gave Notice that he should ask the Prime Minister, on Monday, Whether, when Parliament abolished or reduced a tax, as proposed in the Railway Passenger Duty, &c. Bill, there was any Constitutional precedent to give power to any Government Department to reimpose that tax without previous authority by Parliament; and he would now ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, until the Prime Minister has answered that Question, he will be good enough to postpone the proceedings on that Bill?

, in reply, said, he had postponed the Bill for some time, and it was necessary to get on with it now. There were only two Amendments on the Paper, and he did, not think there was any difficulty about these. The Bill, being a Money Bill, it might be taken at any time; and he should, therefore, think it his duty to proceed with it whenever it was reached.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to two mining cases recently tried before the White-haven magistrates; if it is true, as stated in the "West Cumberland Times," that Messrs. Simpson and Ferguson, the owner and manager respectively of a colliery at Harrington, wore convicted of having allowed naked lights to be used in one of their pits after gas had been seen; if, as a result of this, two men were killed; if it was admitted that the man appointed to report could neither read nor write, though the Act prescribes that the report shall be in writing; whether the magistrates, for this serious violation of the Mines Regulation Act, imposed a fine of only 25s. each upon the owner and manager; whether his attention has been called to the case of two young miners, who were brought before the same magistrates on a subsequent day, charged with having unlocked a safety lamp in the Croft Pit, Whitehaven, and wore sentenced to a month's imprisonment each, with hard labour; and, whether, if these statements are correct, any steps can be taken to secure that a uniform punishment may be inflicted for the same offence?

, in reply, said, he had no power to equalize the punishment in these cases. In the first case referred to, the charge was for carelessness, and it was disputed whether the danger was such as to require extra precautions. In the second case, the charge was a wilful act of opening a safety lamp.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Lords of the Admiralty have had under consideration the sentence upon Louis Price, a boy on board H.M.S. "Triumph," who, for striking a superior officer, was sentenced to three years' penal servitude; whether, because he pled guilty and threw himself upon the mercy of the Court, the statement by the prosecution that he was sober at the time of the offence was not open to question or disproval; whether his character was "good;" whether, in addition, his Captain, to whom he had acted as messenger, stated that he was one of the most promising young seamen of the ship; and, whether, in consideration of Price's youth and good character, there is any hope of the remainder of his sentence being remitted?

Sir, the case of the seaman, Louis Price, to which the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) refers, was discussed at some length in Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates 10 days ago. In answer to the particular points contained in the Question now put to me, I have to say that Price was charged with an unprovoked assault on his superior officer, while drilling on the quarter-deck of the Triumph, was tried by court martial, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. The Board of Admiralty, on account of his youth, remitted two years of the sentence. The circumstantial letter from Captain Markham, the captain of the ship, stated that he had investigated the case, and was satisfied that Price was sober when he committed the offence; and the prisoner at the trial, on being questioned, said that he had received and read a copy of the circumstantial letter. He was, therefore, aware of Captain Mark-ham's statement, but did not impugn it, nor use the plea of drunkenness. Price's character was entered as "good." He did not call his captain as a witness to character; but he called Commander Dyke Acland, who stated that the prisoner—

"Had clone his work very well, but that he had, as far as he could see, a very bad temper, and was very inclined to be pugnacious."

I think I have now answered all the points in the hon. Member's Question. I would, however, add that, the day before yesterday, a statement was received at the Admiralty, purporting to be evidence from some of Price's shipmates, to the effect that he was under the influence of liquor at the time, and that is now under the consideration of the Board.

said, he should like to ask the hon. Gentleman if it were not the case that Price was cook of the mess; and, whether it was not the practice for the cook to receive the extra and unclaimed rations of rum?

, in reply, said, that the hon. Baronet had not asked him this Question before. The statement that Price was cook of the mess was contained in the Paper received at the Admiralty to which he had referred; but he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) did not know whether it was true or not.

Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the boy had counsel, or whether he had to defend himself?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will give Notice if he wishes for further information.

You ought to know.

I will give Notice, unless the hon. Gentleman can answer the Question now, that I will ask on this subject, whether Price, during his term of penal servitude, considering he has only been sentenced for an act of high temper, will be prevented from being contaminated by the company of ordinary ruffians and criminals?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that charges of inefficiency and neglect of duty have repeatedly been made against Denis M'Cormac, the Master of the Ballycastle Workhouse, by the medical officer and others, and whether such charges have not from time to time been investigated by the Local Government Board, and proved to their satisfaction; whether the Local Government Board, in consequence of the unfitness of Denis M'Cormac, required the guardians to declare his office vacant, and to proceed to a new election, and whether the elected guardians thereupon declared the office vacant and proceeded to reelect M'Cormac; and, whether the Local Government Board accepted that formality as a sufficient compliance with their order; and, whether, subsequently, a sworn investigation into M'Cormac's conduct was held by the direction of the Local Government Board; and, whether, upon receipt of the Report of such investigation, the Board required the immediate resignation or dismissal of M'Cormac; and, whether the elected guardians declined to give effect to the requirements of the Local Government Board, and consequently M'Cormac continues to hold his office; and, if so, upon what ground the Local Government Board consider themselves justified in neglecting to enforce their order?

Sir, I have received the following Report from the Local Government Board on this case:—Mr. M'Cormac was elected master of Ballycastle Workhouse in 1879; and, after a short trial, it did not appear, from the Report of the Inspector of the district, that he was a satisfactory officer, and the Local Government Board declined to sanction the appointment. A lengthened correspondence ensued, and, in the month of May, 1880, the Guardians advertised for a master, and, by a very large majority, re-elected Mr. M'Cormac. An Inspector was then directed to report about him as to his qualifications, and as it appeared that he had gained some experience during the previous months, the Report was more favourable than the previous one, and his appointment was sanctioned. Complaints have since been made respecting him; and after an inquiry, held in May last, the Local Government board requested that both the master and matron might be called on to resign; but, in deference to the wishes of a large majority of the Guardians, the Board allowed them both another trial. The Inspector in charge of the district (Mr. Richard Hamilton), who held the inquiry, recommended that this course should be adopted; but, if any further charges against the master are proved, the Local Government Board will certainly insist on his resignation.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaint was made to the Police that, on the morning of 13th July, a man, who was on his return from the Celebration of the previous day, held at the place of a local magistrate, insulted and threatened a Catholic family named. M'Grahey at Dundion, county Monaghan; whether it was represented that, only for being forcibly prevented, this man was attempting to carry his threats into execution with a loaded gun; whether an investigation was held before two magistrates; whether one of these was the gentleman at whose place the Celebration was held, and the other a friend of his; whether, as the result, no action was taken by the Police; whether the local resident magistrate was consulted; whether the person complained of was formerly in the service of one of the justices of the peace mentioned; if any further steps will be taken to promote the ends of justice; if he will state whether there are any Catholic magistrates in the locality; and, when the Return will be ready, showing the religions of the justices in the Irish counties?

Sir, M'Gahey complained to the police that Elliott, when returning from an Orange ball, threatened him; but He did not allege that he was assaulted, or state that he saw any firearms. An investigation was held before two magistrates, one of whom was the gentleman in whose house the ball had taken place, and in whose service Elliott had once been. The other magistrate was not a friend of his. Several witnesses, all Roman Catholics, were named by the complainant; but, when examined, they flatly contradicted him. No offence was disclosed; and, therefore, no further action was taken by the police, and the resident magistrate was not communicated with; but the complainant was informed by the magistrate that he could take action himself in the matter if he saw fit. There are no Roman Catholic magistrates in the locality. It is anticipated that the Return, to which the hon. Member refers, will be ready in the course of a fortnight.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, When the Papers relative to the seizure by the British Consul at Corunna of the Irish Flag on board the ship "Trio," of Wexford, will be presented; if the Consul still retains the Flag; and, whether there would be any objection to its being given back to the owners of the "Trio?"

Sir, the Papers have already been presented and distributed; the Consul has returned the flag which was detained to the Board of Trade, from whence it will be sent to the owners.

asked the Postmaster General, lithe Departmental Committee appointed to inquire regarding a proposal to expedite the outgoing mails to America as reported; and, if so, what action he means to take?

Sir, the Committee has so nearly completed its inquiries on the subject referred to by my right hon. Friend, that I expect to have its Report in my hands in two or three days. I can assure him I shall lose no time in carefully considering it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether all the provincial Reports on the Native Judicature Bill have now reached Simla; and, when their purport will be made known?

Sir, the Reports mentioned in the Question of the hon. Baronet had not all reached Simla on the 22nd of July. When complete, they will be forwarded without delay. Their purport will be made known to Parliament as soon as possible after their reaching the India Office.

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman would take care that Parliament should have some information as to the contents of these Reports before the Prorogation?

, in reply, said, it might not be possible to lay the Reports on the Table before Parliament separated; that would entirely depend upon when they came home. He would, however, endeavour to obtain them in time.

said, the hon. Gentleman must be aware that some of the Reports were dated as early as May, and it was perfectly possible for some of them to have been sent home at once.

, in reply, said, he thought that the understanding was that they should be sent home as soon as they were complete. He could assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as that happened they would be sent.

said, there was no understanding of that kind with the House. He and his hon. Friends asked the Government to give an undertaking that they should be circulated before the end of the Session; and he understood the Government to give an undertaking to that effect.

, in reply, said, he did not think the Government had given an undertaking to that effect. He would take care that the purport of the Reports should be known as soon as possible.

asked the Postmaster General, If any decision has been arrived at with reference to a new Post Office for Leeds?

Sir, the need of a new Post Office at Leeds has been under the consideration of the Government, together with a proposal from the Corporation that the Coloured Cloth Hall should be acquired as the site. That property, however, contains more land than would be wanted, and could not be used for any other than its present purpose without legislative powers. The Corporation have been informed that, if a Bill for dealing with the property were promoted by an independent body, the Government would consider the question of taking a suitable part of it for the erection of a new Post Office; and, in the meantime, no other site has been selected. In reply to Lord CLAUD HAMILTON,

said, that he believed very important improvements were being carried out in the Post Office at Liverpool.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any steps have been taken to suppress an exhibition called the Human Serpent, to which his attention was called on the 12th June by the Reverend Edward Lyttel?

, in reply, said, he inquired into the case at the time; but the circumstances did not seem to bring it within the Act of 1879; and, therefore, it was impossible for him to interfere.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the advantages conferred upon the members of the Army Veterinary Department by the recent Veterinary Warrant will also be extended to the 24 First Class Veterinary Surgeons promoted to that grade under the Warrant of 1878, and who, otherwise, would be placed in a disadvantageous position during their entire service, in consequence of all future advancement being contingent upon the date of promotion to First Class?

Sir, the hon. and gallant Member for Leitrim (Colonel O'Beirne) would appear to be under some misapprehension. Promotion to the rank of Inspecting Veterinary Surgeon does not depend on the date of promotion to the 1st class of veterinary surgeons. Such promotion is by selection for merit, and the test of service is 15 years' commissioned service, without reference to time as a 1st class veterinary surgeon.

asked the Postmaster General, If M. Cochery, Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in France, has proposed to reduce the present tariff for telegraphic messages between England and France from 25 centimes a word to 20 centimes a word, as now in operation between France and Italy, and other European countries, and, whether he has given any answer to this proposal; and, if so, if he would state the nature of his reply?

Sir, communications have been received from M. Cochery, proposing that the word rate for telegrams between France and England should be reduced from 25 centimes to 20 centimes. As such a reduction, however, would affect the telegraph rates to other countries, it has been thought better to postpone the consideration of a reduction until the next Telegraph Conference, to be held at Berlin in 1885. As my hon. Friend makes a comparison between the telegraph rates between France and Italy and France and England respectively, I may point out that as, in the former case, the service is entirely a land one, the additional cost involved in maintaining submarine cables is avoided.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Maharajah Dhuleep Singh and his family have ever received the £45,000 a-year guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Lahore in 1849, or whether, on the contrary, the income of the Maharajah has boon so diminished by the Government that, for many years, he has not had more than about £13,000 a-year to live upon; and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House a debtor and creditor Return showing their dealings with the Maharajah and his family since the annexation of the Punjab?

Sir, the terms of the Lahore arrangement referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) allotted for the support of the Maharajah, his relatives, and the servants of the Punjab State at that time, not less than four and not mere than five lacs of rupees. The Maharajah himself was to receive—

"Such portion of the above-mentioned pension as may be allotted to himself personally, provided he shall remain obedient to the British Government, and shall reside at such place as the Governor General of India may direct."

Under these terms, the allowance of the Maharajah, on coming of age in 1859, was fixed at £25,000 sterling a-year, in addition to which he was given £105,000 for the purchase of landed estates. Since then various advances have been made to him, at his request, in respect of arrangements regarded by him at the time as favourable to himself. the interest on these advances, amounting to £5,664 per annum, is deducted from his income. Recently, by the Act 45 & 46 Vict., c. 4, further arrangements have been made, under which Government have advanced him £60,000 without interest. Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to lay on the Table the Return required by the hon. Member.

said, he had to thank his hon. Friend for the full answer which he had given; but he begged to give Notice that he should also ask his hon. Friend to lay on the Table a Copy of the Treaty of Lahore; also, whether it was not the fact that the Government induced the Maharajah to settle as an English gentleman in this country, and that they advanced the money from the four or five lacs guaranteed by the Treaty, in order to purchase this estate, charging him between 4 and 5 per cent for land which never could produce 3 per cent? He should also ask the Government whether they would refer the whole of the questions involved to a Select Committee? He wished, further, to ask the indulgence of the House for a moment, while he made a statement on behalf of the Maharajah. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]

indicated that the hon. Member could not, at the present stage, make a statement.

said, he would put what he had to say in the form of a Question; and ask whether the Government was not aware that the Maharajah was not leaving this country for the purpose of residing permanently in India by his own inclination, but in consequence of his being a brokenhearted and disappointed man, who was compelled to return to India to live in a private station?

, in reply, said, that if the hon. Member would go through the Papers in the India Office, perhaps his opinion would not be exactly what it was at the present moment.

said, he must appeal to the Speaker whether that was an answer to any Question? He had not only read all those Papers, but he had known the Maharajah for 25 years.

asked whether, by the declaration "that they did not think it necessary to grant a Return," the Government meant that they did not think it advisable in their own interests?

said, he must ask that Notice should be given of any further Questions on this point.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government will take into consideration the position of the Militia Adjutants holding the appointments permanently under the old rules, with a view to placing them on a fair footing of equality with those holding the appointments for five years under the new rules, by giving them the temporary rank of Major in the Army from 1st July 1881, as, when the new Majors were made, 1st July 1881, several of them were Adjutants of Militia, and, ipso facto, became senior to the old Adjutants, most of whom were over twenty years' service, and, as they constantly meet on duty at the Depots, the senior officers are commanded by their juniors?

Sir, the case of these Militia adjutants was fully considered by my Predecessor, and announced at the time to the House; and I do not see any reason for disturbing his decision—that it was inexpedient to confer the rank of major upon them, as suggested in the hon. Member's Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he saw Mr. Stoichoff (the Delegate named by the Bulgarian Government to deal with the Varna Railway question), whilst that gentleman was in England, and whether from him or from any other source he is now able to give any information as to the progress of the arbitration, or hold out any hopes that the suffering bondholders will soon receive the interest so long overdue to them; if not, whether Her Majesty's Government will not consider it their duty to give Bulgaria notice that unless the arbitration is carried through by a certain reasonable time upon the basis accepted by Mr. Lascelles, Her Majesty's Government will withdraw the offer and revert to their right under the Treaty of Berlin; and, whether it is not a fact that, owing to a succession of good harvests, the State Revenue of Bulgaria has, during the last few years, been considerably in excess of the State Expenditure, so that the Treasury at this moment possesses a considerable reserve of gold with which the Bulgarian Government could meet its just obligations to the bondholders if they had the least desire to do so, and that they can no longer plead the poverty put forward in M. Zancoff's Despatch of August 1880?

Sir, I had some informal conversation with M. Voulcovitch, not M. Stoichoff, when he came to this country on business connected with the Danubian Conference. As I have already informed the House, Her Majesty's Government 'have lost no opportunity of pressing this matter on the Bulgarian Government; and they trust that, on the return of the Prince to Sofia, steps will at once be taken to settle the question. Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the present financial position of Bulgaria, but they have no doubt that means could be found to provide the funds required; and they believe that the Bulgarian Government; who are themselves deeply interested in the loyal execution of engagements entered into on their behalf, will see the necessity of meeting the obligation which their independent position now entails upon them.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Queensland "Executive Minute" of the 15th March, 1883, has been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, or whether, in any shape, Her Majesty's Government have information by whose authority orders were issued on that day for taking possession of New Guinea in Her Majesty's name; whether, from the Despatch of Sir A. Kennedy on the subject, dated one day previous—viz., 14th March, in which he makes no allusion to any such intentions, his Despatch of 19th April, and paragraphs 2 and 3 of his Despatch of 26th April, it may be inferred that this action was taken by the Ministers, and not by the Governor; and, whether Sir A. Kennedy's last Despatch, expressing a subsequent approval of the action of his Ministers, was written when he was on the point of departure in consequence of extreme illness, from the effects of which he shortly after died on the voyage home?

Sir, we have not received the "Executive Minute" referred to, and the only information we have as to the authority under which orders were issued is contained in the Papers before the House, which state that it was done under the authority of this "Executive Minute," which implies a Minute adopted by the Executive Council, at which the Governor ordinarily is present and presides. I have referred to the passages indicated by the hon. Member; but I am not prepared, from the perusal of them, to make the inference contained in the second part of the Question, that the action was taken by the Ministers independently of the Governor. It is true, I regret to say, that Sir A. Kennedy was ill at the time of his departure; but we have no reason to believe that he was at the time so ill as to be incapacitated from business.

asked, Whether, in justice to the memory of such an honourable and independent man as Sir A. Kennedy, the hon. Member would inquire whether, as a matter of fact, he was present at the meeting of the Executive Council of 15th March; and, whether Sir A. Kennedy was a party to the issuing of the order for the annexation of New Guinea on the 15th March, and scrupulously keeping back all information from Her Majesty's Government for more than a month afterwards.

We will inquire.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to the publication in the last New Guinea Papers of a letter of Sir C. Lilley to the "Times," stating that, whereas formerly the evidence of blacks was not receivable in courts of justice in Queensland, it was made receivable in all courts five or six years ago, Whether there is any truth in a subsequent statement made by an apparently competent authority in the "Times," to the effect that under the present law the evidence of blacks is not admissible of right in the Queensland courts, but only if the presiding judge or magistrate thinks the individual fit to give evidence, and that many cases between Europeans and coloured men are decided by unpaid magistrates and others, who are very likely to hold, and do often hold, blacks to be unfit, as the old law declared them to be?

Sir, I have had a search made, but have not succeeded in finding the Statute referred to by Sir C. Lilley in his letter, and, he being out of town, I have not been able to consult him; but, in this conflict of statement, until we can make inquiries, I prefer to rest on what is said by the Chief Justice of Queensland, in the letter referred to, on a matter of which He must have full and special knowledge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table a recent Correspondence between himself and the Duke of Westminster on the subject of the defective administration of the Smoke Nuisance Act in the Metropolis, together with the analysis prepared by the Council of the Smoke Abatement Institute of the fines imposed in the Metropolitan Police Courts; and, whether he is prepared to take any action in the matter?

, in reply, said, he would do so. He had received a letter from the Chief Commissioner of Police, in which the Chief Commissioner stated that he had made a further inspection of the properties referred to, and obtained information, and prepared the drawings authorized by the Home Secretary, with a view to the institution of proceedings under the Smoke Nuisance Act. The information proved that the potteries of the Metropolis had not complied with the Act, and that the nuisance caused by the Lambeth Potteries was of a serious character and susceptible of abatement. Messrs. Doulton, who had the largest works in the neighbourhood, and appeared to possess the chief influence there, had promised to make substantial alterations with a view of preventing the evil. If this promise on the part of Messrs. Doulton and others were carried out, every practical requirement would be met. He (Sir William Harcourt) need scarcely add that he trusted something would be accomplished in the direction of abating the nuisance.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been directed to the large percentage of sick in the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry, at present quartered at Ramleh, which has 116 out of 802 on the sick list; and, whether it is intended to move the regiment to more healthy quarters?

asked, whether there had been any further outbreak of cholera among the troops in Egypt since the information obtained on Tuesday last; and, what regiments were still quartered in Cairo?

Sir, the latest Return from the Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry showed 120 sick out of a strength of 784, or 15·3 per cent. One-fourth of the sick at Ramleh were venereal cases, and there had been some increase of febrile diseases, dysentery, and diarrhœa. The question of moving regiments in Egypt, and the selection of quarters, can only be decided by the General commanding there, on the advice of his principal medical officer. They only can have full cognizance of all the circumstances of the case, and I have every reason to have perfect confidence in their discrimination and judgment in the matter. With reference to the Question of the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), there is another Question upon the Paper by the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone); and, in reply to both the noble Lords' Questions, I have to say that all the information is contained in the telegrams on the subject received from the General commanding in Egypt, which are immediately communicated to the newspapers. The telegrams are not quite clear; but, so far as I understand them, there has been up to yesterday 14 cases, of which, I regret to say, 11 have proved fatal. I have not to-day received any later Return than that published, and I could not undertake, without Notice, to state what regiments are stationed at Cairo: but I believe there are only seven companies in the Citadel, and a small force is quartered on a hill in the neighbourhood. All the remaining troops which were in Cairo, I believe, have been removed to healthier quarters in camps in the vicinity.

asked whether, instead of publishing the mere bald Returns of the number of deaths among the British troops in Egypt, steps would be taken to remove the anxieties of the friends of those Irish soldiers who were in Egypt by publishing the names of those who had died of cholera? Members on that side of the House had received several communications on the subject from Ireland.

Sir, the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) has a similar Question upon the Paper. I have arranged that a nominal Return of those soldiers who may die of cholera in Egypt shall be published.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether judicial rents have been fixed by the Irish Land Commission in about 45,000 cases; whether, in only 350 of these cases, orders have been made by the Commissioners for the building or improvement of labourers' cottages, and the attaching thereto of allotment gardens; whether it is a fact that less than 40 of the orders so given have been carried out; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, at the earliest available opportunity, take the necessary steps to give effect to the Labourers' Clauses of the Land Act of 1881, and the Cottages and Allotment Act of last year?

Sir, I have not the actual figures up to the present date, and they could not be obtained without some time for inquiry; but, judging from the latest figures before me, I have no reason to think that the hon. Member's estimate is far astray. There is a Bill at present before the House, to which I see the hon. Member has placed Amendments on the Paper, which, if carried, will remedy the state of things to which he refers. Without committing myself to questions of detail, I may say that we cannot think it a small matter, and that those Amendments will have the general support of Her Majesty's Government.

asked if there was any prospect of the Bill coming on this Session; and whether the Government would give an opportunity for bringing it on?

, in reply, said, that although the Bill was in the hands of a private Member, it had been extremely well received on its second reading; and, therefore, it stood a good chance of becoming law this Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. W. P. Lloyd-Vaughan, an active magistrate and Deputy Lieutenant in the Roscrea District, entertained the members of the Roscrea Orange Lodge at his residence at Golden Grove, on the 12th July last; whether he was one of the magistrates who, at the next Roscrea Petty Sessions, inflicted heavy sentences of imprisonment upon farmers who were charged with assaulting members of the Roscrea Orange Lodge; whether he is aware that Mr. Toler R. Garvey, J.P., another of the magistrates of the Roscrea District, entertained his brother Orangemen of the Shenione Loyal Orange Lodge at his residence at Thornvale, on the 12th July last; whether lie is aware that another magistrate of the same district, Mr. J. C. Darby, High Sheriff of the King's County, participated in the Orange celebration at Aghancon on the same occasion; whether the conduct of these gentlemen, in the midst of a Catholic community, has been represented to the Lord Chancellor; and, whether steps will be taken to relieve the Catholic majority from the evils of an exclusively Protestant magistracy?

Sir, I am informed that there is no Orange Lodge at Roscrea; but that an Orange meeting was held at Mr. Lloyd-Vaughan's residence on the 12th of July. The allegations in the second paragraph of the Question are without any foundation. The facts are that three farmers were charged with drunkenness and disorderly conduct, assaulting the police, and beating two inoffensive men—who were not Orangemen, as alleged. The accused pleaded guilty, and light sentences were imposed. Mr. Lloyd-Vaughan was one of the magistrates on the Bench. With regard to Mr. Garvey, I am informed that he left Ireland on the 9th of this month, and has not since returned. It, therefore, cannot be the case that he attended an Orange meeting on the 12th. Mr. Darby attended at the meeting at Aghancon. I do not see any reasons for making any representation about these gentlemen to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor has, at the present time, the constitution of the Roscrea magistracy before him, with a view, if possible, to alter its exclusively Protestant character.

asked whether, in view of the suppression of Nationalist secret societies, and the imprisonment of their members for long periods, the Government would take steps to suppress the Orange secret societies in Ireland?

, in reply, said, that was a very controversial Question.

asked, was it not a fact that it was sworn to before the magistrates that the two men referred to by the right hon. Gentleman were attacked for being Orangemen?

said, he would make further inquiry as to that.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, At whose request and for what reasons a police hut was erected on an evicted farm on the property of Mr. R. H. E. White, at Incharoe, near Bantry; whether the cost of the extra police establishment will be charged upon the neighbourhood; and, whether he is aware that the County Court Judge in his late address to the Grand Jury at Bantry, declared that—

"From the evidence before us and from the information I have received since I came to Bantry I can state with confidence that your extensive and interesting division appears at present to be free from agrarian and other crime of a serious character?"

Sir, the hut was erected for the accommodation of police who were required for the protection of caretakers. The men are a part of the county force, and will not be a charge on the locality. I am glad to learn that the County Court Judge was able to express so favourable an opinion on the state of the district generally.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What determination the Land Commission have come to with regard to the charge of fraud under the Arrears Act brought against the Dublin Collector General of Rates; if he is to be prosecuted; and, whether the Government intend to retain this official in a position of great financial responsibility? He also asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had the admission of Mr. Byrne that he did antedate the tenants' receipts; and, whether, although Mr. Byrne denies that he had anything to do as principal with these affairs, as a matter of fact the whole of the tenants' applications were not in Mr. Byrne's own handwriting?

Sir, the case, undoubtedly, is very suspicious, and Mr. Byrne has made admissions which are against him. I cannot, however, say that he has admitted all which the hon. Member has referred to. The Land Commissioners have prepared a statement of the facts, with a view to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown being taken on some points. As I stated in reply to a former Question, under the circumstances I cannot prejudge the case by making a statement upon it.

Might I ask, apart from the prosecution or non-prosecution of Mr. Byrne, which is a matter that concerns the Land Commission, whether there is not another very grave question for the Executive, and that is the retention of Mr. Byrne in his office of Collector General, seeing that £1,000,000 from the ratepayers of Dublin passes annually through his hands? I will ask the right hon. Gentleman, at a later stage, whether the attention of the Lord Lieutenant has been called to this view of the matter?

Most certainly. The Government, as the responsible authority, is bound to inform themselves in the very fullest manner about it. I cannot prejudge it more than any other question.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Turlett, who runs the Ovoca coach from Dublin to the Wooden Bridge, in Ireland, has been obliged to pay £8 carriage licence for same, whilst the gentlemen who run the Dorking and Brighton coaches from Hatchett's Hotel, Piccadilly, pay only £2 as carriage licence; and, if so, whether he will have this inequality rectified forthwith?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that this is a question which does not concern me in any way, for it is not a Revenue question, the sums to be paid for stage coaches in Dublin and London being fixed by the Dublin Carriage Amendment Act and the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act respectively. I have nothing to do with the administration of these Acts; but I find, on reference to the Irish Office, that the question of Turlett's payment was brought before the late Duke of Marlborough in 1879, who was advised that no change could legally be made in the rate then charged, and I believe that the law is the same now as in 1879. The hon. Member is doubtless aware that in Ireland no Excise licence is paid on carriages; whereas in England the owner of a stage coach of this character pays two guineas.

wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman admitted, as a fact, that an inequality really existed, and that the Government would not take any step to remove it?

, in reply, said, as he had said before, that he had nothing to do with the Dublin or the London Police Acts on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the convict establishment at Spike Island has now been definitely broken up; and, if he is now prepared to redeem the numerous pledges given by the late Government that a convict establishment would be formed at Galway, for the purpose of improving that port?

Sir, the convict establishment at Spike Island has been definitely broken up, the last of the prisoners having been removed on the 13th of this month. I think the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) must be under a misapprehension as to pledges having been given by the late Government that a convict establishment would be formed at Galway. Undoubtedly, words have been used which require some explanation, as suggesting that such an arrangement was projected, and preliminary investigations were made; but I find that in April, 1880, the Lords of the Treasury "declined to commit themselves, even in principle, to the works contemplated at Galway;" and I can give no promise that they will be undertaken now.

asked what Government was in power at the time?

The late Government.

inquired to where the convicts had been removed?

The male convicts are at Mountjoy, and the females at Grangegorman.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he intends to take a Vote, or to apply any part of Vote 8, Class 4, for any portion of the current financial year, in aid of the expenses of the new proposed colleges for North and South Wales respectively; and, if so, before such Vote is proposed, he will undertake that the House shall have an opportunity of considering the scheme for "the management and maintenance" of these Colleges, referred to in a Government note to the Estimates (1883–4) for Aberystwith College (Class 4, Vote 8)?

Sir, no part of the Vote referred to is for the proposed new Colleges for North and South Wales. It is granted to Aberystwith College, pending the establishment of those Colleges. The scheme for the South Wales College at Cardiff is now before us, and we have asked the Treasury for a provisional Vote of £2,000 for the last half of the current financial year. If it is too late for this Session I shall move it early in the next. I promise the noble Lord that the scheme shall be laid on the Table before the Vote is taken.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, seeing that the Report of the Government of India on the connection of Madras officials with the promotion of Gold Mining Companies, promised by the Secretary of State for India early in April last, has not yet been received, He will urge upon the Indian Government the importance of having the Report completed at the earliest date possible, or at least of giving the India Office some information as to the time when its completion may be expected?

, in reply, said, that he had told the hon. Member on Monday that a despatch had been addressed to the Government of India on the 19th April last, and there had been no delay in the matter, which was sure to have the attention of the Viceroy; but he was afraid that the illness from paralysis of Sir James Gordon, who visited Mysore, would prevent the Report coming home as soon as it might otherwise have been expected.

asked, if there was information that the incriminated officials were doing all in their power to delay the preparation of the Report, so that it might not reach home until after the expiration of Parliament?

No, Sir; I am not at all aware of anything of the kind.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would make some inquiry on the subject.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether any instructions have been issued to overseers defining their duties under "The Divided Parishes Act, 1876," as amended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," with regard to the registration of voters in those parishes which have hitherto formed part of Parliamentary boroughs, and which may now be included in the county limits; and, whether any change in the mode of preparing the lists of voters in such parishes will be necessitated by the Acts referred to?

Sir, the Local Government Board have not issued any instructions to overseers with regard to their duties in respect of the registration of voters in the case of detached parts of parishes included in Parliamentary boroughs, which, under the Divided Parishes Acts of 1876 and 1879, have become amalgamated with parishes within the county limits. In the case of "Foster v. Medwin," it was held, in the Common Pleas Division of the High Court of Justice, that the detached part of a parish included in the Parliamentary borough of Shoreham did not become part of the Parliamentary borough of Horsham, which is conterminous with the parish of Horsham, by being added to that parish. According to the principle of that decision, a part of a parish contained in a Parliamentary borough which is added to a parish, which, for the purpose of the Parliamentary franchise, is included in the county, continues to form part of the Parliamentary borough. The amalgamation, although not altering the right of voting, will have some effect on the duty of the overseers in regard to the preparation of the lists, as the list of borough voters in the amalgamated part will have to be put up at the parish church and other places in the parish with which it is amalgamated; and such lists will, of course, have to be separate lists, relating only to the part of the parish which is within the Parliamentary borough.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Harrington, editor of the "Kerry Sentinel," has been arrested and lodged in gaol, in consequence of his conviction under the summary jurisdiction provisions of the Crimes Act, before two stipendiary magistrates, of printing and publishing an illegal notice; whether two young journeymen printers in the office of the "Sentinel" pleaded guilty to having printed and published the notice in question, and swore on the appeal trial that they had done so without Mr. Harrington's knowledge or consent; whether Mr. Harrington has been sentenced to six months' imprisonment, and, in pursuance of his sentence, will be compelled to wear prison clothes, to sleep on a plank bed, and to eat the prison fare in common with criminals convicted on the clearest testimony of infamous offences; and, whether he will lay the notes of the proceedings of the two trials upon the Table of the House?

Sir, Mr. Harrington was convicted before two stipendiary magistrates, under the provisions of the Crimes Act; and the decision was confirmed on appeal before the Appeal Court provided by that Act. The case was fully heard on both occasions. The journeymen printers stated, on the hearing of the appeal, that they had printed the document without Mr. Harrington's knowledge; but they had not made that statement on the previous trial; and the Court of Appeal, on full consideration of the entire evidence and the circumstances of the ease, did not believe the statement. Mr. Harrington will have the same relaxations made in his favour as have already been made by us in some other cases within the last eight or nine months. As regards the last paragraph of the Question, I can only say that the House of Commons is not a Court of review over the decisions of Courts of competent jurisdiction.

I wish to ask the right hen. Gentleman whether it was competent for the young journeymen printers to tender evidence on the occasion of the trial in the first instance, when, as the right hon. Gentleman states, they failed to make the statement or give evidence which they subsequently gave on the appeal?

Yes, Sir; I have ascertained that point. It was competent.

Might I ask, as there is a kind of insinuation in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that they did not give the evidence on the first occasion, whether they were not in gaol during the whole interval between the two trials, and Mr. Harrington could not have communicated with them?

I have since refreshed my memory. I have ascertained that they were perfectly competent to have made the statement on the first hearing, after they had pleaded guilty, if they so pleased.

That is not the point. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my Question. It is, as the right hon. Gentleman has to some extent insinuated that a communication might have been made to them by Mr. Harrington before the appeal, whether it is not the fact that the moment they were found guilty by the magistrates they were sent to gaol; and, whether it was not, therefore, impossible for anyone to have communicated with them?

He could have communicated, Sir, according to the ordinary gaol regulations. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not know why that statement excited ridicule. Under certain circumstances of grave public danger, those regulations had been altered and suspended for the precise purpose of preventing prisoners from communicating with the outside; but, under ordinary circumstances, they were not.

Might I ask, whether it is not a fact that, when a man is sent to gaol under these circumstances, he is not allowed a visit for two months? These men were sent to gaol for two months, and were not allowed a visit during the whole time. ["Order!"]

The hon. Member is entering into a matter of controversy. He must confine himself to a Question.

Precisely; but all Questions are matters of controversy. ["Order!"]

The hon. Member will attend to my direction.

My Question is, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the fact, although the right hon. Gentleman has insinuated that it was possible for these two persons to be tampered with by Mr. Harrington, between the date of conviction and the date of the appeal, that the prison regulations are such that it was quite impossible for any communication to have passed until the young men were produced upon the witness table?

On that point, if the hon. Gentleman will give Notice, I will make inquiry; but I appeal to the House whether, in the answer I gave to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, there was any insinuation such as is suggested by the hon. Member for Monaghan?

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will consent to place in the Library a map of Regent's Park, showing, clearly, the existing inclosures, and the modifications that it is now proposed to introduce; and, will he also arrange that no further steps shall be taken towards granting the leases until such time as the Members of this House have had an opportunity of examining the map, and forming an opinion thereon?

Sir, my hon. Friend is mistaken in speaking of these arrangements as proposals; they are complete, and have been approved by Her Majesty. I have communicated with the Treasury on the subject, and we have arranged to lay Papers on the Table which will contain a map, showing precisely the inclosed land which will be thrown open to the public.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is intended to introduce this Session a Bill relating to Tramways in the West of Ireland, as suggested some time ago; and, whether it is intended to advance any, and, if so, what public money for this purpose?

Sir, I cannot make any statement upon the subject beyond this—that the Board of Trade and the Irish Office are considering the Bill relating to it, and I hope it will be before the House next week.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether any resolution has been arrived as to the tenders for the Irish Mail Service viâ Holyhead and Dublin; and, if so, whether he can hold out any expectation that the urgent public demand for postal communication to and front the North of Ireland by the short sea route viâ Stranraer and Larne will be favourably entertained?

Sir, the Government is not in a position to announce a decision in reference to the tenders for the Irish Mail Service viâ Holyhead and Dublin. Until it is, I do not deem it expedient to come to any conclusion in reference to the Memorials for a sea route viâ Stranraer and Larne.

Will the right hon. Gentleman name any date for communicating the decision to the House? On this day fortnight, he said he would state the result in a few days.

I hoped, at that time, that it would be given in a very few days; and I think the House will see, when they are made acquainted with the Papers, that there has been no delay by the Government. I still hope to be able to announce the decision in the course of a very few days; but I cannot give any positive pledge, because there are still one or two points. There is no delay. We are doing everything we can.

asked, whether the delay had been caused by the Post Office or the Treasury?

It is not the fault of either. Both are working very hard. There are some complicated matters to be settled.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to a statement in the "Times" of July 24th, to the following effect:—

"The Minister of the Interior and the Prefect of Police, without consulting Sir Edward Malet, General Stephenson, or apparently any other authority, determined to evict in the middle of Saturday night the inhabitants of Boulak, and to transport them up the river to Furrah, near Helouân, where the English are forming a cholera camp. The scene is described as a pitiable one. No violence was necessary, but no attempt was made to mitigate the horrors of the situation. Meanwhile nothing had been done to prevent several of the evicted wretches from escaping, and rushing in crowds through the town;''

and, whether this statement is true; and, if so, what steps have been taken to prevent such an occurrence again taking place?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any steps have been, or will be taken, by Her Majesty's Government to procure the dismissal by the Egyptian Government of the Prefect of Cairo, in consequence of his persistent obstruction to the measures of the Sanitary Council?

Sir, in answer to the first Question, I have seen the statement to which the hon. and gallant Baronet refers; and we shall, no doubt, receive from Sir Edward Malet a full Report on the steps which have been taken by the Egyptian authorities. I may add that, owing to the quarantine regulations now in force at Mediterranean ports, considerable delay takes place in the receipt of the mails; but all Correspondence on the subject which may be of interest will be presented to Parliament as soon as possible. In reply to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I have to say that, in consequence of the Correspondence from Egypt which appeared in the various journals, Lord Granville yesterday requested Sir Edward Malet to furnish a Report with regard to the action of the Prefect of Police of Cairo. Sir Edward Malet, in a telegram dated to-day, states that, in his opinion, the Prefect had been blamed somewhat hastily for all that went wrong; but that he had obtained leave from the Khedive to place Major Chirnside, who speaks Turkish and Arabic, and in whom both His Highness and Sir Edward have great confidence, temporarily under the Prefect. The Khedive had agreed to withdraw the Prefect, if Major Chirnside is not able to work with him. ["Oh, oh!"] I think that statement should be rather satisfactory to the House. It may also be of interest to know that I have every reason to believe that Surgeon General Hunter has arrived in Egypt by this time; and I may add that of the 12 doctors who besides him are going out to Egypt, some started on Tuesday, and the others start this evening.

said, the noble Lord bad not answered his Question, whether the statement in The Times concerning the evictions was correct?

, in reply, said, that it was impossible for him, from day to day, to state whether the reports in the newspapers were true in substance or detail. As an illustration of the danger of committing himself to the statement in the Question, he would point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet that if he referred to two of the best informed morning papers of that day he would find in them contra- dictions of material facts previously published by them only two days before. [Au hon. MEMBER: Which papers?] The Times and The Standard.

asked, if it turned out that the statements in The Times were true, as to the frightful want of management in the hospitals, whether Her Majesty's Government would take the matter into their own hands, and not leave it, as it appeared to be, in the hands of incompetent men?

, in reply, said, he could give no such pledge. He had already explained the steps that were to be taken, and he expected very great improvement from the time of Surgeon General Hunter's arrival.

asked why there had been such delay?

, in reply, said, the doctors were sent out at the request of the Egyptian Government, which had refused a previous offer.

said, that was no answer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, What service Abdur Rahman is to render in return for the annual allowance of £120,000 that the Indian Government have agreed to give him?

, in reply, said, the India Office had not yet received the details of any agreement which might have been made between the Government of India and the Ameer; and he was, therefore, unable to add anything to his previous answer.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is now in possession of any official information respecting the alleged burning alive of fifty persons in the Sherbro country?

Sir, when my hon. Friend about a month ago asked me about this matter, I had no information to give; but since then we have received from Chief Justice Pinkett, the Administrator of Sierra Leone, a despatch, dated the 26th of June, from Sierra Leone, in which he makes the following Report:—

"In May last I received intelligence from Native traders that a 'witch palaver' was being held at Bonjaima, in the neighbourhood of the Bagroo River, and that it was likely that many lives would be sacrificed. I at once sent up a letter to the assembled Chiefs, pointing out the folly of such proceedings, and advising them, as a friend, to put an end to them. On the 18th instant I received a letter signed by all the Chiefs assembled at Bonjaima, saying that, before the arrival of my messengers, they had already burnt 34 persons, who had confessed to witchcraft and cannibalism, but that on reading my letter they had liberated the rest of the captives, who would otherwise have shared the same fate. The Chiefs promised to abstain from such practices in future, and I wrote back to thank them for so promptly meeting my wishes, and again expressed the abhorrence entertained by the British Government of such barbarous customs."

I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that the influence of the British authorities has been well and wisely exercised in this instance.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the destruction of nitro-glycerine at Plumstead Marshes on the 11th of April last was attended with danger to those employed; whether Sir Frederick Abel recommended that some extra payment to them should be made by the Home Office; and, whether such payment is intended to be made, and when?

, in reply, said, the destruction of the nitro-glycerine was attended with some risk, and one of the labourers employed was recommended by Sir Frederick Abel for extra remuneration. The matter was under the consideration of the Home Secretary.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to an accident which happened, on the 23rd of July, to an excursion party near Owlen Bar, in North Derbyshire, owing to the horses in a waggonette taking fright at a traction engine; and, whether, in view of the frequent occurrence of these accidents, he will undertake, at the earliest possible opportunity, to issue such regulations with regard to traction engines as the public safety requires?

Sir, my attention has been called to this accident. The Acts relating to the use of locomotives on roads do not authorize the Board to issue any regulations with regard to traction engines. These engines are subject to rules embodied in various statutory provisions, and also in bye-laws, which the county authority and other local authorities may make under Section 31 of the Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act,1878. The statutory Rules are briefly as follows:—

"1. Three persons must be employed to drive a locomotive. If more than two carriages are attached an additional person must be employed to take charge of them. 2. One of these persons, while the locomotive is in motion, must precede it on foot by at least 20 yards, and must 'in case of need assist horses and carriages drawn by horses passing the same.' 3. The drivers are to give as much space as possible for the passing of other traffic. 4. The whistle is not to be sounded. The cylinder taps must not be opened within sight of persons in charge of horses. No steam must be allowed to blow off on the road. 5. 'The locomotive must be instantly stopped on the person preceding it or any other person with a horse or carriage putting up his hand. 6. Two efficient lights must be provided, to be affixed conspicuously, one at each side on the front, between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise."

(28 & 29 Vict., c. 83, s. 3, and 41 & 42 Vict., c. s. 29.) Further, locomotives must not be driven along turnpike roads or highways at a greater speed than four miles an hour, or through any city, town, or village at a greater speed than two miles an hour. (28 & 29 Vict., c. 83, s. 4.) Rules supplementary to those contained in the Statutes may be included in bye-laws for the regulation of locomotives on highways, and the Derby county authority have made such bye-laws. These have been confirmed by the Board, and contain provisions restricting the passing of locomotives during certain hours, prohibiting their use upon certain bridges, and requiring one person to remain in charge of a locomotive on a highway while its fire continues alight.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whe- ther every Assistant Paymaster in the Royal Navy has qualified to serve as Paymaster; whether the rank of Assistant Paymaster is considered as a temporary or probationary one, pending promotion to the higher rank; whether it is a fact that between thirty-five and forty Assistant Paymasters are at present actually performing the duties of Paymaster in small ships; and, whether he will state on what principle a line is drawn at the first six years of such service, that period of junior service only being allowed to count until eleven years have been served in the rank of Paymaster?

Sir, every clerk, on passing the examination for paymaster, becomes an assistant paymaster, and there is no further examination or qualification required for promotion to the higher rank of paymaster. The rank of assistant paymaster has no more of a temporary or probationary character than any ether rank in the Service from which an officer can be promoted to a higher rank; it is simply a lower grade of the accountant branch of the Service. It is not customary to bear paymasters in small ships; assistant paymasters have quite sufficient experience to enable them to discharge the comparatively light duties involved; and, while performing them, they receive extra pay and are appointed "in charge." The Estimates for this year provide for 40 such appointments. The rule to which the hon. Member refers, as to collating six years of junior service, is part of a scale laid down in 1870 for the counting of junior time, which scale is applicable to navigating and engineer officers, as well as to paymasters. I have no means of knowing the reasons which led to the adoption of the particular periods laid down; but I imagine that the intention was, on the one hand, to prevent officers with the prospectively longer period of junior service, contemplated in 1870, from rising too rapidly to the higher rates of pay; and, on the other hand, to allow officers with long service in the junior rank to obtain some eventual advantage from it in the higher rank. It is not intended to make any alteration in the conditions of service.

asked the hon. Gentleman, if he would inquire whether the system worked unjustly, and, if so, whether the Government would take steps to remedy it?

, in reply, said, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that he had already answered the Question, by stating that the Government intended to make no alteration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will obtain from Sir Henry Bulwer an estimate of the number of thousands of Zulu lives sacrificed in consequence of Cetewayo's restoration. He also wished to ask, whether it is true that Cetewayo himself has fallen a victim to the policy of the Government?

If my hon. Friend is going to reply to this Question, I should like to ask one on the same subject—whether he will, at the same time, endeavour to obtain some estimate of the number of lives which have, from first to last, been sacrificed in consequence of carrying out the policy of Sir Bartle Frere?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers, I should also like to ask him, if he can give us a clear statement of the cost to this country in blood and money of the wanton invasion by the English people of Zululand?

Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Eye, I would say that the estimate he asks for would, in every one of its items, enter into matters of controversy and of disputed opinion. ["No, no!"] For instance, it is very much a matter of disputed opinion what would have been the condition of Zululand on this occasion, if Cetewayo had not been restored. Many of the Chiefs were in comflict with one another, and there was a considerable amount of fighting going on in Zululand previously to his restoration; and, therefore, I would answer the hon. Member in this way—that I do not believe Sir Henry Bulwer could any more easily make an estimate of the number of lives sacrificed in consequence of Cetewayo's restoration, than he could say how many lives would have been sacrificed if Cetewayo had not been restored. In answer to the further Question of the hon. Member as to news from Zululand, we have received a telegram from Sir Henry Bulwer, dated July 26, in which he says—

"Osborne's letter of the 23rd just received, and states that, in his opinion, it is certain that Cetewayo was killed during attack on Ulundi on the 21st, although definite information is wanting."

I would draw the hon. Member's attention to what I am going to read, as an answer to the last part of his Question—

"Mr. Finn's last letter, dated 19th, reported an Osutu raid into Usibepu's territory on the 14th instant. I expect more certain news from Osborne to-morrow. That is all the information we have got."

asked, whether the Government were in possession of information to the effect that these acts of violence or acts of warfare were instigated by White men among the Zulu Tribes; and, whether the Government would take steps to withdraw or expel these men from Zululand?

asked that Notice of the Question should be given.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table or state to the House the communications addressed to Her Majesty's Government by Foreign Powers regarding the late Suez Canal proposals of the British Cabinet?

Sir, in the Blue Book just issued (Egypt, No. 13) communications on the subject of Lord Granville's Circular of the 3rd. instant from the Russian and Italian Governments will he found. No others have been received. If the hon. Member refers to the recent Agreement with M. de Lesseps, I have already stated that a communication has been received from the Porte, the substance of which I have communicated to the House. As, however, no answer has yet been sent, it cannot be presented immediately.

asked, if there was any communication with the German Government on the subject?

, in reply, said, that perhaps the hon. Member would give Notice of that Question.

I beg to point out to the noble Lord that the Question is included in the Question which I have just asked. The Question I asked was, whether the Government would lay upon the Table the communications addressed to the Government by Foreign Powers, and that includes Germany?

I shall have no objection to answer the Question, if Notice of it is given for next day. When I first saw the Question, I understood it to refer to the Question mentioned in the first part of my answer. I saw afterwards it might refer to more recent communications, and I added the second part of my answer; but if the hon. Member puts down the Question I will have no objection to answer it.

Can the noble Lord state without Notice whether Germany is a Foreign Power?

Have any communications come from Germany or not?

I have told the lion. Member, if he will ask the Question to-morrow, I will give the best answer I can to it.

Are we to understand the noble Lord to say he is in error in saying no communications have been received from Russia?

No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my answer. What I said was, that when I first saw the Question I understood it to refer to the Circular Despatch of Lord Granville relating to the Suez Canal, and presented to Parliament some time ago. I subsequently saw it might refer to other subjects, and I answered both points; and I must say I think it would be desirable if the hon. Member for Eye would make his Questions a little more clear.

The noble Lord has net answered my Question, whether he withdraws the answer whether communications have been received from Russia?

I have no intention of withdrawing it, as there can be no mistake about it.

In order that there may be no mistake about it, to-morrow I will ask whether communications have been addressed to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the late Suez Canal proposals of the Government from Italy, Russia, Austria, Germany, or from any other European Power?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the alleged "administrative anarchy" in Egypt and to the statements made by the correspondents of English papers now in that country, especially to those published in the "Times" on Monday, the 23rd of July:—

"Trustworthy reports from the interior show that the administrative anarchy is almost beyond credence. Every official is trying to thwart some other, and rejoicing at every calamity, the cause of which he hopes to attribute to his rival. From one end of the country to the other, from Sherif Pasha to the meanest effendi, both country and people have proved themselves beyond all expectation incapable of self-government. It may be safely said that the hardships and cruelties of Ismail's despotic thirteen years did not exceed those of the last four months of experimental self-government;"

to the further statements in the "Times" of Wednesday, the 25th of July:—

"The utter breakdown of the whole administration has now become apparent, and, like the cholera, is no longer confined to the villages. Nothing saves the present Ministry from dismissal but the impossibility of finding less incapable men in the country. We are almost face to face with an alternative long foreseen, and which Lord Dufferin's Vice-Royalty only served to stave off—namely, of undertaking the complete administration of the country, or of leaving it literally to stew in its own juice;"

also the similar statements in other leading newspapers; and, what steps Her Majesty's Government, who are now in Military occupation of Egypt, propose to take in order to remedy this administrative anarchy?

Sir, I stated on Monday last the steps which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government in connection with the cholera outbreak, and I have nothing to add at present to those explanations.

I must be allowed to point out that that is not an answer to my Question. My Question does not relate to the sanitary condition only, but to administrative anarchy. I would call the noble Lord's attention to the paragraph from The Times, in which the "administrative anarchy" is mentioned, and also to the concluding paragraph of my Question.

Sir, it seems to me that anyone reading the Question would understand it to refer to "administrative anarchy" in connection with the outbreak of cholera. ["No, no!"] I have answered it in that sense; and if the hon. Member has any other Question to ask, I shall be glad to give whatever answer I am able to give. Very voluminous Papers have been presented to Parliament in connection with the administration of Egypt, and I de not think I can give any further information than is contained in them.

said, he would be reluctantly obliged to put the Question down for to-morrow. Subsequently,

asked, with regard to the administrative anarchy which prevailed in Egypt, whether the Government would pursue the same policy with respect to the Departments in question as had been pursued with respect to other Departments—that, namely, of appointing a British officer to do the work of the Department, and dismissing his Egyptian superior if he could not work with him?

, in reply, said, he thought the hen. and gallant Member could not expect him to reply to this Question.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he can state when the Agricultural Holdings (England) Bill, as amended in Committee, will be in the hands of Members; and, when the Report upon the Bill will be taken?

, in reply, said, the Bill, as amended in Committee and on re-commitment, was, as the House was aware, delivered this morning. In answer to the second part of the Question, he was anxious to take the next stage of the Bill as soon as it could conveniently be taken. He would willingly take it to-morrow; but that was a matter which was not in his hands. It rested with the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt), who had a Motion on the Paper for that time.

asked, why the Scotch Bill could not be taken before the English Bill?

asked, whether it would be more desirable or more convenient to take the Scotch Bill tomorrow night, if the opportunity offered? In that case hon. Members would have more time to consider the English Bill, which, as amended in Committee, was only in their hands that morning.

, in reply, said, that was a matter for the convenience of the House. They were not without hope of getting through the Scotch Bill before midnight.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether there has been any further outbreak of cholera among the troops in Egypt since the information obtained on Tuesday?

Sir, I have already stated, in answer to the noble Lord the Member for West Essex (Lord Eustace Cecil), that all the information that has been received by the military authorities has been communicated to the newspapers. We have not received to-day any further telegrams. All I can add is, that although the telegrams that have been received are not perfectly clear, as far as I can understand, there have been 14 cases in all among the British troops in Egypt, of which, I am sorry to say, 11 appear to have had a fatal termination.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the following statement in the letter of the 20th instant from M. de Lesseps to him—

"That constant accord had just manifested itself by a written agreement which gave that double interest satisfaction, consistent on the one hand with the obligations of the Company enjoying an exclusive monopoly of ninety-nine years for the digging of maritime canals in the Egyptian Isthmus,"

asserting that the Suez Canal Company has an exclusive monopoly for ninety-nine years of the right of cutting any canal through the Isthmus of Suez, has been or will be allowed to pass undisputed by Her Majesty's Government?

Sir, I certainly have seen no occasion to dispute, or enter into any discussion upon, the passage to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I think, if lie will examine that passage carefully, he will see that it does not admit of dispute. What it asserts is, that the Agreement is consistent with a certain view of the rights of the Suez Canal Company. In my opinion, the Agreement is consistent with any view whatever of the rights of the Suez Canal Company. Therefore, I cannot possibly dispute its being consistent with any particular view.

My Question was, whether Her Majesty's Government would allow the statement that the Company enjoyed an exclusive monopoly for 99 years for the digging of maritime canals in the Egyptian Isthmus to pass undisputed?

What M. de Lesseps has said is, that the Agreement is consistent with the view that he has an exclusive monopoly. As to that view I have said nothing. It is not our duty to enter into a controversy with M. de Lesseps; and if the hon. Member recommends such a course, I am not prepared to accept the recommendation.

The right hon. Gentleman has already entered into such a controversy.

Nothing of the kind.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether on the 6th of April 1863, the Porte, seeing in the concession of the Fresh Water Canal and of vast tracts of land a menace to its independence, declared, by a Diplomatic Note, addressed to its representatives in Paris and in London, its opposition to the continuance of the works of the Suez Canal; whether, in consequence, an award was made by the Emperor of the French as arbitrator, in execution of which agreements were passed between the Canal Company and the Egyptian Government, whereby such lands were surrendered to the Egyptian Government on payment of compensation to the amount of 30,000,000 of francs; whether to the agreement of 22nd February 1866 plans and tables were annexed, showing the extent of lands then fixed as belonging to the Company, and whether a right was reserved to individuals to settle along the banks of the Canal; whether the said agreement of 22nd February 1866 was embodied in the firman, subsequently given by the Sultan on the 19th March 1866, authorizing the execution of the Canal on the conditions prescribed in that agreement; and, whether any alteration can be made in the conditions under which the Canal has been constructed, without a further concession from the Egyptian Government confirmed by a firman from the Sultan?

Sir, I hope the hon. and learned Member will kindly dispense with my going over the historical part of the Question, which relates to matters which are in possession of the public, and upon which I have no peculiar information. The material part of the Question I think is contained in the fifth paragraph, where the hon. and learned Member desires to know whether any alteration can be made in the condition under which the Canal has been constructed, without a further concession from the Egyptian Government, confirmed by a Firman from the Sultan? In answer to that, I would say the presumption, undoubtedly, is that the conditions cannot be altered except by a fresh concession by a competent authority. But no definite answer can be given to a particular Question of this kind without a full knowledge of each particular case as it arises.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether an agreement was passed, on the 23rd of April 1869, between the Egyptian Government and the Suez Canal Company, whereby the money to be received for the sale of lands appurtenant to the Canal was to be equally divided between the Company and the Egyptian Government; and, whether the Canal Company will compensate the Egyptian Government for the employment of such lands in the construction of the new Canal?

Again I would say that I do not contest the accuracy of the details of what is stated in the first paragraph of this Question. But with regard to the second paragraph—the inquiry as to what the Canal Company will do, whether it will compensate the Egyptian Government for the employ- ment of certain lands in the construction of a new Canal—I, Sir, have no information of the intentions of the Company in that respect.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following Article in the Convention between the Viceroy of Egypt and the Suez Canal Company, dated 22nd February 1866:—

"Art. 4. Considérant qu'il est nécessaire de determiner, pour le Canal Maritime, l'étendue des terrains qu'exigent son établissement et son exploitation, dans des conditions propres à assurer la prospérité de l'enterprise, que cette étendue ne doit pas être restreinte à l'espace qui sera matériellement occupé par le Canal mêmo, par ses franes-bords, et par les Chemins de halage, considérant que pour donner aux besoins de l'exploitation une entière et complète satisfaction, it faut que la Compagnie nuisse établir, a proximité du Canal Maritime, des depôts, des magasins, des ateliers, des ports dans les lieux où leur utilité sera reconnue, et enfin des habitations convenables pour les gardiens, surveillants, les ouvriers chargés des travaux d'entretien et pour tous les préferés de l'administration; qu'il est en outre convenable d'accorder, comme accessoires des habitations, des terrains qui puissent être cultivés en jardins et fournir quelques approvisionnements dans des lieux privés de toute ressource de ce genre, qu'enfin il est indispensable que la Compagnie puisse disposer de terrains suffisants pour y faire les plantations et les travaux destinés à protégter le Canal Maritime contre l'invasion des sables et assurer sa conversation, mais qu'il ne doit rien être alloué au delà do ce qui est nécessaire pour pouvoir amplement aux divers services qui viennent d'être indiqués, que la Compagnie ne peut avoir la prétention d'obtenir, dans les vues de speculation, une étendue quelconque de terrains soit les livrer à la culture, soit pour y élever des constructions, soit pour les céder lorsq ue la population sera augmenté:

"Les deux parties intéressées se renfermant dans ces limites pour déterminer, stir tout les parcours du Canal Maritime, la périmètre des terrains dont la jouissance, pendant la durée de la concession, est nécessaire à l'établissement, à l'éxploitation, et à la conservation de ce Canal:

"Soit d'un commun accord, convenues que la quantité de terrains nécessaires à l'établissement, l'exploitation, et la conservation du dit Canal, est fixée, conformement aux plans et tableaux dressés, arrêtés, signés, et annexes à cot effet aux presentes:"

And to the following Article in the Act of Concession, signed by the Viceroy on 5th January 1856:—

"Art. 3. Le Canal approprié à la grande navigation maritime sera creusé à la profondeur eta à la largeur fixés par la programme de la Commission Scientifique Internationale;"

and, whether, considering the limitations in these two Articles, either M. de Lesseps or the Suez Canal Company can either widen the existing Canal, or make a second Canal within the lands belonging to the Company, without the authorisation of the Egyptian Government?

Sir, the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton raises, in its last paragraph, a very important question of law in relation to the rights of the Suez Canal Company. Now, Sir, that it is a matter in the main, I apprehend, judicial, upon which it would not be within my competency to pronounce an opinion; indeed, I think it quite beyond my province. MR. CHAPLIN asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that he has publicly stated, as the opinion of the Government, that M. de Lesseps is in possession of an exclusive right to make a Canal, as far as the Isthmus of Suez is concerned, and that without entering upon the question of what the Isthmus of Suez includes? The geographical limits of that Isthmus are pretty well defined; and, whether he adheres to that statement; and, if so, whether He will state what are the geographical limits, which are pretty well defined, of the Isthmus of Suez, in the view of Her Majesty's Government?

Sir, with regard to the reference to a statement of mine in respect to the rights of the Suez Canal Company, I am not sure of its verbal accuracy, but of its substantial accuracy I have no doubt. I have stated already that Her Majesty's Government have not receded from any opinion which they have expressed to the House on the subject. With regard to the question of the geographical limits of the Isthmus of Suez, which I ventured to describe "as pretty well defined," the state of the case, I believe, is this:—There is ample geographical authority for saying that the Isthmus of Suez is defined by the Valley of the Nile, from which it is shut off on the West, and by a portion of the Arabian Desert on the East. Of course, those are not absolutely frontier divisions, drawn by an absolute line; but they justify the description I gave—namely, that the Isthmus is "pretty well defined." What I had in view was this. If we take the case of the Isthmus of Panama, with broad open seas on either side of it, it might be difficult to define; but where there is an isthmus like the Isthmus of Suez, meeting to a narrow sea on side, of course it helps in a great way towards a definition.

said, it would, perhaps, be useful to the House if the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon would, on the same geographical point, be good enough to state what were the geographical limits intended to be included in his Resolution?

Sir, the geographical limits intended, and, I think, expressed in my Resolution are, any part of Egypt lying between the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, whether the Isthmus of Suez or any other part.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the widespread expression of approval that has been elicited from the various public bodies in Scotland in favour of the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, he will assure the House that the Government will do its utmost to pass the Bill into Law this Session; and, whether he will afford time for the Second Reading at the earliest available opportunity after such promises as may have already been given with regard to the arrangement of Public Business are fulfilled?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that such expressions of approval of the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill, as have come from public bodies in Scotland take the shape of describing the Bill as "a step in advance," as "an instalment," as "likely to do little good, but no harm," and so forth, but not as fulfilling what the people of Scotland, rightly or wrongly, desired and asked for; and, whether, looking to the late period of the Session, he will consider the reasonableness of withdrawing the Bill, so that Her Majesty's Government may review their proposal and introduce (if necessary) hereafter a measure which may be more than an "instalment," and may do no harm, but much good to Scotland?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of any Documents, or the Documents themselves, which Her Majesty's Government may have received from public bodies in Scotland expressing approval of the Local Government Board (Scotland) Bill?

Sir, my answer to the hon. Member who puts the first Question (Mr. Buchanan) is, that we are not in a condition yet to make an arrangement in the sense of naming a particular day or a particular hour; but I most confidently intend, and most confidently expect, to submit this measure for the Local Government of Scotland to the judgment of the House at the earliest available opportunity; and I trust, as far as I can judge from the state of Public Business, that will be an early opportunity. I shall be much disappointed if it does not arise not later than in the course of next week. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dalrymple), I think he will hardly expect me to recede from all the assurances we have given to the House on this subject. If, indeed, it had been true that the reception of this measure in Scotland had been universally a very unfavourable reception, that might have been a reason for a change of our course; but, on the contrary, as far as I am acquainted with the opinion that has been expressed, the measure has been received with general satisfaction. Undoubtedly, some persons object, and other persons desire more; but still, on the whole, the opinion I think has been favourable to the provisions of the measure. With respect to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon), I think, Sir, it would be rather an unusual course to lay upon the Table all the Documents and Memorials that may be received by Ministers from Bodies all through Scotland on questions of this kind; because it is obvious that, if the parties who forwarded these Documents and Memorials desired to address the House, it would be quite open to them to do so in the ordinary course by Petition.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as soon as the Government have ascertained, by careful examination, whether the provisions of the existing Law are sufficient to carry out the Resolution of July the 10th, he will communicate to the House the result of their inquiry; whether he can state approximately within what period they may be expected to come to a decision; and, whether, in the event of any cargo or cargoes containing diseased animals being landed from Abroad in future, he will undertake, on the part of the Government, that the fact of their having been landed shall be published as speedily as possible?

I am bound to say, Sir, although the hon. Gentleman has complained to-clay of the obscurity of former answers of mine, I am afraid I cannot add anything to their clearness or sufficiency—at all events, nothing that is material. As far as the first two paragraphs of this Question are concerned, they appear to me to convey the idea that slaughter at the port is to be abolished by some general and sweeping act of the Privy Council. Well now, Sir, we cannot adopt a sweeping conclusion of that kind, and we cannot undertake to abolish slaughter at the port. It is not possible for me to say when the examination of the subject in each case by the Department will terminate. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Dodson) can undertake to say; but I am sure he will be glad to communicate with the hon. Member on the subject, and give him all the information he can. With respect to the last paragraph of the Question, there is no doubt that at one time information of this kind was given to The Gazette, and I believe it could be given again. I would ask the hon. Member to consider that this is a question of public convenience, and to communicate with my right hon. Friend, who, I am sure, will give him every satisfaction.

said, he would make a point of communicating with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the subject. The Prime Minister, however, seemed to have misapprehended the first part of the Question. What he (Mr. Chaplin) wanted to know was, whether, as soon as the examination was made, he would acquaint the House with the result of the inquiry, whether it was sufficient or not?

, in reply, said, he was not sure what was the best form and method of publishing the result of the investigations; but it was certainly to the public interest they should be made known to Parliament.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether he can say, definitely, whether the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill is to be taken tonight; and, when the Government will stop Supply for the purpose of proceeding with that Bill?

, in reply, said, it would be a breach of his general engagements to the House if he were to give any undertaking to stop Supply for the purpose of going on with the discussion of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill. There were certain Votes which they must ask the House to give them, and the time necessary for the purpose they must ask the House to appropriate. As to the question of going on with the Bill, the points remaining for discussion, so far as he knew, were of a simple character; and, that being so, he had supposed it might be for the convenience of the House generally, and of Scotch Members in particular, if they availed themselves even of a late hour for the purpose of closing the discussion tonight, if possible. At the same time, it was no part of the desire of the Government to press that upon the House, or upon the Scotch Members. It was entirely an arrangement intended for the general convenience; and if the hon. Member (Mr. J. W Barclay) would communicate with the Lord Advocate, he (Mr. Gladstone) was sure they would be able to arrive jointly at what would be the best arrangement.

said, he had been in communication with the representatives of the pawnbroking interest, and he trusted in a few days to propose certain Amendments in the two Bills relating to this subject. He could assure the hon. Member that he would not propose the second reading of the Bills until full time had been given for their consideration.

I wish to ask the Government, Whether their attention has been drawn to the serious danger that may result to this country from the unrestricted importation of rags from Egypt; and, if so, whether they propose any steps in the matter?

Sir, my attention has been called to this matter, and steps are under consideration at the present moment in regard to it. I may say that in regard to the only importation from Egypt by sea, because some Egyptian rags come overland—and we cannot distinguish which are from Egypt and which are not—we did make orders in regard to the cargo; but those orders were not actually issued, because the rags went on to America.