asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, in the land case of Andrew M'Cale, of Gallon, Killinkere, Virginia, county Cavan, the solicitors for landlord and tenant agreed, by compromise of a disputed measurement, that 18 3 4 should be the basis for valuation, and that, in spite of said agreement, the Sub-Commissioners settled the measurement at 19 acres; and, whether he can explain the ground of the decision?

I have seen the Chairman of the Sub-Commission before which this case was heard. It was heard several months ago, and he has no recollection, nor any note, of the particular circumstances referred to. I asked him to communicate with the other Sub-Commissioners, and ascertain whether they could give any information on the subject, and this he undertook to do. I may mention that the records in the Land Commission Office show that the difference in the measurement was not what is stated in the Question, but only 16 perches.

Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Cavan, you will allow me to explain, as this is a matter which concerns me. I have the honour to be the landlord concerned in the case about which the hon. Member for Cavan has asked, and I remember the case perfectly well. There was a survey made on behalf of the tenant, which made the area of the holding 18 acres 3 roods 18 perches, and the landlord's surveyor made the area 19 acres 1 rood 14 perches. We threw off the 1 rood 14 perches, and by mutual agreement made the area 19 acres. So that the hon. Member for Cavan will see that he has been wrongly informed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Albert Hutton, of Rockfield Swanlinton, is about to be appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the county of Cavan; and, whether that gentleman was bankrupt or insolvent in England?

I am informed that this gentleman was appointed to the Commission of the Peace by the late Lord Chancellor more than two years ago. He did not then take out his Commission; but he has recently applied for it. There is no information whatever before the Lord Chancellor to show that this gentleman was either bankrupt or insolvent in England at any time.

It is a very easy thing to find out whether this gentleman was insolvent or not, if the Lord Chancellor would be willing to make the inquiry.

said, there was no objection to do so.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that at last Quarter Sessions held at Trim, county Meath, the cases for hearing (or some of them) were postponed owing to non-attendance of Sessional Crown Prosecutor, Mr. George Keogh, and if, when he subsequently attended, the Chairman severely rebuked him, Mr. Keogh explained, by stating he was unavoidably delayed by unusual train arrangements; whether, when questioned by the Chairman as to his reason for not being at Trim over night, he pleaded pressure of business and a wish to save expense; is it a fact that a case in which Mr. Keogh was interested was also postponed; will the Government sanction such a miscarriage of justice, and permit such hardship to all interested; what is the amount of Mr. Keogh's salary, and what the amount meant to cover expenses; do the Government consider Mr. Keogh can properly and efficiently discharge public duty as Sessional Crown Prosecutor, holding, as he does, at the same time, a multitude of official positions, amongst which may be enumerated Solicitor to Dublin and Wicklow Railway Company, Solicitor to Bray Commissioners (Town), Solicitor to Cemeteries Committee (Glas-nevin), with very constant attendance in London, and also private practice; what is the nature and quality of his staff to transact this crowd of work; and, if the Government will appoint a Solicitor as Meath Sessional Crown Prosecutor who will be better able to discharge the duties belonging to such office?

I must ask the hon. Member to be good enough to repeat this Question on a later day, as I have not yet received information on the subject from Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a newspaper report of the proceedings of the Belfast Police Court, of the 10th instant, in which Constable Walsh summoned Mr. John Spratt, a schoolmaster in the Belfast Workhouse, for seriously assaulting a pauper pupil of his school, named Corr, who is only eleven years of age; if it be true that the constable who made the complaint, the boy Corr, Dr. Aicken, and Dr. Corry, were all examined, and testified to the brutal nature of the assaults; the medical evidence particularly setting forth that twelve wounds were still visible on the lad's body, from some of which the blood had flowed freely; if it be true that the presiding magistrate, Mr. Gaffikin (who is also a guardian, and originally ordered Corr to be flogged), dismissed the complaint; is it true that there are twelve other boys in the Workhouse schools who were similarly treated at the same time, and whose cases have not undergone investigation; and, will the Local Government Board retain Mr. Spratt in his situation?

I am informed that the prosecution in this case was undertaken by order of the District Inspector; and the magistrates, after hearing the evidence, dismissed it. The presiding magistrate was not Mr. Gaffikin, but Dr. Browne; and he announced the decision. Mr. Gaffikin, who sat with him, is an elected Guardian, and is one of a number of Guardians who recently ordered corporal punishment to be inflicted on several boys for insubordination; but he did not, as alleged, order the boy Corr to be flogged individually. From the Reports submitted to me by the Local Government Board, it appears that the matter has been specially investigated by the School Committee of Belfast Union. There has been a great deal of insubordination in the school, which rendered corporal punishment necessary. Corr was punished for disorderly conduct, and using very violent language. The punishment was carried out in accordance with the Workhouse Rules. The Committee examined Corr and other boys, and state that none of them present the appearance of having been severely punished. As the Guardians are giving the necessary attention to the state of the school, the Local Government Board do not consider their intervention necessary at present.

Does the right hen. Gentleman think that boating a boy until the blood flows from his back is within the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board?

The Committee state that the boy was not severely injured.

The sworn evidence in the Court was that he was actually beaten until 12 bleeding wounds were visible.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, If his attention has been called to the following statements, made at a meeting of the Tonbridge Board of Guardians, with reference to the Speldhurst National School: — A labourer named Miles, an industrious man earning 15s. per week, with seven children to keep, had a son, nine years of age, at school, who had passed from the third to the fourth standard, and was sent home to procure 1s. 1d. for the books which he required. He was sent back with the message that his father was too poor to send the money. He was sent home a second time, but returned with the same message. Since then he had been to school regularly, but had simply to set on a stool all day without learning anything at all. The same man had taken three girls from the Speldhurst School because they were put to menial work, such as scrubbing floors, instead of being taught. The Chairman of the Board drew attention to the following Letter, addressed by the Schoolmaster to Mr. Miles, as follows:—

"Speldhurst, 18th May, 1884.

"The Master begs to inform Mr. Miles he does not refuse to take your boy at school, only that he cannot work any more than other boys or yourself without proper tools;"

My attention has been called to the case referred to in the hon. Member's Question, and the managers of the Speldhurst School state the labourer Miles is in receipt of a much larger income than 15s. per week. In fact, that with his boy's earnings he is in receipt of 26s. 6d. and a garden allowance. They further state that they offered to accept payment for the books by an instalment of 1d. per week, which the parents refused to pay. They deny that the boy was neglected, and state that he was continually kept at work. The Department is of opinion that, having regard to the offer of the managers, there is no reasonable ground of complaint.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state the result of the inquiry into the charges made, four months ago, as to the conduct of two police officers at Rosslea on the 13th of February; and, what is the explanation of the delay?

I have not been able to identify with certainty the charges to which the hon. Member refers. If he will mention particulars, I shall have further inquiry made.

I must give the right hon. Gentleman credit for the promptitude with which he generally answers Questions; but I must say, at the same time, that when anything is asked as to the conduct of the police in Ireland— [Cries of "Order!"]

Order, order!

asked Mr. Attorney General, If he is aware of any decision whereby persons living in Artizans' Dwellings are excluded from the franchise, either as occupiers or lodgers; and, if so, will the Law in this respect be remedied?

in reply, said, he was not aware of any cases where it had been so decided in reference to artizans' dwellings as such, or in relation to any particular dwellings; but there was a case decided some three years ago which he thought did cover circumstances similar to those attached to artizans' dwellings. He thought there could be no doubt that such occupiers would be occupying tenants so as to be entitled to vote.

said, it had boon decided in Ireland that persons occupying artizans' dwellings were neither occupiers nor lodgers; and he asked the hon. and learned Gentleman if he would have any objection, to make the matter clear by inserting a clause in the Representation of the People Bill?

replied, that, of course, he had not searched the Irish Reports, and he was not aware of their decisions. He should speak to his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the result of the Government inquiries into the charges brought by Mrs. Eliza Colgan against Mr. Thomas Gerrard, Crown Solicitor, Queen's County, in the matter of the trust property of a deceased convict; how many years has the inquiry been proceeding; and, what steps do the Executive intend to take in the matter?

Sir, so long as over 13 years ago Mrs. Colgan, who certainly is much to be pitied, was informed that the Government could not interfere in it. Mrs. Colgan has repeatedly renewed her appeals to the Government; but it is impossible to give her any other reply. She has been advised that if she considers that she has any claim upon Mr. Gerrard, she should place her case in the hands of her legal adviser.

This was a trust property of a deceased person to which she succeeded to the title. Is it possible that there is no way of obtaining redress from the Government for the poor woman?

Unfortunately, the Government officer, the former Crown Solicitor, had also been acting in the capacity of her private solicitor when he took the action, which I think quite as strongly upon as the hon. Member. I am afraid there is no means of redress open.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Master of the Mint, Whether there is any objection to the Fourteenth Annual Report of the Deputy Master of the Mint being circulated amongst Members in the same manner as the Annual Reports of the Commissioners of Excise and Customs; and, if not, whether he will give instructions for the said Report to be delivered to Members as a Parliamentary Paper?

in reply, said, that any Member who desired it could obtain a copy of the Report at the office for the sale of Parliamentary papers; but he was very unwilling to add to the quantity of papers circulated.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether Lieutenant Colonel Hope, V.C. has offered to supply the War Office with 200 armour-piercing breech-loading "Hope" guns of the following descriptions: —

"100 of No. 1; a Gun of 7 tons in weight, and 18 feet in length, guaranteed to develop an energy per inch of circumference of projectile in excess of that developed by the 3 8-ton 'Woolwich' Gun, when fired with the maximum charge laid down in the Artillery Manual, namely, 160 lbs. of powder and a projectile of 818 lbs.:

"50 of No. 2; a Gun of about 17 tons in weight, and 23 feet 6 inches in length, to develop an energy per inch of circumference per projectile in excess of that developed by the 80-ton 'Woolwich' Gun, tired with its maximum charge of 425 lbs. of powder and a projectile of 1,700 lbs.:

"And, 50 of No. 3; a Gun of about 30 tons in weight, and 29 feet in length, to develop an energy of upwards of 1,000 foot tons per inch of circumference of projectile, which is in excess of the energy of any gun yet made, or known to be making, in any country in the world, or about equal to that of an imaginary Armstrong of 150 tons:

"The prices to be, in round numbers, 60 per cent, less than the cost of the Guns they replace, or £1,550 for No. 1, £3,800 for No. 2, and £7,900 for No. 3:

"The proof to be 10 rounds per Gun, composed of a solid projectile 5 calibres in length, taking the rifling so as to prevent any escape of gas, and a cartridge of powder, of not less than 15 calibres in length, all completely converted into gas within the Gun. The ammunition not to be paid for unless the Gun passes the proof; and no Gun to be paid for unless and until certified as passed;

The statements that Colonel Hope, V.C., has offered to supply the War Office with 200 armour-piercing breech-loaders of various descriptions are quite correct; but I have to say that these offers have not been accepted by the War Office. Colonel Hope has been told that if he will construct a gun on his principle and submit it with ammunition to the Ordnance Committee, it will be tried and duly reported upon. The correspondence is in Colonel Hope's possession, and he is at full liberty to make such use of it as he may deem proper.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, What number of children were emigrated to the Dominion of Canada in consequence of the Local Government Board's circular on the subject to the Metropolitan Boards of Guardians last summer; what reports have been received of such children, and whether the Local Government Board are satisfied with the official inspection of cases so emigrated; and, whether it is proposed to continue the emigration of pauper children; and, if so, will any limit of age be fixed?

The number of pauper children sent to Canada by Boards of Guardians during the season from May to August last year was 130, of whom 37 were from Metropolitan, and 93 from County Unions. No official Reports of the inspection of the children by the officers of the Dominion Government have as yet been received by the Board. The Board last month communicated with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, with the view of being furnished with such Reports. It is proposed for the present to continue the emigration of pauper children to Canada within certain limits. With regard to the age of the children, the Board have stated that, as a general rule, girls should not be sent out above the age of 10 years, and in no case, except under very exceptional circumstances, above the age of 12 years.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, When the Bill for the prevention of the Sale of Poisonous Patent Medicines will be introduced in the other House, as promised on the 26th of March last?

The Sale of Poisons Bill has been drawn, and the Lord President is in communication with the Lord Lieutenant as to its extension to Ireland. As soon as this point is decided the Bill will be introduced.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is in contemplation to make any further provision for the trial of Admiralty causes in the county of Lancaster; and, if so, what are the proposed provisions?

in reply, said, that however desirable it might be to make an arrangement of the kind, no power for such a purpose existed at present.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, What amount of Revenue money the Provincial Bank of Ireland generally holds; whether any other Bank in England or Scotland holds a similar monopoly; and, whether the Provincial Bank of Ireland facilitates the Revenue business by giving attendance of their clerks at the Revenue Offices in Ireland, similar to that given by the Bank of England and its agents, and by the Bank of Ireland at Dublin; and, if not, could he state the reason?

The Provincial Bank of Ireland holds, on an average, £35,000 of Inland Revenue money. In England the Inland Revenue accounts are kept with various banks; in Scotland by certain banks in rotation. The Provincial Bank gives every necessary facility for the receipt of Revenue money, the arrangements for paying in being the same in the Three Kingdoms.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Medical Officer of Naas Union with, reference to the drainage of Nass Barracks; whether, in reality, there is no other outlet than the Rathasker stream for the present drainage of the barracks; and, whether, in view of the very serious risk to the public health of the neighbourhood from the continued pollution of a water course which affords the only drinking supply to a considerable number of persons, and which is proportionately greater in the hot weather, when the volume of the stream is less, he will give directions for an immediate abatement of the nuisance by the Military authorities, without waiting for the elaboration of any scheme common to the barracks and the whole town?

, in reply, said, the Report of the medical officer of the Naas Union had been brought under his notice. The drainage of Naas Barracks discharged into tanks, from one of which there was an overflow pipe leading into the surrounding soil, and from it the overflow water might possibly at times percolate into the stream. Orders had been given that the overflow should be at once stopped.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Report of the Engineer of the Board of Works in Ireland, with reference to the Barrow Drainage, has been delayed pending the completion of valuation to be furnished by Mr. Fitzgerald; and, whether, as that valuation is now complete, he will cause the Report of the Engineer to be laid upon the Table; and, if he can state the total expense of the preliminary inquiry?

The Engineer's Report cannot be completed except upon consideration of that of the valuator. When received it will be presented to Parliament. The preliminary inquiries are expected to cost about £1,700, half of which will be paid by the public.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India. If Her Majesty's Government have received any official Report from India, giving an estimate of the numbers of the Russian forces now within striking distance of the Afghan frontier; and, if so, whether it is consistent with the public interest to communicate it to Parliament?

I need scarcely assure the hon. Member that the attention of the Government of India is directed to everything which affects the Afghan Frontier; and information has, of course, been received from time to time as to the Russian troops in that neighbourhood. But no such special Report as the hon. Member describes has been received from the Government of India; nor would it be consistent with the public interest to communicate information of this nature to Parliament.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the reason of the difficulty interposed by the Local Government Board to granting a sworn inquiry into the late election in the Cormeen Division of the Cortehill Union, respecting which so much correspondence has taken place; and, if it is the fact that in a matter of much smaller public interest the Local Government Board granted a sworn inquiry, on the application of a County Court Judge (Mr. O'Connor Morris), as to the non-collection of rates on a particular holding'? I understand now that an inquiry has been granted; but it is very extraordinary that although the correspondence lasted over two months the inquiry was not granted until a Question was put in Parliament.

Sir, the Local Government Board deferred ordering an inquiry into the Cormeen election, because they had not the necessary documents and information before them to enable them to decide whether such an inquiry was necessary. It was only a day or two ago that they received sufficient primâ facie evidence in support of the demand for an inquiry; and instructions will now be issued. With regard to the other matter referred to in the Question, the Board ordered the inquiry into the charge made by Mr. O'Connor Morris against a rate collector, because there appeared to be grounds for the complaint made. They have the Inspector's Report on the inquiry now under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the meeting of the Board of Guardians of Mountmellick Union on the 17th May last, the following Resolution was proposed and seconded, and that the Chairman, Colonel H. D. Garden, refused to receive it, or put it to the Board, viz.:—

"That the attention of the Local Government Board he called to the following facts:—

"That Mr. Mathew S. Cassan, prior to the last election of Guardians in Mountmelliek Union, lodged a claim to vote out of property situated in Kylecolmanbane electoral division as owner of said property, and voting papers were issued to him on the strength of said claim. At the scrutiny of votes, Documents lodged in the Court of Lunacy were produced and submitted to the returning officer, in which Documents Mathew S. Cassan declared that he had no right, title, or interest in said property, that he was virtually and in reality a pauper;

"The returning officer, on perusal of said Documents, disallowed the votes of the said M. S. Cassan;

"That the Statement of Claim made by Mathew S. Cassan appears to be knowingly and wilfully untrue, and in direct contravention of the law;

"We call on the Local Government Board to hold a full inquiry into same, so that proceedings may be taken against Mathew S. Cassan. under Section 12 of General Order dated 26th January 1852, in order that he and others may be deterred from making false claims in future, and so interfering with the purity of elections;"

I am informed that at the meeting of the Mountmellick Board of Guardians, a Resolution as quoted was proposed and seconded, and that the Chairman (Colonel Garden) refused to put it. He did so because he thought it was the duty of the Returning Officer, and not of the Board of Guardians, to deal with the matter referred to in the Resolution. The Local Government Board think that Colonel Garden would have been right in putting the Resolution; but there is no reason to suppose that he did not act bonâ fide, and according to his judgment in declining to do so, and I see no ground upon which I could cause an inquiry to be instituted by the Local Government Board as suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the following complaint is well founded:— That James Cushley enlisted, in August 1850, in the Artillery, and served the regulation period of twelve years; that on the 3rd January 1863, he was enrolled in the Army Reserve, under War Office Circular 514A, of 9th December 1859; that, after serving in the latter force for sixteen years, and having only one year more of service to make up for the full pension, he was, on the 8th January 1879, informed by the Staff Officer at Magherafelt that he was dismissed; that he had never undergone any medical examination previous and with a view to such discharge; that, on application to the War Office for a pension, he received a reply to the effect that he was

"Discharged for physical unfitness before having completed the equivalent of twenty-one years' service, and therefore not eligible for any pension under the gratuities;"

In 1878 a Regulation was made for removing from the strength, of the Reserve men who were physically unfit for duty. At the time it was not observed that such a Rule could not be made applicable legally to men enrolled under the Reserve Act of 1859, and when this was found out the discharges of such men were cancelled in all cases which were brought to notice. The case of James Cushley was not brought to notice; but as it clearly comes within the same Rule steps have now been taken to cancel his discharge in 1879, and to re-discharge him at the time when his service will count as 21 years. He will thus become entitled to pension.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the district of Ardagh, in the county of Limerick, is quite free from crime or outrage; and, if so, why extra police were sent there; and, to what account has the cost of those police been charged?

The district named is free from actual outrage; but it has been considered necessary to strengthen the police-station by two constables for special patrolling for the protection of a gentleman whose life is believed to be in danger. The extra men are a part of the county force and are chargeable as such, and not to the district of Ardagh.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the riotous and disorderly conduct of the Queen's Own Royal Staffordshire Yeomanry at Lich-field on Friday and Saturday last; and, whether he has ordered an investigation?

I have received a Report from the Inspector of Auxiliary Cavalry, who was ordered by the General Officer Commanding the District to investigate the statements which had appeared in some of the newspapers with reference to these occurrences. Lord Ralph Kerr states that as regards the rioting in the streets, and the insubordinate conduct on the part of the Yeomanry, the statements were greatly exaggerated. The Mayor of Lichfield has forwarded to the various newspapers a Resolution, passed at a large meeting of citizens, to the effect—

"That this meeting desires to express in the strongest possible manner its opinion that the reports which have appeared in the newspapers of to-day and last night of serious riots and disturbances in this city are grossly exaggerated, and ought to be contradicted without delay."

"Are of opinion that there was no riot, as alleged, and that the whole disturbance was confined to what occurred between trooper Smith and the man Ginns, and the attempted arrest of the former."

Will the noble Marquess also inquire whether, during the Yeomanry week, the magistrates contributed to the peace of the town by allowing the public-houses to be open longer than usual?

asked the First Commissioner of Works, When the remaining maps of the county of Glamorgan on the 6-inch scale will be issued to the public?

The Glamorgan sheets will be all published during the next 12 months, excepting about six, which contain portions of Monmouthshire.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, when the Foreign Office proposed to Venezuela the cession of the Island of Patos, they had been informed by the Colonial Office that that Island was the property of the Crown; whether recent Despatches have shown that it belongs to the Borough Council of Port of Spain; and, whether, irrespective of that question, Her Majesty's Government will now drop their negotiations for the cession of the Island, and inform the Government of Venezuela that it must either fulfil its Treaty obligations and grant redress for all wrongs already inflicted on British subjects, or it must submit all the questions in dispute to the arbitration of a neutral Power?

I do not understand my hon. Friend to raise any doubt as to the territorial Sovereignty of the Island of Patos being vested in Her Majesty. The recent despatches contain no new information as to the ownership. There never was any doubt at the Colonial Office as to the ownership of the Island being vested in the Council of Port of Spain, the capital of Trinidad, and not in the Crown. The Island is known to have been granted by the former Rulers of Trinidad to the Borough Council; but this cannot affect the question of territoriality. In regard to the negotiations, I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave on April 29 last; and I then stated that in regard to the Island of Patos, Her Majesty's Government had confined themselves to informing the Venezuelan Government that, should the other questions in dispute be satisfactorily settled, the wishes of the Venezuelan Government in regard to the Island would receive a favourable consideration.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has called the attention of Her Majesty's Minister at Washington to the circumstances under which Mr. Alfred Sheldon, a British subject and a native of the borough of Salford, was carried off from his home in Kansas six weeks ago, and for whose release a sum of 14,000 dollars is, together with other conditions, demanded by persons to whom, in letters to his friends containing no indication of the place of his detention, Mr. Sheldon refers as "the Committee," and by whom he states he is threatened with death if these terms be not complied with?

Yes, Sir; in consequence of a communication from Mr. Sheldon's family, instructions were sent by telegraph to Mr. West, on the 4th instant, to inquire into this case. Mr. West has replied that he has acted in the matter; but that some time must elapse before a Report can be received.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether Canon Hoste, the Chaplain of Farnham Workhouse, has objected to visitors to the workhouse conversing on religious subjects with inmates belonging to the Church of England, and also to some of the aged paupers meeting for Bible reading and prayers without his consent; whether the Guardians have issued prohibitory orders in compliance with the chaplain's request; whether complaints on the subject have proceeded from any other quarter, and whether the practices complained of have in any way interfered with the necessary discipline of the workhouse, or led to any other objectionable result; and, what steps have been taken by the Local Government Board to prevent such an infringement of religious liberty?

The Chaplain of the Farnham Workhouse brought under the attention of the Guardians the fact that young lady visitors visited the wards and conversed upon religious subjects with inmates belonging to the Church of England, and that tracts had been left for the inmates, which he regarded as an interference with his duties, and that some of the men met in an unused ward for the purpose of praying and reading the Bible, the meetings being led by an aged inmate. The Board understand that the Guardians decided that visitors to the workhouse should not be allowed to go about the wards for the purpose of religious conversation, but should confine their visits to the particular inmates whom they came to see. They also negatived a proposal that an arrangement as to the inmates meeting together for Bible reading, &c. should be permitted. But they ordered a supply of large-type Bibles, and directed that every inmate who wished it should have one for his own use. The Board are not aware that complaints have proceeded from any other quarter, or that the practices complained of have in any way interfered with the necessary discipline of the workhouse. The Board, when their attention was drawn to the matter, suggested, for the consideration of the Guardians, whether it was desirable to prohibit the meetings for Bible reading provided that they were held at times which did not interfere with the arrangements and discipline of the workhouse; that due regard was paid to the proper classification of the inmates; and that precautions were taken that undue pressure was not brought to bear upon inmates who did not desire to be present to secure their attendance. The Guardians, however, declined to alter their decision; and the Board, on the 14th instant, addressed to them a further communication, in which they expressed their regret, and pointed out the inexpediency of prohibiting these meetings if the conditions they suggested were complied with. They, at the same time, urged the Guardians to reconsider the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Is it the fact that the leave restrictions with reference to retiring pensions retained by the late Secretary of State for India in his Despatch No. 407 to the Viceroy of India, dated 8th December, 1881, are found to impede the retirement of Officers of the Indian Army, and to induce them to serve on for the highest rate of pension, thus burdening the Service with superfluous Field Officers, and throwing a heavy prospective charge on the people of India; and, is it in contemplation to take steps to facilitate the acceptance by Officers of the Indian Army of the pensions fixed in the above-named Despatch?

There is no information to show that a relaxation of the conditions of service for pension would induce officers to retire on the lower rates of pension. The general effect of such a relaxation would probably only be to give a few officers who have obtained an excessive amount of leave their pensions earlier than they should receive them. It is not proposed to make any change in the existing Regulations.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision have the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland come to as to the prosecution of Colonel Digby, J.P., Westmeath, for attempting to defraud the Land Commissioners by making false declarations in connection with the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Act?

The Law Officers have advised that the case is one in which a bill should be sent up to the Grand Jury at the next Assizes.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to give up the fortifications on Bere Island, commanding the entrance to Bantry Bay; what is the reason for this decision; why, if these fortifications are given up, those on Whiddy Island, at the head of the Bay, eighteen miles from the entrance, are to be retained; and, whether he can lay upon the Table any Reports or Correspondence on the subject?

Bere Island and the obsolete works upon it are to be abandoned, because the site is not considered to be one suitable for modern works of defence. Whiddy Island, being suitable as a site for such works, will be retained. The communications on the subject are regarded as confidential, and I cannot lay them on the Table.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Berber was stormed by the Mahdi's troops, and the garrison and male population put to the sword, owing to the failure of ammunition for which the Governor urgently asked on April 23rd?

There is no information received at the Foreign Office which would enable me to give an answer to the Question asked by the hon. Member. The latter part of the hon. Member's Question seems to me rather a matter of debate.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a Report that has been sent from Alexandria by Mr. Tuffnell, manager for Miss Sarah Robinson; whether it is not the case, as stated by Mr. Tuffnell, that several soldiers at Alexandria are undergoing terms of imprisonment ranging up to two, and in some instances three, years for no real crime, but only for drunkenness; whether many of the drinking establishments at Alexandria are kept by low-class Maltese, who sell to the soldiers stuffs of a horrible nature purporting to be English drinks, and whether the men are not thus drugged rather than intoxicated; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will cause some inquiries to be made as to the cases of those men, who are undergoing such severe punishment?

There is no information on the subject at the War Office; but inquiries will be addressed to the General Officer Commanding in Egypt.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the dying declaration of Patrick Slattery has been submitted to the Judge who tried the case of the "Queen v. Delahunty and brother;" and, if so, whether the learned Judge has expressed any opinion upon its bearing on the case?

Sir, the declaration has been submitted to the Judge, and it is at present before him.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the statement in The Times of 18th June that, after the stay of Her Majesty at Mentone, Lord Lyons was directed to make representations to the French Government as to the gambling at Monte Carlo, and accordingly did so, is correct; and, whether, if so, he will lay upon the Table of the House all Correspondence upon the matter; whether Her Majesty's Government is aware that at Nice, Vichy, Aix-les-Bains, and other places in France resorted to by those in search of health or amusement, establishments where gambling is permitted are a source of public revenue, and whether it is contemplated to make representations to the French Government, or to any other Government, in regard to this matter; and, whether any representations have been received, either from the Government of the Prince of Monaco or from any other Government, in regard to the facts that race meetings take place in some part of the United Kingdom, almost every week in the year, which are attended by men called "bookmakers," who are professional betters, and where public gambling is carried on with the full knowledge and assent of the Police?

No, Sir; the statement quoted in the 1st paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question is entirely incorrect. The Foreign Office would be going beyond its proper province if it was to make representations about gambling tables in France; and the same observation would apply to the Foreign Office of the Prince of Monaco if it was to make representations about race meetings in England.

Is it beyond the province of the Government to make inquiries with respect to the gambling establishment now in existence at Port Said?

That is not a matter arising out of this Question.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there are any reasons why, in the concessions which he contemplates making to cyclists with respect to Regent's Park, Batter-sea Park, and Victoria Park, the use of those parks should be allowed to those only for purposes of traffic, and not for purposes of exercise; whether, if so, he will inform the House what these reasons are, and what is a purpose of traffic in contradistinction to a purpose of exercise as applied to cycle riders; whether he will put himself into communication. with the ranger or rangers of the Royal Parks of the Metropolis, and with the ranger of the Royal Park of Richmond, in order to see whether it is either impossible or inexpedient to allow cyclists to use them at such hours and under such conditions as would not interfere with the use of them by those taxpayers whose means enable them to drive in carriages; and, whether he will especially consider whether it will be possible and expedient to permit cyclists to use the carriage road along Constitution Hill, which is maintained at the cost of the taxpayers, but from which all public vehicles, and the private carriages of almost all taxpayers, are excluded?

The deputation which I received on this subject a few days ago represented the great body of cyclists all over England. They informed me that a majority of their body saw grave objections to the opening to cyclists of Hyde Park and the other Parks not specified by them. They also stated distinctly that what they desired was the right of passing through Victoria, Battersea, and a certain part of the Regent's Park; and that until a general Act was passed regulating the use of velocipedes they did not desire to seek any further extension of the privilege which, in the absence of such regulations, they foresaw might be attended with inconvenience to the general public. After careful consideration, I conceded all that they asked, and this, I think, is as much as can be expected, or is desirable at the present time.

asked whether the deputation represented the cyclists of the United Kingdom, and not those of the Metropolis?

said, they represented the whole body throughout the United Kingdom.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any reason to hope that the Bill to establish a Secretary for Scotland, of which nothing has been heard for some weeks, will reach this House before the Session is very far gone; and, whether, seeing that both the Grand Committees are now without work, Her Majesty's Government will propose to refer the Scotch Bills pending in the House either to these Committees, with additional Members, or to a Scotch Committee substituted for one of them, or will otherwise devise some mode of dealing with them?

The first part of this Question is one which I have some difficulty in answering. When that particular Bill will reach this House from the House of Lords I cannot undertake to say. I am. sorry that the Bill has not been gone on with in the House of Lords. I suppose the press of Business there interferes with its progress. As to the second Question, I do not think that if the hon. Member had made himself acquainted with the position of Scotch Bills he would have put the Question on the Paper. There are three Scotch Bills before the House—the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, which has been referred to a Select Committee; the Sheriff Court Houses (Scotland) Amendment Bill, which is down for Committee to-day, unopposed; and the Universities (Scotland) Bill, which is awaiting a second reading. It is obvious that it is quite impossible to refer any of these Bills to a Grand Committee. They are in a favourable condition for passing, and I only wish the English Bills were in an equally favourable position.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the cause of the delay in proceeding with the Revision of Jurors and Voters Lists (Dublin County) Bill?

The want of a suitable opportunity prevents me from, pressing the Bill forward. On the last occasion when progress was made with the Bill the House was counted out.

The Bill has now escaped the Half-past 12 o'clock Rule, and can be taken up at any hour, if the Government so desire.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether the following statement appears in the tabulated records of the Registrar General, relating to the death of the daughter of a glass packer on 1st June, at 82, Southam Street, Kensal Town, W.:—

"This is the second death in my practice within a week, the cause of which was produced from pressure at a Board School.

"(Signed) W. H. BORHAM, M.D.;"

I have had no Notice of this Question, which appeared for the first time on the Paper this morning. I should not venture to express any opinion on Dr. Borham's statement until the cases have been fully investigated and reported upon by the London School Board, to whom they have been referred.

Has it not been already inquired into by the right hon. Gentleman's Department?

Some inquiry has been made; but the whole case has gone to the School Board for their investigation.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether in consequence of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, that a master of an Elementary School has ''no authority to impose upon children the duty of studying at home," he will revise the revised instructions to Inspectors by withdrawing from them that portion of Clause 51 in which it is declared a school marked "excellent" ought to provide "a regular system of home exercises?"

I see no reason to modify the instructions. All the Judges decided was, that a child could not be detained against the will of the parent in schools because it had not prepared its home lessons. But this does not prevent managers and teachers from providing a regular course of home lessons for children in the higher Standards.

If a parent refuses permission to a child to learn home lessons, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the authorities are justified in punishing the child?

As I understand home lessons are not obligatory upon a child; and, therefore, the child ought not to be punished for not learning them. At the same time, I do not think that one parent in 1,000,000 will object to home lessons.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take any steps to indicate what he has just stated to the School Boards throughout the country?

It is not necessary to do so. The School Boards are very well aware of the fact already.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council, Whether, with reference to the presentation of the Education (New Code) Instructions issued to Her Majesty's Inspectors, and applicable to the Code of 1884, by Command, the said Paper was presented in the form of a blank sheet of paper?

In order to save time and to secure an early distribution, I presented to the House the printed title page only of the "Instructions;" but they were actually in type at the time. The printing rests with the Stationery Office, and the circulation with the Vote Office, and I understand they will be delivered to Members to-morrow morning.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If it is a fact that there were only forty-three diseased animals in England on the thirteenth instant; and, whether measures could not be taken for destroying these forty-three animals, and thus stamping out the cattle disease?

asked, Whether, having regard to the extremely limited number of animals which still remain affected with foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to exercise the powers vested in the Privy Council for their compulsory slaughter, and to give full compensation for the same?

It is a fact that according to the [Returns on the 7th of June, not on the 13th of June, there were only 43 diseased animals in England—that is, animals affected with foot-and-mouth disease. On the 9th of June there was the Return of an outbreak among a flock of sheep in Lincolnshire, and on the 12th of June an outbreak amongst cattle in Kent. Up to the present time 369 animals have been reported affected with foot-and-mouth disease; 338 are sheep, and the remainder cattle. The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire will see that the number is not so very limited. Most of the Local Authorities in the various districts already possess powers of slaughtering if they choose to exercise them; the others can obtain them. The Privy Council have power to direct the authorities to slaughter the animals, and to grant compensation out of the rates. The Privy Council are watching these Returus very closely.

Would it not be possible to estimate the cost of slaughtering these animals?

It would be easy to put an estimate on them, though if the disease got among a herd of pedigree cattle the case might be different.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, seeing there are only by the last Returns forty-three animals in the Country suffering from foot and mouth disease, the Privy Council will not take measures to have those animals slaughtered, and thus have the United Kingdom free of this disease?

, in reply, said, that a Circular had been issued some time ago to Local Authorities calling attention to the matter.

Three months ago, or recently?

Less than three months ago.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has any certain information as to the condition of the crew of the Nisero later than up to the 31 st of March; whether it is not possible to arrange for news from the men of the Nisero at reasonable intervals, so as to relieve the dreadful suspense into which the families are now plunged; and, whether the Dutch Government have taked any practical steps to secure the release of the men of the Nisero since the failure of their ex- pedition in January; and, if so, what steps?

inquired whether there was not reason to believe that the repeated inquiries for information in this House as to the safety of the crew of the Nisero were not in a very short time communicated through Penang to the Rajah of Tenom, increasing the difficulties both of the Dutch and English Governments, and being calculated to enhance the dangers of the captive crew?

In regard to the Question just put, would the noble Lord state, if it is so very easy for the Rajah of Tenom to receive news of what passes in this House, why was it so difficult to obtain news from the Rajah?

In answer to the first Question of the hon. Member, I will say that there is no information later than that contained in the telegram from the Commander of the Pegasus of May 20, which will be found at page 8 of the recent Blue Book. A letter was received by Her Majesty's Consul at Olehleh, from Mr. Crichton, late chief officer of the Nisero, dated April 26, complaining of the bad quality of the food supplied to the crew by the Rajah; but this was anterior in date to the delivery of the further supplies of food to them through the Pegasus. There are difficulties in the way of communicating with the coast of Tonom, owing to the difficulty of landing during the southwest monsoon; but every endeavour will be made to do so as frequently as possible, and arrangements are being made with the Colonial Office and the Admiralty for that purpose. In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), I say that it is no doubt true that it is probable that the Rajah of Tenom has means of knowing what passes hero in regard to this subject; and as to the danger to the men, no doubt premature threats would increase their risk. I may point out to the hon. Member for Sunderland that information is conveyed to the Rajah by his friends across the Strait; but we have no similar means of obtaining information from him. In answer to the third Question of the hon. Member, I understand that an extra credit of £125,000 has been proposed in the Netherlands Chamber for the purpose of strengthening the Dutch Naval Forces in Acheen, and enabling the authorities in Acheen to undertake further military operations, should all other means of effecting the release of the crew fail.

I wish to know whether it is not correct that the Dutch Government have been attempting to get these people out by employing Acheenese who are unfriendly to the Rajah; also, whether Mr. Maxwell has not informed the Government that the Dutch are going to do so, and that he had little faith in the success of such efforts, which he thought were calculated to endanger the lives of the captives? I wish to know whether Her Majesty's Government have made any protest against this action?

The course adopted by Her Majesty's Government is set out in the despatches contained in the Blue Books. I may, perhaps, point out that as Her Majesty's Government throws the whole responsibility, as it is entitled to do, upon the Dutch Government in regard to the position of these persons, who are upon Dutch territory, it would be exceedingly difficult for Her Majesty's Government to object too strongly in regard to those measures which the Dutch Government, on full consideration, think to be the only means of extricating the captives. Nevertheless, communications have passed in regard to these steps; and, so far as I understand the information which has reached Her Majesty's Government, the £125,000 is not intended to be used with regard to the measures alluded to by the hon. Member in regard to pressure on the neighbouring Chiefs.

asked how it was proposed to spend this money? In other words, was it proposed that the Dutch should send another expedition?

The Dutch Government has not actually settled the details of the measures to be taken; but Her Majesty's Minister at The Hague has been informed that details will be left very much to the advisers, civil and military, of the Dutch Government on the spot; and I think that, on the whole, is wiser and simpler.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in pursance of his statement On August 7th 1883, that with regard to Private Estates Bills—

"We ought to look to the aid of the House of Lords, for these Bills are made the subject in the House of Lords of a regular reference to Judges. From that source we may possibly obtain some assistance which will be a guide to the House of Commons, and which, at any rate, will secure our giving due attention to these important measures. Probably the attention of my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has been called to the subject, and I am sure he will be ready to consider whether anything can be done in that direction,"

I have had an opportunity of considering this matter, and I think it desirable that a Standing Order should be adopted, and that a Report should be made to the House in the case of Private Estate Bills containing provision for extending the term or the area of any settlement of land.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the ship Egmont, recently sold in a Salvage Court in Wexford under the provisions of the existing Merchant Shipping Acts; whether the following facts in connection with this case have been brought under his notice:—

"On the arrival of the Egmont in Wexford South Bay the crew refused to work the pumps, a slight leak having been discovered, and practically mutinied;

"The captain, who was also the owner, was consequently obliged to hoist signals of distress;

"The Rosslare Coastguards took possession of the ship, and compelled the captain to leave her;

"Finally, the ship and cargo having been secured, two magistrates, viz., Mr. E. S. Flood, J.P. and Mr. Kennedy, R.M. wore appointed nautical assessors to adjudicate upon the various salvage claims. Their assessments were so high that, on the ship and cargo being sold, the proceeds barely satisfied the claims and expenses of the Court, and the owner, Captain Lynch, for no fault of his, but owing to the misconduct of his crew, finds himself now stript of the whole of his property, and east adrift on the world;"

The information which has reached the Board of Trade officially with regard to the Egmont is as follows:—On February 15 the Egmont was handed over to the receiver of wreck at Wexford by the salvors, nine fishermen, the vessel having been deserted. The crew obtained a decree against the master for £20 on account of wages due, and seized and sold some of the sails to meet the amount. The salvage case was brought before the local magistrates, who awarded the salvors the sum of £65 5s 9d. against the ship. The owner was unable to pay, and his vessel was consequently sold, realizing £101, the balance, after payment of the award and expenses, being claimed by the mortgagees of the vessel. I have no information which would tend to confirm the allegation of the hon. Member that the Coastguard at Rosslare took possession of the ship and compelled the captain to leave her. The question of salvage was heard by the local magistrates under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, which enacts that disputes with respect to salvage where the claim is under £200 shall be referred to two Justices. It is erroneous to say that the magistrates were appointed nautical assessors. They acted under statutory authority; and the Board of Trade have no power either to review their decisions or to express any opinion as to their efficiency.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has had under consideration the increased charge on the Pension List that will arise from the compulsory retirement of efficient clerks, at the age of 60, in the Admiralty and War Office?

My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer this Question. The retirement of clerks at the age of 60 is within the contemplation of the Superannuation Act; and if all retirements took place at that age, there is no reason to think that the increase of the aggregate charge for pensions would, under ordinary circumstances, call for the special attention of the Board of Treasury.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What measures the Government are adopting for the protection of Upper Egypt?

My right hon. Friend has requested me to answer the Question. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the British Forces now in Egypt, with those of the Egyptian Government, are sufficient for the protection of Upper Egypt against any danger which is at present likely to menace it. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman desires to receive information as to the details of military measures which may be under consideration; but I may state that some time since—in fact, immediately after the defeat of General Hicks's force—projects for the defence of Upper Egypt against external attack were drawn up and carefully considered by the military authorities in Egypt. Up to a recent time the command and disposition of the Khedive's Army has been entirely separate and distinct from that of the British Force in Egypt. We have not, therefore, full and complete information, either as to the composition of the Khedive's Army, or as to its disposition in various points in Egypt; even if it were considered desirable, which it probably would not be, to give full particulars on those subjects. Recently, however, in order to avoid any risk of confusion, and to concentrate responsibility, instructions have been given for arrangements being made with the Khedive's Government to place the supreme command over, and general disposition of, all the military forces in Egypt directly in the hands of the General commanding the British troops, who is, of course, an officer senior in the British Army to Sir Evelyn Wood, who commands the Egyptian troops. We shall, therefore, henceforward be in possession of fuller and more complete information with respect to the arrangements that may be made, or that it may be considered necessary to make, for the defence of Egypt, and for the disposition of all the military forces in the country; but it is not probable that it will be considered desirable to state in detail what those arrangements may be.

Do I understand the noble Marquess to say that the military authorities in Egypt are of opinion that the forces in Egypt are sufficient to guard against any attack, or is that the opinion only of Her Majesty's Government?

We have received no representation from any of the military authorities in Egypt that the forces there are insufficient for the protection of Egypt.

Has the noble Marquess made any inquiry on the subject?

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know whether the question was directly asked whether General Stephenson thinks the forces at present at his command sufficient for the defence of Egypt, I do not think it has been put to him in that form; but we were in communication with him, and he would express his opinion if necessary.

Will the British General Officer who is in command be entirely independent of the Egyptian Civil Government?

Will this new arrangement involve the right of the English Commander to take the Egyptian troops into the Soudan, contrary to the terms of their enlistment?

In reply to the last Question, I do not understand that the General Officer commanding the troops would have any authority to remove the troops to the Soudan without the authority of Her Majesty's Government. As to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I conceive that the responsibility for the military defence of Egypt will rest henceforward upon the General Officer commanding the troops. As to whether he will be entirely independent of the Egyptian civil authorities, I have no doubt he will consider it right to act in concert and communication with them, and that in any matter of difficulty he will refer home for instructions.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact, as stated by the French papers, that a Conference is to be held on the subject of the neutralization of the Suez Canal; and, if so, whether any preliminary arrangements that may be made with France on this subject will be submitted to the House before such Conference is held?

With the permission of the House, I will postpone answering this Question, which has essential relation to the statement I am to make on Monday, until that day arrives.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to the recent exchange of £4,000,000 in Three per Cent. Consols, belonging to the Savings Banks, for £4,000,000 in Two and a-Half per Cent. Stock, coupled with a twenty years' terminable annuity, equivalent to the difference of £11 7s. 6d. per £100 between the prices of the stocks, with an addition of £2 per £100 to secure the Commissioners from loss, Whether, seeing that the receipt of £100,000 interest on the Two and a-Half per Cent. Stock, and of £16,050 as interest at three per cent, on £535,000, the amount of difference for which the terminable annuity is issued, leaves a loss of £3,950, he will take any, and what, steps to compensate the Savings Banks Funds administered by the National Debt Commissioners for this loss of income?

I am sorry that when my right hon. Friend asked me a Question on this subject without Notice in Committee on the National Debt Bill, I failed to explain to his satisfaction the nature and effect of the transaction; but I hope to have better success now. The conversion of Three per Cent Consols held by the Post Office Savings Banks Fund into Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock was commenced by the Prime Minister in 1863; its object was not to leave the Two - and - a - Half per Cent Stock in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, but to broaden the basis of that Stock in the hands of the public in anticipation of some future larger conversion. All I did in the Acts of 1883 and 1884 was to carry out this policy, the Stock available for conver sion in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners having been exhausted. I may repeat that the Act of this year was only introduced to make clear an expression (about which doubts had been raised) in the former Acts. The financial result, so far from being unfavourable to the Post Office Savings Banks, has been highly beneficial to them. Of the £4,000,000 of Two-and-a-Half per Cent Stock recently taken with the annuity in exchange for Three per Cent Stock, £1,160,000 have been sold, and the gain of capital to the fund has been £20,156. If the balance, £2,840,000, be sold at the price of this day, the additional profit would be £80,053; or the total profit in the shape of increased capital to the Post Office Savings Banks Fund will be £100,209. If my right hon. Friend still fails to understand these details, I shall be happy to explain them to him personally.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Army Quarter Masters would be allowed, as a body, to petition the Government for the redress of their grievances, as all other attempts to get them redressed seem to have failed?

Sir, it would be contrary to the custom and Regulations of the Service, and would be strongly disapproved of as inconsistent with the spirit of discipline which ought to prevail in the Army, if quartermasters as a body petitioned Government for redress of their grievances. On the other hand, any officer or soldier who may consider himself aggrieved can appeal individually, through his military superiors, to the Secretary of State for War with the certainty that his case will be fully inquired into. The position of quartermasters has, during the last few years, been fully considered, and much has been done to improve their emoluments and rank both while serving and on retirement. I cannot admit that as a body they have any reasonable cause of complaint.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, with reference to the statement he has made as to the communication which he intends to make to the House on Monday, will it be made in such form as to enable observations to be made upon it if necessary?

Certainly, Sir. It is my intention to make a short explanation in laying Papers on the Table on Monday; and I shall take care that it shall be made in such a way as to enable observations to be made, in so far as occasion shall arise.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman when the Papers to which he alludes, and which he intends to present on Monday, will be in our hands?

They will be in the hands of Members, I have not the least doubt, on Tuesday morning.

I was in hopes that we should have closed the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill on Tuesday, so as to be able to take the Report stage to-day. I understand it is not unlikely that it may not require the whole of this evening's Sitting. In that case we shall proceed with the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill. If the whole of this evening's Sitting should be occupied with the Committee on the Representation of the People Bill, the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill would stand as first Order for to-morrow; but supposing the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill to be disposed of to-night, we should then propose to place the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill, which has been waiting for some time, as the first Order for to-morrow, and we should put down the Law of Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill as the second Order, and the Elections (Hours of Poll) Bill as the third.

When is it proposed to take the Report of the Representation of the People Bill?

I may say at once that I feel we could not fairly ask the House to take it to-morrow; and we shall, therefore, put down the Report stage of the Representation of the People Bill for Monday.

I wish, with the indulgence of the House, to make a personal explanation. On Tuesday the Prime Minister made this serious charge against me. He said—

"The hon. Gentleman incesssantly making grossly inaccurate statements, which he coolly ascribes to me."

"First, citation so inaccurate as to materially vary the sense; second, this erroneous citation delivered positively as if notorious and beyond question; third, and introduced into a Question put to another person, who could not have proper means of correcting it; fourth, and this in two cases on two successive days."

"As you justly observe, you did, after exception was taken, read an actual report of the words."

"The Prime Minister gave information to the House on a previous occasion that the fall of Berber would not seriously affect the safety of Khartoum."

"We believe, according to all the information we possess, that there would be no essential change in the position of Khartoum in consequence of that change in the position of Berber."

"If the Prime Minister withdraws his statement that there is not the slightest risk of the garrison of Berber meeting with the same fate as that of Sinkat?"

"Whether there is any danger that the garrison of Berber may he subjected to the fate of the garrison of Sinkat?"

"We have no reason to believe that there is any risk to Berber of any such thing."

said: If the hon. Gentleman had been kind enough to give mo Notice that he was going to make this statement, I should have taken care not to have troubled the hon. Member for his Papers.

I did give Notice. I wrote to the Prime Minister.

I received the Notice as I came into the House. Did the hon. Member send his Notice to Downing Street?

No; I left the letter here.

The hon. Member left it here, and it was put into my hands as I entered the House to transact my business; and that is what the hon. Gentleman calls giving me Notice. I must notice an expression used by the hon. Gentleman two or three times. He speaks of what he chooses to call "summarizing" my statements in a certain manner. There was no question of summary or summing up my statements. They were citations—supposed citations of the few words I used, and were supposed to correspond with them.

From memory.

From memory says the hon. Member; but if this thing is done from memory it should be done in such a way as should raise fairly the question between us. These citations of the hon. Member are made, not with reference to elicit information, but they are made as parts of argumentative Questions, and sometimes made in parts of argumentative Questions, not addressed to me, but addressed to other persons, Members of the Government. That I think to be a most inconvenient practice, and is one that ought to be discouraged. The declarations of Ministers in this House are always held to carry a great responsibility with them. That being so, when they are cited by hon. Members they should be cited with corresponding accuracy. The hon. Gentleman is of opinion that he has made his citations with substantial accuracy. I am of opinion that he has not, and that he greatly varied the sense of what I said. I will take one of the cases that he has mentioned. [Laughter.] This is not a thing to be laughed at; but that is another matter. I am reported to have stated to the House —and I have no doubt that the report is substantially accurate—that we had no reason to believe that there was any risk of a massacre of the garrison at Berber. This statement the hon. Member in his Question the next day converted into a positive statement on my part that there was not the slightest risk of such a massacre occurring. My statement was as to what was our opinion and belief, founded upon an examination of the facts that had come to our knowledge, and that statement the hon. Gentleman converted into a categorical assertion; and, having so perverted the meaning of my words, he says that there is no difference between my stating that to be our opinion, and my stating it as a fact beyond all question. I leave this matter, therefore, to the judgment of the House. In my opinion, his version and my statement most seriously varied one from the other, and this indicates a carelessness of habit on the part of the hon. Member which I hope he will not cultivate in future.

I wish, Sir, to put a Question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of Order?

Yes, Sir. I wish to ask a Question of the right hon. Gentleman arising out of the answer which he has just given.

Then I am bound to say that there is no point of Order involved. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) has offered a personal explanation; and as the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has answered the statement made by the hon. Member for Eye, I do not think that the matter ought to go further. There is no Question before the House.

rose, and was called upon by Mr. Speaker.

I have no wish to continue the discussion; but I merely wish to ask a Question. ["Order!"]

I have already settled the point of Order. No question of debate can arise out of the explanation of the hon. Member for Eye and the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister.

I wish, Sir, to ask you a Question upon a point of Order. When you were standing in your place, and called upon the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) the hon. Member rose, and the right hon. Member for North Lincolnshire still remained standing in his place; and I wish to know whether it is not the fact that Mr. John Dillon, a former Member of the House, was named and supended by your Predecessor in that Chair for committing the same offence? I venture to submit that the breach of Order committed by the right hon. Gentleman came clearly under your observation.

It was clearly an inadvertence on the part both of the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member. I regarded it purely as an act of inadvertence.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, Whether he can give the House any assurance that the final stages of the Representation of the People Bill shall be completed before the Government offers any facilities for the discussion of any special question?

It is our intention to proceed with all the despatch we can in disposing of the final stages of the Representation of the People Bill; but I think that the time for answering the Question of the hon. Member has not arrived.

I beg to ask the Prime Minister, when the Government propose to resume the consideration of the London Government Bill?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I should like to ask him when the second reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken?

With regard to the last Question, I have to state that I have not had any communication with my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade leading me to think that the time has come for naming a day for the purpose indicated. With regard to the London Government Bill, our anxiety with regard to that measure has not in the least degree diminished; but it would be idle for me at the present moment to enter upon the question until we can form some judgment as to what will happen on the closing stages of the Representation of the People Bill.