asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, under the Rules sanctioned by the Lord Lieutenant in Council, it was provided that loans, under the Irish Reproductive Loan Fund, to Irish fishermen might be repaid by instalments extending over ten years, as the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries would recommend; if it be the fact that the Inspectors have not recommended the repayments of loans to fishermen in the county of Cork and other southern counties for a longer period than three years; and, if so, if he will advise the Inspectors to avail themselves of the powers given to them by the Privy Council, and give a more extended period for repayment of such instalments, the limited time now given being almost prohibitory, and, in many cases, involving the raising of money by borrowing at usurious interest to pay their instalments?

Sir, 10 years is the maximum period allowed by the Privy Council Rules for the repayment of such loans. Generally, the loans granted in the counties of Cork and Kerry have been made repayable by instalments extending over three years; but in some cases the period has been longer. Each application is considered on its merits, and decided according to the necessities of the case, the ability of the persons to repay, and the probable success of the fishing. The Inspectors have not received any complaints as to the time fixed in cases in the county of Cork, and they do not think it is prohibitory, as nearly all the money available under the Act for that county has been taken up by borrowers. If the hon. Member has any detailed information which he thinks would be likely to lead the Inspectors to alter their views, I will be happy to forward it to them for their consideration, if he will enable me to do so. They assure me they will be ready to consider it.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that General Burroughs, a landed proprietor of Orkney, who refused to give the Royal Commissioners appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the condition of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland any assurance that he would not dispossess his tenants in consequence of any statements made in evidence before the Commission, has since evicted two of the crofter witnesses; whether it is true that he has obtained in the sheriff court of the county a decree of eviction against the brother of one of the witnesses, to be carried out in case he sheltered his evicted brother or his family; and, whether, in all or any of the cases, the de-decree granted was one of summary ejectment?

Before the Lord Advocate answers the Question, I may be permitted to ask whether he has received information to the effect that the witnesses referred to in the Question were not crofters, but only relatives of the crofters, and only permitted to remain on the land temporarily as squatters, and whether the relations existing between General Burroughs and his tenants had been of a peaceful and friendly character up to the period of the unfortunate excitement caused by the inquiries of the Crofters' Commission?

It is the ease that General Burroughs, in September last, raised two actions in the Sheriff Court, in each of which two defenders were called. One action was for the removal of Peter Leonard and James Leonard from the farms at Digro, at the term of Martinmas following. The father of Peter and James Leonard had been tenant of that farm. He had died within the year, and the object of the action appears to have been to obtain the removal of James Leonard as a squatter, occupying without title, Peter Leonard, who is a cabinet-maker in Kirkwall, having been called only as heir-at-law of his father. The other action was for the summary ejection of James Grieve, his brother, from the farm at Outerdykes, the object in this case having been to eject James Grieve as a squatter without title, Malcolm Grieve having been made a party to the action only to provide for the possible event of its turning out that he had sublet part of the farm to his brother, contrary to the rules of the estate. James Leonard and James Grieve both gave evidence before the Royal Commission. No appearance was entered or defence made in either action, and the Sheriff, therefore, as a matter of course, granted decree as craved in them both. In reply to the additional Question, I have to say that the point whether the men were tenants or squatters was not raised or disputed, as there was no defence; and on the last part of the Question, as to which opposing allegations have been made, it may be right to refer to the evidence given before the Royal Commission, and to the letters appearing in the newspapers, particularly to a letter dated 13th October, in which General Burroughs' explanations were given, and which, I believe, will form part of the print appended to the Report of the Commission.

I beg to give Notice that on an early occasion I shall call the attention of the House to the conduct of General Burroughs in this matter.

I understood the Lord Advocate to say that one of the witnesses was a tenant and the other a squatter. I wish to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that last year, in the Agricultural Holdings Act, he accepted an Amendment of mine requiring that in the case of a yearly tenant six months' notice must be given, and if that Act is in force, how does it happen that he can be ejected summarily?

The hon. Member must have misunderstood what I said. I carefully avoided giving an opinion as to whether the men were tenants or squatters, not having information on which I could form a conclusive opinion. The matter has not come before the Courts for decision. The latter part of the Question is very easily answered. The Agricultural Holdings Act did not come into operation until the 1st of January of this year, while they were removed in October of last year.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether Papers regarding the inquiry into the question of Public Prosecutions will be laid before the House; whether he has Reports of the present Prosecutor, showing the working of his office, the cases in which he has prosecuted or refused to prosecute, and the grounds of his action or refusal, and will produce them; and, whether any decision has been come to for placing the office on a more satisfactory footing?

, in reply, said, the Departmental Committee on Public Prosecutions had the question of preparing Reports under consideration; but as to the exact time of their production he could not say. The Reports of the present Prosecutor, showing the working of his office, were sent in from time to time. Some of them extended over six years, and were very bulky, giving detailed reasons for prosecuting; and he was afraid it would not be possible to print them and lay them before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any measure is in contemplation for obviating the inconvenience resulting to the administrators of Justice from the present system of sending the Lords Justices and Judges of the Chancery and Admiralty Divisions on Circuit; and, whether it is intended to rearrange the Circuits for greater convenience and economy of judicial strength?

, in reply, said, the Lord Chancellor had been in communication with certain Judges, and also with the Law Officers of the Crown, endeavouring to form a scheme by which the Judges would be relieved to some extent from constant absence from town, visiting counties where the business of the Assize was very small. No final decision had been come to in reference to the scheme, but every attention had been paid to it.

asked if the re-arranging of the Circuits was under consideration?

said, the Judges were considering as to what extent further re-arrangements could be made.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the language used by Mr. Peter O'Brien, Q.C., Crown Prosecutor for Green Street, to Dr. Boyd, Q.C., during the Barbavilla Murder trial; whether he observed that Mr. Peter O'Brien, while withdrawing the observation complained of at the direction of the Chief Justice, refused to apologise; and, whether the Government will continue him in his office under the Crown?

Sir, I saw at the time, in the public Press, the report of the proceedings in Green Street Court-house, that during the hearing of the Barbavilla murder cases, Mr. P. O'Brien and Dr. Boyd, having both lost their tempers—an infirmity from which lawyers are not exempt—Mr. O'Brien, in an under tone, made some observation to Dr. Boyd. Dr. Boyd called the attention of the Lord Chief Justice to the observation, and Mr. O'Brien apologized for using the expression in the presence of the Court, but declined to apologize to Dr. Boyd. I may add that both gentlemen are now excellent friends again, and the Government have no intention of interfering with Mr. O'Brien's office.

asked whether the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman had been called to the fact that Mr. O'Brien had also used a very coarse epithet in reference to Judge Johnson, and whether the use of that epithet did not justify his removal from the position he held?

My attention has been called to that circumstance by an observation of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in debate, and I am in a position to give it a complete contradiction.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, On what date was Mrs. Fallon of Loughrea committed to gaol, and upon what charge; to what offence did she plead guily at the Con-naught Winter Assizes; what directions were given, if any, by Judge O'Brien concerning her custody; whether he passed any sentence upon her; when Mrs. Fallon was released; who is responsible for her further detention in prison; by whose instructions was she released; and what reason existed for her release at the date on which it took place which did not exist at any time after her plea at the assizes?

Mr. Fallon was arrested at Loughrea on the 22nd July, 1883, upon a charge of taking forcible possession of a house, and for assault and abusive language. On the 10th of December, at the Assizes held at Sligo, she pleaded guilty, by the advice of her legal adviser, to the charge of taking forcible entry, and the prosecuting counsel left the matter in the hands of the Judge. The only direction given by the Judge was that she should be discharged when she entered into two recognizances of £10 each before a Resident Magistrate when possession was delivered up, and to come up for judgment when called on on receiving 10 days' notice. This course was assented to by her legal adviser, but no other sentence than that involving this direction was passed by the Judge. Mrs. Fallon was released on the 7th of January, 1884, by order of the Lord Lieutenant. She was detained in prison till then, pending her recognizances. Her legal adviser did not inform the Judge that she had no power to give up possession of the house, and she was released by direction of the Lord Lieutenant, with the concurrence of the Judge, as soon as this fact was communicated to His Excellency, which it was by letter on the 4th of January; and the reason for her release, which then existed, and which did not exist at Assizes, was her inability to perform the condition of giving up possession, which was then for the first time laid before His Excellency.

asked whether it was in accordance with Constitutional practice for a person to be kept in prison pending the signing of recognizances, which might involve, if a person was not able to perform it, detention for life?

I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of the Question.

What sentence was passed on the woman? ["Order, order!"] That is involved in the Question I have asked.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the attendance of Pate Collector Elliott at the recent Conservative meeting in Rathmines, county Dublin; whether, in view of the fact that the making up of the Supplemental List in the South Dublin Union depends largely upon this gentleman, the Local Government Board approve of his attendance at partizan demonstrations; and, if it is the fact that a complaint has been lodged with the Local Government Board? In putting this Question, I may say that the last paragraph should read—"A complaint has been lodged with the Local Government Board about the Supplementary Lists."

Sir, I have seen a report of a meeting held at Rathmines to criticize the conduct of the Government in connection with the case of Lord Rossmore, and Mr. Elliott's name is in the list of persons reported to have attended. The Local Government Board do not approve of rate collectors or other Union officers attending Party meetings; but they do not see how they can properly take notice of the fact of Mr. Elliott's attendance at this meeting. I think the hon. Gentleman is hardly aware of the number and diversity of cases such a precedent would open up. With regard to the last paragraph of the Question, the hon. Member has made a proper correction. No complaint has been lodged against Mr. Elliott in particular, but a communication has been made to the Local Government Board by the "County Dublin National Registration Association," calling attention to alleged errors in the lists of voters prepared in several Unions in the county of Dublin, and the Local Government Board are in correspondence with the clerks of these Unions on the subject.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. John Macrae, procurator fiscal for Orkney, is the private agent of General Burroughs; whether, in connection with proceedings consequent on the receipt of a threatening letter by General Burroughs, Mr. Macrae proceeded to the Island of Rousay in a gunboat, along with the superintendent of the Kirkwall police, and arrested Frederick Leonard and Samuel Mainland, lads of fourteen and fifteen years of age respectively, and sons of obnoxious crofters; whether Leonard was examined as a person suspected of complicity in the crime, or as a witness; if as a prisoner, would he explain why was he not examined in the presence of the sheriff, and if as a witness, why was he made to give specimens of his handwriting by writing to the fiscal's dictation; whether Mainland was arrested and brought to Kirkwall for examination as a witness or a suspected party; if as a witness, why was he not cited for precognition in the usual manner, and why was he examined before the sheriff, and, if as a prisoner, why was he not detained in the hands of the police until examined, and whether he received the usual caution that anything he said would be used against him; whether it is a fact that Mainland was subjected to two hours' examination and made to sign his name several times; and, if he would lay before the House a copy of the boys' precognitions or declarations, and also of the warrants, if any, under which they were arrested?

Sir, I am informed that Mr. Macrae, the Procurator Fiscal, is the private law agent of General Burroughs. In connection with a threatening letter received by General Burroughs, the Sheriff of the county accompanied by the Procurator Fiscal, and the Superintendent of Police, who is also a Sheriff's officer, went in a gunboat, which was then at the service of the Sheriff, as member of the Fishery Board, to the Island of Rousay. Frederick Leonard was not arrested, but voluntarily gave evidence in precognition as a witness. The Procurator Fiscal states that when Leonard's examination was concluded, he was satisfied that he could give no information bearing on this charge, and he then asked him to give a specimen of his handwriting for the boy's exoneration. Mainland was arrested on suspicion under warrant of the Sheriff, and brought to Kirkwall. He was permitted by the police officer, on his own responsibility, to sleep with his brother, instead of being detained in prison. He did receive the usual caution from the Sheriff. His declaration was very carefully taken by the Sheriff, and occupied something over an hour. He signed each page in the usual way, as well as the marginal additions. The case is still under investigation, and I must decline to depart from the invariable rule under which the precognitions are kept private, and also the declarations, while inquiry is pending. I have, however, no objection to lay on the Table of the House the warrant for Mainland's apprehension, if it is desired.

May I ask whether any measures are in progress to obviate the scandal of allowing a public officer like the Procurator Fiscal being at the same time private agent for other parties?

That question was very fully gone into by the Royal Commission of 1868, appointed to examine into the administration of justice in Scotland. Speaking from memory, I may say that the majority of the Commissioners thought that there should be no absolute rule laid down against Procurators Fiscal accepting private business; but in point of practice recently, where the salary has been such as to make it possible to obtain a suitable person, who would devote himself exclusively to the duties of Procurator Fiscal, we have made it our business to obtain such a person.

Is it not a common practice for one person to be jointly Public Prosecutor and private agent? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that this tends to the proper and impartial administration of the law?

Except in a very few of the larger places in Scotland, the salary is certainly not such as would obtain the sole services of the proper sort of official for the post; and accordingly it is for the public to consider whether they will pay a very largely increased salary to obtain such sole services. Further, the question is not one of money only, but also of efficiency. Even if Prosecutors Fiscal were uniformly confined exclusively to their public duties, they would in many of the smaller places have little to do, and, therefore, would possess very much less of the qualifications necessary for the efficient discharge of their duties than they now have, from being men actively engaged and experienced in business. I am bound to say, speaking for the Procurators Fiscal of Scotland as a body—and I see no reason for making an exception in this case—that whenever they find, even those who are not restrained by the terms of their office, that there is the least likelihood of there being even any apparent conflict between the discharge of their public duty and their private business, they surrender their private business in favour of their public duty.

I beg to give Notice that, on an early day, I will call attention to this subject, and move a Resolution.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What application was made by the Southgate Local Board to the Local Government Board with reference to the purchase of a site, at Winchmore Hill, by the Metropolitan Asylums Board, for the purpose of the erection thereon of a Convalescent Fever and Small Pox Hospital; and, why no opportunity was afforded to the Southgate Board of being heard before the decision of the Local Government Board?

Sir, the Local Government Board received a communication from the Southgate Local Board on the 11th of January last, in which they stated that they were not aware to what extent the matter was under our control, but that they trusted that they might rely on such assistance as we could afford in averting the erection of the hospital at Winchmore Hill, which is within their district. The proposal of the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District to purchase this site had not at that time been submitted to us. When the application of the managers was received, we, having given the subject our careful consideration, saw no sufficient reason for withholding our consent to the purchase by the managers of the site in question, and we informed the managers that we assented to the proposal. After this communication was made to the managers, we received a letter from the Local Board asking us to receive a deputation on the subject; but, having assented to the proposals of the managers, we did not consider that any advantage could result from receiving a deputation, as proposed. I may add that the proposal of the managers, which has been sanctioned by us, is to purchase the site for a hospital for convalescent fever patients, and not for convalescent fever and small-pox patients. The site comprises more than 36 acres.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the advisability of extending to the country towns the practice of accepting payment in cash for the postage of circulars and letters despatched in large numbers through the Post?

Sir, the system of payment in cash for postage in bulk, which formerly was only allowed in London, Dublin, and Edinburgh, has lately been extended, when the postage amounts to £5 and upwards, to certain Provincial cities. I think there would be serious objections to extending the system, as the hon. Member suggests, to all country towns; but I will gladly consider whether it cannot be extended to other Provincial towns besides those which are now included in the arrangements.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he proposes to make any alterations in Westminster Hall; and, if so, whether he will allow a plan of them to be exhibited in the Library for a reasonable time before the work is carried out?

Sir, the architect, Mr. Pearson, has not yet completed his plans or his report upon the restoration of the west front of Westminster Hall. But I hope to have them before the end of this month. I have already promised that nothing shall be done until the House has had an opportunity of considering the proposals.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that only 373 miles of Railway have been constructed in India during the last year against 726 miles in 1881–2, and 836 miles in 1880–81; and, if he can state the reason why the Railway development of India has been so retarded?

asked whether it was true that the opposition to the extension of Railways in India for some time back was due to the distrust enter- tained by the Natives of the promotion of the Railway Company; whether some of the opponents of the guaranteed Railway in Hyderabad were not removed forcibly from Hyderabad territory with the consent of the British authorities; and, whether the guaranteed Railway referred to in the Question was not being hawked in London under the auspices of a member of the Supreme Council of India?

Sir, the only point I wish to notice with regard to those Questions is the last one—the aspersion cast upon the members of the Supreme Council of India. No member of the Council of India has anything whatever to do with the Hyderabad Railway. As to the other Questions, I must ask for Notice of them. In reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Car-butt), if by "constructed" he means "completed and open for traffic," his figures are quite accurate. But, for purposes of comparison, the number of miles under construction should be added. The result for the three years is thus:—1880–1, 836 completed, 856 under construction; total, 1,692 miles; 1881–2, 726 completed, 2,026 under construction; total, 2,752 miles; 1882–3, 373 completed, 2,338 under construction; total, 2,611 miles. From these figures it does not appear that the railway development of India has been practically retarded.

Is not the late Finance Minister of Bengal a member of the Supreme Council, and is it he or his brother who is promoting the railway?

The gentleman referred to by the hon. Member, who was recently a member of the Governor General's Council, is not a member of the Council of India.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that great discontent prevails among the established Customs watermen of the Port of London, in consequence of their small prospects of promotion, an officer in the second class having to give some twenty years' service before he reaches the first class, and before he obtains any increase to his salary, and also in consequence of the inadequate system of superannuation, any steps will be taken for redressing the grievances of this body of public servants?

Sir, this class was under consideration so recently as 1882, and the Board of Customs do not recommend any change in the arrangements then made. Applications for appointments in it are extremely numerous, and far in excess of the number of vacancies. The hon. Member is in error in supposing that these men get no increase in their salary until they are promoted; as a matter of fact, it increases for the first 10 years of service. They get the same rate of pension as other Civil servants. I can hold out no hope of an improvement in their position.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps, if any, have been taken in pursuance of his promise to afford the din fishermen a passage to the important salmon fishing berth on the adjacent beach, where these men will be employed during the fishing season?

Sir, I made the inquiries which I promised in this case, both at the office of Inspectors of Fisheries and the office of the Board of Works; but the result did not show any way in which the Government could satisfactorily intervene directly. The dispute as to a right of way is very unfortunate; but it is clearly not a matter as to which the Government could interfere. I have placed the matter before the Fishery Piers Commission, who have the administration of the fund provided by the Act of last Session, and I hope that they may be able to carry out such alteration of the pier or its approaches as will remove the existing difficulty.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the circumstance that three suicides and one assassination were lately reported from Monte Carlo in one week; if Her Majesty's Government will make friendly representations to the Governments of France and Italy, with a view to getting them to unite in insisting on the suppression of the public gaming tables in the Principality of Monaco; and, if Her Majesty's Government will also make friendly representations to the Government of France regarding the continuance of public gaming tables at Aix les Bains?

Before the noble Lord answers that Question, I should like to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government will, at the same time, make friendly representations to the same Governments, with a view to uniting with them for the prevention of gambling and bubble companies on the Stock Exchange?

I would like also to ask whether Her Majesty's Government has received friendly representations from the Principality of Monaco and the Government of France regarding the continued betting carried on at New market and other parts of England?

I think I had better answer the Question put on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). The attention of Her Majesty's Government has not been called in any official manner to this circumstance; and they are not in a position to make any representation to the Governments of France and Italy on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Since, in the month of January, 1883, a prosecution was instituted by Her Majesty's Government against Joseph Biggar, M.P., for having stated in Waterford that—

"The conviction of Francis Hynes was illegal according to British Law, and that fact was known to Earl Spencer, whom he considered a bloodthirsty English Peer; "

" Let us not forget that, morally if not legally, pre-eminently and in the first degree, the blood of that young man Giffin rests on the head of the Lord Lieutenant, who, to please a rebel faction, deliberately declined to exercise the powers vested in him; "

I must remind the hon. Member that the prosecution of the hon. Member for Cavan was not proceeded with by the Government.

Why, why? ["Order!"]

It was not proceeded with.

Because of the Grand, Jury. ["Order!"]

And it must be remembered that the circumstances of Ireland, and especially of Dublin, at the time when the hon. Member for Cavan made the speech referred to, were such as to make it to be feared that great danger to the Lord Lieutenant, as well as to Judges and jurors, would result from the use of such language. I do not think that the same can be said of the speech of Mr. Holmes, and the Government has no intention of instituting any proceedings against him. I shall not take advantage of this Question to express my own opinion about the language of Mr. Holmes.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the reason the prosecution of the hon. Member for Cavan was not continued was because the High Sheriff of Waterford and some others of the Grand Jury would not return a true bill?

I wish to ask whether Mr. Holmes, when he made that speech, was a member of a secret armed organization in Ireland?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he expects to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Board of Works upon the drainage of the Lower Bann?

Sir, the Report on the drainage of the Lower Bann is expected to be in the hands of Government in about a month from now. Until it has been received I cannot say what Papers should be laid before Parliamen on the subject; but care will be taken to announce the decision to those interested at the earliest possible moment.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will cause to be prepared and lay upon the Table a Return of all English Vessels that have been placed in Quarantine in Italian, Austrian, and French Ports during the year 1883, stating the period of detention in Quarantine, and the number of cases of Cholera (if any) that have occurred on board such Vessels during the time of their detention?

, in reply, said, he had inquired into that subject, but there was no information at the Board of Trade with reference to the vessels detained in. quarantine. He had also inquired at the Foreign Office, and found that they were unable to give information, except in regard to cases where complaint had been addressed to them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the arrangement at present subsisting with regard to divisional magistrates in Ireland; and, if he will give a Return stating their names, salaries, staffs, and districts?

In reply to the hon. Member, I beg to say that in lieu of six divisions, comprising 20 counties, under Special Resident Magistrates, four divisions—comprising the same counties—were constituted on the 1st of October last under four Divisional Magistrates, one of whom is an Assistant Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The main difference between the present and the past systems is that the Resident Magistrates, who used to be under the control and direction of the Special Resident Magistrates, act independently of the Divisional Magistrates, and are not under their direction or control. I have no objection to give a Return stating their names, staffs, and districts. Their salaries, which will appear in a Supplemental Estimate, will be £1,000 a-year, without allowances.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. E. W. Gamble, Q C. who attended an Orange meeting, held in the Rotunda, Dublin, on the 24th ultimo, in support of Lord Rossmore, and in condemnation of the Executive for having superseded him in the Commission of the Peace, and who by his presence concurred in those proceedings, is the same person as Robert Wilson Gamble, Q.C. County Court Judge of Armagh and Louth; and whether, if so, the Government will consider whether it can be followed that a person in a judicial position should publicly associate himself with approval of the conduct of a superseded magistrate and with attacks upon the Government?

Mr. Gamble is not an officer of the Executive Government, or subject to their control. Probably the hon. Member is aware Mr. Gamble is a Judge, and can only be removed from office by an Address of both Houses of Parliament. It might, of course, be the duty of the Government to consider whether in any case they are called upon to introduce or support a Motion for such an Address. In the present case they do not consider they are so called upon. Mr. Gamble appears to have gone to the gallery of the Rotunda in order to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster speak. The advertisement calling the meeting was as follows:—

"Loyalist Demonstration. An aggregate meeting of Loyalists will be hold in the Round Room of the Rotunda on Thursday, 24th instant, at 8 o'clock p.m. The Right Hon. W. H. Smith, M.P., and others, will address the meeting."

Was it in the ladies' gallery?

I am obliged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this was the meeting at which a member of the Bar stated that the blood of Giffen rested on the head of the Lord Lieutenant, and at which murderous placards were circulated in reference to the meet- ing at Kill-o'-the-Grange; and, also, with what official rests the power to reprimand a County Court Judge, and to inform him that he had better not attend such meetings in the future?

That was the meeting at which the language in question was used, and that was the meeting at which placards were circulated which I will not characterize by any epithet; but about which I shall say this—that the persons who issued them were forced to give up the meeting for fear of the consequences which might ensue. There is no official who can call Mr. Gamble to account.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman why the gentlemen who issued this murderous placard have not been proceeded against under the Prevention of Crime Act?

Might I ask, also, whether at that meeting there was any hostile demonstration towards the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster?

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this Mr. Gamble is the same Judge who, trying a man in Kerry some years ago for stealing, sentenced him to be executed?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet had the conference with Sir Patrick Keenan (referred to in his recent interview with the Council of the Gaelic Union) as to the teaching of the Irish language to Irish-speaking children in the National Schools of Ireland; and, if so, whether he can indicate the result?

Sir, I beg to say that, instead of a personal conference with Sir Patrick Keenan, I thought it best to submit the Question, by special letter, to the consideration of the whole Board of National Education, and I have reason to know that I shall have a reply from them next week. I shall be very glad to lay my letter on the Table of the House, and I hope to do the same with the reply.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the usurers in many districts of Upper Egypt have lately made contracts with the Local Governors to collect their debts on condition of receiving a per-centage; and, whether in this way the Government forces, police and soldiers, have been turned into bailiffs, with the result of making the Government more than ever detested by the fellaheen?

No information to this effect has reached Her Majesty's Government; but the whole subject of the indebtedness of the fellaheen is occupying the careful attention of the authorities in Egypt, as the Blue Books already presented will show.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the delay in concluding Chancery Suits arising from the block of business in the Taxing Offices; whether it is a fact that it is rarely possible to obtain an appointment to tax a long bill under several weeks; and, whether it would not be possible to dispose of the arrears of business by opening the Taxing Master's Offices during a portion of the long vacation?

, in reply, said, that there was no block of business in the taxing offices of the Chancery Division. One taxing master was in attendance throughout the whole of the Long Vacation.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Committee on the subject of Artizans' and Labourers 'Dwellings, 1882; and, whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill, without delay, to confer upon the local authorities, in places near London, but outside the jurisdiction of the Metro- politan Board of Works, additional powers with regard to new buildings, as unanimously recommended by that Committee?

Sir, the Select Committee on Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings recommended that many of the sanitary provisions of the Metropolitan Building Acts be at once extended to the suburbs under the control of the several sanitary authorities. This recommendation appears to have been made on the assumption that in the districts described as the suburbs the existing law as to the construction of buildings is, in the matter of sanitary details, insufficient and inferior to that applicable to the Metropolitan area. The evidence submitted to the Committee on the subject was of a vague and meagre character. It does not appear that any members or officers of the local authorities in the suburbs were examined as to the statutory provisions and by-laws in force in their districts and the action of the authorities with regard to them. The urban authorities in the suburbs are, by the Public Health Act, empowered to make by-laws as to the structure of walls, foundations, roofs, and chimneys of buildings, for securing stability and the prevention of fires; and for purposes of health, as to the space about buildings, to secure a free circulation of air, as to the ventilation and drainage of buildings, as to water-closets, ashpits, &c, and as to the closing of buildings unfit for human habitation. The by-laws may be enforced by penalty, and, in certain cases, the alteration or pulling down of work done in contravention of the by-laws. Rural sanitary authorities may be invested with similar powers where necessary. Building bylaws have been made in the several urban sanitary districts in the suburbs of the Metropolis, and with regard to several of the parishes in the rural districts in the suburbs. The Local Government Board in 1877 issued a model series of by-laws for the guidance of sanitary authorities, and in all cases in which by-laws have since been made they have been either wholly or to a great extent based on this model. These by-laws, so far as they relate to sanitary matters, have a much wider range than those in the Metropolitan Building Acts and by-laws of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and are superior to those provisions. The provisions in these bylaws, especially as to open spaces about buildings, as to ventilation, drainage, and the details of the construction of water-closets, ashpits, &c, are much more precise and stringent than the regulations in force in the Metropolis. Looking to the powers which sanitary authorities in the suburbs possess with regard to sanitary details in the construction of buildings, it docs not appear to be necessary to extend to the suburbs any provision of the Metropolitan Building Acts.

May I ask whether the model by-laws will be laid on the Table?

I shall have no objection to present them to the House; but they are only one set of an immense number issued by the Local Government Board.

Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman thinks the state of things outside the Metropolitan Board of Works district is satisfactory, not as regards the by-laws, but as regards the buildings?

That embraces a very much wider question—that is, of the composition and power of the local authorities to enforce those by-laws. I fear I cannot answer the right hon. Gentleman without introducing matters of debate; but my own impression is that an improvement of the local government throughout the country is necessary to deal with the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that it is not now intended to press the Bengal Tenancy Bill during the present Session of the Legislative Council in Calcutta; and, if so, whether the opportunity will be taken of inquiring, by means of a small Commission, into the justice of the complaints made by the landowners in Bengal and Behar against the provisions of the Bill, alleging it to be confiscatory in its provisions and an undoubted breach of the permanent settlement?

Sir, the magnitude and importance of the Bengal Tenancy Bill are such that it is quite possible that it may not be passed during the current Session. The Secretary of State, however, has not received any information to this effect from the Government of India. A Commission has already sat and inquired at great length into the whole subject, and I can assure the hon. Member that any complaints against the provisions of the Bill will be carefully considered by the Select Committee of the Governor General's Council, to which it has, in accordance with the usual practice, been referred.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether complaints have reached him of overcrowding on board the Orient Steam Navigation Company's steamship Warwick Castle, which sailed from Plymouth for Sydney on January 19th with over 600 emigrants; whether the ship underwent, before sailing, any, and what, official inspection with a view to insuring the sufficiency of accommodation for that number of emigrants; whether the ship is of any more than 2,000 tons burden; and, if he will order a further and more searching inspection to be made as soon as may be after the ship's arrival at Sydney?

, Sir, the vessel referred to by the hon. Member appears to be the Warwick, and not the Warwick Castle. She has been chartered by the Orient Steam Navigation Company, and sailed from Plymouth for Sydney on January 19. This vessel is entitled under the Merchant Shipping Acts to carry 632 passengers, and under the Passenger Acts to carry 586 statute adults. On the present voyage there were 623 passengers on board, equal to 515 &½ statute adults. The net registered tonnage of the vessel is 1,648, the gross tonnage 2,527. The vessel underwent before sailing the usual official survey and inspection, and no complaints as to overcrowding have reached the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade have, how-over, communicated with the Agent General for New South Wales, and have suggested that the vessel should be inspected on her arrival at Sydney and the result reported.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say if any other complaints have reached him?

I am aware of no complaint except that contained in the Question, and a similar Question put to me by another Member of Parliament.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true, as stated in The Civilian of February 9th, that five officials of the Board of Works have been dismissed in consequence of dishonest conduct. in connection with public contracts; and, if such dismissals have taken place, whether he will give information to the House as to the names and appointments of the officials in question, and as to the nature of the charges alleged against them?

Sir, the de tails given in the paper referred to by my hon. Friend are not accurate; but I am sorry to say that there is much foundation for the substance of the statement. The facts are these. In consequence of changes which I made last year in the Office of Works, it has recently come to light that the contractors for the supply of an article very largely in use in the Public Departments—namely, linoleum, have for some time past been supplying a very inferior article, charging for it the full price for the best material under the contract. They have also, in several cases, charged for linoleum in excess of the quantity delivered. On submitting the case to the Law Officers of the Crown, I was advised that, upon the information before us, it was not expedient to prosecute this firm for fraud, but that the overcharge should be recovered against them. In some few cases the inferior linoleum was rejected by the officers of the Department, but in the great majority of cases the officers responsible for the receipt of these goods accepted them, and upon their certificate as to quality and quantity the contractors were paid. The case was of so serious a character, involving such gross and repeated breaches of duty—if not something more serious—that I have felt it my painful duty, in the interests of the Department and of the Public Service, to dismiss four officers—namely, the superintendent of furniture, an officer with a salary of £540 a-year, and three of his assistants, with salaries of about £200 a-year.

May I ask whether the supply of these articles is open to public competition?

The prices were obtained by public tender about four years ago, and were very low; and on the recommendation of these officers the contracts were renewed during the last four years on the representation that the contractors supplied an admirable article.

Is it a fact that there are one or two other clerks in the Office who have been suspended, or whose cases are under consideration?

Two or three other officers are implicated, but not to so serious an extent. I have not found it necessary to treat them with the same stringency as the others, but I have not yet finally decided what course is to be adopted in their case.

We may hope that some steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct.

The discovery took place in consequence of changes made last year.

May I ask whether the discovery with regard to this linoleum will stimulate an inquiry as to other articles of furniture—I mean in the direction of those matters which the right hon. Gentleman may remember I raised last year?

Of course, Sir, inquiry will be made with regard to other articles.

Have these officials been concerned in drawing up the Estimates for the ensuing year?

No, Sir.

I should like to ask whether in future the right hon. Gentleman will give directions that Estimates shall be prepared in every case and public advertisement given?

Most certainly, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any proposals for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and of the War Office Committee, with regard to the defence of our prin- cipal seaports and coaling stations at home and in the Colonies; and, if so, whether he is able to give the House any information as to the nature of these proposals, or the time at which they will be made?

Sir, this subject has been under the consideration of the Government, and I hope to be able to make a statement upon it on the Army Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether prisoners in English county and convict prisons are released, upon application, when their health is known to be in such a state that death is near at hand; and, if it is the practice, where death occurs in prison, for the authorities to give up the body for interment to any friends who may apply for it?

Yes, Sir; it is the practice in all cases where prisoners are reported to be near death, or where it is reported by the medical officer that further imprisonment would endanger life, that the prisoner is released. That is the general practice, and it is quite necessary to prevent punishment degenerating into barbarity and cruelty. Of course, proper inquiry is made whether the prisoners have a home to go to, where they could receive some degree of comfort, otherwise they would remain in prison. With reference to the last Question, as a general rule, when a prisoner dies in prison and the friends desire to remove the body for burial, it is allowed. I am not speaking, of course, of cases of capital execution, and there might be rare exceptions in other eases in which the practice was likely to be abused. These are the rules pursued in the English county and convict prisons.

Consequent upon the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I would like to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he can explain why Michael Waters, one of the Crossmaglen prisoners, was kept in gaol until he died, although the Government knew he was dying, for they telegraphed that he was dying to his friends; and why it was that when his unfortunate uncle claimed his body it was re-'fused, and was subsequently buried at dead of night in Glasnevin by policemen?

I remember the general circumstances of this case very well, but I would prefer to have the particulars, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will ask the Question on Monday.

I wish to ask whether, in the recent deaths in Cork Gaol, one prisoner sentenced to 12 months, and one to two months, died in the course of three weeks; and why their friends were not previously communicated with?

Because the Home Secretary has answered a Question is no reason why I should be asked over again a Question which I answered a few days ago. I gave the reasons on that occasion why one of those prisoners was not discharged. Those reasons were considered by the Irish Government satisfactory. In the other case I said the Irish Government wanted further particulars.

Has the right hon. Gentleman observed that his right hon. and learned Colleague has just characterized such conduct as heartless barbarity?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Johnston, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland, attended and spoke, on the 19th October last, at a political meeting convened by the Dublin Constitutional (Conservative) Club; on the 3rd and 4th of October, at political party meetings and a political banquet at Belfast; on the 4th December, at an Orange Soirée of "The Royal Hobals Black Perceptory," in Dublin, (at which, on the motion of the grand chaplain of the Orange Society, a motion was adopted—

"That this meeting records its solemn protest against the action of the Government in depriving Lord Rossmore of the Commission of the Peace, and regard the step so taken as a slur on the loyalists of Ireland); "

"So far as I have been able to ascertain, he was twice cautioned in 1879 by the Government then in office, and reminded of his obligations as a permanent salaried officer of the Crown. I did not ask him to give any pledge, but cautioned him against the repetition of such conduct. I hope he will accept the warning, but if he does not he must take the consequences; "

Before this Question is answered by the right hon. Gentleman, I would like to know if all the meetings attended by Mr. William Johnston have not been of an entirely orderly and peaceful description; whether his language, when he has thus attended and spoken, has not been of a loyal and law-abiding character, evincing an anxiety as far as possible to support the cause of law and order; whether, in reference to the particular meetings here referred to, it is a fact that he made no speech at all; whether it is a fact that the Orange soirée was in reality something in the nature of a tea party, and what is called a political meeting in Lower Gloucester Street was merely a meeting of the Young Men's Christian Association with the Rector in the chair; whether the part Mr. Johnston appears to have taken in it was not confined to the advocacy of the cause of temperance, and whether he spoke about morality and religion, and advocated stringently the necessity of loyalty in Ireland; and whether the banquet referred to as having taken place towards the end of January was not the ordinary annual meeting of the Constitutional Club, and was not at all in honour of Lord Ross-more; and whether Mr. Johnston made any speech or took any part in the proceedings?

His Excellency has this case still under consideration; and though I have seen some of the documents referring to it they do not cover the whole ground. I would, therefore, prefer postponing my reply until Monday.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, to save trouble, remember my observations?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a document, protesting against the dismissal of Lord Rossmore from the magistracy, has been circulated for signature amongst the clerks in the office of the Land Commission in Dublin; whether one of these clerks, a person named Peters, is one of the signatories of the protest; and, whether Mr. Peters is also a member of the committee of management of an Orange body called the Dublin Conservative Club; and, if so, whether any notice will be taken of the conduct of civil servants who display political partizan-ship in this manner?

Sir, the Land Commissioners inform me that they learnt for the first time from this Question that it is asserted that such a document as is referred to was circulated for signature among the clerks in their office. They have made inquiry from their principal officers, and can find no ground for such an assertion; They have ascertained that no such document was signed by Mr. R. M. Peters, one of the clerks in their office. The Land Commissioners decline to ask Mr. Peters whether he is a member of the Committee of Management of the Dublin Conservative Club, and the Government considers that in so declining the Commissioners are quite right. I may say—although I do not choose to name him—that a very intimate friend of my own, who holds a very important office, is a member of the Devonshire Club.

Is he a member of the National League?

I cannot answer that; but I think the hon. Member would find it difficult to name any official who has been a member of the National League who has been turned out of office. The Government does not I think that such an inquiry should be made. Civil servants are not prohibited from belonging to social clubs connected with political Parties; but there is a vast difference between such a connection and taking an active part in public Party demonstrations.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the officers who were consulted by the Land Commissioners in reference to this matter are not themselves Orangemen?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there would be any difficulty in future in printing in The Dublin Gazette some slight particulars of the outrages respecting which a Return is presented periodically to Parliament; and, if not, whether the names and addresses of the parties whose persons or property were attacked, and the date, nature, and place of the occurrence can be printed in the Parliamentary Returns, instead of the bald outline now given?

Sir, I will consider whether some further information in serious cases might be given. I must not, however, be understood to make any definite promise at present. In the case of minor offences, including threatening letters, I do not think it would be desirable to publish details. The injured persons frequently object to unnecessary publicity, and sometimes even demur to giving information to the police, on the ground that publicity holds them up to popular odium, thereby increasing their danger.

The right hon. Gentleman says the injured persons object to publicity. Will he explain how it happens that they give the fullest publicity possible to their cases when they want blood-money?

They do not get blood-money for minor offences.

For everything.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, By what authority, and upon whose application, the Lord Lieutenant sent a power to hold a freeman's court in Youghal at the last revision, and when or where this power was exercised before?

, in reply, said, that the authority was conferred by the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act, and that the Court in the instance referred to was held in pursuance of an application made by certain persons claiming to be admitted as freemen.

asked whether a body of freemen had the right to force the Lord Lieutenant to hold a Court for the admission of freemen?

said, the hon. Member would find every information upon the subject in the 5th section of the Act mentioned.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-land, Whether it is true that several of the public roads in the neighbourhood of Dingle, county Kerry, are at present allowed to go out of repair, owing to repeated differences between the contractors and the county surveyor; whether the Grand Jury have any power to apply a remedy to this state of things, or have refused; and, whether the people of the districts in question have memorialized the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject; and, if so, with what result?

I am informed that, owing to default on the part of a number of road contractors, several roads in the neighbourhood of Dingle have fallen into a bad state of repair. A Memorial on the subject has been addressed to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Memorialists have been advised that they should bring the matter before the Grand Jury at the approaching Assizes next month in Tralee. The county surveyor will also bring the matter before the Grand Jury with a view to such action on their part as they may deem necessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire- land, Whether it is true that within the past month three prisoners have died in Belfast Gaol; whether he will say how long these prisoners have been ill; and, why it was that the medical officer of the prison did not recommend the release of any of them?

Sir, this Question has been referred to Belfast for inquiry. As it only appeared on the Paper yesterday, there has not been time for the answers to come to hand.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House Copies of the Notes of Evidence taken before Head Inspector M'Cullum and District Inspectors Gordon and Moran at the Belfast Model School on 7th May, 1883, in reference to the editorship of The Irish Educational Journal with accompanying Reports and Documents (if any); of the Board's order and instructions under which the inquiry was held; of the Board's decision on evidence submitted, and Minutes of Board's Proceedings relating thereto; of all correspondence leading to or arising out of this inquiry; and, of Articles and Letters in The Irish Educational Journal regarded as "reprehensible" by the Commissioners of National Education, distinguishing matter reprinted from the daily Press, or other publications?

Sir, there will be no objection to lay on the Table, if the hon. Member wishes to move for them, copies of the letters in which the Commissioners of National Education conveyed their decision in this matter, of a rejoinder from the teacher principally concerned, and of a letter conveying the final reply of the Board. The first-named communication contains specimens of the articles and letters which the Commissioners considered reprehensible. I cannot consent to the production of the other documents mentioned. Re-ports of the Inspectors of the Board as to inquiries held by them have invariably been regarded as strictly privileged and confidential.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the protest of the magistrates in the King's County, in which, referring to the action of the Government in depriving Lord Rossmore of the Commission of the Peace, the following words occur, "the Government have given a distinct incentive to disloyalty in this country;" if one of the signatories to this protest is the high sheriff; if another holds the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county; and, if others are Resident Magistrates, and in receipt of salaries from the State; and, whether the Irish Executive is content to permit the Law to be administered in the King's County by those who publicly proclaim in their official capacity that the Government which they represent has "given a distinct incentive to disloyalty" to the people amongst whom the signatories to this protest are called upon to administer the Law?

Sir, the resolution referred to as published in The Daily Express of the 10th of January has appended to it the name of the High Sheriff, but not the Lieutenant of the County, or of any Resident Magistrate, or, so far as I am aware, of any person receiving a salary from the State. I cannot say that the Government is content that such a protest should have been signed by a body of magistrates; but I may remind the hon. Member that the 8th section of the Crimes Act is in force in the county; and that, therefore, these magistrates will not be concerned in the hearing of cases of a Party nature brought under the Act.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had assured himself that the protest was not signed by one Resident Magistrate at least?

said, he certainly was not aware of such a thing; and as the matter was a very serious one, perhaps the hon. Member would communicate with him privately on the subject.

Was not Captain Lestrange's name appended to the document?

I am informed that there are several Lestranges in the King's County, and I know Captain Le-strange well enough to believe that he would not sign such a document.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is the case that the Committee appointed to report upon Lighthouse Illuminants has been broken up; whether it is the case that experiments upon this important subject are to be made at Dover; if so, when these experiments are to be made; under whose supervision they are to be conducted; and, what facilities will be given to those who are interested in the matter to view or ascertain the conduct of the experiments?

Sir, on the 19th July last the hon. and gallant Member, in asking me a Question, assumed, as the fact was and now is, that the Committee on Lighthouse Illuminants had been dissolved. Further experiments are to be made at the South Foreland under the supervision of the Trinity House, in which the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses have promised to take part. The Trinity House have also communicated with the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and it is hoped that they will join in the observation of these experiments. It further is in contemplation to issue invitations to competent observers from the United States and France, as well as to masters of vessels and pilots passing through the Straits of Dover. A notice to mariners, issued about a month ago, states that the experimental lights will probably be exhibited about the end of this month.

As a member of the Irish Lights Board, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if the proceedings of this Board were open to the Press, as they ought to be, the necessity for putting such a Question as this would not have been obviated?

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether ratepayers in townships constituted under 9 Geo. 4, c. 82, have any and what remedy against their Town Commissioners in the following cases:—Where one of such Commissioners was co-opted by the others to fill a casual vacancy at the same meeting at which the resignation of the retiring Commissioner was received, and not, as the Act requires, at a meeting specially held therefor, after summons duly issued by the chairman; where the oath was not administered to the person so co-opted by one of the other Commissioners, as the Act directs, but was taken by himself, and where, notwithstanding such irregularity, he has since sat and voted as a Commissioner; where the cost of making or repairing a sewer or drain through the private house of the chairman of the Board has, by a vote of the majority obtained by his influence, been paid out of the rates, instead of by the owner or occupier, as the Act provides; where corporate property has by a vote of the majority, and against protest of the minority, of the Board been let, through private favouritism, at rents much below its ordinary and proper value; and, where, also through favouritism, a scheme for a local public work wholly in excess of the wants and revenue resources of the town, and so involving an oppressive addition to the rates, has been sanctioned by a majority of the Commissioners, in preference to another, at less than half the cost, proposed by an eminent engineer, and approved by all the principal ratepayers of the township?

Sir, I wish to ask you, on a point of Order, whether the Solicitor General for Ireland is at liberty to give an opinion in this House to any hon. Member who puts a hypothetical Question like this, involving grave charges against members of a Corporation, who, from the way in which the Question is framed, had no opportunity of defending themselves from such gross imputations?

The statements in this Question are not hypothetical. They are actual facts; but the reason I abstained from giving names is obvious; and I think that, according to the practice of the House, I am entitled to put the Question.

On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to direct your attention to paragraph five of this Question, where you will find that a motive—private favouritism—has been attributed to the members of a certain public Board. I wish to know whether the Standing Order prohibiting the importation of matters of opinion and argument into Questions in this House does not apply to that case?

I cannot say that I see any grounds for interposing between the hon. Member who put the Question and the House.

The five Questions which are involved in the inquiry of the hon. Member raise five abstract questions of law. Any illegal election can be contested by Election Petition; any illegal order to pay out of rates can be contested by certiorari, or before the public auditor. Any illegal letting of corporate property can be impeached by action; and with regard to Question five, it seems clearly to involve a case in which the majority, rightly or wrongly, overruled the minority.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he could state on what day did the Government receive from General Gordon "his plan for the pacification of the Soudan;" when will the Papers and telegrams laid upon the Table on the 12th be printed and circulated; and, have any further Papers or telegrams been since received; and, if so, could he conveniently state their purport in a concise form?

Will the Government lay on the Table the cable message to General Gordon, to which the message read by the Prime Minister last night was the answer?

With regard to the Question on the Paper, General Gordon's Memorandum was received on the 1st instant. It has been laid on the Table to-day in "Egypt, No. 7," together with the instructions to Baker Pasha. I believe that copies of this Paper and of "Egypt, No. 6," containing the further instructions to General Gordon, are now in the Library of the House. I cannot give definite pledges as to the further presentation of Papers and telegrams, but I shall continue to make every effort to keep the House informed of anything material, and there will be no objection to lay the telegrams on the Table which the Prime Minister has read.

Yes, Sir; but this is the second night of the debate, and we have not got the documents referred to by the Prime Minister. I will to-morrow ask the noble Lord to state specifically, in terms, what was the form of the telegram in which General Gordon was asked his opinion as to the relief of Suakim, and the very terms of his reply; and I will also ask him to state whether the Government wired to Admiral Hewett, asking him if he could relieve Sinkat, after the failure of Baker Pasha; and, if so, how long after that failure; and whether he will give us the terms of the message?

I may just explain that when I alluded to telegrams, I meant telegrams mentioned not only in this House, but in Parliament—I alluded, of course, to Foreign Office telegrams, and not to Admiralty telegrams?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, with regard to the Barbavilla murder, a levy for compensation for the family of Mrs. Smythe, the lady who was assassinated, has been made upon her brother-in-law, who was in the same carriage at the moment that the murder took place, and who, it is well known, was the person whose destruction was intended; and, whether any other relative of the deceased lady has been levied upon for compensation?

Sir, the district upon which the investigator in this case recommended that the compensation should be levied is comprised of the baronies of Fore and Delvin, in the county of Westmeath, and the Lord Lieutenant has been advised that where a district, such as a parish or barony, is to be charged, there is not any power under the Prevention of Crime Act to exempt any particular individual. The hon. and gallant Member's Question appears without Notice, and I have not had time to ascertain what relatives of the deceased lady live in the district. I believe there is no doubt that her brother-in-law does.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, notwithstanding the "most favoured nation treatment" mentioned in paragraph 7 of the Protocol of Agreement between the Governments of Great Britain and Spain (Commercial, No. 5, 1884), British ships would, if that Agreement were ratified, remain at a disadvantage as compared with Spanish ships, such as practically to exclude them from the business of carrying manufactured goods from this Country to Spain; if Her Majesty's Government have taken, or, now that their attention has been called to the subject, are taking or intend to take any steps with a view to obtaining equal treatment for British ships as for Spanish ships in the ports of Spain; and, whether the further Papers which are promised with regard to our commercial relations with Spain specifically relate to the subject of equal treatment for British as for Spanish ships in the ports of Spain?

Sir, I have already twice informed the hon. Member that Article 7 of the Agreement, which is on the Table of the House, accords "most favoured nation treatment" in all matters relating to trade and navigation. The hon. Member must be aware that this is not the same as national treatment, but the Mixed Commission will have authority to hear the representations of shipowners before a definitive Treaty is concluded.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is proposed to make any payments of money to the Ameer of Affghanistan during the present year; and, if so, to what amount, and with what object?

Sir, I am not aware that it is proposed to make any payment to the Ameer beyond the annual subsidy of 12 lakhs promised him last year, as explained in my answer to a Question of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) on the 13th of August last.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the attention of Government has been called to the recent action of the Italian Government with regard to the property of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda, and to the steps now being taken to convert that property into government stock; whether he is aware that the conversion has amounted in similar instances, by the imposition of different taxes and progressive duties, to a confiscation amounting to forty per cent; and, whether, considering that the Congregation of Propaganda is the sole means of communication between the Holy See and some eleven millions of Her Majesty's subjects throughout the globe, discharging all ecclesiastical business for them free of all charge whatsoever, and that this institution is of an international character, being the great focus of missionary enterprise throughout the world, and its property acquired by contributions from men of all nations, Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices, in conjunction with any Foreign Government which has or may be about to intervene with the Italian Government, and endeavour to induce them to reconsider their action in this matter?

Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not had from Her Majesty's Embassy in Rome any information as to the precise state of this Question at the present moment, but they are aware of its general character, which is this—that it is not a matter of legislative or of administrative consideration; but it is one of a judicial character—one for the application of the existing law to be determined, and which has been determined by the existing tribunal. It has been through those tribunals, I am given to understand, and has been decided in the highest Court of Appeal. It does not well appear what ground there may be for diplomatic interposition under those circumstances; but, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government, if they should see an opportunity, will be glad to make use of it, while, however, they have every reason to believe that the Italian Government, so far as it has discretion, will endeavour to apply the law in a fair and equitable spirit.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has proposed any basis for an exchange of views between England and Turkey on the Egyptian question; and, whether, should such a basis not have been proposed, Her Majesty's Government will forthwith adopt measures for securing, if possible, the friendly co-operation of His Majesty the Sultan?

Sir, the House is already aware, I think, from the Papers that have been laid on the Table, of the communication in regard to the withdrawal of Her Majesty's troops from Egypt which has taken place between the Ottoman Government and the British Government. But this is a more delicate inquiry, to which my answer is as follows. The Porte has expressed a wish to effect an exchange of views with Her Majesty's Government on Egyptian affairs generally, with the view of arriving at a complete understanding on the subject, and Musurus Pasha has been requested to submit a sketch of the basis on which such an understanding should rest. The proposal has proceeded from the Ottoman Government, and it, therefore, appears that in the natural course of the communications the duty of the British Government is to express its willingness or unwillingness, and it has expressed its willingness to entertain the proposal; and the next step in the regular order is that bases should be proposed by the Ottoman Government, from whom the proposal proceeded. Musurus Pasha has also had an interview with Lord Granville on the subject, but he has not yet received instructions for the purpose of giving more definite form to the proposal which has reached Her Majesty's Government.

asked whether the report of the interview between Lord Dufferin and the Sultan as given in The Morning Post was substantially correct?

Her Majesty's Government have no information on the subject; but the belief of the Foreign Secretary is that that cannot be a correct account.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Lords of the Treasury will, in regard to the public service in Ireland, enforce the principle and pursue the line of action laid down, in the following terms, in a Treasury Minute of the 15th of March 1836, addressed to all Departments of the Service:—

"It is the express direction of this Board that every party now a member of an Orange Lodge, or any political society excluding persons of a different religious faith, using secret signs and symbols, and acting by means of associated branches, should immediately withdraw from such society, and that no person in their service shall hereafter become in any way a member or connected with such a society. And if it shall hereafter become known to this Board that any public servant under their control shall, after this warning, either continue or become a member of such society, my Lords will feel it their duty, without hesitation, to dismiss him from the Service?"

May I also ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that, subsequent to the date mentioned, the Orange Society was dissolved, and that it was afterwards reconstituted in such a way as to exclude the use of secret signs and symbols?

I was going to ask the hon. Member for Sligo to put off his Question till Tuesday next. It refers to a matter of great consequence. I recollect the transaction personally; but I should wish to have accurate information before replying to the Question, and the inquiries I have set on foot are not yet concluded.

I will repeat the Question on Tuesday.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government contemplate proposing any Vote of Credit, or any Supplementary Estimates, to meet the charge of the new Military or Naval expenditure in Egypt; and, if so, when the Votes will be submitted to the House?

of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. GUILDERS): My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has asked me to answer this Question. The right hon. Gentleman and the House are doubtless aware that no Vote of money can be proposed until Supply is set up, and that Supply cannot be set up until after the Report of the Address in reply to the Gracious Speech from the Throne has been adopted. I have no doubt that it will be necessary to ask for a Supplementary Vote; and, as I said on Tuesday, in reply to the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), I am in communication on this subject with my Colleagues at the War Office and the Admiralty, and no delay will take place in laying the Estimates be-fore the House. Until the Address is adopted it will be impossible to say when that will be.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether offers of money are being made or are about to be made to any of the tribes in the Soudan to induce them to remain loyal to the Government of the Khedive; and, if so, whether such sums will be included in the estimates of the English or of the Egyptian expenditure?

I am disposed to believe that the hon. Member must agree with me in the opinion which I entertain, that it is desirable that no answer should be given to this Question. General Gordon, in regard to these offers, is not our agent, although we are responsible undoubtedly to the Egyptian Government for all that General Gordon does. But I am bound to say that I thank the hon. Member for the opportunity of saying with how much regret I read the other day an intimation sent by some correspondent of one of the London journals from Egypt, that General Gordon had departed from a certain place with a certain quantity of money. I do hope that some discretion will be exercised in these matters. If it is possible to conceive anything likely to endanger not only the mission but the life of General Gordon, it is the circulation of intelligence of that kind. I may say, also, that there is great inaccuracy in the particulars that were stated.

Did the right hon. Gentleman state that General Gordon was not the agent of the British Government?

I stated, certainly, Sir, that in strictness and officially General Gordon was the agent of the Egyptian Government; but that we, having counselled the Egyptian Government, are responsible for his action.

On what date did General Gordon be- come the agent of the Egyptian Government?

I should have thought the noble Lord was aware that General Gordon had power to assume—and, I believe, has assumed—the Governorship General of the Soudan in the name of the Egyptian Government.

Might I ask whether the Primo Minister is aware that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War stated in the most direct terms in this House the other night that General Gordon was not in the employment of the Egyptian Government?

The noble Lord has entirely misunderstood the statement of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War. I think my noble Friend is a higher authority as to what he said than the noble Lord; and my noble Friend tells me he stated, and stated with perfect truth, that General Gordon was sent out by this Government to discharge certain functions on the part of this Government; and that he was likewise empowered to discharge certain other functions which might be entrusted to him by the Egyptian Government. The noble Lord seems to mo to be dwelling upon points that are of small importance, because I have already stated, in the most distinct manner, that, substantially, Her Majesty's Government are in the strictest way responsible for the action of General Gordon.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What portion of the littoral of the Red Sea Her Majesty's Government proposed to protect from any attack hostile to the Government of Egypt?

Sir, I am not certain that I can answer the Question of my hon. Friend as particularly as he may wish at the present moment, but I may say, in general terms, that the engagement of the British Government has reference to the ports upon the Red Sea. I am not aware that the word "littoral" is a word of ours—I cannot speak positively, but I believe it is in respect of ports on the Red Sea. If he asks me what ports, then I should define them by saying that they are any ports which might be endangered in consequence of the recent movements of the Mahdi. To give an exhaustive list of them would be beyond my power, but we can obtain particular information on that subject.

I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice. Is General Graham, who is to command the relief expedition, at present at Cairo; and when did Colonels Buller and Stewart leave London?

General Graham is not at present in Cairo. I believe he is on duty upon the Nile, but he is expected at Cairo tomorrow. If he did not return as soon as expected, the command of the expedition was to be taken by General Dormer. Colonel Buller and Colonel Stewart, who also hold commands, left London for Egypt on Tuesday evening.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether in respect to that portion of the duties to be discharged by General Gordon on behalf of Her Majesty's Government the cost would be met by a Vote of the House of Commons, or would be charged upon the Revenues of Egypt?

Certainly, Sir; any expenses belonging to the Mission of General Gordon, as originally projected by this Government, would be defrayed by this country. I do not anticipate that they are at all likely to be serious; but the direct action and direct functions in which General Gordon was immediately connected with this Government are, I think, pretty much absorbed in the greater duties of the large Mission which he has undertaken under the immediate authority of the Egyptian Government, with the full moral and political responsibility of the British Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate by telegraph with General Gordon, asking him whether he is the agent of the Egyptian Government?

I think I have given a tolerably complete reply to the Question of the noble Lord. With respect to the date of the assumption of the authority, I am not quite certain that we are in possession of the exact day; but that can be without difficulty ascertained.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that any orders or instructions that may be given to General Gordon by the Egyptian Government will be communicated to, or made through, our Representatives in Egypt?

I should like to answer that Question particularly; and, therefore, I would rather have an opportunity of inquiring. I think that when General Gordon went out from this country the arrangement made was that he should receive all his instructions through Sir Evelyn Baring. It is quite possible that that arrangement continues.

I observe that General Gordon has proceeded to the Soudan to restore the independence of certain people there. I should like to know whether, in executing that commission, General Gordon is executing the orders of Her Majesty's Government directly, or the orders of the Egyptian Government, or of the Sultan of Turkey? I understand the words of Her Majesty's Government in giving directions to General Gordon to restore certain people to their independence in the Soudan must, of course, secure to them possession of the Soudan. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have the commission of the Sultan of Turkey, as the Sovereign of that country, to declare that independence, or whether they are acting entirely on their own responsibility?

We have no commission from the Sultan of Turkey with reference to the Soudan. The action of Her Majesty's Government has been, I believe, so carefully framed as not in any way to touch or infringe upon whatever rights the Sultan of Turkey, as Sovereign of the country, may have.

I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War a Question of which I have given him private Notice—namely, Whether he can inform the House, without detriment to the Public Service, to what purpose officers holding Her Majesty's commission have been invited to volunteer for this foreign service?

General Sir Evelyn Wood has lately asked for the services of a considerable number of British officers—I presume with the object of employing them in the now brigade that is being organized. Such English officers as have served the Egyptian Government have done so as volunteers.

I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty or the Prime Minister, Whether an explanation will be given with regard to the Papers laid on the Table two days ago as to the appointment of Admiral Sir William Hewett? The telegram says—"You will be invested for the present with full powers, civil and military, at Suakim." By whom will be be invested with these supreme powers? This comes from the Admiralty—"And warn the Arabs that any attack will be repulsed by British troops." I should be glad to know especially how Admiral Hewett is to be invested with "civil powers" in Egypt?

I understood the gallant Admiral to be giving Notice of a Question. If there is any technical question involved in the appointment of Sir William Hewett, I must ask for Notice; but I may say that the Admiralty would not have thought it right to delay taking a step necessary for the safety of Suakim on account of any small technical difficulty.

I wish to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of some importance—Whether it is true that the Tekke Turcoman tribes of Merv have made their submission to the Russian Government; and whether Merv is to be incorporated in the Russian Empire?

Yes, Sir; that is a very important Question, and I think I must ask for Notice.

asked whether it was not within the knowledge of the noble Lord that the statement of fact to which he alluded appeared in the Russian newspapers published in St. Petersburg last week?

I cannot read the Russian language, and am not able, therefore, to answer the Question.

Is the noble Lord aware that there are also papers published in German and French at St. Petersburg, and that the news of the surrender of Merv was contained in all those papers? I would also ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether on a future occasion he would include in the Estimates the sums required to provide the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with the necessary staff of interpreters of foreign languages.

I must point out to the hon. Member for Dungarvan that in putting such Questions he is trifling with the House.

Allow me to respectfully point out to you, Sir, that the noble Lord told me, not in a very respectful manner, in reply to a serious Question on an important matter, that he did not know Russian—hence my Question.