asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the "Lancet" of 23rd June, setting forth that, while the average proportion of uncertified deaths in the large towns of England is less than two and a-half per cent., in Scotland, according to the Returns of the Registrar General, the proportion in the eight principal towns in 1881 and 1882 was nearly twenty per cent.; and, whether it is true, as stated by the "Lancet," that the post mortem examinations in cases of uncertified death is decreasing, in consequence of the stringency of the Exchequer in disallowing fees, and—

"That, in many counties, Procurators Fiscal declare that pressure is put upon them for the purpose of diminishing expenditure in their direction?"

Sir, I believe the discrepancy noticed in The Lancet between the numbers of uncertified deaths in England and Scotland is more apparent than real. In the first place, the Registrar General in Scotland makes up his return of uncertified deaths weekly, while the medical practitioner may certify the deaths at any time within 10 days, so that a considerable proportion of deaths elsewhere in large towns by senior medical students, and also the cases investigated by the Procurator Fiscal and found to present no element of suspicion. "I have no reason to suppose that the number of post mortem examinations in cases of uncertified deaths is decreasing; but questions have arisen in the accounts of Procurators Fiscal whether a post mortem examination was reasonably necessary in particular cases.

asked the Lord Advocate, "Whether two cases of suspected infanticide in March and April last were reported by the Police to the Procurator Fiscal of Sutherlandshire; whether it is true that in one case the dead body of a child was discovered in an ashpit, and in the other there was evidence that a child which had been born had disappeared; and, whether the Procurator Fiscal held any inquiry into the cases; and, if so, when the Crown authorities received his precognitions?

Sir, two cases of suspected infanticide were reported by the police to the Procurator Fiscal of Sutherlandshire—one in March, and the other in April or the beginning of May. In one case the body of the child has not been found, and in the other it was found near the house where the accused person lived. The precognitions in both cases were reported to the Crown Office on the 6th of this month. In the first case, the child was born on 14th March, and the first witness was examined on the 27th of March. The delay in the proceedings is accounted for by the Procurator Fiscal by the necessity of finding the reputed father, who had absconded, and whoso evidence was essential. The delay in the second case has not yet been satisfactorily explained, but an explanation will be called for.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state what arrangements have been made for sending down Commissioners to inquire as to the best site returned as uncertified is afterwards duly certified. There is no annual return of uncertified deaths; but I understand that the Registrar General some time ago decided that it was desirable to have one. In the second place, there is a considerable number of deaths with respect to which trustworthy information is obtained, though they are not certified by qualified practitioners; for example, the large number of poor patients who are attended to in dispensaries or for a harbour of refuge on the northeast coast of Scotland?

Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that arrangements are in progress, and are almost completed, for sending down Commissioners.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me who the Commissioners are?

I am not as yet in a position to give the names.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether a final decision has been arrived at with regard to the proposed Middle Class School to be established at Tunbridge or Tunbridge Wells; and, whether, if not, he will consent to receive a representation from the inhabitants of Tunbridge, who consider themselves aggrieved by the proposed establishment of the School at a distance from their own homes?

Sir, the scheme for establishing a middle-class school in or near the parish of Tunbridge, as approved by Parliament and the Queen in Council, requires that the site proposed by the Governors shall be submitted to and approved by the Charity Commissioners. The Governors did submit a site at Tunbridge which did not receive the approval of the Commissioners, and in signifying their disapproval the Commissioners indicated their opinion that the school should be at Tunbridge Wells. The Governors have now intimated their intention of proposing another site, which will be duly considered. As the question of approving the site is one which, according to Act of Parliament, is vested in the Charity Commissioners, it is not competent for me or any other authority to interfere in the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is correct, as reported, that £60,000 has recently been expended at one of Her Majesty's dockyards in refitting the transport "Orontes;" what was the original cost of this steamer; what amounts have since her construction been expended on her, with the dates, and in what dockyards; and, what were the estimates made previous to the expenditure of such sums?

Sir, I will endeavour, as briefly as I can, to answer the several points of my hon. Friend's Question. The Orontes was built by Messrs. Laird between 1861 and 1863; her original cost was, for hull, £83,834; for machinery, £27,328; and for rigging and stores, £12,955. Total—£124,117. Her first large refit was at Portsmouth Dockyard in 1868–9, when she was thoroughly repaired for four years' service, new boilers being put on board and a poop fitted. The estimate for this work was £30,225, and the actual expenditure £33,381. The next large repair of this vessel was between 1874 and 1876, when she was cut in two, lengthened 50 feet, fitted with new engines and boilers, and thoroughly repaired. It was originally intended to lengthen her only 30 feet, and only partially to repair her, and for this work tenders were invited. No one of the tenders was actually accepted; but communications were conducted with Messrs. Laird, who were among the firms tendering, and the result was that they contracted to lengthen the ship by 50 feet, and place new compound engines on board, for £66,500. Further extensive alterations and repairs were executed by the same firm, which brought up the total cost of the work performed bythemto£123,800. A sum of £16,313 was also spent on the ship at Portsmouth in the year 1875–6, of which £11,444 was for rigging and stores, and the rest for completing hull and machinery for sea. No other large repair has been undertaken until the one now nearly completed at Chatham. The estimate for this, for hull and machinery only, was £32,534, and the actual cost will probably be under £40,000, including value of stores, and also including a sum of £3,300 for electric lighting, neither of which were provided for in the original estimates.

I should like to ask whether it is the practice to receive estimates?

Yes; from the contractors.

But whether estimates are received from the Dockyards, and whether they are approved of by the Board of Admiralty before the work is sanctioned?

In most cases, except those of urgency, that is so; but it is obvious that the estimate, when the ship is first opened up and looked into, may not cover the whole of the needful expenditure before the ship is completed?

the answer to the Question discloses such a very unsatisfactory state of affairs in Her Majesty's Dockyards that I beg to give Notice that I shall, next Session, as it is too late this, move for a Select Committee to be appointed to investigate the subject.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the case that, when certain fire-extinguishing apparatus was recently tried at Portsmouth Dockyard, Foster's Chemical Fire Engine Company, whose invention has been highly spoken of by Admirals Sir William Mends and Sir H. Keppel, was not allowed to compete; and, if so, if he would explain the reason why?

Sir, in answer to the noble Lord I have to say that the trial recently made at Portsmouth of fire-extinguishing apparatus was confined to such machines as are capable of being carried about and worked by one man. Foster's machine does not fulfil this condition.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have any information with regard to a statement in the "Cape Argus" of June 12th, that two hundred refugees from Mapoch's stronghold have been allotted to the farmers; and, if not, whether, taking into account the fact that the "Capo Argus" is a highly respectable journal with good means of obtaining information, and that "allotting" men to farmers is generally understood to mean subjecting them to forced labour, the Government will take immediate steps to inquire into the correctness of this statement, and, if necessary, to secure the fulfilment of the fifteenth Article of the Pretoria Convention of 1881, which declares that—

"The Provisions of the fourth Article of the Sand River Convention are hereby re-affirmed, and no slavery or apprenticeship partaking of slavery will he tolerated by the Government of the Transvaal?"

Sir, I hold in my hand a copy of The Cape Argus; but I cannot find any paragraph of the nature referred to by my right hon. Friend.

Has my hon. Friend referred to the weekly supplement? He has, perhaps, seen the wrong paper.

I may, however, say that in consequence of my right hon. Friend having called attention to this matter we have written an inquiry to the officer administering the Cape Government, and instructing him, if the report proves to be true, to direct that the attention of the Transvaal Government may, through the Resident, be called to the 15th Article of the Pretoria Convention.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colo- nies, Whether it is a fact that the Zulu Native Reserve was expressly set apart—

"For the location of those Zulu Chiefs and people who might he unwilling or unable to come again under the authority of Cetywayo;"

Sir, I have referred to the Blue Book, and I see the mistake into which the hon. Member has fallen. The Chiefs named in the first portion of the paragraph have certainly expressed their dislike to the restored power of Cetewayo; but they have neither claimed nor apparently desired to come into the Reserve Territory. As to the names set out in the second part of the paragraph, the context in the Blue Book will show that they are given as names of persons already in the Reserve Territory, and cannot, therefore, represent the deposed Chiefs, except, of course, the two—namely, Dunn and Hlubi. I presume that as there is in any English country probably more than one Jones or Robinson, so there are more than one bearing these names in Zululand.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any further steps to secure the prompt restoration to liberty of Colonel Maceo, who was illegally arrested and handed over to the Spanish Government?

It is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take any further steps at present in this matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the murder of Mr. J. W. Honey, a British subject, by Boers, in the country taken from Montsioa, the Bechuana chief, and now known as Stellaland; whether it is true, as stated in the "Scotsman" of June 30th, that he was last seen in the company of three Boers, one of whom was an official; that "his remains were found in the bush perforated with bullets and battered with stones; "and that the magistrates at Christiana declined to make any inquiry into the matter; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will instruct the British Resident at Pretoria to investigate all the circumstances of the case?

Sir, my answer on Friday covered the whole of this Question. I gave all the information we are at present in possession of. I may add that it appears to me that information is more likely to be obtained at Kimberley than at Pretoria; and, as far as the intervention of the British Resident is concerned, this affair did not occur in Transvaal territory, and as it had nothing to do with Natives, it would not come under any of the provisions of the Convention.

Is it not a fact that Mr. Honey was taken before the Transvaal authorities in Transvaal territories, tried there, and acquitted of the charges made against him.

I have already given the House all the information I have on the subject. I can add nothing more.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will now facilitate the granting of a Committee to inquire into the working of the Playfair scheme?

Two months ago, Sir, I told the hon. Member that I thought it would be altogether premature to institute an inquiry into the working of the Playfair scheme, and he can scarcely expect that I should now think it expedient, after so short an interval, and when we are looking to the end of the Session. The scheme is even now not in full operation, and it would be far too soon to arouse expectations and excite agitation by an inquiry into it. All who are best competent to judge would, I think, deprecate frequent and hasty change in the organization of the Civil Service, and would rather recommend that the new system should be left at rest until its normal action can be ascertained.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to a Memorial presented to him from lead minors and others in South Shropshire on the subject of the use of explosives, Whether He can see his way to make any concessions in the Regulations under the Explosives Acts for those engaged in industrial and mining operations, with a due regard to the public safety?

, in reply, could not say he thought it safe that dynamite should find its way into the hands of any persons who wished to have it, without any security that they were proper persons to possess it. In that respect he could not modify the Order in Council. With regard to the miners, no man who was known to be a respectable character could have the smallest difficulty in getting a certificate; or if he did not wish for one the mine-owner could keep in a registered store all the dynamite required, and serve out enough for the day's work, the rest being retained in store. That, after all, seemed the safest and best way of using dynamite in mines. He was bound to say that complaints of inconvenience had not come to him so much from persons who used dynamite as from those who manufactured it. They were promoting Petitions everywhere upon this subject, because they thought it placed them at some disadvantage as compared with the manufacturers of gunpowder.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he has as yet been able to come to some arrangement for the purchase of the Stowe Manuscripts in the Ashburnham Library; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the House any information as to the disposition of the manuscripts so purchased, especially those relating to Ireland?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have arranged to purchase the portion of the Ashburnham Manuscripts which is known as the Stowe Collection, for £45,000, subject to the House of Commons passing the necessary Vote in Supply. An Estimate for this purchase, with Papers on the subject, is in course of preparation. The greater part of the manuscripts will go to the British Museum; but certain Irish Papers will be deposited in Dublin. The Estimate will state which manuscripts it is proposed to send to Dublin, and the institution will be named in the Papers.

Is there no prospect of other portions of the Ashburnham Collection—besides the Stowe Manuscripts—being purchased?

the only portion which Her Majesty's Government have purchased, and I think are likely to purchase, is the Stowe Collection.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Daniel Murphy, of Ballinclay, county Wicklow, has applied to the Land Commission for a loan to buy Lot 68 on the proporty of Mr. W. R. O'Byrne, said lot being advertised in the particulars of sale as being in possession of the owner; and, if Daniel Murphy's application has been entertained, why a similar application from the evicted tenant of the holding, Joseph O'Brien, was refused by the Land Commission, on the ground that he was not in possession?

the hon. Member for Mallow appears to have been misinformed on this subject. The Land Commissioners report that they have not received any application from Daniel Murphy for a loan to purchase the lot referred to.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Summary of the Agricultural Returns cannot be published earlier than heretofore?

, in reply, said, that every effort would be made to secure the publication of these Returns at the earliest possible date consistent with accuracy and completeness; but he was afraid that he could not hold out any hopes of their being published materially earlier than in previous years—namely, about the middle of August, as all the Schedules from occupiers had not yet been received.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he could explain to the House the nature of the evolutions in which Admiral Lord John Hay is engaged in exercising the officers and men on board the Mediterranean Squadron now under his command; if any special instructions in the practical working of floating and submarine torpedoes, also in the use of machine guns; how many of these are on board each vessel, and are they of the same calibre as those now in use in the French Navy; if he will, as early as possible, place upon the Table of the House Copies of all Despatches which may from time to time be received from Admiral Lord John Hay relative to the tactics in which he is educating the officers and men under his command; and, if he will furnish similar Despatches when received from the Admiral commanding the Reserve Squadron?

Sir, the cruise of the Mediterranean Squadron, which will occupy some months, is undertaken for the purpose of exercising the squadron in steam tactics, and in fleet evolutions of every description, both under steam and under sail. Exercise in the use of torpedoes and machine guns will form part of the instruction given in the course of the cruise. I cannot give the hon. Member any authoritative information regarding the torpedoes and machine guns in the French Navy; but I believe that the latter are of larger calibre than ours, but much less rapid in their fire. The periodical Reports received from Admiral Lord John Hay, and the Report which will be made by the Admiral commanding the Reserve Squadron, are confidential, and such documents are not usually made public.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is the fact that a London Company were in treaty with the Nizam's Government to extend the Railway from Hyderabad to Chanda, on condition of a guarantee by the Nizam of six per cent. on the paid up capital; whether it is true that the existing Railway to 'Hyderabad, built on a similar guarantee of six per cent., does not pay more than two per cent., the rest having to be made up by the taxpayers of Hyderabad; whether the existing Railway was built for strategic objects, and not for the commercial development of the country; whether objection was raised by a section of the Native population against the proposed extension, on the ground that another guarantee of six per cent. to be paid in interest to London promoters and shareholders would unduly tax the resources of Hyderabad; whether persons interested in the success of the London Company applied for the authorisation of the British Resident at Hyderabad to forcibly remove into British territory the leaders of the agitation against the proposed guarantee scheme; whether the attention of Government has been directed to the following telegram in the "Times' of India," dated the 23rd May:—

"The deportation of obstructionists to the Chanda Railway scheme continues. Last night Mr. Aysagi Hoshang, a Parsi and a third class Talukdar, was deported from Secunderabad, with the aid of the cantonment magistrate, Major Ludlow, and his police. Several other residents of Chudderghaut are likely to be deported;"

Sir, in answer to a Question on the 11th of June, I informed the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. E. Stanhope) that for some time past the Nizam's Government has been in negotiation with capitalists in this country for the extension of the present State Railway to Chanda. The negotiations are still pending, and I can, therefore, only say that the guarantee proposed is a terminable one, and is less than 6 per cent. The proposals now under discussion were sanctioned by Sir Salar Jung before his death. The existing railway was not constructed for strategic purposes only, but for the commercial development of the country. At present it pays between 2 and 3 per cent; but the traffic is expected to be largely increased, if the proposed extension to the mineral districts of the State be made. The individuals referred to in the last part of the hon. Member's Question, who are not Natives of Hyderabad, but foreigners residing there, were deported by the Nizam's Government, with the concurrence of the Resident, for their part in a seditious agitation, dangerous to the public peace, and based on wilful misrepresentations of facts. These two foreigners are the only persons who have been deported. On their departure the agitation subsided. Dr. Agornath is not imprisoned at Sholapore. Neither the Government of India nor the Secretary of State have seen reason to interfere with the action of the Nizam's Government.

Was not this Dr. Agornath appointed Principal of the Hyderabad College by the late Sir Salar Jung?

I could not answer that without Notice; but it would not affect the answer I have just given if it were so.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state what steps have been taken in Egypt for preventing the spread of cholera; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have given or offered to the Government of Egypt any, and, if so, what, assistance to further this object?

Sir, I propose to give to the House a short summary of the information which has reached Her Majesty's Government from Sir Edward Malet and Consul Cookson regarding the measures taken for preventing the spread of cholera in Egypt. These measures are under the control of the Central Government in Cairo. Sir Edward Malet states that the Sanitary Board at Cairo is composed of Native and foreign doctors, among whom is Dr. Grant, the Medical Adviser of Her Majesty's Consular Court. They have, from the beginning of the outbreak, sat every evening, in conjunction with the Minister of the Interior and General Baker; and Sir Edward Malet adds that doctors, medicines, and food have been supplied to the infected places; and he expresses the opinion that the Government have done all in their power to stamp out the disease. At Alexandria, Consul Cookson states that a Commission has been working hard in inspecting nuisances and suggesting sanitary measures; and he trusts that good results will ensue from the appointment of sub-committees, to whom the Government have left, on Mr. Cook-son's representation, great latitude of action. An independent British Committee has, moreover, been formed to visit the houses of British and Maltese residents at Alexandria. The infected houses have been isolated by cordons of police. With regard to the steps taken by Her Majesty's Government, I may state that a Departmental Committee has been appointed by my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board on cholera precautions generally; and a competent medical authority connected with the India Office is about to be despatched to Egypt under the direction of the Board. The Egyptian Government has been informed of the desire of Her Majesty's Government to afford them every assistance in the difficult task they have to perform.

May I ask when this Committee was formed by the President of the Local Government Board?

I think Questions relating to this Com- mittee had better be addressed to the President of the Local Government Board.

Will the noble Lord say whether this competent medical authority has had any experience of choleraic epidemic?

At the proper time, either I or my right hon. Friend will be perfectly ready to state the name of this gentleman to the House, and I feel perfectly certain that it will meet with general approval.

Might I suggest, as we have a number of troops there, whether it would not be advisable to telegraph for medical officers from India, who have had practical and great experience in the treatment of cholera?

Questions as to the Army Medical Department would be more properly addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I may state at once that every precaution is being taken, and I feel certain that my hon. Friend will see that both with regard to the English and Native troops Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to do everything to prevent disease.

Will the noble Lord inquire into the alleged isolation of the infected districts? Will he see whether it is true, as stated in the German Press, that Damietta has lost by migration more than half of its population, which have escaped on all sides through the cordon and gone by boats over the lakes; that, although the Sanitary Commission are sitting, they have neither soldiers nor police nor any trustworthy representatives to maintain a cordon effectively; and that, to all intents and purposes, no means exist for limiting the spread of the disease at present existing?

No, Sir; I cannot give accurate or detailed information on these various points; but, as far as I have read the papers, it would appear that a very different complaint has been made—namely, that the cholera cordon has been kept up with such strictness that very painful scenes have been the result. As I am touching upon this subject, I may; perhaps, touch upon its more pleasant side—namely, that during the last few days there has certainly been a diminution of deaths in the very district to which the hon. Member has alluded. In the Damietta district, on the 1st of July, there were 141 deaths; on the 2nd, 130; on the 3rd, 112; on the 4th, 111; on the 5th, 109; on the 6th, 107; on the 7th, 92; and on the 8th, 88. These figures show that, at all events, there has been a gradual diminution in the number of deaths in that district. At Mansurah there was also a diminution, though not so marked. On the 5th of July, the deaths there were 68; on the 6th, 39; on the 7th, 45; and on the 8th, 48; so that, on the whole, that shows a certain diminution as compared with the previous dates. There was a very slight increase in three other places; but in Menzaleh, where there were 11 cases on the 7th, the Return on the 8th gives no new cases at all.

asked whether the diminution in the number of deaths in Damietta was not due to the fact that many thousands of persons had taken refuge in the surrounding villages; and whether inquiry would be made as to the number of unregistered deaths which were now occurring everywhere over a large space of country in small villages?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Portugal regarding the state of affairs on the River Congo; and, whether there is any probability of any Treaty being agreed upon?

Sir, it is not in my power to make any statement on these matters at present.

said, he would repeat the Question on that day week.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the opinion recently given by two English counsel relative to the concession of the Turkish and Egyptian Governments to M. de Lesseps for the construction of the Suez Canal; and, if he will be good enough to cause a copy of the concession to be printed and placed upon the Table of the House?

Sir, the attention of Her Majesty's Government has already been directed to the opinion referred to by my hon. Friend. The concessions, &c., relating to the Suez Canal were laid before Parliament in 1876 (Egypt, No. 6).

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report that the New Hebrides have been taken possession of by the French Government?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that there is any truth in the statement referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state what were the numbers of diseased women in hospital in the protected districts previous to the abolition of compulsory examination; and, how many there are now in hospitals, specifying in both cases the respective numbers at each station?

Sir, the number of diseased women in hospital at the time compulsory examination was suspended was 267. The number now in hospital is 134. If the hon. Member wishes for the information by stations, perhaps he will be good enough to move for it as a Return.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If it be the fact that they have given, or are about to give instructions for the confiscation of the furniture of two widows at Port Glasgow, on the ground of forfeiture to the Crown, their husbands having been executed; and, if he is aware that these widows are in extremely destitute circumstances, having the one three and the other five children to support; and, if, under these circumstances, he will give instructions to the Edinburgh authorities not to proceed further in the matter?

Sir, instructions have been sent by telegraph to suspend all proceedings for realizing the goods forfeited to the Crown on the conviction of the two Port Glasgow murderers until full inquiry shall have been made and a Report sent to the Treasury.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has been engaged in correspondence with the Government of the Sultan upon the alleged intention of the Porte to withdraw certain ecclesiastical privileges of the Greek subjects of the Porte; and, if so, whether he proposes to lay such Correspondence upon the Table of the House?

Sir, this matter has been brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government by Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires at Constantinople and Her Majesty's Minister at Athens, as well as by the Representatives of Turkey and Greece in this country. Her Majesty's Charge d' Affaires at Constantinople has recommended the Porte not to act in such a manner as to promote irritation among the Greek subjects of the Sultan; but Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it is a question calling for their official intervention, at all events in its present stage, nor that any advantage would be gained by publishing the Correspondence.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will inform the House whether he proposes that charges on holdings obtained by landlords from county courts under Clause 8 of the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill shall rank after preexisting mortgages and incumbrances on the property, or whether they will take priority of such mortgages and incumbrances as do charges obtained for improvements under 27 and 28 Vic. c. 114, s. 59?

in reply, said, that as the Bill stood these charges ranked in their natural order after pre-existing mortgages and incumbrances on the property.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If the fact that the High Court of Justice (Continuous Sittings) Bill was allowed to pass its second reading on Thursday without opposition is to be taken as signifying that the Government intend to support the measure?

in reply, said, that it must not be assumed, because, as a matter of courtesy to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), the second reading of the Bill was allowed to pass at a very late hour, that Her Majesty's Government intended supporting the measure. The Bill, as it now stood, could not be supported by the Government.

asked whether the Attorney General considered it right that the Government should allow to pass the second reading a Bill of which the majority of the House disapproved?

That is an abstract Question into which I will not now enter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury. If his attention has been drawn to the report of a speech by one of the Junior Lords (the honourable Member for Leeds), at Acton, on 4th instant, when he is reported to have said that—

"He thought the Government would he prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up the subject, and try and amend the Irish Land Act;"

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the statement made by the Junior Lord of the Treasury in a speech delivered at Acton on Wednesday last—

"It must he remembered that the Land Act was not perfect, owing to concessions de manded by the Tories, and the Government were anxious to amend those defects; but they were aware of and deterred by the knowledge of the opposition which such measures would have provoked from the Tories, and the pro- tracted discussions which would have come from the Irish Members. He thought the Government would he prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up that subject and try and amend the Act;"'

"We think it an essential part of our duty to make it clearly understood that we can give no encouragement, either on the ground of crime or on any other ground, for entertaining hopes of the disturbance of the provisions of the Land Act contained in this Bill.…. It would be a violation of our duty were we now to give encouragement to a demand for new sacrifices which we do not think in the main justice requires?"

Sir, the hon. Member has judiciously in his Question mentioned "the report" of the speech; but he has not committed himself to the opinion that the report is necessarily an accurate one. The only report I have seen of the speech was not so much a report as an account—an extremely succinct account—which it was impossible to accept as an accurate report. I have made inquiry of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone), and, as far as I can gather, the position taken up by him was precisely that which has been taken on several occasions by the Government, and it is to this effect:—I stated, as clearly as I could, and very minutely, in a speech at the early part of last year, and again, though less minutely, in a speech this year, that there were certain points in the Irish Land Act with respect to which the Government had always considered it was desirable for the House again to open. These were the date of the judicial rents, and certain particulars as to leases. The third point has been re-opened by the House itself on the urgent representations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am not at all sure that it was wise for the House to commit itself by an abstract promise of that kind. But that has been done. It was in reference to points of this class that the hon. Member for Leeds expressed a hope that the Government would be prepared, as soon as they could find time, to take up the subject and try to amend the Act. The quotation which the hon. Member for Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) has made from the speech refers to alterations in the Act of a totally different character—alterations which we regard as being of a fundamental character; and with respect to these no engagements or opinion at all was expressed by the hon. Member for Leeds.

Might I ask the Prime Minister whether the Junior Lord of the Treasury was authorized to make any announcement on the subject?

the hon. Member for Leeds is not the Junior Lord of the Treasury any more than any other Lord; but any Lord of the Treasury is perfectly in his right in announcing what the Government and the Prime Minister have already repeatedly announced.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When he will be in a position to fix a day for the consideration of the Indian Budget?

Sir, all I can say upon this subject is, that we cannot venture to fix a day for the discussion of the Indian Budget until the House has disposed of the most important and urgent matters which it has before it—namely, the Committee stage of the Corrupt Practices Bill and the Committee stage of the Tenants' Compensation Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it be true that (subject to the approval of the British Government) a satisfactory understanding has been arrived at between the English Directors of the Suez Canal and M. de Lesseps relative to the construction of a parallel Canal; and also for the reduction of the tonnage tariff; and, whether he can now inform the House of the nature of the alleged arrangement?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is prepared to make a statement respecting the negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and the Suez Canal Company; and, whether the time has arrived when He is prepared to re- ceive representations and assistance from the commercial community, in accordance with his promise made on the 26th of June last?

I have to say very little upon this subject; but in saying that little it must not be supposed that I am going to recede from the statement which I made on a previous occasion, in as far as it expressed our belief that there was a fair and reasonable expectation of making progress in our communications with M. de Lesseps. But we have not yet arrived at a point in those communications at which we can make an explicit statement to the House. We were most happy to receive to-day a letter from the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), setting forth what he believes to be the views of the commercial community, and certainly the points so set forth are those to which in the main the Government has given its attention. Not from the hon. Member alone, but from others who are well informed on the subject, we shall be happy to receive communications, and now is the proper time for addressing communications to the Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether it was clearly to be understood that the commercial community in general would have an opportunity of expressing their views before any Treaty was concluded, and more especially that the House would have the Treaty submitted to it, and have the opportunity of expressing its views upon it before the Treaty was ratified?

I am not sorry that my hon. Friend gives me a further opportunity of stating the intentions of the Government. No engagement will be entered into by the Government with regard to the Suez Canal except subject to the approbation of the House.

I wish the right hon. Gentleman would answer this Question, which is of very great importance, whether any concession will be necessary in case a parallel Canal is proposed and adopted by Her Majesty's Government, or in case any other Canal is proposed to be adopted? The right hon. Gentleman has already answered the Question about a Treaty which the hon. Member has put; perhaps he will tell us with whom that Treaty is to be made? At any rate, the right hon. Gentleman will, perhaps, answer the Question with respect to the future concession. If not, I will put it down for another day.

the word "Treaty" was used by my hon. Friend, but was not used by me. I think I said "arrangement." I have, however, great hopes that upon a very early day either I or one of my Colleagues will be in a condition to make an explicit statement to the House. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the question to stand over.

Can the Postmaster General inform the House what steps have been taken to provide for the transmission of the overland mails from the East which were not allowed to be landed at Brindisi, and what future arrangements will be made with regard to mails coming homeward through the Suez Canal?

Sir, we received information from the manager of the Peninsular and Oriental Company on Saturday that a mob of people had refused to allow the mails to be landed at Brindisi, and the course we adopted was this—a telegram was at once sent ordering the vessel to proceed to Trieste and land the mails there. When I went to the Post Office a short time since we had not been able to ascertain what length of quarantine the Austrian Government would require at Trieste, and consequently it is impossible to say positively when the mails will arrive in London. With regard to the next steamer, which will bring a much heavier mail, the opinion at the present moment is that it would be better, under the circumstances, to order the vessel to proceed direct by sea to England, and instructions will be given to that effect.

wished to ask, as the right hon. Gentleman said that the next mail would be a heavy one, and instructions had been given for it to be sent by sea to England, whether the Government thought it necessary to establish a quarantine at Plymouth or other ports, or what precautions were to be taken to prevent the importation of cholera?

said, that he had communicated with the Privy Council on Friday last. Every care had been taken to disinfect the bags by soaking them in tar. The Sanitary Committee of the Privy Council thought that was a sufficient precaution, and the matter rested with them.

said, that such a process would not disinfect the passengers and crew on board the vessels.

said, he thought the noble Lord would see that that Question was not one for the Post Office. The Question ought rather to be addressed to the Local Government Board or other authority whom it concerned.

asked the Postmaster General, in reference to the Scheme suggested by him for the reduction of the minimum charge for Post Office telegrams to 6d. and de-scribed as Scheme 1 in the Treasury Minute of the 14th June 1883, proposing that—

"Free addresses should be abolished, and a ½d. charged for each word, including the address; minimum charge 6d.;"

"Address of receiver to be free, but that of the sender to be charged for; 6d. to be charged for the first five words, and 2d. additional for each subsequent five words,"

Sir, it will no doubt be the case, as stated by my hon. Friend, that if either Scheme 1 or Scheme 2 mentioned in the Treasury Minute were adopted, the charge for messages containing 20 words in the body of the telegram might be greater than it now is. I cannot, however, agree with him that, under this scheme, no telegrams would be sent at the minimum charge of 6d.; on the contrary, I think the number of such telegrams would be very large. It was stated on Thursday last that no decision as to the particular scheme to be adopted would be come to by the Government until next Session. I may add, however, that if a charge were made for the whole or any part of the address, or if the charge for 20 words in the body of the telegram were greater than it now is, it would be necessary, as free addresses are allowed and the present tariff is fixed by Act of Parliament, to introduce a Bill to give effect to the new arrangement. The House would, therefore, have an opportunity of discussing the question.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether, in the new parcel post service, extra servants are to be employed in the carriage to rural districts; whether the present staff of messengers are not in many places quite able and willing to discharge the extra duty in consideration of the additional pay, their salaries being very small at present; and, whether, if the present messengers are employed, they are to be provided by the Government with the means of carriage, or are to provide it themselves?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I may say that extra servants will be employed when necessary in the conveyance of parcels in the rural districts. In many places the messengers will be able to discharge the extra duty without assistance, and in all cases, where the circumstances warrant it, extra pay will be given. Where the present foot service is replaced by a mounted service, either an allowance to meet the expense will be made to the present messengers, or they will be transferred to another walk, and a mail cart service provided at the expense of the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the exceptional magnitude of the recent disaster on the Clyde, and the fact that inquiries by procurators fiscal into accidents attended with loss of life in Scotland are conducted in secret, and that their Reports to the Crown Office are never made public, he will instruct some competent independent official to assist at the inquiry and furnish a report on the occurrence for presentation to Parliament?

Sir, I am asked by my right hon. and learned Friend to say that at his request Sir Edward Reed, late Chief Constructor of the Navy, a Member of his House, has proceeded to Scotland, and is now holding a public inquiry into the disaster on the Clyde.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the series of assaults and robberies committed by soldiers of the Staffordshire Regiment at Athlone; and, whether he will take steps to protect the public from the recurrence of these outrages?

Sir, I am informed that the only disturbance which has recently occurred at Athlone was on the 24th of June, when there was a drunken quarrel. It was alleged that a civilian had been assaulted by soldiers of the North Staffordshire Regiment; but when the commanding officer investigated the case, the civilian was not forthcoming, and the soldiers could not be identified. On the 4th of July a soldier was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for stealing a watch while drunk. With these exceptions the troops at Athlone are said to have been particularly well-conducted.

said, with reference to the Railway Passenger Duty Bill that it would be committed pro formâ in order that it might be reprinted, and be in the hands of Members some days before the question was discussed. He would take care that due Notice should be given.

I wish to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister with re- ference to a letter which appears in several newspapers this morning purporting to be addressed by Mr. Brad-laugh to the right hon. Gentleman, in which Mr. Bradlaugh informs him that it is his intention at an early day "to take my seat for the borough of Northampton," and goes on to say—

"In doing this I shall disregard the Orders of the House made this Session as being in the teeth of the law, and therefore null and. void."

Sir, I received on Friday a letter from Mr. Bradlaugh, which I see has been printed in the papers. It runs as follows:—

"Sir,—In accordance with the requirements of my constituents, I beg respectfully to inform you that I shall, in compliance with the law, at an early date take my seat for the borough of Northampton. In doing this I shall claim to disregard the Order of the House made this Session, as being, to use the words of George Grenville, in the teeth of the law, and therefore null and void. I am confirmed in this view by the judgment of Mr. Justice Field in the suit brought by myself against Mr. Erskine, when, in answer to my hypothesis that the House of Commons had passed a Resolution forbidding me to take the oath, his Lordship said that he could not assume that the House would do an act which in itself would be flagrantly wrong. As the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, and the Standing Orders of the House make no other provision than that the oath shall be taken and subscribed in manner therein prescribed, I beg to inform you that I shall so take and subscribe the oath in the manner binding upon my conscience. When I so took and subscribed the oath on the 21st of February, 1882, I sought to obtain the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice on the legality of the oath so taken by me, but the Court refused to allow a friendly action to be argued or tried. If any legal decision could be obtained, or if the House would discharge me from the services it by force prevents me performing, so that a new writ would be issued, I should be relieved from the painful necessity of finding myself once more in collision with the House; but I cannot and must not passively permit my constituents to be robbed of the voice and vote to which they have a constitutional right.—I have the honour to be, &c., C. BRADLAUGH."

Sir, the concluding observations of the right hon Gentleman render it necessary for me to call the attention of the House very shortly to the position in which we stand. Of course, I do not ask the House to reopen the question as to the propriety of Mr. Bradlaugh being allowed to go through the form of taking the Oath. That is a point on which the House has decided, and recently decided, by a very considerable majority. But I shall call attention to the fact that from this letter we are led to infer that it is Mr. Brad-laugh's intention, at such time as he may select, to come before the House and endeavour to override that decision to which the House came some weeks ago by some action on his part. In fact, we may pretty clearly understand from the language of the letter that Mr. Bradlaugh's intention is to come before the House as he did two years ago and administer the Oath to himself as he did on that occasion. I need not remind the House that his proceedings on that occasion met with the censure of the House; and, unquestionably, if the House has already determined that it will not allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go through the form of taking the Oath, it cannot sit by and allow such a taking of the Oath as that to which I have alluded. That being so, I apprehend from the notice we have received that we may expect our proceedings will be interrupted at some uncertain period, and therefore we are called upon to act in order to prevent a scandal in the proceedings of this House. I do not think that is a position in which the House ought to be placed. I have by circumstances been obliged to take a part on several occasions which I would much rather had been taken by the Leader of the House for the protection of Order and, as I think, the dignity of the House, and I regret to find myself again obliged to take a similar course on the present occasion. I have always endeavoured, when I have had to propose anything with regard to Mr. Bradlaugh, to confine myself to what seemed to me to be absolutely necessary. When on the last occasion of his presenting himself and tendering himself to take the Oath, the House decided that he should not be permitted to do so, I thought it unnecessary to make any further Motion, because I assumed that Mr. Bradlaugh, whatever his opinions might be, would bow to the decision of the House, and not put us to any further inconvenience as long as that Order was in force. It appears that that is not his intention, and therefore it is necessary to take some steps for the protection of the Order of the House. It is quite impossible that we can expect the great bulk of Members of the House to be here at all times and at all hours when Mr. Bradlaugh might present himself, and, therefore, I can see no course open but to make a Motion similar to that made by me two years ago which prevented Mr. Bradlaugh's intrusion on the proceedings, until he gives an assurance that he will not disturb them. Therefore, I make this Motion entirely in what I may call a spirit of self-defence, and for the preservation of that Order which I think is threatened to be disturbed, in the same terms as my former one. It is—

"That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the House until he shall en-gage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."

I wish to ask, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in making this Motion without Notice?

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman makes the Motion on the ground that it is a question of Privilege. The hon. Member for Northampton declares his intention to disregard the Orders of the House, and it therefore becomes a question of urgency on the part of the House to decide what is to be done. That being so, the right hon. Gentleman is quite justified in the course he has taken.

Are you, Sir, satisfied that the word "precincts" is unnecessary?

On a former occasion when a similar Motion was passed by the House Mr. Bradlaugh attempted to force himself within the doors of the House. Having regard to the Resolution passed by the House, I directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Brad-laugh by force, and the House approved of that course. Therefore, I presume the House will support me in taking, if necessary, the same course again.

I am one of those, Sir, who, rightly or wrongly, believe that a Member elected by a constituency derives his right from the constituency to go through all the Forms at the Table necessary for him to take his seat in the House. I merely state that to let the House know that I shall be obliged to challenge a decision of the House on the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not going into this matter at any length; there are only two points on which I would call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. The first is, that I understand that the Whips of the Party of which the right hon. Gentleman is the Head have issued a Notice to their followers to come to the House this evening; and I would put it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it is quite in accordance with fair play to bring forward this Resolution without any Notice, having brought together all those who are in favour of it to vote for it, while those who might be opposed to it were not aware that it would be brought forward? The other point is, that Mr. Bradlaugh has asked the House to void the election. He finds himself in an exceedingly difficult position. He has no wish to put himself in antagonism with the House, but he desires that his constituents should be fully represented here; and if the right hon. Gentleman would only move for a new Writ for the borough of Northampton, or support me were I to move for it, I should not complain of the course taken by the House. But I think it is somewhat hard to say that Mr. Bradlaugh is not to take his seat, having been duly elected, and that owing to this action the constituency is to be punished by not being represented by the number of Members the Constitution gives to it. I shall not detain the House, but I feel it my duty to divide on the Question.

Sir, I think it is but natural on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, on an occasion of this kind, to propose to the House the measure which he thinks necessary to give effect to the decision of the majority. It would not be my province, or that of the minority, to make any such proposal. But I own I do feel it within my province to make an appeal to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and to express an hope that he will not divide the House, because it is part of my duty, on the one hand, to ask the House to make great sacrifices of its time, and on the other, to endeavour to avoid, as far as possible, unnecessary sacrifices. It appears to me that we who are the minority have had ample opportunity of arguing the case in every form in which it has been brought forward. The majority of the House have courteously consented more than once to hear Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. We cannot say that we have not been fully and fairly heard. I deeply regret the decision of the majority, and all that I felt on former occasions I still feel; but I think that respect to the majority, and regard to the time of the House, and to the extreme urgency of the position in which we stand with reference to Public Business, ought to prevent us from interposing any obstacle to a Motion if that Motion be reasonable in itself. The question is, is it reasonable? Certainly not, from my point of view. But the unreasonableness of it lies in the unreasonableness of the original decision of the House. From the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman it is a strictly reasonable Motion. It is strictly consequent on the Resolution of the House. He declares it to be a Motion of self-defence, and undoubtedly, being a Motion to defend the House against the consequences of the course formerly taken by the House, it is quite natural that the House should adopt this course. Under those circumstances the matter is a very simple one, and it is unnecessary to go over the ground we have gone over before. This Motion is a necessary corollary of the steps taken by the House on a former occasion; and although I am not an approving party to any portion of the procedure, I would deprecate exceedingly the offering of any further opposition to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I will not encroach any further upon that valuable commodity of the House—time, and I will appeal to the hon. Member to adopt a similar course in respect to this Motion.

I am not going to detain the House. I only wish to say that several hon. Members below the Gangway here are as anxious to avoid any waste of time as the right hon. Gentleman; but this is a matter on which we must divide, because we feel that upon every opportunity when steps are taken which we consider to be illegal or unconstitutional we are bound to resist them to the best of our power. On these grounds some of us will feel bound to divide the House.

I wish to make a suggestion to the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition. [Cries of "Order!"]

I must point out to the hon. Member that there is no Question before the House, and if the hon. Member wishes to put a Question to the right hon. Baronet, it should be confined to any Bill or Motion before the House.

I am very anxious to confine myself to the Question, and am most unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the House with reference to a subject which is still before it. ["No, no!" and cries of "Order!"] the House has just taken a very necessary precaution, and I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon—[Cries of "Order!"]

I must repeat to the hon. Member that he is out of Order. When the House was engaged with Questions the right hon. Gentleman interposed with a Question which has been disposed of. The House is still engaged with Questions put to Ministers of the Crown, and if any hon. Member has a Question to put to any Minister he will be in Order; but the hon. Member is not in Order in the course he now takes.

I apologize, Sir. I did not intend to go beyond your ruling. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon who has moved the Resolution now adopted, which has been found necessary to correct and enforce a former decision of the House, whether he will move that this Resolution be made a Standing Order of the House?

I wish, Sir, in the first instance, to put the question to you as to whether it is competent for me to make that Motion?

the question is one of great importance. It is not for me to restrain the power of this House; but as this question affects the political rights of a Member of this House, it would not, I think, be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to move that the Resolution be made a Standing Order.