In laying the Report on the Table I wish briefly to state the arrangements made by the Committee on Public Petitions for carrying out the pledge which I made on their behalf on Monday on the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). As the House understands, Petitions are supposed to be presented by Members "in their places," though, owing to the great increase in the number of Petitions, this practice has, in a great measure, been superseded by "the bag system," to the great saving of time and convenience of Members. Still the system requires limitation and control, and your Predecessor in the Chair made it a rule that no Petitions should be received after 5 of the clock to avoid the confusion which would otherwise arise from Petitions being passed in during any time of the Sitting, and the consequent setting and re-setting of the printing type. The Committee on Public Petitions are unanimously of opinion that this rule should be adhered to; but when my hon. and gallant Friend spoke of the inconvenience entailed on those hon. Members who came down after 5 in having their Petitions returned, it occurred to me that this inconvenience might be, to a great degree, met by "a supplemental bag," for the reception of such Petitions as might arrive after 5 and before 6, such bag to be cleared on the following day, and the Petitions to be then taken as presented and entered accordingly in the Votes. But I now find that I can go further, and that there is no difficulty, so far as the Journal Office is concerned, in the bag remaining during the entire Sitting, and that the Speaker will give his assent and directions to that effect. The time for the presentation of Petitions will remain as before, up to 5 of the clock; and when the usual bag has disappeared, the "supplemental bag" will take its place, which, to avoid confusion, will be of a different colour. Members must, of course, make their own arrangements with regard to the insertion of the notices of Petitions in the public papers, so as to make the date of presentation correspond with the entry of them in the Votes; but, so far as the Committee is concerned, it will be a source of much satisfaction to them if they have been enabled to promote the convenience of the House without disarranging the Journal Office.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, for several years past, nearly the whole of the mountings for Naval Ordnance, except hydraulic mountings, have been manufactured in the Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich; whether any cause has arisen for dissatisfaction on the part of the Admiralty either with respect to the quality of the work or the charges for manufacture; whether the orders given to the said Department by the Admiralty have been for some few years past slowly diminishing in quantity, and are this year very considerably less than they have ever been previously; and, whether the Admiralty are now sending their orders for such work to private firms, or do they propose that the manufacture shall be undertaken in the Royal Dockyards instead of, as heretofore, in the Royal Arsenal; and, in the event of any such change being in contemplation, what saving to the State is estimated to result therefrom?

Up to the end of the financial year 1882–3, nearly all mountings for naval ordnance, except hydraulic mountings, were provided by the War Department, and paid for out of Army Votes; and it is believed that most of them were manufactured in the Royal Carriage Department at Woolwich. The Admiralty had no cause for dissatisfaction with the quality of the work; its cost concerned the War Department only. Last year was the first in which the Admiralty gave direct orders to Woolwich for the manufacture of gun mountings: this year the orders will be somewhat diminished; but I am not in a position to give any pledge as to the source from which the supply will be obtained in future. There is no immediate intention to manufacture mountings in the Dockyards. The object of the change of arrangements has been to make the Admiralty more directly responsible for the provision of gun mountings; and it is believed that advantage will be thereby gained to the Public Service.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether a considerable discharge of hands from the Royal Carriage Department, to the extent of 200 or 300, is in contemplation; and, if so, whether such reduction is due to the diminution of orders from the Admiralty for naval carriages and slides; and, whether it would be possible in time of slackness to shorten the hours of work in preference to discharging trained hands, thereby distributing the distress likely to be felt on such occasions, and to some extent obviating the injury always sustained by unused machinery?

Certain reductions in the Royal Carriage Department have taken place owing to a diminution in the number of orders, and others are contemplated on account of alterations in construction, which involve the use of more machinery and less labour. It is undesirable to reduce the number of working hours, as highly skilled artizans will not accept from the Government lower wages than they can obtain in other quarters.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If, in 1878, Admiral Phillimore, then Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves, urged the building of a new Coastguard station at Kincaslagh, county Donegal, and if, in consequence of his representations, an officer of the Board of Works was sent down, who selected a site for the station; if, shortly after, the Admiral Superintendent of Naval Reserves so strongly approved of his predecessor's action that a ninety-nine years' lease of the ground was obtained in October 1881, the tenant right settled for, and all preliminary arrangements made; and, if, after so much expense incurred, it is intended to proceed with the work?

The site selected for the new Coastguard station has been again inspected, and further inquiry has led the Admiralty to decide against erecting the buildings at Kincaslagh.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can now state whether there is any truth in the alleged negotiation between the African International Association and the French, whereby the French are to obtain the property, treaties, and stations of the Company on the Upper Congo?

In reply to this Question, and to that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lynn (Mr. Bourke), I can only refer to the replies given in "another place" by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the effect that he had applied for authorization to make public the information confidentially communicated to him on the subject referred to in these Questions. I hope, therefore, very shortly to be able to give more complete information.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Do the Intermediate Education secretaries defer publishing each year's list of examiners till it is too late to cancel any unsuitable appointment; has a gentleman been appointed to examine this year in arithmetic, who was also examiner in 1881 and in 1882; has he been thus selected for re-employment without the usual interval of two years since his previous employment, and in preference to others on the list more specially qualified, who have never been employed at all; is this examiner a brother-in-law of one of the secretaries; and, has the Lord Lieutenant given his sanction to the appointment?

The Assistant Commissioners who act as secretaries at the intermediate education examination, inform me that they have no authority to publish the names of selected examiners until authorized by the Board to do so; and that it is the practice of the Board not to authorize such publication until the commencement of the examination. A gentleman has been appointed to examine in arithmetic this year who examined in 1881 and 1882. His case is not exceptional, as 10 other examiners have been similarly re-appointed. There is no rule of the Board requiring an interval of two years to elapse before re-appointment. The gentleman referred to is a brother-in-law of one of the Assistant Commissioners. He was, in the first instance, appointed by the Board to examine in arithmetic and book-keeping, because they considered him specially qualified for the duty by long experience, and they re-appointed him because he discharged the duty to their entire satisfaction. The Lord Lieutenant has sanctioned his appointment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the Abbeyfeale meeting on Sunday week was suppressed, by what authority the police dispersed the weekly indoor meeting of the League on the same day, which had no relation whatever to the public meeting, and is it intended that a proclamation of an outdoor demonstration should extend to all indoor gatherings whether routine or otherwise in the same district?

The public meeting proposed to be held at Abbeyfeale was prohibited on the ground of apprehension that if held it would endanger the public peace and give rise to intimidation, there being a number of evicted and "Boycotted" farms in the locality. With regard to the suppression of the indoor meeting, what occurred was this; the Rev. Mr. Casey, being prevented from addressing the people in the street, adjourned to a house in the town, accompanied by a large crowd, who remained outside in the street while he and the members of the National League went upstairs, and were about to hold a meeting. The magistrates considered this an attempt to evade the prohibition contained in the Proclamation, and they therefore prevented it. I have, on a former occasion, stated that in matters of this kind some discretion must be left to magistrates on the spot charged with enforcing the terms of a Proclamation.

invited the right hon. Gentleman to answer the second clause of the Question.

It is not intended, Sir; but some discretion must be left to the magistrates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu- tenant of Ireland, If he is aware of the complaint of Catholic inmates of Donegal Workhouse that the religious obligation imposed on them at Easter could not be kept owing to the conduct of the guardians as to the chaplain, and do the Local Government Board propose to leave the feeble and sick without the ministrations of the clergy; can the Local Government Board provide no remedy in the case of those who have been deprived of Mass on Sundays and holidays since the chaplain's resignation, and who are unable to go to the church, but who could be present at Divine Service in the House; what is the average attendance of the Catholic inmates at Divine Service on Sundays and holidays since the chaplain's resignation as compared with the attendance at Mass in the House for the same length of time previously; and, is it a fact that the children have been altogether deprived of Divine Service and instruction in the Church since sickness set in some three months ago; is he aware of the intense feeling that exists amongst the Catholics of the Union, on account of the opposition of the Protestant majority of the Board to the appointment of a catechist or any other Catholic official to the House; and, having regard to the fact that the vast majority of the ratepayers of the Union and of the inmates of the Workhouse are Catholics, and in. view of the spiritual destitution which the latter class suffer, will the Local Government Board set aside by sealed order the present Board of Guardians and appoint paid Vice Guardians in their stead, who will discharge their duty to those under their care?

The Local Government Board have no information before them to show that the Roman Catholic inmates of the Donegal Workhouse complain of being unable to keep their religious obligations, or that intense feeling exists among the Roman Catholics of the Union on account of the action of the Guardians in regard to the appointment of a catechist. The Board cannot obtain an accurate Return of the number of inmates who attended Mass in the workhouse chapel; but there is no doubt that the number of inmates of the workhouse attending Divine Service in the parish chapel is less than the number of persons who were present at Mass when it was held in the workhouse. With regard to the children, the facts appear to be that in consequence of an outbreak of measles in the workhouse they were prevented from congregating together, either at school or Divine Service, until the doctor thought they could do so with safety. This affected the Protestant children as well as the Roman Catholics. The Local Government Board have no power to appoint a catechist. I propose to make a suggestion, which I hope will facilitate the settlement of a controversy in which I think there are faults on both sides.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the estate of Captain Hill, in the county Donegal, out of eighty-four cases recently adjudicated upon by Mr. William Gray, Sub-Commissioner under the Land Act of 1881, the reductions were so extreme that the landlord has appealed against his decisions in every case?

The Land Commissioners inform me that Captain Hill, of county Donegal, has appealed in 84 cases from the decisions of the Sub-Commission of which Mr. Gray was a member.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take measures to prevent the intimidation of Mr. Gray and other Sub-Commissioners by Questions asked in that House?

I cannot take any steps such as are suggested by the hon. Member; but I think it is very unfortunate that Questions of this kind should be asked so frequently. I always regret that they should be put, from, whatever quarter of the House they may come.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has yet received the reply of Mr. Clifford Lloyd to the question whether there is any truth in the allegation that he had in any cases substituted for the whip in ordinary use for purposes of punishment a cat-'o-nine-tails with the thongs loaded with metal?

Yes; there is no foundation for the re- port, and the use of the whip has been restricted to cases of violence and mutinous crime within the prisons, and the number of strokes has been reduced from a maximum of 300 to 24.

inquired whether the attention of the noble Lord had been called to a letter published in Truth, over the name of the junior Member for county Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), in which he stated that at a meeting recently held he had defended the use of the courbash, and then added—

"I did, indeed, contrast the courbash favourably with the now lead-tipped cat-o'-nine tails —administered not to the soles but to the hare backs—which Mr. Clifford Lloyd has substituted for it in the Cairo prisons."

Would the noble Lord inquire from the junior Member for county Wicklow on what grounds he made that statement?

I sent out a copy of the hon. Member's Question the other day, and the answer I have given is founded upon the inquiry. I have no doubt, therefore, that it is quite accurate.

It is not a question of accuracy. The question is, whether the noble Lord will inquire from the junior Member for county Wicklow on what grounds he made the statement I have read?

I have no objection to make that inquiry.

asked whether they were to understand that before Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Egypt the whip was used in the prisons; or whether it was not the fact that the courbash was used, and that Mr. Clifford Lloyd substituted for it the whip?

No. What I understand, on the contrary, is that the use of the whip has been limited, and also that the number of strokes has been limited, and that this has been done during the time that Mr. Clifford Lloyd has held the office of the Ministry of the Interior, and therefore all the credit of it is due to him.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether there is any intention of re-employing Mr. Clifford Lloyd as a police magistrate in Ireland?

Mr. Clifford Lloyd is at present on lengthened leave of absence without pay, and I can make no statement at present with regard to his re-employment.

Is Mr. Clifford Lloyd on lengthened leave of absence from Ireland, and also on leave of absence from Egypt? Can the right hon. Gentleman state what is the intention of the Egyptian Government regarding him?

I know nothing, Sir, of the intentions of any Government but the Irish Government.

said, he was unable to catch the full significance of the reply of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to his Question as to the alleged use of the cat-o'-nine-tails on prisoners in Egypt. When the noble Lord said that the imputation conveyed in the Question was unfounded, did he refer to the use of the cat-o'-nine-tails, or to the portion of the Question which alleged that the cat-o'-nine-tails were loaded with lead? He wished to know whether, since Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to Egypt, the cat-o'-nine-tails had been introduced, whether loaded with lead or not?

replied that what he understood was that the cat-o'-nine-tails had not been introduced; but as his answer did not make that clear, he would answer a further Question on the subject.

said, he would put a further Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is now in a position to state whether the proceedings of the Commission on the Queen's Colleges will be public?

The Commissioners have decided to hold their meetings in public.

asked the Postmaster General, How many licences for telephone exchanges have been applied for and how many have been granted since he instituted the new condition requiring each Company receiving a licence to undertake to sell instruments to him?

The number of applications for telephone exchange licences since the period referred to has been 77, and the number granted has been eight. As bearing on this subject, I may state that as the condition to which allusion is made was imposed solely for the purpose of protecting the public interest, and was never intended to restrict the establishment of telephone exchanges, I have been for some time considering whether, with due regard to the public interest, the condition can be in any way modified. As soon as I am in a position to come to a decision on the point, there shall be no delay in making it known.

asked the Postmaster General, Why it is that the district of Abbeyfeale, in the county of Limerick, having a population of over ten thousand, has not a second delivery of letters on week days as well as the other towns in that county?

So far as I have, been able to ascertain, no communication has been received by the Post Office asking for the establishment of a second delivery. I have, however, given instructions that an account shall be immediately taken of the number of letters that would be facilitated by a second delivery, and then I shall be in a position to decide.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that an application to fix a fair rent under the Land Act, in which Mrs. Margaret Staples was landlady and Thomas Sinnott, of Duncormack, tenant, was heard at Wexford on the 8th April, before Messrs. Rice and Barry, Sub-Commissioners; that the area of the holding was two acres. The valuation £2, and the rent £4; that only one valuator was examined, who estimated a fair rent at £2 7s., and that no evidence whatever in answer was offered by the landlady; that the Sub-Commissioners did not visit the lands or even view them from a distance, and that they fixed the judicial rent at £4, being the amount of the old rent, and double the valuation; and, whether, under these circumstances, he can state on what grounds the Sub-Commissioners arrived at their decision?

This Question was referred to the Land Commissioners for any observations they may have to offer with regard to it; and they report as follows:—

"The application of Thomas Sinnott to have a fair rent fixed was heard, as stated, before a Sub-Commission, consisting of Messrs. Rice and Barry. The area of the holding was over three acres; the valuation was £2; the rent was £4; and this the Sub-Commissioners left unaltered. The Land Commissioners have no knowledge of the evidence that was offered, nor as to whether the Sub-Commission visited the farm. The Commissioners are not aware of the grounds on which the Sub-Commission arrived at its decision, and they decline to make inquiry. If the tenant is dissatisfied with the decision he has a right of appeal."

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at the last Tipperary Petty Sessions, in reference to the charge against a herdsman named Michael Burke, in the employment of Mr. P. H. Massey, J.P.; Whether it was proved that Burke fired a revolver shot at three young men on the public road, without provocation; that he then proceeded, in a state of furious intoxication, to a neighbouring gate-lodge, where an old woman was standing with a baby in her arms, and discharged another revolver shot towards the public road, challenging anybody there to fight him; and that, when pursued by Constable Garry, he dropped on his knee, presented his revolver at the constable, and swore that if he stirred a step he would let daylight through him; whether, notwithstanding the evidence to this effect, a majority of the magistrates refused Sergeant Jack's application to have him remanded to the Bansha Petty Sessions, for the production of further evidence, and directed him only to be charged with drunkenness, and with having discharged loaded firearms on the public road; whether the President Magistrate, Mr. Meldon, dissented from their ruling, and was in favour of returning Burke for trial to the assizes for shooting at the person with intent to kill; whether any notice will be taken of the conduct of the magistrates; whether Burke was awarded £130 compensation, under the Prevention of Crime Act, for an assault alleged to have been committed upon him, although he had not been confined to bed, and no doctor had visited him; whether that amount will now be levied; and, whether Burke will be deprived of his licence for carrying firearms?

This case is at present before the Attorney General for directions as to whether the circumstances are such as to make it proper that further proceedings should be taken. I cannot, therefore, at present, make airy statement as to the details of the charge against Michael Burke. With regard to the award of compensation to him under the Prevention of Crime Act, the facts are, that about two years ago he was attacked and beaten about the head—the motive for the outrage being that he remained in the employment of a gentleman who was "Boycotted" for giving a site for a Constabulary hut. I am advised that circumstances connected with the charge now made against him could not be held to be a reason for withholding the compensation legally awarded to him. The question whether Burke's licence should be revoked will be considered by the Lord Lieutenant.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that a site in White-chapel, nearly eight acres in extent, from, which five thousand persons were displaced by the Metropolitan Board of Works, under the provisions of the Goulston Street and Flower and Dean Street schemes made under the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Acts, remains still almost wholly unbuilt on, although a large part of it was cleared nearly four years ago, and the remainder a year ago, and although the need for dwellings for the poor is very pressing in that over-crowded district; whether he will, if it is within his province to do so, call the attention of the Board to the above facts, and urge them to sell the land for building without delay, or to require those who have bought it, or parts of it, to proceed forthwith to erect dwellings of the kind needed for the accommoda- tion of labourers; and, whether he will suggest to the Board that, in case they desire further delays, they should plant this site with shrubs, and let it be used as a recreation ground till such time as the erection of the dwellings required can be begun?

The only portion of the Goulston Street area in the market in 1883 comprised about two acres. Of this, only one acre was reserved for the re-housing of the artizans displaced. This was put up to auction on the 1st of June, 1883, but was not sold, and the Metropolitan Board have since been using every endeavour to find a purchaser. They have recently been successful in so doing, and the agreement for sale was executed on Friday, May 9. The Metropolitan Board have not yet been in a position to dispose of the remaining land, as it has not long been cleared, and the approaches have only just been completed; but negotiations are in progress for the sale of the whole of the remaining artizans' land in the Goulston Street area, and the Flower and Dean Street sites are to be advertised this week. It may be stated that a small site in George Yard—part of the Flower and Dean Street area—has already been covered with buildings for the accommodation of 100 persons. The Secretary of State will press upon the Board the desirability of pressing forward the sale of the land and the erection of the necessary dwellings.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his estimate of one million sterling, as the amount of the aggregate balance likely to remain in the hands of the Board of Trade when the sums formerly held by trustees in bankruptcy were paid in to them has been realised; and, if not, what the aggregate balance now is?

The aggregate balance now in the hands of the Board of Trade from this source is £382,489. The money is coming in at the rate of from £10,000 to £15,000 a-week, and the Board of Trade has no reason to doubt that ultimately the amount originally estimated will be realized.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that, on the 4th June next, there will be only three General Officers of Royal Marines eligible for employment under Army Rules, out of a total of fourteen Generals; and if there is any intention of retiring those Officers who cannot again be employed, as is done in the case of every other branch of the service?

In answer to my hon. and gallant Friend I have to say that the statement of fact in the first part of his Question is correct. There is no intention to assimilate the Rules as to pay and retirement of General Officers of Royal Marines to those affecting General Officers in the Army.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether he is aware that the school of Sir Andrew Judd at Tonbridge was founded, and has been carried on for three centuries, as a free school for the benefit of all classes; whether, by the Scheme of 1880, the school was constituted a high or grammar school, from which, through the high scale of fees adopted, the sons of the trading and working classes are practically excluded; whether the Charity Commissioners, in their first draft Scheme, proposed, out of the surplus income of the endowment, to establish a middle or lower school in or near the town of Tonbridge; whether it is true that, on the faith of this proposal, the Skinners' Company, who were the original governors of Judd's free school, did pay to the Charity Commissioners a sum of £20,000, to assist in the establishment of such lower class school in Tonbridge; whether the Commissioners now insist on the establishment of this school at Tunbridge Wells, a town five miles distant from Tonbridge; whether the Skinners' Company, in a Letter dated 22nd June 1883, protested against this change of destination of the endowment, and declared that the school ought to be established, as intended, at Tonbridge; and, whether the Government will take steps to restore to the poorer and middle classes of Tonbridge the advantages and rights of which the Scheme of the Charity Commissioners deprives them?

The history of Sir Andrew Judd's school at Tonbridge is related in the published Reports of the Charity Commissioners appointed by the late Lord Brougham, and in that of the Schools Inquiry Commissioners. The school is now regulated by a scheme which was passed by the Charity Commissioners in 1880, and which was laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament, and is now a Statute of the Realm. The various Questions of the hon. Member relate to a subject which some years ago gave rise to much controversy, and the complete answer to them would require an elaborate statement altogether exceeding the usual limits of answers to Questions in this House. If the hon. Member desires the production of any correspondence between the Charity Commissioners and the Skinners' Company subsequent to the time when the scheme became law, it shall be produced. The Government has no power to take any steps to vary a scheme which Parliament has sanctioned, and which is now law.

asked whether, in the original scheme of 1875, the Charity Commissioners did not propose to establish a school in or near the town of Tonbridge; whether they did not afterwards propose to establish it in an adjacent parish; and, whether two years after the scheme was sanctioned by Parliament they did not disclose their intention of removing it to Tunbridge Wells?

It is impossible to give a categorical answer to these Questions. I have received from the Charity Commissioners several folios upon the subject, which I shall be very glad to submit to the hon. Member.

asked whether it was not the fact that the Skinners' Company protested against the secondary school being placed at Tunbridge Wells, and that it was only with the greatest reluctance that they had given up fighting the Charity Commissioners upon the subject?

That is very possible; but the hon. Gentleman who represents the Skinners' Company did not challenge the schemes in the House; and it is impossible to go into the matter three or four years afterwards.

I beg to give Notice that I shall call attention to the matter in Committee to-night.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the sanction of the Secretary of State for India has been given to the construction of the Quetta Railway, and that the work will now be pushed on rapidly; and, whether it is intended to submit the important Frontier question involved in this step to the consideration of the House of Commons?

The sanction of the Secretary of State has been given to the construction of the Quetta Railway, and the work will be executed with due despatch. It is not intended to submit this Question, which is one of railway extension, to the House of Commons. With regard to the Question of the Frontier, my hon. Friend is doubtless aware that the President of the Local Government Board stated in this House, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, on the 22nd of February last, that the administration of the Quetta district had been taken over by the Government of India, with the full concurrence of the Khan of Khelat.

Will the railway be made from revenue?

Yes, Sir; it will be made from revenue.

said, he should take an early opportunity of calling attention to the Question of the Frontier.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, since it is a common practice in counties to hand over the prosecutions to the magistrates' clerk upon the committal of the accused, and that the clerks to the borough magistrates are expressly prohibited by statute from being directly or indirectly interested in the prosecution of any person committed by those justices, he is prepared to introduce or support a measure to secure the disinterestedness of the legal advisers of county magistrates?

, in reply, said, the Home Secretary would take the earliest opportunity of putting the clerks in. counties on a footing with those in boroughs.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been called to the dismissal from a school at Turriff, Aberdeenshire, of a boy for wearing the blue ribbon; and, whether he can give instructions from the Department to restrain teachers from acting in this way in future?

The school board of Turriff report that a boy was expelled for insubordination, and not for wearing a blue ribbon. They have notified to the parents that the boy might return to school on condition that the insubordination should not be repeated; and it was not made a condition of re-admission that the boy should cease to wear a blue ribbon. It is now well understood that managers have no right to expel or refuse admission to children because of their wearing the blue ribbon; and we constantly act on this principle.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Land Transfer Commissioners "as to whether the Middlesex Registry should be continued or abolished," in which they observe as follows:—

"On this point we have thought it necessary to examine only three witnesses. All agree in saying that the Registry causes a great increase of trouble and expense, affords no additional security or other advantage, and ought not to be continued. We entirely concur in this opinion, and recommend that from as early a date as possible the Registry should be closed as regards the registration of deeds executed after that date;"

whether it is now proposed that this Registry shall be established as a Government Department; and, whether, if the Middlesex Registry of Deeds Bill should become Law, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to convert that Registry of Memorials into a Registry of Titles?

, in reply, said, these Questions were of an argumentative character, and he should prefer not to answer them until the Bill was again before the House for discussion.

asked the honourable Member for Cavan and the honourable and gallant Member for Dublin County, Whether they will withdraw their Notices of opposition to the Bills now before the House on the subject of Arterial Drainage, so as to allow of the appointment of a Select Committee with power to call evidence?

asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman whether or not he had read this particular Bill?

replied in the affirmative.

Perhaps I may be allowed to ask him, also, whether he would think it desirable that a Bill of so great importance as this should be allowed to pass the important stage of second reading without discussion?

If had thought that I should not have asked the Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given before the Wreck Commissioner in the case of the steamship Elephant; whether an officer of the Board of Trade admitted that he met the Elephant in the Thames in an overladen condition, but took no steps whatever to stop her; and, whether he has considered the conduct of the officer in question?

The evidence given before the Wreck Commissioner in the case of this vessel has been under my notice. It is true that a subordinate officer of the Board of Trade, who was coming up the river in one of the ordinary passenger steamers, saw the Elephant going down the river in what he believed to be an overladen condition. That officer had no authority to detain ships; and even if he had had such authority he could not have stopped the steamer he was on. When the officer landed from the river steamer the Elephant had passed out of reach.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir Henry Bulwer still holds the office of Special Commissioner for Zulu affairs; and, if so, what are the duties of that office, and over what portions of Zululand those duties extend?

Sir Henry Bulwer is still Special Commissioner for Zulu affairs. His jurisdiction and duties may best be described by reading a passage from his commission by which he was appointed to conduct all relations with the Native Tribes in Zululand, except in regard to matters affecting the Transvaal State—

"We do hereby authorize and empower yon, in our name and on our behalf, to take all such, measures and to do all such things in relation to the Native Tribes in Zululand as are lawful and appear to you to be advisable for maintaining our Colony of Natal in peace and safety, and for promoting the peace, order, and good government of the tribes aforesaid, and for preserving friendly relations with them."

May I ask the hon. Gentleman when he will be able to lay fresh Papers on the Table relating to this subject?

Within a few days, Sir.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If he has any information of the existence of a practice among underwriting and insurance companies to any large extent of affording undue facilities for the over-insurance of ships with a view to the increased premium thus obtainable; whether the over-insurance of ships, especially of ships of a markedly unseaworthy character, can, according to the information of the Government, take place to any large extent without the connivance or culpable negligence of underwriting companies operating with a view to excessive premiums; and, whether he will undertake to complete the Bill before the House by restrictions upon the facilities which may now be possessed by underwriting and insuring companies for tempting the owners of unseaworthy ships to effect excessive insurances for the sake of the high premiums obtainable upon such over-insurance?

In the first of these three Questions the hon. Member appears to impute to the Underwriting and Insuring Companies the practice of affording undue facilities for the over-insurance of ships. All I can say is, that I have no information of the existence of such a practice. With regard to the second Question, it cannot, I think, be to the interest of the Underwriters knowingly to insure ships of a markedly unseaworthy character; but it is, in my opinion, almost impossible for them to exercise such a supervision over ships as to prevent over-insurance altogether. As regards the third Question, I am not aware of any temptation to owners to effect excessive insurances, except that offered by the law in connection with valued policies on ship and freight. The Merchant Shipping Bill before the, House imposes heavy penalties on Underwriters who effect void insurances, and I do not think that any further provision is necessary.

Has the Board of Trade no information as to whether Underwriters continue to offer facilities for over-insurance?

I am not aware that Underwriters do offer facilities for over-insurance of ships, knowing them to be over-insured.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What does he now estimate will be the cost of the Irish Land Commission this year; and, will a Supplementary Estimate be necessary, in consequence of the decision of the Government to extend the employment of the temporary Sub-Commissioners until July?

I am sorry to say a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary. I have not received the particulars of it; but I am told by telegram that the additional sum asked for will exceed £23,000.

What has been the Estimate charge for the past year?

About £90,000. The £23,000 will be additional to this.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has observed the following statement of The Times Correspondent in Cairo, published on May 20th:—

"After repeated attempts I have succeeded in finding a Greek knowing the Country, who undertakes to convey messages to Khartoum and to bring back answers in about two months, provided that £1,000 be guaranteed to him, payable on the delivery of the replies, nothing to be payable in the event of failure. I am earnestly requested to give the utmost publicity to this offer, as it promises apparently the sole probable means of ascertaining the real situation of General Gordon;"

and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take advantage of this chance of communicating with General Gordon?

Her Majesty's Government have left to Mr. Egerton, Acting Agent and Consul General at Cairo, lull discretion as to despatching messengers to Khartoum. Various offers of a similar kind to that cited by the hon. Member have been made; and Mr. Egerton will, no doubt, select the means which he, being on the spot, considers most likely to be effectual.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can give any further information as to the present position of Admiral Sir William Hewett and the progress of the negotiations with the King of Abyssinia?

The latest information received is to the effect that the Admiral, whole ft Massowah on April 7, had reached Adowa on the 6th of May, and was awaiting the arrival of the King, who was expected on the 12th instant. He was accompanied by Mason Bey, the Governor of Massowah, and Captain T. C. S. Speedy, a gentleman well acquainted with the language and customs of the Abyssinian Court and county. Admiral Sir William Hewett states that he was being treated hospitably by Ras Aloula, and that the officers and others attached to the mission were in good health.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Governor of Madras declines to pay Professional Tax in Madras, on the grounds that he never resides there, but that he spends five months of the year at his country seat of Guindy, and the other seven months at Ootacamund, on the Nilgiri Hills; and, whether Her Majesty's Government sanctions this arrangement on the part of a Governor of Madras?

We have no information on this subject; but I may inform the hon. Member for Cavan that the Governor of Madras does not appear to be liable to pay Professional Tax under the City of Madras Municipal Act 5 of 1878.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If it is true that under the limit of age, namely, twenty-two years, for the admission of candidates to the India Civil Service examinations, which prevailed from 1851 to 1866, a number of Natives of India were enabled to outer by competitive examination; whether the limit of ago was reduced during the period from 1866 to 1876 to twenty-one years, but Natives of India, though only in the proportion of one a year, were still enabled by exceptional study to enter by competitive, examination; whether the limit of age was reduced in 1876 to nineteen years, and has been maintained at that early age ever since, with the result that not a single Native of India has been able to enter by competitive examination for the past eight years; whether the Government was informed that if the age of entrance was fixed sufficiently early it would practically exclude Natives of India from the competition for the India Civil Service, owing to the difficulty of acquiring the English language and of crossing the seas to England in mere boyhood; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take immediate steps to restore their former opportunities of examination to the Natives of India?

The best answer to this Question will be an accurate statement of the facts relating to the maximum limits of age, fixed from time to time, and of the number of Natives who have been selected by open competition for the Indian Civil Service. From 1855 to 1859, inclusive, 23 was the limit of ago. During those years no Native of India was selected. From 1860 to 1865, inclusive, 22 was the limit. During that period one Native was selected. From 1866 to 1878, inclusive, 21 was the limit of age. Thirteen competitive examinations were held in those years, and 10 Natives of India were selected. From 1878 to 1883, inclusive, 19 was the limit; and during this period one Native of India was selected. The limit now (under an alteration, taking place last year for the first time) is practically 19½ for the examination takes place in June, and what the Rule requires is that the candidate should not be over 19 on the 1st of January preceding the examination. The hon. Member asks whether Government was informed that, if the age of examination was fixed sufficiently early, it would practically exclude Natives? The Government of India, in a letter of the 2nd of May, 1878, written some time after it had been decided to reduce the age to 19, expressed the opinion that

"The recent reduction of the standard of age for the competitive examination will practically render the competition of Natives educated in their own country a matter of exceptional difficulty."

The assumption that the limitation of age to 19 years prevents the appointment of Natives is hardly borne out by the facts. Twelve Natives altogether have entered the Covenanted Civil Service. One, aged 20, was selected in 1863; four, three aged 20, and one 19, were selected in 1869; one, aged 19, was selected in 1870; one, aged 20, was selected in 1871; one, aged 20, was selected in 1873; two, aged 18 and 17 respectively, were selected in 1874; one, aged 19, was selected in 1877; one, aged 17, was selected in 1882. Of this total 11 were selected when the limit was 21 or upwards. Of these, six were 20 when they competed, three were 19, one was 18, and one was only 17; and the one successful candidate since 1878 was only 17. The establishment of the "Statutory" Civil Service, to which Natives are appointed in India in the proportion of one to every six selected by competition in England, must be taken into account in estimating the effect of the present arrangements. The Government has no present intention of making any alteration in the Rule as to the limit of age.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, If his attention has been called to the fact that itinerant lay preachers are permitted by the Park Constables of Hyde Park each Sunday to make politico-religious orations in that part of the park used by visitors solely for the purpose of promenade; if he is aware that last Sunday three or four rival preachers, one a young man in a sporting grey suit, disturbed the visitors seated round the Achilles Statue by loud-toned orations and singing; and, if he will give orders to the Park Constables to prevent such conduct in future?

By the Rules of the Park addresses may be delivered in a certain specified part of it, which includes the spot referred to by the hon. Member. I am informed that nothing has occurred lately on Sundays in contravention of the Rules which would justify the police in interfering.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to inquire into the whole question of the duties now levied upon tobacco imported into the United Kingdom?

In reply to the hon. Gentleman, I have to remind him that the Motion which he recently made on the subject of the Tobacco Duties only referred to the duties on tobacco, either imported in a manufactured state or unmanufactured in bond. This is a simple question which I will further consider before next year, having regard to the settlements made after very careful inquiry in 1863 and 1878. But in the debate on the hon. Gentleman's Motion the general question of the Tobacco Duties was raised by suggestions to introduce the system of ad valorem duties with a view largely to reduce the charge on unmanufactured tobacco. This charge now produces over £8,500,000 a-year, and I am not prepared to submit to a Select Committee such a question, considering the magnitude of the Revenue involved, and the absolute abandonment by Parliament of the system of ad valorem duties. My answer to the hon. Gentleman must, therefore, be in the negative.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of information concerning the forcible seizure and detention of the British yacht Maud, by the Portuguese authorities, on the South African coast?

We know nothing at all about the matter at the Colonial Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made? The matter has been fully reported in the Liverpool papers.

I will get hold of the Liverpool papers and look at the reports.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the four gentlemen who estimated the insurance value of certain steamers made the usual survey and examination of the vessels and their machinery to enable them to arrive at a just conclusion; whether two of them, viz., Mr. White (underwriter to the Marine Insurance Company) and Mr. Stringer (formerly a shipbroker) are professional valuers; and, whether he, before accepting their valuation as authoritative, took any steps to inform himself as to their possessing any scientific or practical acquaintance with the construction and values of ships and machinery?

, in reply, said, that he had ordered copies of the Question to be forwarded to the gentlemen referred to, and as soon as he received their replies he would give a full answer to the Question.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any inquiry was held with regard to the loss of the steamer Inchclutha, and with what result; whether there was any suggestion, either then or since, that the vessel was overladen or undermanned; and, whether he referred to the vessel on Tuesday without giving the owners any notice of the statement which he intended to make, and therefore without affording the opportunity of making a reply?

If the hon. Member will refer to the report of my speech in The Times he will find that I said—

"I am going to ask the House to consider the case of two vessels, both belonging to owners of whose honour, integrity, and high character there cannot be the slightest doubt;"

and that, after giving certain details connected with the two vessels, I added, as regards the Inchclutha—

"There was an inquiry into this case, and the Court found that the lost vessel was seaworthy and not overladen."

In these circumstances, I do not see that there was any reason for communicating with the owners before stating the facts.

said, that in consequence of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman, he gave Notice of a further Question—"Whether the Inchclutha and the Ajax, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned in his speech as having sailed on the same voyage from the same port on the same day, were not, as a matter of fact, engaged in entirely different sailings; whether the one was homeward bound from Calcutta, and the other outward bound from Liverpool to China with passengers and cargo; whether, in comparing the crews of the two vessels with a view to sustain his allegations as to the one, he overstated the number of effective hands on board the other by including the doctor, the stewardess, and the cabin servants; whether he was in a position to give the name of any cargo steamer which carried a crew numerically as strong as a passenger steamer; whether it was not the fact that the insured value of the Inchclutha was less than the cost of replacing her, and that the vessel at the time she was lost was chartered in advance for nine months; and, whether the right hon. Gentleman notwithstanding the result of the inquiry, still wished the House to understand that this vessel was overladen, and undermanned, and over-insured; or whether he withdrew unreservedly all imputations against Messrs. Hamilton, Fraser, and Co., or would endeavour to substantiate his allegations by taking steps of such a character as would enable the gentlemen whom he had traduced to be heard in reply?

said, he would give an answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman if he would put it in proper language on the day he proposed to ask it. In the meantime, he would say that the hon. Member had misquoted the statement he made. He did not say these vessels started from the same port on the same day on the same voyage. Neither had he alleged that the Inchclutha was overladen. On the contrary, he distinctly stated that the Court of Inquiry found that she was not overladen. Neither did he allege that she was undermanned, although he showed that the proportion of the crew was smaller than in the case of the Ajax. He brought no allegations of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.

said, he quoted from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman as reported in the newspapers, and as sent to him by the owners.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in consequence of a letter which has appeared impugning the accuracy of the reports, whether we are to understand that the mis-statements in his speech, of which he complains, are attributed by him to the reporters or to any other cause?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether there has been a raid recently on the road railway works on the Hurnai route, when several Native workmen were killed and wounded, and if he can state whether our political agent or the Khan of Khelat is responsible for the protection of those workmen; and, what arrangements are contemplated for the permanent protection of the men who are engaged in the Military Trans-Frontier Line, and at whose expense this protection will be accorded?

No official Report on this subject has yet been received; but it is believed that the fact is as stated by my hon. Friend. The protection of the workmen employed on the Hurnai road rests with our Political Agent, by whom also, in conjunction with the military authorities, the arrangements necessary for the permanent protection of the workmen will be made at the expense of the Government of India.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as the opinion of the House of Commons had not been asked as to the removal from the capital of the Empire of the national monument of the Duke of Wellington, and after the recent vote in "another place," the Government would give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion before the First Commissioner of Works proceeded with the further mutilation of the statue? He would also like to know if he would state to the House what the Government proposed to do in reference to the recent vote in "another place?"

Hon. Members will recollect that on the first night of this month, after a second and very full discussion of the proposal with respect to the statue of the Duke of Wellington, the House, by a majority of 219 to 108, or more than 2 to 1, affirmed the scheme, and voted a sum of £2,000 towards an order for a new statue to be erected in the centre of the place at Hyde Park Corner. The House of Lords had previously, by a majority, affirmed the same scheme, and I had also the approval of Her Majesty. Under these circumstances, I considered the matter to be concluded, and the controversy at an end; and I therefore at once gave an order to Mr. Boehm for a new statue, and requested that preparations should be made by the War Office for the removal of the existing colossal statue to Aldershot. These preparations are in a very forward state, and a commencement has already been made to take the statue to pieces with a view to its removal. I hope, therefore, it will not be considered that it is from any want of respect to the House of Lords that the Government feel unable to carry out the more recent Resolution of that House, and that it must complete the arrangements already agreed upon and which are in course of execution. The noble Lord the Member for North Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) and others on that side of the House will, I am sure, admit that I have been very anxious in this case to avoid controversy and to do what would be agreeable to all. If I have failed in arriving at a course which meets with general approval, it arises from the difficulty which is inseparable from all questions of taste and sentiment, and I am not aware of any other plan which would not have raised greater opposition. With respect to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I consider the whole subject he refers to was fully discussed and settled in the debate on the Vote; and I cannot offer him any facilities for raising the question again.

Perhaps I may be allowed the opportunity of expressing my sense of gratitude at the right hon. Gentleman's extreme anxiety throughout all these proceedings to conciliate, if possible, the views and the different interests involved in this question. I wish to ask him, however, what preparations are being made at Aldershot for the reception of the statue?

I do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord will put the Question to-morrow.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will not consider the advisability of gratifying at the same time the wishes of the right hon. Baronet and the people of Dublin by removing to London the Wellington monument there, which has long been an eyesore and a nuisance to the population?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he proposes to move for the Select Committee to inquire into the subject of the condition of the Irish Labourers?

I intend to move for the Committee after Whitsuntide, during which period I shall consult with the Irish Government as to the scope of the Reference. My own view is that it should be to inquire into the working of the Labourers' Cottage Act of 1883, which was the subject of the Bill that was before the House yesterday, and I should wish that every question started upon that Bill would receive consideration.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, since giving his reply to the Question of the 15th instant with regard to the portrait of Lord Beaconsfield and the mottoes "Peace with Honour," in the National Schools at Rothwell, any further information has come to his hand with regard to the explanation given to him by the master of the schools?

I have received several communications on that subject. It is now admitted that all the mottoes were removed after the banquet, except the motto in question, which was removed only after the Notice of the hon. Member's Question. I hope that is the last I shall hear about the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, since giving his reply to the question with regard to the subject of the Chan trey bequest, he is aware that the subject of the administration of the Chantrey bequest is much discussed by artists; whether, inasmuch as charitable donations and bequests by will are subject to supervision by Parliament, and by Commissioners appointed by Parliament, the Government acquiesces, in the view of the President of the Royal Academy, that the trust in question is of such an exclusive character as not to allow of any interference whatever from without; whether it is a fact that the bulk of the fund is now absorbed by members of the Royal Academy buying the works of their own body; and, whether, privileges having been granted by Parliament to the Academy, with a local habitation, at the expense of the nation, inquiry will be made, in the interest of art, into a matter affecting an institution so important in its public influence and character as the Royal Academy?

As to what the right hon. Baronet has embodied in the first portion of his Question, I am not possessed of that information in detail, and I have not felt justified as a Minister of the Crown in asking for it. The essential point in the case, which I am afraid I have not fully stated before, is that we have absolutely no power of instituting an inquiry in this matter. The Royal Academy, no doubt, stands in a certain relation to the Crown or to the State. It may be a little difficult to say which originally; but, whatever that relation may be, it does not invest the Executive Government with any sort of discretionary authority in regard to their proceedings.

reminded the right hon. Gentleman, as to the statement that the Government had no power, that a Commission in 1863 inquired into the position of the Royal Academy. In further enlarging on the subject of the administration of the Chantrey Trust, and while quoting from the Report of this Commission—

said, the right hon. Baronet would not be in Order unless he intended to found a Question on the quotation.

said, he intended to do so. He would ask the Prime Minister, whether the President and Council of the Royal Academy were, in fact, trustees for the public of the works of Art purchased out of the funds at their disposal as the property of the nation; and, whether the Government, as in the case of charitable donations and bequests by will, could not interfere? If the right hon. Gentleman gave him an unsatisfactory answer, he would call attention on the first opportunity to the position of the Royal Academy.

I have every disposition to give as satisfactory an answer as I can; and if I do not do so it is not really my will, but my poverty, that is in question. I am absolutely correct in saying that the Government have no power whatever, although the nation, no doubt, has a great interest in the good administration of those trusts and of many others. No doubt a Royal Commission was instituted to inquire into the condition and management of the Royal Academy; but I am correct in saying that that Commission was instituted with the good will and assent of the Academy itself. Unless it had been so instituted, it would have had no power of producing any result.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the matter on an early day.

asked the Right honourable Sir Richard Cross, Whether he can inform the House when the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies is likely to be presented?

With regard to this Question, I may state that these Questions are usually addressed to the Secretary of State, who obtains the information, and not the Secretary to the Royal Commission. I am not aware that a Member of any Royal Commission is entitled to state anything in this House or elsewhere as to the opinions of any of the Commissioners until their Report is presented to the Queen. I have, however, received a letter from the Secretary to the Commission, and I am willing to state this. The Report and all the evidence connected with it will, no doubt, make a very large number of volumes; but the first volume containing the Report is in a very forward state to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. I can assure the hon. Member, as far as I am concerned, and as far as the Secretary is concerned, there will be no delay in the presentation of that volume containing the Report in consequence of the opinion of any of the Commissioners.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the Government intend sending a flotilla of armed boats to Dongola, Berber, Khartoum, and other besieged places on the Upper Nile, for the purpose of relieving the garrisons, so soon as there is sufficient water to float the boats over the cataracts; and, further, what mea- sures, if any, are being adopted to communicate with General Gordon?

I wish to ask, whether the Government are, or have been, in communication with Messrs. Cook, of Cook's tourist lame, in reference to the supply of vessels for the rescue of General Gordon?

With respect to the Question on the Paper, what has happened is simply this. On the requisition of General Stephenson, and with the full assent of the Admiralty at home, Lord John Hay is at present making arrangements for patrolling by steamboats a certain portion of the Nile. I am not able to state absolutely as to what that portion is; but I believe it is above Assiout, and it is certainly below Wady Halfa. Whether it extends all the way to Wady Halfa I do not know. These steamers belong to the Khedive; but there will be a small company of British, sailors on board each. It is purely a measure having reference to arrangements in the interior of Egypt.

Are British officers on board?

I presume that is probable; I think it must be so.

I shall ask a Question to-morrow on the subject.

I find that I omitted to answer one part of the hon. Member's Question. Her Majesty's Government are using every effort they can to communicate with General Gordon; but it would not be of advantage, and might be very inconvenient, if the exact means employed were now stated.

I wish to ask a Question as to the course of Public Business. The Chief Secretary stated a few nights ago that he would state to-day on what occasion he would present the Bill, and make a statement with reference to the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act. In the event of its being Tuesday, I would like to know whether the speech will be made, and the Bill presented on the Motion for Adjournment?

Yes, Sir; the proposal is that the subject should be introduced on Monday night for the purpose of making it an Order of the Day, not for the purpose of statement or discussion, and that then it should become the first Order on Tuesday.

said, that the first Business that evening would be the Vote on Account; the second, the Civil Service Estimates; and the third, the National Debt Bill, which, however, would not be taken after 11 o'clock.

asked the Prime Minister, Whether it was the intention of the Government that the House should adjourn after the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, or whether there should be an Evening Sitting on that day? His reason for asking the question was because his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) had the first Notice of Motion on the Paper for Tuesday with reference to the Report of the Crofters' Commission.

presumed that the House would wish to adjourn after the Morning Sitting on Tuesday. If they met in the evening, and that incident were to happen which was not altogether unknown, there would be a necessity for the House to meet on Wednesday.

asked whether the Army Estimates would be taken immediately after Whitsuntide or not?

said, he was unable at present to fix another day for proceeding with the Army Estimates.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the War Department has recently disposed of a valuable piece of land at Southsea, on which it is proposed to erect a Liberal Club; if so, whether the land was sold by public auction or after invitation of tenders; and, whether the Department is prepared to offer similar facilities for the acquisition of sites for the erection of a Conservative or other political Club at Portsmouth?

A building called Hampshire House, at Portsmouth, being no longer required by the War Department, has been sold, on the recommendation of the General Officer Commanding at Portsmouth, at a valuation to Mr. Alderman King, who in his application stated that he wished to purchase the house on behalf of the Committee of a Club. There was nothing in the correspondence to show that this Club was to be of a political character. The Department has not offered special facilities in this case to any particular Association. They have sold the land at the price at which it was valued by Messrs. Clutton.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether it was a fact that Lord Dufferin had been instructed to enter into negotiations with the Government of the Porte, with a view to obtain the assistance of Turkish troops for operations in the Soudan, either with or without the co-operation of English troops?

It is true that the hon. Member gave me private Notice a short time ago of this Question; but it is not in my power to reply to it at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state how many miles the Russian Forces have advanced from the Caspian towards India, (i.e., from Krasnovodsk by road to Sarakhs) since Her Majesty's present Ministers came into Office?

The Russian advance from Krasnovodsk had reached Kizil Arvat, a distance of 144 miles, in December, 1870. It ceased till 1877, when it was resumed. In 1879 it had reached Dengel Tepe, a total distance of 254 miles. Since then it has been continued as far as Baba Dermaz, a distance of about 375 miles.

asked whether one of the Sarakhs was not now in possession of a Russian force?

said, that when Notice was given of the hon. Member's Question he had himself given Notice that he would at the same time ask the noble Lord whether he could state the comparative acquisitions of territory by Russia during the respective periods when the late Government and the present Government were in Office? Was the noble Lord now in a position to make such a statement, including the acquisition of The Port of Batoum and other territory in Armenia?

repeated the substance of the answer he had already given to the hon. Member for Eye. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Carlow, he had framed his previous answer so as to cover both the periods mentioned.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the extraordinary inaccuracy of the noble Lord's answer in reference to the advance of Russia, and to a statement made by the official Russian journal of the Caucasus, containing the following words: —

"If we desired we could undoubtedly conquer India; but our policy is to liberate Indians from the British yoke."