asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will be good enough to inform the House whether the structural strength of the Ocean Cruiser "Iris," in framing, main, and shell plating, is more or less than that of vessels of similar size, and classed 100 A 1 in the Merchant Service, say of the White Star Line; and, if it be correct that her coal endurance is only equal to seven days in ordinary weather, whereas merchant ships of similar size and greater speed possess a coal endurance of over thirty days besides cargo?

Sir, in answering my hon. Friend's Question, it is important to explain that the displacement of the Iris is 3,700 tons, while that of the White Star Line is from 7,000 to 10,000 tons. Comparing the Iris with a merchant ship of the same size classed 100 A 1 at Lloyd's, the thickness of the frames and plates is less, and the frames are further apart, but the system of construction is different throughout. The Iris is a double ship from the keel to the tipper deck, heavily bulk headed, and framed to suit these conditions. That the Iris is a strong ship was proved conclusively by the small damage sustained when ashore at Port Agusta. The Iris has a bunker capacity for 39 days at full speed of 18 knots. Merchant steamers of similar speed but twice the size have coal capacity for seven to ten days. The long coal endurance referred to it in the Question is associated with much lower speed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been drawn to the facts that France has voted a sum of money and Germany has decided to send a scientific commission to Egypt to study and report upon the special conditions of the outbreak of cholera in that Country; and, whether the Report from our own medical officers which is to be laid upon the Table of the House is of the ordinary character, or will it have some elements of scientific investigation and precision so as to be of value in our knowledge of the disease?

Yes, Sir; the facts are as stated by my hon. Friend. Dr. Hunter has already full instructions to report, for the information of the Sanitary Department of the Local Government Board, on the character and origin of the disease; and, considering the importance of the subject, I have forwarded a copy of the hon. Member's Question to him.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can now state the result of his consideration of the Question of general rules regarding the acceptance of paid employments ouside their office duties by public servants already remunerated by salary, which gives the State a claim to their whole powers, and that in respect not only to Treasury Officers, but to all Civil Servants, and to Judicial Functionaries, such as the County Court Judge in county Durham, who was alleged to have accepted a paid office in connection with a Committee of Mines and Mineowners in the same county?

Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have had this subject under their consideration, but that it involves far greater difficulties than at first sight I anticipated when I replied to my hon. Friend's former Question, and that we have not yet arrived at any decision covering the whole of the Public Service. I had not heard of the case of the County Court Judge in the County of Durham; but I have ascertained from the Lord Chancellor that he is making inquiries on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, with reference to his statement that the Colonial Office disapproved of such a practice as that of the stipendiary magistrate in Grenada, who was himself a planter and employer of indentured labour, "Whether the Secretary of State has issued any general rules to Crown Colonies prohibiting stipendiary magistrates, and other officers charged with the protection of Coolies and labourers, from engaging in private occupations which render them interested parties in questions between employers and labourers; and, whether there are any general rules restraining public servants receiving salaries entitling the State to their full powers from engaging in private employments for gain?

Sir, before issuing any general Rules regulating this matter, the Secretary of State has thought well to inquire by Circular as to how many instances of the kind exist, and the circumstances under which the few cases may have arisen. But I do not withdraw anything from what I said the other day—that the Colonial Office strongly disapprove of magistrates being concerned in any way within their districts with the employment of Coolies and labourers. In reply to the second Question, I will read the 76th of the Colonial Regulations, which runs as follows:—

"All salaried public officers are prohibited from engaging in trade, or connecting themselves with any commercial undertaking without leave from the Governor, approved by the Secretary of State. As a general rule this prohibition will he made absolute in the case of officers whose remuneration is fixed on the assumption that their whole time is at the disposal of the Government."

Has the hon. Gentleman reason to suppose that Rule is realty acted upon?

Yes, Sir; I apprehend it is.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the paragraph which has appeared in the public journals is correct, to the effect that the London School Board have, in the course of the present year, entered into contracts for ten new schools, and for the enlargement of twenty-two existing schools, at a total outlay of £123,462; and, whether the Education Department, before sanctioning such an outlay, have taken means to satisfy themselves that so large an addition to the schools buildings of the Metropolis is really required, and that no undue competition with existing schools will be thereby sanctioned?

Sir, in reply to an inquiry which I have made of the London School Board, I have received the following Statement:—

"The contracts accepted by the Board during the current year, are as follows—Sanctioned by Education Department to August 22, 1883. Eight new schools, accommodation 7,263, amount of tenders £81,061; 11 enlargements, accommodation 3,920, amount of tenders £38,441; total—accommodation 111,183, amount of tenders £120,102."

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a head constable in the Irish Constabulary who joined before 10th August 1866, and has now served thirty years, of which five years were in the rank of head constable, is entitled now on retirement to receive a pension of £91 per annum?

Yes, Sir, a head constable retiring under such circumstances would be entitled to the pension stated.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that sub-constable Peter Caulfield, of Drumcondra, county Dublin, has been invalided since November 1881, on account of injuries received on duty; whether he is returned unfit for further services by the Medical Board since the 14th March 1883; and, whether it is intended to discharge him on the yearly allowance to which he would be entitled under the new Constabulary Act, or under the Act in force when he joined?

Sir, the sub-constable named became non-effective from a fall received, when on duty, in November, 1881. The Medical Board, before whom he appeared three times, were very doubtful of his case, and thought that, with judicious treatment, he might recover. However, he was returned unfit for further service in March last. His pension was not fixed, pending the passing of the new Act, and, in the meantime, he became seriously ill, and was sent for treatment to Steevens' Hospital, where he still remains. It is proposed to pension him under the now Act. The matter needs inquiry, and will get it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, How the Parochial Rates made by the Kensington Poor Trustees on the 14th of April last, for the six months ending October next, can be consistently regarded as outstanding (as set forth in their final notice of warrant of distress); and, if payment is required to be immediately enforced, why such enforcement cannot be resorted to without summoning and issuing such a notice, when they possess the alternative power of distraining, which could be notified at such date without expense, as pursued in the case of all Rates and Taxes whatsoever other than Parochial, viz. Gas, Water, Queen's, &c.?

Sir, parochial rates are made prospectively, and the rates become due as soon as they are made and legally demanded. The rates made by the parochial authority of Kensington in April last are for the purpose of defraying the expenditure during the half-year from the 26th March last; and in order to meet the demands of the Guardians, the Police Commissioners, and other charges, it is essential that the rates should be collected promptly. Before distraining on the goods of a ratepayer for parochial rates, the Statute requires that a warrant of distress should be issued, and this warrant can only be granted after the person in default has been summoned to show cause why the amount has net been paid. The parochial authorities have not, therefore, the alternative of distraining without previous summons. Neither is there any such power with regard to gas and water rates.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the fact that the appointment of postmaster in Maghera, county Derry, has been, or is about to be, granted to a leading member of the Local Liberal Association, or to any person entirely ignorant of Post Office duties, in preference to the young lady who managed the office during the illness of the late postmistress; whether the lady in question is quite competent to discharge the duties of the office satisfactorily, and that she had done so for a considerable period; whether she served an apprenticeship of five years in Draperstown to Post Office work; and, will he kindly state upon what principles the appointment will be granted?

The nomination to the vacant sub-post-office at Maghera rests with the Treasury, and the vacancy was reported to the Treasury yesterday. Three applications in favour of three different persons have reached mo—one from the lady to whom the hon. Member refers—and have all been forwarded to the Treasury.

When the right hon. Gentleman says the appointment rests with the Treasury, does he mean that the Treasury makes the appointment on the recommendation of the local Member of Parliament, who, in the case of Derry, would be the Attorney General for Ireland?

The matter rests with the Treasury. I have nothing to do with it.

To-morrow I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury a Question on the subject.

I have nothing to do with these appointments.

Then I will ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Richard Grosvenor).

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the latter end of June last, Sub-Constable Prior was fined £5 at Belfast Petty Sessions for an assault on a man named Offeeir; and, whether Prior still continues in the service?

the constable was fined, but lodged an appeal, and entered into recognizances to appear. Pending the hearing of the appeal at the September Sessions no action can be taken in the case.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case that the police force in the town of Glin, county Limerick, is left in charge of an acting-constable named O'Brien; and, whether it is usual to give so important a charge to a policeman of inferior rank?

I am informed that it is usual, when a constable is not available, to place an acting constable in charge of small outposts such as Glin; and that acting constable O'Brien, a senior man in his rank who will very soon be promoted, was selected as having good local knowledge, and being otherwise well fitted for the post.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the decision of the cess-payers, refusing to renew the presentment for the Kildare Infirmary, was overridden by the votes of magistrates, four of whom were Governors of the Infirmary; whether their votes were legal; and, whether there is any authority empowered to institute an independent inquiry into charges touching the management of the Infirmary?

Sir, I stated, in reply to a former Question, how the majority which carried the presentment was composed as regards magistrates and cesspayers. Four of the magistrates who voted in the majority were Governors of the Infirmary. I am not prepared to say whether or not their votes were legal. It is not a question for the Executive to decide. I am advised that it is open to any cesspayer, who may think the votes illegal, to question their validity in the ordinary course of law, either before the going Judge of Assize, or by application to the High Court of Justice. As regards the concluding paragraph of the Question, the Local Government Board have power to examine into the administration of a county infirmary supported by Grand Jury presentment. They have not been applied to to exercise that power in this case.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, During how many full days Judge Warren, of the Probate and Matrimonial Division, conducted business in Court within the last twelve months; in how many cases were appeals taken from his decisions; and, in how many of these cases were his decisions upheld.

said, the officers of the Court were at present absent, and he was not able to procure a Return of the number of days on which the Court sat during the past 12 months. He could undertake to say, however, that there were no arrears. Of the appeals made, the decisions of the Judge were upheld in the four cases tried.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman state the number of days the Judge sat?

said, he could not.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether there is any power or authority to try a prisoner of war for acts done before his capture by those who make him prisoner, unless detected as a spy and out of uniform; and, whether Mr. Shaw, now prisoner at large on board a French man of war at Tamatave, is a prisoner of war and accused of being a spy?

Sir, I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is under some misapprehension as to the extent of the right of trial exercised by the military tribunals of an army occupying foreign territory for the purposes of war. Under such circumstances, the military tribunals of the occupying army claim jurisdiction to try the inhabitants of the country for any military offence—that is, an offence committed by them against the army itself. I do not think that it would be either convenient or expedient for me to attempt to define the offences which are of such a character as to justify the military tribunals in exercising their jurisdiction; but I certainly can say that such a power is not confined to the instance given by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the Question he has put to me.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it be the intention of Her Majesty's present Advisers to postpone the construction of all new harbours, especially harbours of refuge, on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland, until the completion of the new harbour works at Dover?

said, this Question had been put down under misapprehension. He was not aware of any harbours the Government were constructing at the present time; and, consequently, there could be no postponement.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Law Officers have yet decided, with regard to the prosecution of the Collector General for Dublin; and, when he expects to announce the decision of the Lord Lieutenant with reference to the Collector's retention in office?

The first paragraph of this Question I have already answered. With regard to the second, the matter is still before His Excellency, who has not yet decided upon it.

asked whether it was not now two months since this Question was originally put on the Paper; and why was it that the Government, who could so readily proceed against an Irish Member, took such a long time to make up their minds?

said, he doubted whether the Question was put on the Paper two months ago; but if the hon. Member was sure upon the subject it must have been so. The matter was not in the hands of the Executive first, but in the hands of the Land Commission. It had only come before the Executive for decision within the last seven or eight days, and it was not yet decided upon.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the telegraph is now in working operation between London and Cork?

said, the Lord Lieutenant, as far as he knew, might have only just received the Papers, and to decide upon the retention of a public servant—he would not say a high servant, but any public servant—was a matter that could not be done offhand, especially at a distance from the town whore that public servant resided.

said, he should repeat the Question to-morrow.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has been re-appointed Special Resident Magistrate for a period of nine months?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd has not been re-appointed, as he has never resigned. I may state, however, that the authority for the employment of Special Resident Magistrates will expire on the 30th of September next.

Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's appointment will not be continued after that date?

The only answer I can give to that is, that up to the 30th September the Special Resident Magistrates will be continued in their position.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire into the case of a child named Emily Agnes Henning, of 273, Mayall Road, Herne Hill, aged four months, who was vaccinated on the 25th July, was, within three days, attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning, and died in great suffering on August 15th; whether he is aware that the certificate of death stated the cause to be Erysipelas P. Convulsions S. without mentioning vaccination; and, whether he will cause an inquiry into the circumstances satisfactory to the parents?

Sir, the child was vaccinated on the 25th of July by Mr. Niall, who is not a public vaccinator, and was not attacked with symptoms of blood poisoning within three days after vaccination. The vaccination ran its normal course, and the result on the eighth day after vaccination was regarded as satisfactory by the medical man who had vaccinated the child. One of the vesicles, however, became broken through the rubbing of a piece of muslin, and following on this occurrence a blush of the nature of erysipelas appeared on the arm. This was on the ninth, and not the third day after vaccination. This subsequently spread, and the child died three weeks after vaccination. Having regard to the history of the case, and to the date when the inflammatory blush first appeared, it would seem that death resulted from the absorption of some septic matter by the surface of the broken vesicle, and not from the vaccination itself, which, apart from the accident to the vesicle, was running its normal course. Under these circumstances, the primary, and secondary causes of death are, in the Board's opinion, correctly stated in the certificate; and the Board see no sufficient reason for further inquiry.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an official Letter read by certain inspectors of the Board of National Education to teachers, threatening them with the cancelling of all results fees if they presumed to use any books, stationery, or requisites other than those on the Board's sale stock-list, was signed by Mr. John E. Sheridan, now acknowledged as the author of an English grammar on same list; whether Mr. Sheridan takes part in the selection of books for sale to schools; and, whether any work on English grammar has been marked "objected to" in his office, before being submitted to the Commissioners?

Sir, the Commissioners of National Education inform me that they presume that the first paragraph of this Question refers to a Circular issued in July, 1881, by their order, and signed by their joint Secretaries, Messrs. Newell and Sheridan, directing Inspectors to caution teachers against using objectionable books in their schools, and threatening the cancelling of results fees whenever such warning should be disregarded. With regard to the second and third paragraphs of the Question, the selection of books is made by the Commissioners themselves, and not by either of their Secretaries; and Mr. Sheridan has not marked any books "objected to," except such as had already been condemned by the Board.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, within the past four years, any teachers of national schools have been censured or otherwise punished for using in their schools plain stationery copybooks, or written exercise books, not sold at the Commissioners' store in Dublin; and, whether Her Majesty's Government would approve of or sanction such proceedings on the part of the Commissioners or their representatives, especially in cases where it could be proved that the article condemned was superior to that which could be got from the Board at the same price?

Sir, I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the rule to which this Question refers is as follows:—

"Teachers are strictly prohibited from using in their schools any hooks, &c, not expressly sanctioned by the Board, and from making any profit from the sale of requisites to their pupils."

asked whether a similar kind of supervision was exercised over schools in England; was it not a fact that the matter was left entirely in the hands of the local authorities?

said, he was satisfied that in England, as elsewhere, teachers were not allowed to make an inordinate profit out of stationery supplied to their school children.

The point I wished to direct attention to is this. In England there is practically free trade in the supply of books, whereas in Ireland there is practically a monopoly.

asked the Postmaster General, What is the number of clerks in the Telegraph Department of the Belfast Post Office with less than nine years' service who are allowed three weeks' annual leave, and the number with over nine and not exceeding thirteen years' service who, though performing the same duties, are only granted a fortnight's annual holiday; also the number of clerks in the Postal Department of the same Office with, service not exceeding thirteen years who are granted one month's annual leave; and if there is a single instance of a clerk with long service and good conduct having been transferred from any provincial office to the Telegraph Department of the Liverpool, Manchester, or Glasgow Post Offices, being called upon to perform night duty, and only allowed a fortnight's annual holiday; and, whether in Irish offices, such as Dublin and Belfast, whore the duties are precisely the same as in the offices referred to, officials are treated differently in this respect?

The first of the two Questions put by the hon. Member is a repetition of one that was addressed to me at the beginning of last month. I then explained that the reason for some of the telegraphists in the Belfast Post Office having three weeks' leave, while the rest have a fortnight, was that at Belfast some officers had received, through an error, longer leave than was given at other post offices. As soon as the mistake was discovered new entrants into the Belfast Post Office were put in the same position with regard to leave as those employed elsewhere. It was not, however, thought expedient to withdraw the longer leave from those who had previously enjoyed it. I also stated that in consequence of the postal duties being much more harassing than those of the telegraphists, some of those employed on the postal side have more than a fortnight's leave. With regard to the hon. Member's second Question, I have not been able, during the short interval which has elapsed since Notice of it was given, to collect the required information from the post offices of Liverpool, Manchester, and Glasgow; but I may say generally that the Post Office servants in those cities are not treated exceptionally in the matter of leave, and that throughout the United Kingdom, wherever the circumstances are similar, similar treatment is extended to all.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take notice of a case of distinct unfairness if it were brought before him?

said, if the hon. Gentleman would direct his attention to a particular case, he would most gladly have it investigated.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the boundaries of the inclosures in Regent's Park are precisely defined in the map accompanying the Report of Her Majesty's Woods and Forests laid before Parliament in 1841; and, whether it is the case that in one instance at least an encroachment has been made beyond that defined boundary upon the limits of the Park there declared to be open?

Sir, I have looked as the map of 1841; it is obviously very rough, and could not be supposed to contain any precise definition of boundaries. I am informed that there have been no encroachments beyond the boundaries at that time assigned, and delimited to the villa leaseholders.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the case that the Office of Works had, for thirty years past, the control of the inclosures within Regent's Park which were not leasehold, but let on yearly tenancy to the residents in the villas, and also had, for the same period, received the rents of the same; and, whether it is the case that, notwithstanding, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests have now assumed the control, and will in future receive the rents of these Inclosures; and, if so, by virtue of what authority?

Sir, it is quite true that up to a year ago the rents of the inclosures referred to by the hon. Member were received by the Office of Works; but a claim was made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests that they were part of the revenues of the Crown, and on the matter being referred to the Law Officers, it was held by them that under the Act which constituted the Office of Works, these inclosures not being legally a part of the Park, their rents should, in future, be paid to the Commissioners of Woods.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the changes which are now being carried out at the Customs Outports, consequent on the introduction of the new warehousing system, the clerks who may be made redundant will have the opportunity afforded them of retiral on the usual abolition terms, in lieu of being compelled to accept of inferior work, or of being made liable to removal to other ports; whether the senior clerks who are near their maximum of salary, and who may be compelled, or who may elect to retire, will be allowed the full retiring allowance of forty-three-sixtieths on their maximum; and, whether the junior clerks affected by the changes will be allowed the alternative offer of a transference to the Outdoor Department, retiral from the service on the abolition terms, or equivalent clerical employment in other Departments?

Sir, clerks who, on reasonable grounds, decline the outdoor service, and for whom appropriate duties cannot be found at their own or other ports, will be allowed to retire on abolition terms. These terms will not, however, in any case exceed two-thirds of their salaries. That limit was imposed by Statute, and could not be exceeded in the case of the London clerks. In dealing with each case due regard will be had to the health of the officer and other circumstances; but, speaking generally, the men will continue to perform the same class of work as before, and, for the most part, in the same place.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, with regard to the Crown property of the Southport foreshore, which in April last the Duchy agreed to sell, to the extent of 9,000 acres, to the Lords of the Manor for £15,000, whether he is aware that the latter are now asking for 1,286 acres alone no less a sum than £25,000 from the Southport Corporation; and, whether he is able to hold out any prospect of the good offices he has undertaken to use in this matter resulting in the acquisition by the people of Southport, at a fair and reasonable price, of the 4,000 acres of foreshore conterminous with the Borough, the possession of which they regard as of vital consequence to the development of a favourite marine resort of the Lancashire manufacturing population?

Sir, until this morning I had had no official information on the subject. On the 29th of June last, a comprehensive letter was addressed to the Corporation from the Duchy Office, to which there has been no reply; and apparently the matter has been very much taken out of my hands by the Corporation negotiating directly with the landowners. This morning I have received a letter from the solicitors of the landowners stating that, in response to an application from the Corporation, they had offered to sell the whole of the foreshore opposite the town proper, an area of about 2,600 acres, for 2s. 6d. per acre for recreation and sanitary purposes only, and that they are also prepared to sell a further area of 1,286 acres, which comprises, besides foreshore, some very valuable building land with a frontage to the shore of 900 yards, for the sum of £25,000, practically without any restrictions as to its use. I understand that no reply has yet been received to these offers.

asked if it was not a fact that that which was properly speaking foreshore could not be turned to any profitable account unless an Act of Parliament were obtained to sanction the appropriation?

Sir, no part of the foreshore can be diverted from its present uses to the injury of the public without the previous consent of Parliament. I understand the landowners made the offer of 2,600 acres at 2s. 6d. per acre, leaving it open to the Corporation to take the whole or any part of it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the measure promised for the establishment of County Government in Ireland founded on representative principles, he will have any objection to procure and lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Grand Jury Panels for the Spring and Summer Assizes, 1882 and 1883, and a Return showing the amount of property for which each grand juror appears rated for the relief of the poor, and liable for the payment of county cess; and a similar Return as to the property of one hundred of the largest cesspayers in the order of rating whose names do not appear on the Grand Jury Panels?

Sir, I will offer no objection on the part of the Government to the Returns of which the hon. Member has given Notice for to-day. The Returns which the hon. Member asks about will impose a good deal of labour on secretaries to grand juries and clerks of unions; but the Returns will be of interest and value.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that at a court of petty sessions held in the borough of Wexford on last Wednesday, a magistrate prevented the mayor of the borough from taking the chair, and stated that legal opinion had been obtained that the mayor was not entitled to take the chair; whether such opinion was obtained at the instance or cost of the Crown; and, if so, whether he will lay such opinion and the case sent to counsel upon the Table; whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Crown prosecutor told the mayor that his conduct was indecent; and, whether the Crown intends to take notice of such language addressed by a Crown official, in open court, to a magistrate?

Sir, the legal opinion referred to was, I believe, one given in the year 1876 to the then Mayor of Wexford by the Law Adviser to the Castle. No other opinion was, so far as I am aware, given or obtained. I cannot undertake to produce either case or opinion, as it has never been the practice to do so. The Crown Prosecutor stated that it would be indecent for the Mayor to be examined as a witness, as he professed his intention of being, and, at the same time, ask questions at the trial. The Resident Magistrate remarked that such a course would not be in good taste, which, I think, is a better expression than indecent. The Mayor refrained from taking the course which had been objected to. I do not think it necessary to take further notice of the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the violent language which has been used at some of the recent meetings of the National League; and, whether he can give the House any assurance that a continuance of speeches of a disloyal and menacing nature will not be permitted during the Recess?

said, before the right hon. Gentleman answered that Question he wished to ask Mr. Speaker whether there was not a Standing Order, No. 154, which declared that no Member was allowed to put a Question as to a matter of opinion; and whether the epithets "violence," "disloyal and menacing" did not come under that Rule?

I cannot say it appears to me to be a Question which is out of Order; yet, as it may be matter involving controversy, I think the epithets "violence," "disloyal and menacing" might well be struck out.

wished to ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the following language, which appeared in an English provincial newspaper, The Gloucester Journal:—

"Ireland is rapidly going to the dogs. Her political fortunes are directed by a hypocrite, who is also a blood-guilty tyrant and a conspirator against the honour of the country. This hateful and atrocious Gladstone, who' were flattery to call a rascal, has associated with him in the Government incompetent nobodies, who, partly through ignorance and partly through malice, are betraying every British interest. About the only conspirator with any brains is a fellow named Chamberlain, who makes screws or something at Birmingham, and who has been in league with the Irish rebels, and incited them to get up murderous outrages as an excuse for robbing landlords by an iniquitous system of spoliation. The people of the country are afflicted with a great dementia which prevents them from realizing the odious character of their political Leaders and the imminent perils into which these pernicious adventurers have brought our beloved country. The populace, lulled into false security, are looking forward to peace and prosperity; but a very different period is being prepared for us by the strangest of philosophers and geniuses that were ever allowed to touch the helm of affairs."

said, that before the Chief Secretary answered the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), he desired to ask him whether his attention had been called to the following language of the hon. and gallant Member himself in the report of a meeting in the Rotunda on February 10—

"He could look tack with pride, and even sympathy, to those who in the days of old carried the flag of rebellion in Ireland."

It appears to me that the Question now being put, as well as the Question already put by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), has no bearing on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member.

said, he would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a Question which would have a distinct bearing on the Question of the hon. and gallant Member. He wished to ask the Chief Secretary whether, if in his reply he adopted the adjectives used by the hon. and gallant Member, he would state the particular meetings at which this language was spoken, and also name the speeches in which violent and disloyal language was used?

Well, Sir, my reply will not raise, I think, any of the points referred to in recent Questions. I can only say, in reference to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, that it is not convenient to make general announcements of the course the Government will adopt in a hypothetical case, and the latter part of the Question is hypothetical. The probable action of the Executive in future may be gathered from observation of its action in the past.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the 12th of July, an Orange triumphal arch was erected across the main street in the town of Omagh; whether this arch was suspended from one of the windows of Mr. Pennington, County Inspector of Royal Irish Constabulary; and, if such conduct is approved of; and, if not, what course he intends to take to mark his disapproval?

A rope, with some Orange emblems attached, was hung across the road on the 12th of July at Omagh. One end of it was suspended from a waterpipe outside a house in which the County Inspector had temporary lodgings, but which was not in his occupation, and from which he has since removed to a house of his own. The rope was put up after the County Inspector had left the house in the morning, and he knew nothing about it.

asked whether it was a fact that the rope was suspended by four men who were admitted by the servants of the County Inspector, and who passed through his house for the purpose?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will have made a correct translation of the Letter from the Governor of Cadiz to the Spanish Consul at Gibraltar, which appears at the head of page 66 in the "Correspondence respecting the expulsion of certain Cuban Refugees from Gibraltar," presented to both Houses of Parliament in December 1882; and, whether he will issue the corrected translation as an additional Paper?

This Question should have been asked of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, by whom the Correspondence in question was laid on the Table of this House. If the hon. Member will refer to page 50 of the same Blue Book he will find a better translation of the letter to which he refers. I will, however, communicate with my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and, if so, what, answer has been received to the inquiry which he stated, on the 2nd of this month, had been sent to the British Resident in the Transvaal, with regard to the statement, since confirmed, that Mapoch's and Mampori's Tribes have been broken up, and their people indentured to the Boer farmers; and, whether he can inform the House whether any, and, if so, what action the Government has taken in the matter?

Sir, I stated in the debate on the Transvaal Vote the telegraphic answer we had received as to this; but I will repeat it in more detail. The British Resident said—

"The following seems to be the outline of the action contemplated by the Transvaal Government:—(1) The general principle is dispersal of the tribe; (2) indentures are to be for three years."

"Families are not to be separated. The general conditions of the indentures are to be similar to those under which the tribe of Masseleroon were distributed by the Transvaal Provincial Government during the English occupancy; (3) at the termination of the indentures those who have conducted themselves well, and may wish it, will be located at such place, or places, as may be decided on by the Government at the time being. With these exceptions, the prisoners of war will now be dealt with generally in accordance with the principles of the legislation for Natives during the time of English occupancy, and the Volksraad is now considering the general subject. Mapoch and Mampori have arrived here at Pretoria, and are in prison. They will be tried by the High Court."

asked, whether the Boers would be able, at their will, to flog those indentured Natives as they had been in the habit of flogging all the Natives within their Borders?

No, Sir. As I understand they will be ostensibly under indenture; and so long as the tribes are dispersed no particular locality is selected.

asked, whether it was from any terms in the despatch or any information that the hon. Gentleman used the word "voluntary." Were they to understand that these Natives, who were indentured, were to choose the persons to whom they would be indentured?

Yes, Sir; because the justification is that the Transvaal base their action upon our action in the Masseleroon case, in which event the Natives were allowed to choose their own employers.

Will the hon. Gentleman take steps to ascertain, as quickly as possible, whether the indenturing is voluntary or not?

Yes, Sir I will.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, as the Session is about to close, he can give the House any information as to the present position of the Bechuana Chiefs and people who have been despoiled of their lands?

We have received very little information lately respecting the state of things in Bechuanaland. In Stellaland and Mankoroane's country there seems a lull and no movement. He apparently retains all his cultivated and ploughing lands, and it is only his veldt or hunting ground that is occupied by the intruders. To the North, however, in Montsioa's country, there appears to be a stir in the way of an advance on Moshette and his Boer allies. The following is what we have received through the Cape from Mr. Bethell, who resides with Montsioa:—

"Telegram, Bethell, Barolong Agent, Molapo, dated July 16, received July 27—Montsioa now desires me to inform His Excellency that he and his allies have written to the freebooters of the so-called Land of Goshen, ordering them to leave his country, and that they have, as I anticipated in my second telegram to His Excellency from Kimberley, retired upon the Transvaal Border, and are some within and some without that State."

"Information has reached us that hostilities are about to be renewed between Montsioa and the freebooters established in the so-called Land of Goshen. I hope that yon will impress on the Transvaal Government the duty of maintaining the neutrality of its territory, and of preventing persons from using the Transvaal as a base from which to renew hostile operations."

asked at what time the telegram reached the Cape?

said, it was received on the 27th of July.

said, that, having been received at the Cape on the 27th of July, the information came here by letter. Could not his hon. Friend secure that important telegrams should be sent home by telegraph from the Cape, instead of taking three or four weeks to come?

replied, that to send telegrams on all occasions would be very expensive. The telegram to which attention had been drawn was not a message asking for instructions. The Governor of the Colony was instructed to telegraph all news which he thought important.

said, his reason for asking the Question was because the statement of his hon. Friend was that the position "is" so and so; whereas the position really "was" so and so a month ago.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman had received any confirmation of the reported advance of Mankoroane at the head of 2,000 men?

said, that he had given the House all the information he could.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the reasons which have caused the General Prisons Board (Ireland) to refuse the ordinary leave of absence to Dr. Humphrey Minchin; and, whether he is aware that the Prisons Board is endeavouring to oblige Dr. Minchin to perform duties which are regarded by him as in excess of those to which he was appointed?

in reply, said, he was aware that the reason for the refusal had reference to a difference of opinion that had arisen between the General Prisons Board and Dr. Minchin as to the extent of his duties, and the substitute to be provided in his absence. The legal Question involved was at this moment before the Law Officers of the Crown.

asked if this was the sole reason?

said, it was not quite certain. He believed it had reference to the duties which the substitute might be required to perform in his absence.

said, he assumed that leave had been deferred, and not refused.

said, it had not been refused definitely. Until this point had been cleared up the matter could not be settled. He rather thought it had been cleared up.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can explain how it happened that, in reprinting the Papers relating to the Suez Canal, under the Order of the House of the 16th July last, the Convention between the Khedive of Egypt and M. Ferdinand de Lesseps of the 23rd April, 1869, which was one of the documents comprised among the Papers ordered to be reprinted, was excluded from the Papers actually returned, and laid upon the Table of the House; whether the Convention so omitted contained an article in French to the subjoined effect:—Art. 3. By consent of both parties it is understood that the Company has no other object but the working, management, and development of the Maritime Canal. It therefore returns to the common rights, and renounces every exceptional faculty or special privilege; whether, by subsequent articles in the same Convention, the Company cedes to the Khedive lands dependent on the Canal, and other properties; and, whether, in consideration of these arrangements, the Khedive paid to the Company the sum of thirty millions of francs in the manner set forth, the receipt of which was acknowledged under the hand of M. Ferdinand de Lesseps?

Sir, the Paper referred to was not laid by the Foreign Office as a Command Paper, but was a reprint, ordered by the House, of a portion of Parliamentary Paper C. 1,416 of 1876, in accordance with an undertaking given on the 13th of July by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would cause to be reprinted the documents he had quoted in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon. The Convention of April 23, 1869, is in the original Blue Book, of which I placed 10 copies in the Library of the House.

said, that there was an Order of the House that the Paper relating to the Suez Canal, "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," presented on the 17th February, 1876, should be reprinted. He wished to ask the Speaker whether, in response to an Order of that kind, a Public Department was entitled to furnish a portion of those Papers only?

said, that he was not responsible for the omission of the Paper in question. The information which he had given was information which he had obtained, out of respect to the hon. Member, from the Authorities of the House. He was responsible only for the original Papers which were laid on the Table.

said, that if anyone was responsible for the printing of the Papers he was. He was asked some time ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon upon what documents a certain statement was founded, and he quoted the documents in question. He was then asked whether the Government would consent to reprint those particular Papers which formed part of a Blue Book, and he assented. No formal Motion was made on the subject, and the Clerks at the Table took down what passed with a view to the reprint of the Papers he had named. The particular Papers which the Government were asked to reprint were accordingly reprinted, and he had thus fulfilled his pledge. It was well understood at the time that it would not be convenient to reprint the whole Blue Book, as this would have involved delay.

asked whether it was not a breach of Privilege, when a Return was ordered to be made by the House, to make what was practically a falsified Return? He maintained that the present Return deserved that epithet, because the full Papers were not given.

The point is not strictly one of Order. The Question of the hon. Gentleman I cannot possibly answer without an examination of the Papers, and I have not examined them. Whether the Order of the House has been obeyed fully or not is a matter for the consideration of the House.

Is not a Question of this kind a Question of Privilege?

said, it was a question of fact if the Order of the House had been obeyed, and was for the House to consider.

gave Notice that he should draw attention to the matter on the Motion for the Third Beading of the Appropriation Bill.

asked whether the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not disclose a very gross irregularity—namely, that without Motion made, and simply on a note taken by the Clerk at the Table, certain Papers had been printed, and distributed as Parliamentary Papers?

said, that the Question was not one for the Chair to determine. If the House should think that a Member had not acted as he ought towards it, the matter could be made the subject of a Motion.

asked how it was that a Return, which purported to be a Return of the Papers marked "Egypt, No. 6, 1876," did not contain all the Papers in that Blue Book.

said, he was very sorry if he was supposed to have done anything irregular. All he had to do in the matter was to see that his promise that certain Papers should be reprinted was carried out, and that he had done. Having named some particular Papers in his reply to a Question, he was asked whether they might be reprinted, and he replied that he would have no objection, if they were worth reprinting, and he undertook to see that this was done. He had nothing to do with the words of the Motion ordering the reprint.

said, that the Return which had been made was not in accordance with the Order of the House. Did the right hon. Gentleman intend to complete the Return? He asked that Question, because he knew that great inconvenience had resulted in consequence of the nonappearance of all the Papers. Everyone was most anxious to know what the real facts were. [Cries of "Order!"]

said, he must repeat that he was not responsible for the Motion for the reprint. All he was responsible for was seeing that the Papers he quoted from were reprinted, and that had been done. He had no objection whatever to the rest of the Papers being reprinted, nor, so far as he was aware, had anyone else; and the only question which arose at the time was the delay which would be occasioned if the whole were reprinted.

The document omitted is a Convention of the utmost importance, by which M. de Lesseps renounced exclusive rights in the Isthmus of Suez. [Cries of "Order!"]

I wish to ask whether, considering the document that was suppressed was one—— [Cries of"Order!"]

interposing, observed that the hon. Member was now referring to a matter of controversy.

I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will reprint the whole of those Papers, including the Convention tending to show that M. de Lesseps had no exclusive monopoly?

The hon. Member imports into his Question a matter of controversy on which I say nothing; but I shall arrange with my noble Friend that the whole of the Papers shall be reprinted.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Gelli Colliery explosion, and whether he is aware that on September 11th 1882 a similar explosion took place, due to the use of naked lights, in which loss of life took place, and whether he has read the report of Mr. Wales (mining inspector), page 241, with the strong recommendation it gives; whether his attention has been called to Mr. Bell's report of the compressed lime cartridges, showing they possess all the advantages of gunpowder with absolute absence of danger; and, whether, next Session, with the Report of the Royal Commission on Mining Accidents before him, he will legislate to forbid the use of naked lights, gunpowder, or other spark-producing compounds?

in reply, said, the Report of this particular accident had not yet reached him. With reference to the part of the Question relating to the use of naked lights, he had for a long time been pressing upon Inspectors of Mines the desirability of enforcing, as they had the power to enforce, the use of closed lamps wherever they thought open lamps unsafe. He did not believe that fresh legislation was necessary. The Inspectors had power to insist upon arbitration, and the result of such recent arbitrations had been to compel the use of closed lamps. Unfortunately, the principal opposition to the use of such lamps came from the miners themselves, in whose interests the precaution was taken. The other day an indignant deputation of miners from South Wales waited upon him and remonstrated against being compelled to use closed lamps. He told them that, on the evidence before him, it was necessary for the safety of their lives to insist on the rule requiring the use of closed lamps. He believed that the instructions he had given to the Inspectors would have the effect of enforcing the use of closed lamps without recourse to further legislation. He could give no opinion about the use of lime cartridges, as he was not sufficiently well acquainted with their character.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state how many, if any, of the Natives of India, appointed under the Act 33 Vic. c. 3, to offices previously reserved to the Covenanted Civil Service, are really men of "proved merit and ability," (as provided by the Statute) who have proved these qualities by action in the public service; and, whether most of the Natives so appointed to the Civil Service under Lord Lytton's rules are young gentlemen selected by pure patronage, with no other proved merit and ability than assurances that they are promising or well-connected young men?

Natives of India appointed to the Civil Service under the Statutory Rules—framed in exercise of the powers given by 33 Viet., c. 3, s. 6—are nominated by the Local Governments subject to the approval of the Governor General in Council. The appointments being entirely in the hands of the Local Governments, the Secretary of State is not informed as to the particular qualifications of the gentlemen who are from time to time appointed. Every appointment is in the first instance provisional, the nominee being on probation for at least two years. No one is finally admitted into the service until the Local Government has reported to the Government of India that he has acquitted himself satisfactorily during his term of probation, and has passed all the prescribed examinations. The Rules also provide that no one can be nominated for employment if more than 25 years of age, except on grounds of merit and ability proved in the service of Government, or in the practice of a profession, clearly indicating that men of proved merit and ability can be appointed.

It certainly is not intended to invest anyone with jurisdiction over Europeans who has not a perfect knowledge of the English language.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India whether it was the new measure, or the Act of 1833, which laid down the position that a knowledge of the English language should be a necessary qualification?

The now offices about to be conferred will depend upon the will of the Viceroy, who would never think of appointing, in any circumstances, anyone who did not understand English.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any compensation has as yet been given by the French Government to British subjects who suffered damage to their persons or property by the bombardment of Sfax?

The latest information received on this subject by the Foreign Office is to the effect that Her Majesty's Agents and Consul General in Tunis had arranged with the French Resident for the payment of compensation to British subjects in accordance with the assessment made by the Sfax Indemnity Commission. The actual payment has, however, not yet been reported.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has come to any decision with regard to allowing rural letter carriers to continue to carry, as they did before the introduction of the Parcels Post, small parcels of medicine; and, if he will consider whether any arrangements can be made to allow parcels to be collected in the rural districts from persons who reside at a distance from a Post Office?

Sir, so many applications have reached me from different parts of the country in favour of rural letter carriers being allowed to carry, as they did before the introduction of the Parcel Post, light packets of medicine, that I am glad to state that I have been able to decide to grant permission for the continuance of the practice, and instructions to this effect will be given immediately. I should regret extremely if this permission should be in any way abused by sending as packets of medicine articles which are not medicine, because it would then be necessary to withdraw the permission. With regard to the second Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I am aware that the non-collection by rural letter carriers on their round of parcels for the post has caused inconvenience to many persons in the rural districts who happen to live at a considerable distance from any post office. The chief reason for the prohibition is the fear that the collection of parcels might cause the letter carriers to be overburdened, and might also lead to a delay in the delivery of letters. Within the last few days I have, with the assistance of some of the most experienced practical officers of the Department, been carefully considering the point; and I shall be very glad if it is found possible to meet the inconvenience complained of without incurring the risk of the letter carriers being overburdened, or the mails being delayed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the French have taken the capital of Ann am; and, whether he can give any other information as to the progress of the French invasion in Annam?

Sir, the Foreign Office have no intelligence of the capture of the capital of Annam by the French; and, as the House has already been informed, they have no special information as to the progress of the French invasion.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Officers of the Royal Marine Light Infantry, who have not succeeded in the competition for the Royal Marine Artillery, have been drafted into the latter corps over the heads of candidates who have succeeded in the competition; and, whether steps will be taken to remedy the hardship thus inflicted on those who have obtained their appointment to the Royal Marine Artillery by passing successfully the competitive standard established for that corps?

Of the nine probationary lieutenants of the Royal Marine Artillery who presented themselves for the final examination this year only one passed—Mr. L. E. Gordon, of seniority 1st of September, 1881. It being necessary to provide officers for the Marine Artillery, the Admiralty appointed a Committee to consider whether any of the candidates who had passed through the College during the last three years, but failed to reach the standard for the Artillery, might be admitted with advantage to the Service. Five officers have been appointed on the recommendation of the Committee. The seniority of two of them is the 1st of September, 1880; and, therefore, they could not have been placed below Mr. Gordon, who sustains some slight disadvantage owing to a measure considered necessary for the public interest.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether memorials have been addressed to him by upwards of one hundred Municipal Corporations and Local Governing Bodies, including Manchester, Birmingham, Derby, Salford, Brighton, Huddersfield, and other places, deprecating, in the public interest, the sale to private persons of the property of the Crown in the Southport foreshore; and, whether, in view of these manifestations of public opinion, Her Majesty's Government will undertake that no such alienation of the rights possessed by the Crown in foreshores and other lands shall in future be sanctioned without an opportunity being afforded to this House of expressing its judgment thereon?

Sir, at my right hon. Friend's request, I will answer this Question. We have received a considerable number of Memorials; but they all appear to have been based upon some misapprehension of the facts of the case. The Memorialists do not seem to have been aware that the title of the Duchy to the foreshore in question was disputed by the persons to whom the Duchy has sold its interest. Moreover, they seem not to be aware that the rights of the public over the foreshore remain unaffected by any change of ownership, and that they cannot be interfered with without the consent of Parliament previously obtained.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will take into consideration during the Recess the necessity of amending the Rules of the House so as to give increased facilities for the consideration of Bills of great public importance which are in charge of private Members, either by the selection of such Bills by a vote of the House, or otherwise, so that the Bills thus selected shall have precedence of other Bills in the hands of private Members?

Sir, my hon. Friend has drawn the attention of the House, by this Question, to a matter which is of very great importance, but of a difficulty, perhaps, equal to its importance. It is, I think, a suggestion that some organization and machinery should be provided by which a preference may be established in favour of particular measures deemed to be urgent among the measures in the hands of independent Members, and, of course, more or less to the prejudice of other measures in the hands of independent Members. That is a subject of great importance and considerable delicacy, and one in regard to which it is obvious that there ought to be no habitual interference by the Executive Government. Whether the Executive Government ought to take the initiative in making the recommendation I do not know; it is a matter on which I do not give a positive opinion. There is much to be said in favour of the view suggested by my hon. Friend. I believe the practice of Foreign Legislatures is to some considerable extent in support of that view; and it is a matter which the Government will endeavour to consider, though I cannot absolutely—such are the difficulties that surround the question—give a positive answer as to the results.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that under the proposal of the hon. Member in all probability no Irish Bill would ever have an opportunity of being brought forward?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman contemplated, as the Representative of the Government, that the selection of the Bills should be committed to the House itself or reserved to the Government?

The one thing I have said which is clear—and there are many things I have said which are not clear—about the matter is that the Government ought to have nothing to do with it in the event of a selection being established. I will also say, in answer to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), that he seems to think there is some positive plan in view. There is no plan in view. I may say that no plan could for a moment be entertained by this House which would not be perfectly impartial with reference to the proceedings of the different parts of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Royal Commission on the state of the Thames between London Bridge and the lower river will be presented?

said, that, owing to the absence of the Royal Commissioners, he was unable to state when their Report would be presented.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have learnt, either from the London Missionary Society or from any other source, that Mr. Shaw is absolutely prevented from all communication of any kind with persons outside the vessel on which he is imprisoned; whether any communication has been received by any person in this Country direct from Mr. Shaw; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government can state the nature of such communication; whether Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the French Government of the nature of the charges on which Mr. Shaw is imprisoned, and if such charges contain anything more serious than an attempt on the part of Mr. Shaw and other Europeans to organize an ambulance society, under the Red Cross, for the relief of the wounded; and, further, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken, considering the strictness of Mr. Shaw's imprisonment, to obtain for him access to counsel to defend him on his trial?

This Question links together inconveniently the matters connected with Mr. Shaw, and I will go over the points to which the hon. Member refers, dealing strictly, in the first place, with matters of fact. With regard to the first part of the Question, we have no information of any kind. Our information, it must be remembered, is scanty, and is not recent; but no communication was allowed by the French Admiral with Mr. Shaw by any person outside the vessel, as far as our information goes. With regard to the second part of the Question, of course we cannot say what communication may have been received; but no communication has been received to our knowledge from Mr. Shaw by any person in this country since the date of his arrest. With respect to the third part of the Question, I stated on a former evening the general effect of the information which we had received from the French Government. As to the nature of the charges against Mr. Shaw, we have never heard a word in any document which has reached us about an attempt having been made by Mr. Shaw and other Europeans to organize an Ambulance Society for the relief of the wounded. No such thing has been included in what the French Government told us with respect to these charges. With regard to the latter part of the Question, we have communicated fully with the French Government on that subject and pretty constantly; and the French Government, of course, like ourselves, labour under the disadvantage of a want of all rapid communication. We have no telegraphic communication with Madagascar; the French also are considerably embarrassed by the want of it; but, in addition to the assurances that were given by M. Waddington, and which were, I admit, quite of a general character, M. Waddington has been authorized by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to assure Lord Granville and the English Government that the French Government will not only give, as a matter of course, every facility to Mr. Shaw for his defence, but, generally speaking—and this is an important declaration if it be given and if it be received, as I have no doubt it has been given and will be received, in an equitable spirit—that they will do everything in their power to put an end to this incident. That is by far the best thing I can state in the absence of any specific information. In these circumstances we have considered, obtaining light of the general practice as well as we can, what are the proper limits of action on the part of the British Government, and it would be beyond all doubt quite proper that we should instruct our Agents as speedily as we can to ascertain for themselves whether Mr. Shaw is in possession of those facilities, and to lend whatever aid may be found necessary—if it is found necessary—to enable him to secure this assistance.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will obtain and furnish the Papers referred to (in C. 3,726) relating to Dover, excluding the Reports of the Committees and Commissions previously laid upon the Table of the House; if he will obtain specific information as to the number of acres of varying depths of water within the Harbour area, and furnish a rough plan showing the length of the breakwaters and arms forming the proposed Dover Harbour, and an estimate of cost of constructing the separate portions in the way stated in the former plans of 1840 to 1847; if he will procure a Statement of the income to be expected, and the rate of interest which that income will provide, on the capital to be invested for making this Harbour; and, finally, if the information now asked for can be made available for use during the Recess, so as to facilitate criticisms on this proposed Harbour?

in reply, said, he was afraid he could not answer in any detail this Question. As to the Papers referred to, he should be happy to consult with the hon. and gallant Member. No definite plan for the extension of Dover Harbour had yet been placed before Parliament; but, roughly speaking, the number of acres of varying depths of water within the harbour area was 145. A statement as to the income to be expected would be laid before Parliament before Parliament was asked to vote the money for the harbour.

asked whether the House, having voted £16,000 for the purpose of building a prison at Dover to lodge the convicts who are to execute the Dover Harbour Works, was committed or not to the execution of the works at Dover Harbour?

in reply, said, that they were all agreed there should be some harbour at Dover. He was not a naval or a military man, nor even the Board of Trade, and it was only his business to employ the convicts, and the harbour at Dover seemed to him to be a good method in which they could be employed. The House was not pledged to any particular form of the harbour; and it might be made larger or smaller, as the House chose, when the full plan was laid before it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the police in the Metropolis have been threatening licensed victuallers with opposition to their licences at the annual meeting, unless they at once give up the receipt of general, sporting, Parliamentary, and Stock Exchange news by the Automatic News-transmitting Instrument (such as is in use in Clubs), and for which a considerable annual payment is made; whether, in one of the instances referred to, the police went through the premises, taking down the names and addresses of persons found there; whether he will state by whoso authority these proceedings take place; and, whether he will sanction their continuance?

, in reply, said, he had a Report from the police on this subject. It was the duty of the police to put down betting houses; and in consequence of reports from Superintendents of the various divisions and complaints of inhabitants that a number of licensed victuallers were violating the letter and spirit of the law, the Commissioners directed that licence-holders should be cautioned that if facilities for betting were given by means of these instruments, steps would be taken by summary proceedings before the magistrates, or by opposing the renewal of the licences, as circumstances might warrant. That seemed to him to be a very proper proceeding.

asked if what the right hon. and learned Gentleman meant was that public-houses were not to be forbidden having telegraphic communication, provided it was not converted into machinery for betting.

Yes, Sir. If public-houses wish for telegraphic communication, to report, for instance, the proceedings of this House, they will not be interfered with. But the telegraphic instruments must not be made the means of betting.

If they do not give up the use of these instruments, will they be opposed at the next Sessions?

No, Sir; only if they are used as a means of betting?

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, as the Office of Law Adviser to the Castle had been abolished, he would give directions that copies of all Irish Acts of Parliament and Castle Circulars should be sent to each Resident Magistrate?

in reply, said, that he had no power to make any such order; but he should make it his business to inquire into the matter, and see whether anything could be done.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he would, during the Recess, consider some scheme for proposal next Session with regard to providing better accommodation for the working people of the great towns?

This subject is one of the very greatest consequence, and I should be very happy to give all the attention I can to it, and consider whether any adequate means can be discovered for forwarding such an object.

said, he should call attention to the subject next Session.

said, he had observed some comments in the Scotch Press on the Home Secretary not having answered a portion of a former Question of his with regard to the Strome Ferryrioters. He now wished to ask the right hon, and learned Gentleman whether it was a fact that these men had their hair cropped and were being treated as common felons?

I have no special information on this subject. The men will be treated, I presume, as ordinary prisoners under the sentence of the law, and there will be no distinction made between them and other prisoners.

Are they treated as pick-pockets and wife-beaters are treated?

No distinction.

As Mr. Harrington is treated?

The Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) has been put and answered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will draw the attention of the local authorities of the Metropolis to the necessity of attending carefully to the sewer ventilators in the streets, with a view to prevent as far as possible the exhalations frequently issuing therefrom; and, whether his attention has been called to a plan which has been tried with apparent success in the town of Ryde, under high engineering sanction, for rendering the ventilation of the sewers inoffensive, and yet effective?

in reply, said, he should answer the Question; but there was really no jurisdiction at all.

said, he put the Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Well, then, I reply that I have no authority. Neither the Local Government Board nor the Home Office have any authority in this matter. It seems to be the idea that we have the government of London in our hands. We have not; and we cannot be held responsible for it, The sewers of the Metropolis are vested either in the Commissioners of Sewers, the Metropolitan Board of Works, or the Local Vestries or District Boards. In fact, they are in the hands of 40 or 50 different Bodies, and Government have no power in any way of compelling those Bodies to take any course whatever with reference to the sewers.

in reply, said, with reference to the second part of the Question, that the Mayor of Ryde had a scheme of his own for ventilating sewers, which had been tried as an experiment in that town; but the Town Council had not approved of the scheme. The Chief Sanitary Inspector of the Local Government Board, the highest authority on the subject of sewers in the world, had said that no system of ventilating sewers was so effective as the existing open grate system.

wished to ask the Chief Secretary a Question in reference to the proceedings on Saturday last, when a statement was made by the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) regarding certain outrages. The Committee understood that a woman accused of theft, and then in prison, confessed to having committed various incendiary fires, and written various threatening letters; that the charge against her had been withdrawn; and that she had disappeared from the district. His right hon. Friend was not able then to confirm those statements, but promised to make inquiries. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had since made those inquiries?

I have made inquiries, and I will confine myself absolutely to the points about which I was unable to give information to the House. It was confidently believed by a certain number of Members that Mary Grehan confessed to writing threatening letters for which the parishes of Bally-boggan and Castle Jordan were proclaimed. I have now ascertained the facts. Mary Grehan pleaded "Guilty," on the 6th of March, 1882, to the charge of writing threatening letters; and the Judge allowed her to stand out on her own recognizances to come up for judgment when called on. It was after this that every one of the 13 outrages occurred to which I referred as having been the cause of the district being proclaimed. These outrages included two shootings into houses, two incendiary fires, the shooting of a sheep, and the shooting of a mule, killed while it was being driven in a car by a man who was "Boycotted," the rest being threatening letters.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether all these outrages had not been predicted in the threatening letters?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, considering the peaceable condition of the county of Louth and the county of the town of Drogheda, as evidenced by the calendar of prisoners and the charges of the going Judges of Assize and Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, both as regards offences against person and against property, and the statements of—1. Mr. Justice Andrews, at the Summer Assizes for the county of the town of Drogheda, that—

"He was happy to find, from the information given him by the resident magistrate and the constabulary returns, that the condition of the town was that of an orderly and peaceable community;"

"As far as I can hear, the county has been in a very quiet state since my last visit;"

"I find that there are no Bills to go before you at the present Assizes, while only yesterday the County Court Judge concluded his sittings, and I understood he had only one case to go before him. Under these circumstances, I am very happy to tender you my sincere congratulations on the peaceable and orderly state of your county,"

"It was a happy state of affairs that nothing had occurred to mar the peace and quietness that prevailed in the county of Louth,"

"It was very gratifying to him to accept those white gloves, as an emblem of the peaceable state of the county, upon which he had taken the opportunity of congratulating them, and, through them, the community at large;"

Sir, the Government are gratified at the peaceful state of the county of Louth; and the question of removing the Proclamation has for some time past been under their consideration. I hope that a decision will be come to in the course of a few days. I do not think the county of the town of Drogheda stands quite on the same footing, as the Government consider it necessary to maintain safeguards against any undue importation of arms into the country. The matter is, however, also under consideration.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it was intended to proceed with the Public Health (Dairies, &c.) Bill, which had come from the Lords, and stood for a second reading? He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would now move that the Order be discharged.

It is not a Local Government Board Bill—it is a Privy Council Bill.

I cannot agree that it is not a Local Government Board Bill—it is more of that than a Privy Council Bill. However, looking to the period of the Session, I have no option but to consent that the Order be discharged.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If there was any further information regarding the Rev Morton Smith, who disappeared mysteriously in Spain?

said, nothing could be definitely ascertained regarding the rev. gentleman, whose case had excited such a painful sensation. Instructions had been given that every effort should be made to obtain information; but he was bound to say that nearly all hope of his being alive had been given up.