an inmate of a lunatic asylum; and whether it was not feared that the sentence would be attended with serious consequences to the prisoner; and if, in view of that fact, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would not consider whether he could not remit the labour part of the sentence?

said, he must respectfully beg to enter a protest against being called upon in such cases to enter into details in that House. With regard to what the hon. Member had said, he might say that no application had been made to him on the ground of the prisoner's state of health. Were such an application made, he should, of course, consider it.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state what are the amounts of "Extra Receipts" absorbed in the estimated amounts of Army and Navy Expenditure respectively for the year 1883–4?

Sir, I think that it would be better, instead of stating the aggregate amount of extra receipts which would have been estimated under the former system, to give a Return for 1883–4 under each head. I will lay this on the Table without delay.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the desirability of showing in the Finance Accounts and the Statistical Abstract the amount of extra receipts now taken in aid of the Army and Navy Expenditures, so as to allow of a better comparison being made between those expenditures?

The right hon. Gentleman's suggestion appears to me a very proper one. These amounts will be shown in the Return.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether cases have been reported to Sir Benson Maxwell of prisoners having been recently condemned in Egypt without counsel or witnesses in defence being admitted?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not received any information, since the appointment of Sir Benson Maxwell, which would lead them to conclude that the statement in the Question is correct. They have not received a Report of the trials.

Has no Report been received at all?

Sir Benson Maxwell does not report to Her Majesty's Government. He is not in the service of Her Majesty's Government, but of the Egyptian Government.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Earl of Aberdeen, now discharging the office of Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, did immediately before the opening of the Assembly cause to be circulated among the Clergy a letter, signed by himself and five others, deploring the recent decision of the House of Commons on the Affirmation Bill, and recommending a perusal of the Prime Minister's speech on the second reading thereof; and, whether he was acting under the advice or approval of Her Majesty's Government in so doing?

I confess, Sir, I have some difficulty in answering this Question, which, although quite within the Rules of the House, appears to me to be a Question of a peculiar Character. I have not thought it my duty to address any inquiry to Lord Aberdeen on the subject, because it appeared to me that, however wrong Lord Aberdeen might be in thinking a speech delivered by me to be worth perusing, it is not an offence of which this House could well take notice. The Question seems to me to proceed upon the supposition that, by becoming the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a Peer of the Realm renounces the performance of any other duties which he may think to appertain to him in the latter capacity. Now, Sir, I could not give any countenance, so far as I am concerned, to any such supposition, because I do not understand that any such consequence is entailed by the acceptance of that high Office. Undoubtedly it is not the fact that Lord Aberdeen was acting under the advice or approval of Her Majesty's Government, who knew nothing of the fact of the signing of the Circular; and it would have been, on my part, an act of impertinence to have pronounced either approval or disapproval of it. But it may be of some comfort to the mind of the hon. Baronet, who appears to think that political disability follows the acceptance of the Office of Lord High Commissioner, if I acquaint him that Lord Aberdeen, at the time when he signed this Circular, was not Lord High Commissioner. He was made Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland on the 10th of May, 1883, and he signed the Circular on the 8th of May, 1883.

The tenour of the right hon. Gentleman's reply is such that I regret to say that I must ask the indulgence of the House—["Oh, oh!"]—while I make a few remarks for the purpose of explaining what has been regarded as a very serious matter indeed. ["Order!"]

The hon. Baronet is entitled to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of his Answer, if he thinks proper.

It is my intention to ask leave to make a few remarks. ["No, no!"]

The hon. Baronet will not be in Order, at the present stage, in making any remarks.

I understand the proper course for me to take is to proceed by Motion for the Adjournment of the House after the Questions have been disposed of,

said: I beg, Sir, to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz. the recent conduct of the Lord High Commissioner of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in circulating a letter among the Clergy deploring the recent decision of the House of Commons on the Affirmation Bill.

asked whether it was the pleasure of the House that the hon. Member should be heard? [Cries of "No!" and "Aye!"] Was the hon. Baronet supported by 40 Members?

called on those hon. Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and less than forty Members rose in their places.

Mr. Speaker, you did not count me.

I assure the hon. Member that I counted every Member who was standing up.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If it is the case that a person residing in England investing money in Indian or other securities, outside of the United Kingdom, and drawing no portion of the income arising from such investment in this Country, is free from liability to Income Tax in respect of such income, and if a person, also residing in this Country, but employing an equal amount of capital in trade or any industry in India or elsewhere, producing an equal income, no portion of which is brought into the United Kingdom, is held to be liable in respect of the whole of such income, if he can state upon what principle the distinction is made in favour of the investor and against the trader?

Sir, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has asked me to answer this Question. If by the word "securities" the hon. Gentleman means, as I presume he does, securities falling within Schedule D, they are not, in either of the cases supposed, liable to Income Tax. But a trader living in the United Kingdom is liable to pay Income Tax on all profits arising from his trade wherever those profits accrued; and this principle was embodied in Mr. Pitt's Income Tax Act of 1805, Sir Robert Peel's of 1842, and in that of 1853. I cannot find any discussion on the subject in the reported debates; and I presume that the impolicy of attempting to discriminate between trade profits made in one country or another was universally admitted.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government intend to fill up the vacancies in the representation of Ireland caused by the disfranchisement of the Boroughs of Sligo and Cashel?

, in reply, said, that the Government had no such intention at present.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, When the Bill, which he promised at the commencement of the Session, to carry out the recommendations of the Sea Fisheries Committee, will be ready; and, whether he will undertake that the Government will do their utmost to pass into Law, during the present Session, a measure dealing with this urgent and important subject, which cannot be postponed without considerable loss as well as injurious effect on the fishing trade?

, in reply, said, that this subject had occupied the attention of the Board of Trade for some time past. He had only just obtained the draft of the Bill carrying out practically the recommendations of the Committee; but he hoped that the Bill would in a short time be introduced into the other House of Parliament.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice. The Papers relating to New Guinea, which have recently been distributed, do not include either the Despatch of the Governor of Queensland, which has been referred to in this House, or any decision of Her Majesty's Government on the question of the annexation of New Guinea. I wish to ask whether the Despatch of the Governor of Queensland has been received, and, if so, when it will be presented to the House; and, also, whether Her Majesty's Government have arrived at any decision on the subject?

asked whether the Government had made any communication on the subject since the 14th of April, the date of the last communication from the Colonial Office mentioned in the Papers?

The Despatch of the Governor of Queensland has not yet arrived; and, therefore, I am unable to say whether it can be laid on the Table, or to state the decision of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I do not think there have been any communications since the date the hon. Member for Londonderry mentions.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the new Rules and Orders under the Judicature Acts would be laid upon the Table of the House before the Prorogation of Parliament?

, in reply, said, that the Rules had been prepared, and he hoped they would be laid on the Table of the House during the next few weeks.

Sir, taking into consideration the present condition of Public Business, it is not my intention to proceed with the Motion that stands in my name for Tuesday next with respect to the amendment of the Standing Order relating to the Parliamentary Oath; so that, so far as I am concerned, I shall be happy to place that Tuesday at the disposal of the Prime Minister.

Sir, I wish to ask the leave of the House to address it briefly on a question of Privilege. I regret, for many reasons—some of which will be obvious to the House—the necessity that has been cast upon me; but, acting upon very competent advice, I have reason to believe that I am about to pursue the proper course under the circumstances. It will be in the recollection of the House that during the debate on the Address, in reply to the Queen's Speech, on the 22nd February last, the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was suspended for an interruption addressed to the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). On that occasion I did not vote either for the suspension or against it, but walked out- of the House. My action, however, was misrepresented in certain Irish newspapers, in which I was said to have voted against a Colleague and fellow Member of the Irish Party; and for that I was held up to the reprobation of my constituents. Recently, during the last Recess, I visited the County (Wicklow) of which I have the honour to be one of the Representatives; and in the course of an address to my constituents I was interrupted by a few persons who, I was informed, had been sent by a neighbouring branch of the National Land League to interrupt me on that occasion. One of the chief objections against me was that I had voted against the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly). Thus called upon to explain my action and defend myself, I recounted very briefly the circumstances which had taken place, and said I did not vote on the question at all; and further, to justify my action, or, rather, my inaction, I very briefly, and, as I think the House will agree with me presently in considering it, in moderate and courteous language, told them what had taken place, and what had been my conduct upon that occasion. The report of that meeting appeared, among other papers, in the Dublin Freeman's Journal, a copy of which, it seems, came under the observation of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) in Paris, and from Paris he telegraphed to his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) instructing him to ask me if I accepted the responsibility of the statements in that Report, and if I did to call upon me for a very peremptory and complete apology. I probably cannot do better than read the brief correspondence, which embodies really all the facts, and to which I will add but very few personal observations. The first of the short series of letters was dated 24th May, and was from Mr. Wm. O'Brien (the hon. Member for Mallow). It was marked "private" at the top, but I failed to recognize his right or my own to take any exceptional privilege in a matter of this kind, and I did not mark my reply "private;" and, therefore, I consider myself entitled to make this use of the correspondence. It was as follows:—

The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. M'Coan) has laid before the House, with perfect clearness, a statement of facts, as to which I do not understand any exception need be taken on the part of hon. Members sitting near me; and I may therefore take that statement, for the present, as uncontroverted. I do not conceive that it is any part of my duty, or the duty of the House, to accept the correspondence which has been brought before us otherwise than as information. With that correspondence we have nothing else to do; but I have no doubt the conduct and position of the hon. Member for Wexford will be fairly and equitably appreciated by the House. I believe the hon. Member has acted in conformity with Parliamentary rule and precedent in bringing the matter before the House. I think we may understand that the fact of his having so placed it before the House amounts to a pledge given by him to the House, although I do not know that it was stated in express terms, that, so far as he is concerned, this matter will proceed no further in communication with the hon. Member for Roscommon. I apprehend that I am accurate in that interpretation. I think the usual course in cases of this kind is that the House has sought and accepted a pledge of that kind from both of the Members concerned. The hon. Member for Roscommon is not in his place; and, therefore, the regular course will be to move that the hon. Member for Roscommon do attend in his place on a future day. What day that may be would depend upon the possibility of the hon. Member appearing in connection with the distance or place in which he may now be. Probably some of the Gentlemen in the House—perhaps the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)—may be able to give us that information; and, according as we are so informed, the Mo- tion will be made. If I understand that the hon. Member for Roscommon is within reach, then I believe the proper Motion will be that he do attend in his place to-morrow; but if he be at a distance, so as to make it inconvenient or impossible for him to attend, there would be no difficulty in varying the terms of the Motion. I beg to move—"That Mr. O'Kelly attend in his place to-morrow."

Sir, as the Prime Minister has mentioned my name, I may say that I am not in a position to assure the House whether the hon. Member for Roscommon will be here to-morrow or not. As far as I am concerned, I do not speak for him; but I have always tried to settle private quarrels without invoking or recognizing the interference of the British Parliament.

Sir, this Motion is almost unnecessary, because we have the sure pledge of the hon. Member for Wicklow that he will not appear on the field to accept the challenge of the hon. Member for Roscommon. I should have thought one assurance sufficient. The hon. Member for Wicklow has been most anxious to impress upon the House his desire to protect the dignity and interests of the House. It appears to me the hon. Member would have looked after the interests and dignity of the House much more effectually if he had taken this matter, which does not affect the House, before a Police Court, and the two parties might have been bound over to keep the peace. As the hon. Member is so anxious to keep the peace, and has always shown his anxiety so to do, the matter might have been settled in that way, without troubling the House with what does not concern it in the least. I would, however, like to know if this question can be raised as one of Privilege, seeing it has no reference to anything which has taken place within these walls or the precincts of Parliament. Most of the correspondence passed during the Recess, and. only a small portion of it since the House resumed its Sittings. At any rate, I venture to suggest that, under the circumstances, the matter should be allowed to drop, and that the hon. Member for Roscom- mon should not be called upon to appear in his place to-morrow.

Sir, I quite concur in what has just been said by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil). If the Prime Minister had received some Notice he probably would not have felt himself justified in treating this as a question of Privilege. This matter is one which seems to have arisen entirely out of a private dispute between the hon. Member for Wicklow and the hon. Member for Roscommon; and this dispute was originated in consequence of a passage in a speech of the hon. Member for Wicklow, addressed to a section of his constituents at a place called Tinahely. I would ask the Government whether, by making this matter a question of Privilege, they are prepared to create a precedent by which the House would be bound at any time hereafter to interfere in every case of personal dispute arising outside the House between hon. Members. That is what the claim of the hon. Member for Wicklow amounts to. The hon. Member for Wicklow, in the exercise of his discretion, made use, in the speech to which I have referred, of what I consider were some very offensive words regarding the hon. Member for Roscommon. The hon. Member for Roscommon appears to have addressed a series of letters to the hon. Member for Wicklow in reference to the words so used. I do not know where you are going to stop if you create a question of Privilege out of a matter of this kind. I do not see, as I have said, how you could prevent any Member of this House from dragging any personal dispute which he may have before the House, and claiming the attention of the House to such matter to the obstruction of Public Business. I shall certainly divide the House on the Motion now before it, for I consider that this matter ought to be dealt with by the ordinary law of the land. In my opinion, the hon. Member for Wicklow has not established any right, or title, or claim, to the protection of the House. The position I take on this question is fortified by the authority of Sir Erskine May, who, in his work, with reference to challenge sent by one Member to another, says—

"The sending of a challenge by one Member to another in consequence of words spoken by him in his place in Parliament is a breach of Privilege, and will be dealt with accordingly, unless a full apology be offered to the House. But it does not appear that the Speaker or the House would interfere to prevent a quarrel from, being proceeded with, when it had arisen from a private misunderstanding, and not from words spoken in debate, or in any of the proceedings of the House, or in Committee. In such cases, if any interference should be deemed necessary, information would probably be given to the police."

asked whether the House was to understand that the Corrupt Practices Bill would come on on Monday, though fixed for to-night?

explained that when he announced the Bill for to-night he was unaware of the fact that it had already been fixed for Monday.

inquired whether the Bill would be taken on Monday?

said, the Corrupt Practices Bill would be taken as the first Order on Monday, and the Scotch Tenants' Compensation Bill as the next, if time permitted.

asked what course the Government intended to take with regard to the two Bills making grants to Lords Alcester and Wolseley; and whether they would be re-committed, or a fresh Bill would be brought in?

said, the House would remember that a Resolution had been passed authorizing the grant of a lump sum in lieu of annuities. The course which the Government proposed to adopt was to re-commit the Bill pro formâ, in order that it might be reprinted in its altered shape; and, of course, the Notice of opposition given by the hon. Baronet would apply to the Bill when so re-printed.

asked whether it was proposed to take effective Supply to-morrow; and whether it was intended to proceed with the Irish Police Bill to-morrow?

, in reply, said, that the Government would proceed regularly with the Estimates on Friday, taking effective Supply. He might now state that, in consequence of the announcement that the Motion of the noble Lord opposite would not be taken on Tuesday next, he should ask for a Morning Sitting on that day, and also on Friday next.