asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a sworn inquiry was held into the state of the existing supply of water at Urlaur, in the Swineford Union, county Mayo, before replying to a question upon this subject about six weeks ago; whether the written statement of the sanitary officer, that ''water is inconvenient" was credited; and, whether the Local Government Board are now prepared to recommend the matter to the serious consideration of the present Sanitary Board; or, what steps they intend to make in order to secure a proper supply of water at Urlaur?

A sworn inquiry was not held in regard to the application for the erection of a pump at Urlaur, and there were not sufficient grounds for deeming such an inquiry necessary. There is no reason to question the accuracy of the Report of the Medical Officer of Health that the supply of water was inconvenient for some of the inhabitants; but he also reported that the water was pure. There is nothing before the Local Government Board to show that the health of the inhabitants is endangered by the want of pure water; and the Board do not consider it necessary to interfere with the discretion of the Sanitary Authority in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the position of Medical Officer to the Comber Dispensary, Newtownards Union, has a salary of £100 a-year attached to it; whether, on its becoming vacant by the death of Doctor Prance, the Dispensary Committee proposed to reduce this salary to £60 per annum; whether the action of the Committee was supported by the Newtownards Board of Guardians; whether there were three candidates for the situation, each of them willing to accept it at £60; whether one of these candidates acted as Medical Officer during the period between the death of Doctor France and the appointment of his successor; whether the right of appointment in cases of this kind rests with the Local Government Board or the Board of Guardians; and, whether he will inform the House on what authority the Local Government Board decided not to permit the reduction?

The hon. Member appears to have been misinformed as to the ultimate decision of the Local Government Board in this matter. The Local Government Board, after due inquiry, and some hesitation, decided not to oppose the wishes of the Board of Guardians, but gave their consent to the salary being fixed at £60 a-year.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he has seen the report of a meeting of creditors of Mr. James Gardiner, S.S.C., Edinburgh, in The Scotsman of the 4th instant; and, whether he has made, or intends to make, any inquiries regarding the way in which Mr. Gardiner is alleged to have dealt with the trust funds of clients which they had committed to his charge?

I did observe the report of this meeting in The Scotsman of the 4th instant. Although no criminal charge has been made, the Procurator Fiscal, as soon as the report appeared, properly proceeded to investigate the case. I understand that Mr. Gardiner had left the country before the meeting, and that it is not known where he is.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the case of the Samoan woman, Manaema, whose lands in Samoa were seized of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. of Auckland and London, has yet been fully considered and decided upon by the Imperial Government, to whom it was submitted by Sir G. D. De Veaux, High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, in January 1884; whether it is a fact that Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. in realising a claim against their agent, Mr. Frank Cornwall, entered on and took possession of Samoan lands and plantations which are still legally vested in the Samoan people, and sequestered or destroyed the produce of several plantations; whether they put these lands, 250,000 acres in all, and including several plantations in full working order, up to sale and bought them in themselves at a price of £1,500, although some of the lands were legally settled in February 1879 by deed and by consent of the Samoan people on the Native woman Manaema; whether, on attempting to take possession, they were resisted by the Native Governor, who declared the lands belonged to the Samoan people and were free from British control; whether the Native owners offered to satisfy Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co.'s claims, but their offer was refused, as the firm preferred the land; whether the agents of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co., in taking forcible possession of the said lands, maltreated the Native woman Manaema and others, drove them from their houses, and seized their furniture and clothing; whether the British authorities in Samoa supported the action of Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. and threatened to burn the villages if the Natives did not yield up their lands peaceably; whether the Government intend to redress the grievance of Manaema and the people of Samoa; and, whether the Messrs. W. M'Arthur and Co. of Auckland and London in question are the same firm whose agent in Samoa, according to a Despatch of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 18th October 1878, had practised cruelties in conducting the labour trade of the firm, and had been responsible for outrages upon Polynesian labourers upon their Samoan estates?

The hon. Member's Questions seem to have been taken from a certain Petition drawn up by Mr. Cornwall, to which Her Majesty's Government has replied that there is no case for their interference. I may say, however, that most of the allegations of the Petition have proved on inquiry to be inaccurate as far as Cornwall is concerned, and the matter, put shortly, resolved itself into this. Cornwall, being a debtor to the firm of M'Arthur and Co. to a large amount, and being pressed for some payment, mortgaged his land to them, and when a foreclosure took place turned round and said that the lands did not belong to him at all but to his Native concubine, named Manaema and that they were Native Lands. He stirred up the Natives to take this view, and to dispossess by violence the representative of his creditor. The High Commissioner, on his visit to Samoa in 1882, imposed a fine for these acts of violence, but without in any way deciding on the title to the lands in question. Messrs. M'Arthur are the firm referred to in the despatch of 1878, and their so-called agent, owner of the estate on which the labourers were employed, was this same Mr. Frank Cornwall.

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman further, whether the decision of the Government was given upon the question, and whether it was communicated by them to the people interested? With his permission, I will say that the reason I ask it is, that a letter was despatched on the 11th January, 1884, stating that the matter was still under the decision of the Imperial Government.

I can make no reply, except that our decision has been forwarded about a couple of months ago. I may say that the hon. Member was inaccurate about the date.

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman if this letter has been brought under his attention—

"Government House, Melbourne, 11th Jan., 1884.

"Sir,—I am directed by his Excellency the Acting High Commissioner to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th December, and beg to inform you in reply that the question of the action taken in the case referred to was one involving a decision of great importance to the whole Colonies. For this reason his Excellency has referred the matter to Her Majesty's Government for their decision, and is unable to take action until their decision has been received.

(Signed) W. HARTINGTON."

The date is 1883.

I very much regret having to trouble the House about a personal matter in which hon. Members can feel little or no interest. But as the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Redmond) has in his Question indirectly made serious charges against my brother, who is unavoidably absent to-day, myself, and the members of a firm in Auckland with which we are connected, but in the management of which we have not personally taken any part, I hope the House will permit me to make a personal explanation, and I will engage not to occupy more than a few minutes of its time. Allow me to say, in the first place, that if the hon. Member had had the courtesy to speak to me on the subject I could have given him information which would have saved him the trouble of putting such a Question on the Paper, and saved me from the unpleasant necessity of making this explanation. For I hold in my hands documents proving unmistakably the incorrectness, not to use a stronger word, which I believe I would be perfectly justified in using—of the accusations contained in the Question against W. M'Arthur and Co., of Auckland. These papers are too voluminous to trouble the House with; but they can be seen by the hon. Member if he wishes to see them, or by any other hon. Member of the House. With regard to the purely commercial portion of the Question, it is sufficient to say that the case has been three times decided by competent tribunals—first in the Consular Court, afterwards in the Supreme Court of Fiji, and finally by the Governor and High Commissioner, and in each case decided in favour of W. M'Arthur and Co. The hon. Member's Question is intended to produce an impression that land was bought very much below its value, that resistance was offered by the Natives, who offered to satisfy the claims of M'Arthur and Co., but that this offer was refused by the firm, who preferred the laud. We are informed, and the documents in my hands prove, that the reverse is the fact, that the King of Samoa sent one of his chiefs with instructions to the native governor to render all necessary assistance to the agent of W. M'Arthur and Co. in obtaining the deeds of the land, and that, so far from the firm preferring to seize the land, they offered long after they had taken possession of it in self-defence to return it to Cornwall for £3,500, which was only equal to a composition of about 10s. in the pound on the amount due by him. This liberal offer he refused, leaving no option but to retain the land. Every business man in this House will perfectly understand that the locking up of capital in land, however cheap, is a drawback from a business point of view, and the firm would have been much more inclined to take even a composition in cash than have the land on their hands. The most serious imputation, however, contained in the hon. Member's Question is that referring to the mal-treatment of the native woman Manaema, and to cruelties in conducting the labour trade. With regard to the native woman Manaema, I hold in my hand copies of depositions sworn before the Acting British Consul showing that the statements made respecting the harsh and improper treatment of Manaema are utterly false; that she was kindly treated and made no complaint till some months after, when she did so presumably at Cornwall's instigation; and that she herself a fortnight after the alleged mal-treatment thanked W. M'Arthur and Co.'s agent for his kindness to her in this matter. And lest the hon. Member should feel it necessary to take the trouble to put a Question on the Paper insinuating that these copies are forgeries, I may inform him that their authenticity is guaranteed by a notary public in Auckland, and that the Acting-Consul certifies that the men who made the depositions are well known to him as persons of good repute and worthy of credit. There is, also, not the slightest foundation for the charge of ill-treatment of Polynesian natives. One of M'Arthur and Co.'s vessels certainly made one, and only one, voyage with natives from the Line Islands down to the plantation. But this voyage was undertaken long before any dispute with Cornwall, and while he was the sole owner of the land; and the correspondence of the firm shows conclusively that M'Arthur and Co. had no control whatever over the Natives after landing them on Cornwall's property. Some months afterwards complaint was made that the Natives were not well treated; and M'Arthur and Co. at once wrote to Cornwall remonstrating in the strongest terms. Finally, Cornwall left the Islands for Europe, without making any provision whatever for these Natives, and M'Arthur and Co. advanced nearly £500 to feed and send them back to their homes. In the matter of bringing these people down, they acted entirely at Cornwall's request and as his agents, and after landing them had no further con- trol over them or him whatever. The hon. Member has treated me with scant courtesy; but I will not do him the injustice to insinuate that he has given publicity to these calumnies knowing them to be untrue. On the contrary, I believe he has been grossly deceived by vindictive and unscrupulous men, respecting whom I will only say that, had their character and conduct been as well know by him as by the majority of the people of Auckland, he would not, I believe, have troubled the House with such a Question. I think, however, I have a right to complain that the hon. Member, instead of endeavouring to ascertain the truth, followed a practice which has recently become too common— under the guise of a Question, to bring charges injurious to the reputation of Members of this House, and frequently of innocent persons who have not an opportunity of defending themselves against imputations either totally untrue, or so highly exaggerated as to be nearly so—a practice which I do not think I use too strong language in describing as a breach of the Privileges of this House.

, interposing, said, it was sufficient for the hon. Member to make a disclaimer upon the Question. Perhaps he would content himself with having done so in the most public manner possible.

I will ask the indulgence of the House to make a personal explanation. It will not be a tenth part as long as that of the hon. Member. I wish to say that I did not bring these charges without sufficient justification. The hon. Member says he has documents to prove his case. Well, I am also in possession of documents to prove my side of the case. I suppose it would be out of Order to go into them now in the House. As, however, I am not justified in bringing these charges, and then not reading them, I am quite willing to move an Adjournment in order to go into them. Otherwise, I shall take the earliest opportunity of showing my justification by going into the whole of this matter. I shall then show the hon. Member that I was not guilty of bringing forward recklessly charges which had no justification. I have an affidavit from, the Native people themselves. I have statements from the official despatches of the Colonial Office; I have affidavits from, gentlemen interested in the matter; and I have the legal opinion of some of the best-known legal firms in the whole of New Zealand. Fortified, therefore, by the whole of these proofs, I am not in a position to withdraw one of the accusations which I have made.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now give the House any information as to the present state of negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and that of the King of Portugal relative to the Congo River Territory?

I have already stated in the House that on March 15 and June 1, 1883, Lord Granville informed the Portuguese Government that the Anglo-Portuguese agreement, if not accepted by the other Powers principally interested, would be futile, and that in consequence negotiations had commenced in order to ascertain the views of those Powers. Her Majesty's Government has now arrived at the conclusion that the objections taken by some of the Powers to certain portions of the Treaty are of too serious a character to leave any hope of the Treaty being accepted as a whole, and they have, therefore, informed the Portuguese Government that a ratification of the Treaty would be useless. It is, however, the hope of Her Majesty's Government to maintain that portion of the Treaty which relates to the River Commission, and, as originally proposed by them, to give it an International character. The powers it would have possessed under the Treaty were practically identical with those of the Danube Commission, from which it only differed in the composition of the controlling authority.

The noble Lord says that the only difference between the proposed Commission and the Danubian Commission is in regard to the controlling authorities. But the difference of the originally proposed Commission on the Congo was that it was an Anglo-Portuguese Commission, while the Danubian Commission was an International one. Now, I understand that the Government propose to give up entirely the Anglo-Portuguese Commission, and that they are ready to accept an International Control of the mouth of the Congo.

Yes, Sir; that is perfectly accurate. The original proposal, which Her Majesty's Government supported till the end of the negotiations, was that the Commission should be of an International character. Therefore, in adopting that suggestion, we are reverting to the original proposal.

Is it intended that the powers of the River Commission should extend so far as to enable them to levy Customs duties?

No; the River Commission, and all River Commissions made after the Treaty of Vienna, 1815, have nothing to do with Customs duties; they only deal with the navigation.

Is the Government prepared to say that so much of the Treaty as remains—which is certainly a very important part—will not be ratified till the House has had an opportunity of coming to a conclusion upon it?

No; I do not say that any part of the original question remains. What I said was that the idea contained in that clause of the Treaty would be maintained. There will have to be a fresh agreement of an International character.

But will that be submitted to the decision of the House?

The pledge which the Prime Minister gave on the subject last year referred to the Treaty between this country and Portugal; but this is a fresh matter, and I cannot answer the Question without Notice.

said, he would put a Question on the subject on the Paper.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that six ships only of the Royal Navy have been commissioned at Chatham since 1880, while in the same period twenty-six have been commissioned at Devon-port, fourteen at Portsmouth, and twenty-nine at Sheerness; how many ships have been paid off at Chatham during the same period; and, whether there is any reason for diminishing the number of Her Majesty's ships commissioned and paid off at Chatham?

The number of ships commissioned between the 1st of January, 1881, and the 1st of June, 1884, at the ports named in the hon. and learned Member's Question, was as follows: —At Chatham, 7; at Sheerness, 29; at Portsmouth, 29; at Devonport, 30. There were four ships paid off at Chatham within the same period. The matter is decided by consideration of the public interest; and Chatham, being used more especially as a building yard rather than as a repairing yard, is naturally a less fit place for paying off and commissioning ships.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in fulfilment of a promise made by him in the House of Commons on May 7th 1883, a telegram was sent by his authority on May 8th from Scotland Yard to the authorities of the Metropolitan Police at Chatham, in these terms—

"Pressing. Please forward to this Office, by morning of 10th. inst. for the information of Sir Edmund Henderson, a report stating the wishes of the men of all ranks employed under C. D. Acts as to remaining in a Dockyard or being transferred to a Town Division; those among them who are of the old Dockyard Force can be pensioned on abolition of office if approved by the Treasury, if they do not wish to enter on duty in the Metropolitan Police;"

, in reply, said, he was doing all in his power to settle the question of the pensions of the policemen formerly employed under the Acts referred to in the Question of the hon. and learned Member.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is intended to proceed with the Railway Regulation Acts Amendment Bill; and, if so, whether he will be prepared to make such modifications therein as will meet the objections of traders to its provisions relating to terminals and appeals?

, in reply, said, that the prospects of a Bill seriously opposed at the end of the Session were not very hopeful. At the same time, he did not altogether despair of being able to make progress with the measure referred to. He did not know what alteration of the Bill would give satisfaction to all traders, because they entertained different views on the subject. Some of them desired that the Bill should go forward in its present form, while there were others who proposed modifications. All he could say was that he thought it was a fair subject for discussion, and he should be prepared to give full consideration to any Amendment that might be proposed on either side. In the meantime, it was only fair to say that the proposals of the Bill, in his opinion, went as far as they could fairly do in justice to the Railway Companies and their shareholders.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the line, hitherto officially known as the Candahar State Railway, is henceforward to be designated the Sibi-Pishin Railway; and, if so, in deference to what views or circumstances this has been done?

No information of any such intention on the part of the Government of India has reached the India Office; but the sensible suggestion of the hon. Baronet shall be placed before the Viceroy, who will doubtless give it the consideration which it deserves.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What is the number of men in the Royal Navy who have been punished during the last year by stoppage of pay; what is the amount of the money so received; and, what becomes of it?

I am unable to give my hon. Friend the information he asks for in his first Question, because it would take much time and involve a great amount of labour to ascertain the number of men affected by stoppage of pay. If my hon. Friend will turn to the Navy Estimates for this year Vote 1, sub-head H, on Paper 11, he will find that a sum of £9,000 is taken to the credit of the Vote for "stoppages of pay from men when in cells, mulcts, &c." This is an estimated amount based on the experience of recent years, and the sum so estimated is thus deducted from the Wages Vote.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Birmingham Daily Post, attributed to the Mayor of Lichfield, in connection with the Yeomanry disturbances at Lichfield, to the effect that what had occurred "was only what had taken place in former years;" and, whether he will direct that the inquiry which he has ordered shall extend to the general conduct of the Corps while in training for some years past?

also asked, whether it was not the fact that during the last five years the confidential Reports of the officers respecting the Staffordshire Yeomanry had been, both as to discipline and general conduct, highly satisfactory and creditable to the regiment?

In reply to the Questions of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Colonel Levett), I have to state that the regiment did not train in 1879. The Reports for the last four years have been very satisfactory. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), I have to state that my attention has been called by the hon. Member to the statement in question; but I do not see that any advantage would arise from the extension of the inquiry suggested by the hon. Member.

asked whether it was true that the inquiry would be conducted in private?

said, he was not aware of the circumstances under which the inquiry would be conducted; but he had seen a statement in the newspapers to the effect that it would be private.

gave Notice that he should call attention to the subject on an early date.

asked the Lord Advovocate, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in The Dunow Herald of the 14th instant that, during the previous week, there had been three plantation fires in Morayshire alone, the last one taking place within four miles of Gordon Castle, the Duke of Richmond's seat, much valuable timber being destroyed; and, whether there is any truth in the statement made in several other papers that within the last four weeks there have been an unusual number of agrarian fires in Scotland?

I do not know of any newspaper called The Dunow Herald; but I have inquired in regard to the matter to which the Question relates, and I am informed that the only plantation fire known to the authorities to have taken place in Morayshire about the time referred to occurred on the 1st of June at the Hill of Orbliston, between four and five miles from Gordon Castle. The fire was a serious one, a considerable extent of timber having been destroyed, and the Procurator Fiscal made a full investigation in regard to it at the time. There is no reason to suppose that the plantation was set on fire wilfully. It appears to have begun at a place where there were signs that a small fire had been lighted, probably by one or more tramps, for the purpose of cooking food; and it seems to have been blown by the wind to a whin bush near, from which it extended to the plantation. It appeared that an attempt had been, made to extinguish the fire in the bush by throwing slime and water upon it from, a neighbouring ditch. I have no reason to believe that there have been any agrarian fires in Scotland recently. All fires of any moment occurring in Scotland are investigated by the Fiscals and regularly reported to the Crown Office. There has been no appreciable increase in the number of the fires reported during the last year, and none of them can be recognized as agrarian.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If there is any information at the Colonial Office as to the state of the graveyards of British soldiers and others who died at Pretoria in the Transvaal; if it is the case that they are now in a very neglected state; and, whether he will direct the British Resident there to take them under his charge and see that they are kept up with proper care and attention?

I think this Question should more properly be put to my right hon. Friend the Chief Commissioner of Works, as it is within his Department that the care of these graveyards rests. But I may say that we were informed in 1882 that the walls round the Pretoria Cemetery had been placed in a state of substantial repair. We have no information since of its being in a neglected state. On the contrary, we have received within the last month a despatch from the British Resident which shows that he is looking after it. He writes that heavy rains had damaged the enclosing wall of the military cemetery; but that he had repaired the damaged part and strengthened the neighbouring portion.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will take into consideration the granting of a clasp to be worn on the South African medal by those officers and men who were engaged in the Transvaal operations, with either the word "Transvaal," or the name of the fort defended, inscribed thereon?

I must refer the hon. Member to my reply of the 19th of April, 1883, and that of my Predecessor in the previous year; and repeat that there is no intention of granting a medal or other decoration for this Campaign.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Roman Catholic Chaplains of Convict Prisons do not give an annual Report same as the Protestant Chaplains do; and, if he will cause them to do so for the time to come?

, who was imperfectly heard, was understood to say that the Roman Catholic clergymen who officiated in prisons had not the formal title "chaplains," and accordingly did not send in formal Reports. They had the power of reporting anything which they thought worthy of attention. If any bad results were found to follow from their not making formal Reports, he would have no objection to inquire into the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the case that the luggage of two Irish Members of Parliament has been searched at Holyhead, within the past few weeks, by custom house and detective police officers, notwithstanding that upon one occasion they were informed beforehand of the name of the Member whom they molested; whether it is customary to search the luggage of passengers to and from Ireland at Holyhead; if not, upon what grounds these searches were made; and, whether steps will be taken to prevent its recurrence? The hon. Member, in explanation of the form of the Question, added that he did not claim any special exemption for Irish Members of Parliament if a usual or well-understood practice of searching passengers' luggage prevailed at Holy-head, as at Portsmouth and Dover. He merely desired that Irish Members should not be singled out for these attentions.

I heartily concur in the view taken by the hon. Member, and I can answer his Question with the sympathy of a fellow-sufferer. On Whitsun Monday I returned from that part of Her Majesty's Dominions known as the Channel Islands, and I left my luggage in the boat with a servant to be cleared in the usual way. I, however, carried in my hand a large box, labelled "Home Office, Criminal Department." That was immediately secured by the Custom House officer, and then I was taken into a shed. Being a meek man myself I did not object, nor did I claim the privilege of a Member of Parliament, nor even of a Secretary of State; but I produced my Cabinet key and opened the box. My box was searched, and a chalk mark was made on it, and I was allowed to leave the Southampton Dock without a stain upon my character. If any hon. Member thinks it is a misfortune to be particularly suspected, the same thing has occurred to me; but I can assure the hon. Member that it is neither the intention of the Department nor the rule to suspect any person unnecessarily. Zeal sometimes docs outrun discretion, and under such circumstances I am disposed personally to applaud it. It is not the intention that the rule as to searching should be carried out with any unnecessary inconvenience to, or suspicion of, either Irish Members or Secretaries of State.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Dublin Freeman's Journal, from the Rev. Daniel Heffernan, C.C., complaining of an attempt to kidnap Catholic children by a Protestant proselytising institution in Dublin; and, whether the Government will institute an inquiry into the matter?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to different newspaper reports and letters published in the Dublin journals, detailing cases where children taken away from their parents by proselytising agents are locked up in proselytising homes in Dublin, Kingstown, and other parts of Ireland, and denied or refused to their parents when applied for; whether it is a fact that the wives and daughters of persons occupying official positions in Ireland are engaged in this traffic; whether it is his intention to propose any amendment of the Laws, with a view to punishing persons who so retain children against the consent of their parents; and, whether he will cause in- quiry to be made, with a view of ascertaining to what extent the Law is being violated in this respect?

I have seen two letters in a Dublin newspaper of the character mentioned, which are, probably, the communication to which the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. J. H. M'Carthy) refers. I am informed that they have reference to cases which are the subject of certain ex parte applications recently made to the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland for habeas corpus orders, and that affidavits have been filed in that Court denying the statements made in the affidavits upon which the applications were made; and that the cases are now at issue in the Court. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington), the Government have no information that any such traffic, as is suggested, is carried on. I am advised that the law provides any aggrieved person an ample remedy for the offence of unlawfully taking or detaining children from their parents or guardians, and that no amendment is necessary. There does not appear to be any ground upon which the Government could institute the inquiries suggested. The inquiry will probably be ample in the Courts of Law; but we can judge after it has concluded.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered whether the wives and daughters of Judges and others occupying official positions in Ireland are concerned in this traffic; and I would also ask him if the Government are not in possession of information on this subject; and, whether he does not think it will be well for them to make inquiries?

I think the hon. Gentleman will see that whether these proceedings should be characterized as "traffic" is precisely the question now being tried in the Courts of Law.

I am not at all referring to cases in the Courts of Law. I am aware certain cases have been brought into the Courts of Law; but what I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is this—While the law does contain provisions to punish persons— ["Order!"]—I shall put myself in Order by asking a Question—while the law does make provision to punish a person for taking away a child, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to so amend the law that when a child has been taken away the person from whom it was taken shall be able to recover it?

If the law is defective, Sir, I shall certainly think it necessary to take measures for making it effective; but I will be a better judge of that after we see the result of the cases in the Law Courts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On whose authority, and for what purposes, Detective Sergeant Bulmer visited the house of Mrs. P. N. Fitzgerald, at Cork, and attempted to draw her into statements incriminating her husband, now awaiting trial in Sligo Gaol on a charge of treason felony; and, whether orders will be given to prevent a repetition of such conduct?

Sergeant Bulmer, by the desire of his officer, called at Mrs. Fitzgerald's house to make some inquiry with regard to a person who he believed was known to her. He denies that he made any reference whatever to the case against her husband, or that he attempted to draw her into statements incriminating him.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has determined to close the prison at Taunton; and, if so, on what grounds; and, whether it is not the case that, since it has been taken over by Government, the military and civil cells have been constantly full, and how the assizes can be held in Taunton if the prison which was built by the county to communicate with the courts is closed?

It is not desirable now to enter into the details of this question, which is being investigated. But I shall be most happy to hear anything that can be alleged on this subject. I expect that the matter will be thoroughly discussed before a final conclusion is arrived at.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If there is any special reason for depriving the clerks in the Paymaster General's Department and in the Treasury of the Bank Holidays granted to clerks in the other departments of the Civil Service; and, if not, whether in future they will be granted such holidays?

Public business does not permit the Treasury and several other Offices to be altogether closed on. Bank Holidays. In the case of any clerks whose attendance may be required on these days, this fact is taken into consideration in fixing the amount of leave to be allowed to them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that two men named Kedy and Driscoll, residing at Portmagee, county Kerry, entered, in June 1883, into security for a loan under the Reproductive Loan Fund Act; that a boat-builder named Lynch contracted with the Inspector of Fisheries for the construction of a boat for those men; that this boat was afterwards approved of, in the usual manner, by the coastguard officers, and a certificate to that effect forwarded to the Inspector of Fisheries; whether it is a fact that repeated applications have been made to the Inspector of Fisheries and Board of Works for payment of the amount during the past twelve months; and, whether, though the first instalment for repayment has actually been called in and paid, the amount of loan itself has not been yet paid to the contractor.

The facts are as stated, except in one important particular—the amount of the loan having been actually paid a fortnight ago. It was accidentally delayed through a clerical oversight in the office of the Inspector of Fisheries, which is to be regretted. But the Board of Works paid it at once on receipt of the necessary certificate from the Fisheries Department.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state how many magistrates of each religious denomination have been appointed for each county in Ireland since the present Government came into office?

The information asked for could not be given for so long a period without an amount of inquiry into the circumstances which would take a very considerable time. Moreover, the result would be misleading, as it is only since the appointment of the present Lord Chancellor that the subject of the religious denomination of magistrates has been given its present prominence. Since the present Lord Chancellor came into Office he has appointed 187 county magistrates. Of these, it is understood that 84 are Roman Catholics, 65 Episcopalian Protestants, 30 Presbyterians, 2 Wesleyans, 1 Jew, and of 5 the religious profession is unknown.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Mangan, High Sheriff of Drogheda, is still the proprietor of a house where wine, spirits, and cyder are sold contrary to Act of Parliament; whether, if such be the case, it is the intention of the Excise to prosecute Mr. Mangan for a deliberate and daily breach of the Law; and, whether the Government intend to allow a person who knowingly and publicly violates the Law to retain the honourable office of High Sheriff?

I also beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether it is the fact that the Government, on receiving a communication from the High Sheriff of Drogheda informing them that he was willing to resign his position, informed him that they had been advised that, on taking the office, his licence had lapsed?

Mr. Mangan is still the proprietor of a house where wine and spirits are sold. A Question as to the intention of the Excise authorities would more properly have been addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury; but I understand the Commissioners of Inland Revenue consider it more than doubtful whether they could take proceedings for the recovery of the penalty in this case, and they do not intend to do so. As the hon. and gallant Member is aware, the circumstances are quite novel; and there appears to be some variance of opinion as to the exact legal bearing of the case. Neither the Irish Government nor the Commissioners of Inland Revenue wish to act harshly towards Mr. Mangan, who, no doubt, acted bonâ fide, and was taken by surprise. In regard to his continuance in the office of High Sheriff, the Lord Lieutenant has decided to accept his resignation, and to supersede him; but His Excellency has decided that, owing to the near approach of the Assizes, it would be embarrassing and inconvenient to do so at once. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the facts are as stated; but I think his Question with regard to the bearing of legal opinion has been already answered.

No, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman has directly contradicted the letter of Mr. Robert Hamilton. [Cries of1 Order!"] I shall put it to the right hon. Gentleman in the form of a Question. Is it not the fact that Sir Robert Hamilton has directed a letter to Mr. Mangan informing him that, owing to his having accepted the office of High Sheriff, his licence lapsed? Upon that ground now, does the Lord Lieutenant propose to supersede him in the office of High Sheriff?

Mr. Mangan has resigned.

No; he tendered his resignation; but it was not accepted.

I should like to answer that Question on Notice. But I should think it not improbable, as a matter of conjecture, that if Mr. Mangan continues in the office of High Sheriff, it may be possible that the Government might then consider itself morally obliged to proceed against him for selling drink without a licence. I think that is possible.

How can that be so; for the right hon. Gentleman has stated Mr. Maugan's licence has lapsed?

Mr. Mangan is now selling, I presume, beer and spirits without a licence. The Government consider he has been brought into that position not by his own fault, and they will not prosecute him. If they continued him in the office of High Sheriff, it might fairly be argued they would be bound to prosecute him.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if a common informer chose to lay infor- mation against Mr. Mangan, would the Excise not be obliged to prosecute him? Has he not lost his licence and the office of High Sheriff by the mistake of the Department?

I should prefer to ask legal advice before I answer that Question. I am bound to say that, except on absolute pressure, the Government in Ireland will never prosecute an innocent man.

Might I ask the hon. and gallant Member for Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) whether he would have any objection to become the common informer?

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he will take into his early and favourable consideration the unanimous desire of all classes in Edinburgh that permission should be given to the youth of the city to play football in the Queen's Park during the autumn and winter months?

, in reply, said, he should be very glad to give permission for the purpose indicated in the Question, provided the games would not interfere with the use of the Park for other purposes.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, as a result of the Conference, Her Majesty's Government will be hampered in any degree in carrying out their reforms in Egypt, including equalization of the land tax; abolition of such petty taxes as are opposed to the principles of political economy, and the protection of the fellaheen from the arbitrary and capricious cruelties to which they have hitherto been subject; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will render it clear at the Conference that they regard the establishment of a humane, just, and stable system of administration as an essential condition, without which they cannot withdraw from Egypt either with safety or with honour?

Her Majesty's Government do not anti- cipate that they will be hampered by the result of the Conference in regard to the material and moral progress of Egypt. The conditions of the withdrawal of the British troops from Egypt are stated in the Papers recently laid before Parliament.

Would the noble Lord state when Her Majesty's Government began to carry out any reforms in Egypt?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What measures Her Majesty's Government intend adopting for promoting and completing those reforms in Egypt suggested by Lord Dufferin in his Despatches of the 18th November, 1882; what practical steps are being taken in order to bring about an equitable adjustment of the Land Tax; and, if it is intended to recommend the Egyptian authorities to modify or abolish the octroi, bridge, and river tolls, as recently recommended by Colonel Moncrieff?

I am not able to make any general statement, such as I am invited to make by the hon. Member, until some decision has been, taken in regard to Egyptian finance, upon which the internal administration of Egypt depends.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House what is the acreage of land in Egypt rented directly from the State by the wealthy Foreign landholders and by the Egyptian people respectively; also the amount of land sub-let by the large landholders to the fellaheen; whether it is true that, whilst the landholders only pay from eleven to fourteen shillings per acre, they sub-let a large portion of their holdings to the fellaheen at from three to five pounds on acre, with the further right to claim their labour free of cost; further, what progress is being made with the Cadastral Survey; and, whether it is a fact that it has already been ascertained in the districts surveyed that the registered acreage is considerably below the real amount of cultivated land?

The ochuri lands, estates held by the rich landowners, amount to about 1,308,000 feddans, a feddan being about an acre. The lands held by the fellahs, or Kharadji lands, comprise 3,406,480 feddans. I have not been able to ascertain how much of the ochuri lands are sub-let. The tax on these lands is, on an average, 52 piastres (10s. 8d.) a feddan, and on the ordinary lands 128 piastres (26s. 3d) I may point out that there is much valuable information on all these subjects in the Papers laid before Parliament last year—''Egypt," Nos. 6 and 7. Progress has been made with the Cadastral Survey; but, owing to the want of funds, it has not been so rapid as might be desired. There is reason to supposed that the old register of acreage is not correct.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is a fact that Major Stewart, the Adjutant of the Royal South Down Rifles, at present undergoing their annual drill at Downpatrick, reported Captain Wallace for insubordination; whether the Colonel of the Regiment (Waring) stated to the Adjutant that, if he would press for a court martial, all the officers of the Regiment would resign, and in consequence no trial of Captain Wallace took place; and, whether it is a, fact that both officers and men have disputed with Major Stewart as Adjutant of the Regiment?

A telegram has been received from the officer commanding the regimental district in which all the allegations in question are distinctly denied.

asked the Undersecretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to the continuance of high rates of mortality in a number of Bengal gaols during the last year; whether the average mortality in the Bengal gaols has exceeded 60 per 1,000, being much higher than the average among the general population; whether the death rate in Singhboom Gaol was 102 per 1,000, in Moorshedabad Gaol 107, in Beerbhoom Gaol 111, in Purneah Gaol 114, in Dinagepoor Gaol 117, in Lohardugga Gaol 119, in Bogra Gaol 122, in Burdwan Gaol 142, in Champaran Gaol 145, and in Mymensingh Gaol 226 per 1,000; whether he is aware that no local unhealthiness accounts for this excessive mortality, and that, for instance, while the death rate in Beerbhoom Gaol was 111 per 1,000, it was 24 per 1,000 in the Beerbhoom district, and while the death rate in Burdwan Gaol was 142 per 1,000, in the Burdwan district it was 35 per 1,000; and, that facilities will be given by Government for a thorough examination of the causes of the excessive mortality in Indian gaols?

The Bengal Gaol Report for last year has not yet been received; but the figures given in the Question show that it is based on the Report for 1882, in which year there was a great deal of sickness. As regards every one of the gaols mentioned in the Question, except that at Lohardugga, the Report states expressly that the surrounding district was suffering severely from malarial fever; and as to Beerbhoom, which is expressly referred to as having a mortality higher than that of the district, it is stated in the Report that the mortality of the general population, though far below that of the gaol population, was higher than any on record. Government are not in possession of any trustworthy statistics as to the death rates of the general population; and, therefore, all these comparisons are more or less misleading. Of the deaths which did, in fact, occur in gaol many were caused by ailments not specially induced by residence in goal. For example, the actual number who died in the Burdwan Gaol in the year was 14; of these five were in bad health when admitted to the prison, and never did any work; and as regards Moorshedabad, the Report shows that of the 17 prisoners who died during the year 13 were in bad health when admitted. The rate of mortality, however, has certainly been very high, and is not clearly accounted for, although the subject has been receiving constant attention. The Secretary of State directed last year that the whole subject should be thoroughly investigated.

said, that if the hon. Member desired to move for any extracts from the Report he should be happy to furnish them.

wished to know whether the investigation into the matter had taken place, or would it take place as soon as possible?

Yes, Sir. Perhaps he might be allowed to say that there was considerable misapprehension as to the state of affairs. If they took the whole of the persons who passed through the gaols and the number who died, it did not seem so very excessive as it appeared from the general statistics. Of 94,348 people who passed through the gaol, the deaths were 1,085.

said, he understood the Under Secretary admitted that the mortality exceeded 60 in 1,000, and in some cases went up to 100, or even 200, in the 1,000. Was it not the case that the wholesale mortality to which he had called attention had been brought for a long succession of years to the notice of the Government, and that, nevertheless, this wholesale assassination of prisoners continued year after year? He wished to know whether the Under Secretary would answer his last Question—what facilities would be given for a full examination of that excessive mortality?

said, he had already stated that the Secretary of State last year directed that a thorough investigation should be made; but the Report had not yet been received, and he would rather wait for it before answering that Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the further report upon the connection of military and uncovenanted, as well as covenanted, officials in mining speculations, which was promised last year, has been received from the Madras Government?

The Correspondence regarding the alleged participation of British officials in Mysore gold mining transactions has already been laid on the Table, and distributed. No further Report has been promised or received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state or undertake to give a brief Return of the average prices, and the annual exports, of the principal food grains of India, during the past twenty years?

The annual exports of the principal food grains of India for the last 20 years are given in the Statistical Abstracts relating to British India, and in greater detail in the Indian Trade Returns, both of which are annually presented to Parliament. A table of prices of food grains for past years is now being prepared, which will, I hope, be included in future Statistical Abstracts.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he will inquire whether it is true that at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, the three principal ports of communication with this country, there is a complete absence of the most elementary sanitary precautions; whether it is the case that at Madras the people have been dying of small pox during several months of the present year at the rate of many hundreds a week, and that every kind of abomination is still allowed to accumulate even within a short distance of Government House; whether it is the case that at Bombay there is no kind of epidemic hospital, but that cholera and small pox patients are treated promiscuously in the general hospitals, not-withstanding the constant presence of cholera, and although during three months of last year upwards of a thousand persons died of small pox in Bombay; whether it is the case that in Bombay, even in times of serious epidemics, the only means of disposing of infected sewage is by pumping it into the harbour, crowded with shipping under destination for all parts of Europe; whether it is the case that the Army Sanitary Commission has recently reported that "the increase of cholera in Calcutta is a perfectly legitimate consequence of filth unremoved and accumulating among the dwellings of the people;" and, whether a recent Government resolution has recorded the fact that multitudes of the people of Calcutta are allowed "to live in the midst of filth, to sleep on filth, to bathe in filth, to drink filth, to cook in filth, and wash their clothes in filth?"

It is not true that at Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay, there is a complete absence of the most elementary sanitary precautions. In each of the three Presidency towns there is an organized Municipal Health Department, and last year the expenditure of the three Municipalities on sanitation and sanitary objects was over £225,000, out of a total expenditure of less than £800,000. There has been a bad epidemic of small pox in Madras during the present year; but at the date of the latest Returns received it has greatly diminished. The sanitary state of Madras is not good; but much is being done to improve it. There is no permanent epidemic hospital in Bombay. On the occasion of epidemics isolated temporary hospitals are erected, and burnt when no longer needed. A portion of the sewage of Bombay is discharged into the harbour. Both the Municipality and Government have long been anxious to get rid of this system, and several Commissions have inquired into possible alternatives; but there are great physical difficulties. The Government of Bombay have lately given the Municipality formal notice to discontinue the system. The words cited relate not to the sanitation of the City of Calcutta, but to that of the ''Bustees," or Native villages within the municipal limits, which is very unsatisfactory, and regarding which the Government of Bengal considers that the Municipality has not done all that might be done.

asked the Secretary to the Local Government Board, what steps he proposed to take to preserve the people of this Country from the dangers of constant communication with pestilential localities, especially at a time when there was so much contagion abroad?

We rely for defence against cholera, in the first place, upon the efficiency of our customary sanitary operations; especially upon purity of water supplies, and upon the removal of excremental matters and their products. As cholera in England is, for the most part, spread by means of foul water and of infected excrements, these are the most important securities. In the second place, we rely on provision made at our ports for the detection of imported cases of sickness, and for the seclusion of such cases until danger of infection is at an end. And as regards small pox, which is a disease not peculiar to foreign countries, we have confidence in the power of vaccination and re-vaccination to limit its spread. These various measures, properly carried out, afford the best practical protection to this country against the danger of constant com- munication, with pestilential localities abroad.

asked whether the Secretary to the Local Government Board could state if any special precautions had been taken as to the importation of disease from the Indian ports during the last 12 months?

said, he had no special information on the subject.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether, having regard to the great reduction effected in the number of animals affected with foot and-mouth disease, the Privy Council do not consider that the time has now come to put in force the provisions of the twenty-ninth section of "The Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878," which empower them to direct the slaughter of animals by particular local authorities, with compensation in all or any of such cases?

, in reply, said, that the local authorities of the four counties in which, so far as was known to the Privy Council, foot-and-mouth disease existed—namely, Leicestershire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Kent—had been asked to forward to the Privy Council without delay the exact number of animals diseased, and of the animals that had been in contact with them up to the present time. When that information was received the Privy Council would be in a better position to judge what course they should take in regard to the slaughter of animals.

asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether it is true that a cargo of Canadian cattle has arrived at Liverpool suffering from foot-and-mouth disease; and, if so, what steps the Government have taken?

I am glad to say that the report referred to is not true.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the Lower Division Clerks in the War Office are allowed much less annual leave than similar clerks in almost all the other public offices; and, whether it is therefore the intention of the Lords of the Treasury to recommend that a uniform scale of leave, and sick leave, should be fixed for Lower Division Clerks throughout the Service?

The leave of the staff of an Office is primarily a matter of internal discipline, to be settled by the head of the Department. This Question, therefore, should, perhaps, have been addressed to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War; but I may say that I understand the War Office lower division clerks have the normal amount of leave. With reference to the latter part of the Question, I have to say that a Treasury Circular will shortly be issued, suggesting that heads of Departments should take united action, with a view of reducing the irregularities that at present exist in this respect.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If that Department have enforced the retirement of Mr. Arthur Houghton from the Public Service upon the completion by him of his sixtieth year, and of his fortieth year of service in that office; whether the head of his Department has recommended that Mr. Houghton's active service should be allowed to continue; and, whether, under Paragraph 2 of the Admiralty Memorandum of May 1882, it would not be possible for the Department to continue Mr. Houghton's employment and save burdening the Treasury with an unnecessary pension?

Mr. Houghton will be retired on the 30th of June, having exceeded the age of 60 years. The Regulation under which he retires was originally issued by the late Government, and was confirmed in 1882 by the present Board. The paragraph in the Memorandum to which the hon. Member refers states that—

"The only exception will be in the case of officers holding important positions, whose services it may be desirable to prolong, solely with reference to the interests of the Public Service."

asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware that press news is supplied to the Ellesmere, Russell, Central, and thirteen other clubs in Manchester; whether the Department have power, under the Acts of Parliament, to restrain the members of the said clubs from using telephonic communication for their own private business and affairs between these clubs; and, if he is prepared to withdraw the interdict issued by the Department, so far as applies to telephonic communication between clubs simultaneously supplied with the press news?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that I am aware that Press news is supplied to the clubs he mentions, as well as others in Manchester. The question of the legality of telephonic communication between separate clubs is quite distinct from, that of the conditions regulating the supply of Press news. I have already indicated what the latter conditions are, in my reply to the hon. Member's Question of the 17th instant; and I feel that it would be inconvenient to enter upon a discussion of the legal position of the Post Office with regard to telephonic communication in reply to a Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the recent decision of the magistrates in the case of the Peel Grove Burial Ground, Bethnal Green, by which it appears that the bye-laws made by the Metropolitan Board of Works under "The Metropolis Management Act, 1878," are inoperative to prevent the erection of houses on a burial ground, in which it is stated about 20,000 bodies were buried between 1844 and 1855; and, whether, if the Home Office has no power to prevent the scandal of building upon such ground without the removal of the bodies, the Government will give facilities for the passing of the Disused Burial Grounds Bill, which now stands for Committee?

, in reply, said, he understood that the Metropolitan Board had the intention of appealing against the decision in question; and he hoped, therefore, that it would not be conclusive. But if it should be so, he agreed with his hon. Friend that it would be extremely desirable that that great scandal and evil should not continue. He heartily wished success to the Disused Burial Grounds Bill, and was very sorry that it should be blocked from the usual quarter; but if there was a chance of getting on with the Bill it would be of great advantage, especially to the people of London.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Law of Scotland peremptorily prohibits the common sale of exciseable liquors by unlicensed persons; if so, whether he is aware that the Ship Inn, Dumfries, is being openly conducted as a public house, although no certificate or licence has been granted to any person in respect of it; and, whether he has instructed or intends to instruct the procurator fiscal to prosecute those concerned, or to intimate to them that if the Ship Inn, while unlicensed, continues to be conducted as a public house, persons buying or selling exciseable liquors therein will be prosecuted?

It is, of course, unlawful to sell exciseable liquors without a licence. I believe that no person has obtained a licence applicable to the "Ship" Inn at Dumfries; but the Revenue authorities have undertaken not to prosecute in respect of a petition by the Licensing Magistrates, and their promise to grant a licence on the first opportunity and upon a deposit of the duty. The Inland Revenue authorities, who are familiar with the whole circumstances, are the best judges of the propriety of a prosecution; and, having regard to the course which they have taken, I do not intend to give any instructions to the Procurator Fiscal on the subject.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is true that a district in Leith, purchased with the aid of £100,000 borrowed four years since from the Imperial Exchequer under the Artizans' Dwellings (Scotland) Act, has been let by the Leith Corporation to proprietors of shows, rifle ranges, merry-go-rounds, and gambling establishments; whether numerous complaints have been made through the Leith newspapers that the place is a public nuisance; whether the School Board has protested against the application of the area to such purposes, on the ground of the demoralization caused to schoolchildren, whom its attractions induce, to play truant and misappropriate their school fees; whether the Town Council have memorialized the Home Secretary to relieve them of the obligation to erect houses for the working classes, and whether they base their application on the allegation that there are a large number of unlet workmen's houses in the burgh; and, whether, considering the purpose for which the £100,000 was advanced, the Leith Corporation cannot be compelled either to feu the ground for the purpose for which it was acquired, or to dispose of it and repay the loan?

I am informed that the cleared portion of the ground has been till lately let for shows as a temporary source of revenue; but that it has not been let for gambling establishments. Complaints have appeared in the Leith newspapers in regard to the condition of the place, and the School Board have called attention to the shows, and urged their removal. The Town Council have memorialized the Home Secretary to relieve them either wholly or partially of the obligation to erect houses for the working classes, basing their application on the allegation, inter alia, that there are many unlet workmen's houses in the burgh. With respect to the last part of the Question, the municipal authorities of Leith say that they cannot at present obtain offers for the ground.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can now announce any decision of the Board as to the position and pay of the leading men of shipwrights in Her Majesty's dockyards; and, as to the Petition of the shipwrights, as a body, for an increase of pay?

Treasury approval has recently been received for the scheme recommended by the Committee on the Constructive Staff of the Navy. The leading men of shipwrights will be designated Inspectors. Their salaries will range from £100 to £150 a-year. In a few days the necessary orders will be issued to the yards. I am not authorized to hold out any hopes of a general increase of pay for the shipwrights.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is an Instruction to the Civil Service Commission, in order to obviate suspicion of unfairness, that candidates for public appointments should be known to examiners by numbers only; whether it is the fact that persons appointed to examine candidates viva voce have asked candidates as to the place at which they have obtained their teaching, and as to the persons who have imparted that teaching to them, and have given the impression to the candidates that they were favourably disposed or the reverse, as the candidate has appeared from some school, or college, or private tutor, and whether this practice of examiners has had the approval of the Commissioners; whether the father of one candidate, in consequence of the treatment which his son received from one of the examiners in the particulars before cited, has complained to the Commissioners, and received an evasive or irrelevant reply; and, whether, in order to obviate a possible impression that the examinations on behalf of the Government are conducted unfairly, he will agree to an inquiry by Royal or Parliamentary Commission into the system of appointing examiners and setting papers at the office in Cannon Row?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. I have referred it to the Civil Service Commissioners, with whom the matter rests; and they inform me, with reference to the first Question of my hon. Friend, that they do not think it would be expedient or practically possible to use numbers in all their examinations; but that they do so in. most of the impor- tant competitions, including such competitions, as that to which the next Question refers. As to the second Question, the Commissioners state that it has come to their knowledge that at a recent vivâ voce examination an examiner questioned some of the candidates as to the places at which and the persons by whom they had been taught; but the Commissioners have satisfied themselves by inquiry that whatever impression the candidates may have formed, the examiner was, in fact, in no way favourably disposed to them or the reverse in consequence to their replies on these points. The Commissioners do not approve of interrogating candidates in the manner described, and they have taken steps to prevent any repetition of the occurrence. As to the third Question, the Commissioners state that the father of one of these candidates complained to them on the subject, and requested that his son might be re-examined by another examiner. As the Commissioners, on inquiry into the matter, were satisfied that no injustice had been done to him, they did not consider that there was any ground for holding such re-examination, and the father was informed accordingly. Under these circumstances, I see no occasion for any further inquiry.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give a day for discussion upon the state of affairs in Zululand? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the great gravity and importance of the question, which was, indeed, only second to that of Egypt. He hoped, therefore, that the Prime Minister would be able to give him a favourable answer.

I do not at all question that this subject deserves the attention of the House; but I am sorry to say, and I think the hon. Baronet need not be surprised, that in the present state of Public Business it is not in my power to place at his disposal any day.

Then I must take the earliest opportunity of bringing the question forward.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in making the Agreement with France that the Military Occupation of Egypt by England should be continued till the 1st of January 1888, any decision had been come to by Her Majesty's Government as to the retention or abandonment, total or partial, of the Soudan?

The question of the Soudan has never been touched upon or treated in the preliminary communications with France. They refer only to the territory of Egypt Proper, and the Soudan is not included in that territory.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the Question, whether any decision has been come to by Her Majesty's Government?

With respect to the decision of Her Majesty's Government, I thought it was clear and a matter of notoriety that the advice pressed upon the Government of Egypt was all in favour of the evacuation of the Soudan.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any of the financial proposals about to be submitted to the Conference are such as could not be carried into effect without the concurrence of the House of Commons; and, if so, whether he will not at least make the House acquainted with such portion of the proposals before its freedom of action is hampered by the meeting of the Conference?

I am afraid that I cannot vary from the decision at which the Government have arrived under the circumstances of the course; but we wish to take every care, as far as depends upon us, that there shall be no invasion of the freedom of action of this House. We cannot, however, guarantee the freedom of action of the House against the proceedings of other parties.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Have any communications been made by Her Majesty's Government to the French Government as to the nature, character, or extent of the financial proposals to be submitted to the Conference; at what dates and between whom did such communications take place; is the result of any such communications embodied in any writing official or non-official in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; and, has the fact of such communications been conveyed to any of the other Powers?

The full proposals of the Government in regard to finance were communicated confidentially to the Powers, and also to the Porte, on Tuesday last. Previous to that time there were certain informal communications of a partial character; but no engagement of any kind has been taken by this country or given.

Were the financial proposals made to France before they were made to the other Powers?

I can add nothing to what I have said. They were partial communications; but they were not confined to any single Power, nor do they involve any engagement on one side or the other.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury. If he will undertake that the results of the consultation with the Powers on the communications which have passed between England and France will be communicated to the House, so soon as they are received by Her Majesty's Government, whether before or during the sittings of the Conference, if it should assemble? He wished further to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in reference to this Question, whether it was in his recollection that he stated on the 27th of May—

"we undertake and engage that in the event of any common understanding with France in consultation with the Powers, and of any result following those communications, all the results and the whole conclusion shall be presented to Parliament before the Conference meets;"

"We have spoken, not of the arrangement with France, hut of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference."

Undoubtedly we have deemed it our duty to lay before the House all arrangements that we have been able to make, and all the results at which we have arrived. The entire result is laid before the House, so far as we have been able to arrive at it. With respect to the consultation with the Powers, we have no authority to define a limited time within which the replies shall be made, and replies have not been made by the Powers which could form the subject of communication to this House. I think this also applies to the Question of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The question seems to be whether we intend to postpone the invitation for the meeting of the Conference until the Powers have given replies with regard to the preliminary communications with France. We have no such intention, and one of the most conclusive reasons against such intention is that the financial condition of Egypt does not admit of it.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform us whether he has received answers from any of the Powers; and, if so, from which?

I could not give any formal answer to that Question without Notice; but I think I am correct in saying that such answers as we have received are to the effect that no objection has been taken to the arrangement; but the final judgment is reserved to a later stage of the proceedings. I have no right to say so; but I think it very possible that the Powers may not give such final judgment until they have some knowledge of the proposals to be laid before the Conference.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his own view of what he meant when he said—

"We shall lay before the House the whole conclusion at which we have arrived after consultation with the Powers."

"After consulting with the Powers" is exactly what we have done. We have consulted the Powers. We are not in possession of answers from them of a definitive character, and such as we could communicate to the House.

Have all the Powers as yet agreed to attend the Conference?

Yes, Sir.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on May the 27th, he gave a pledge to the House to the effect that Her Majesty's Government would, under the contingency which has since arisen of a common understanding with France, present the whole conclusions at which they arrived to Parliament before the meeting of the Conference; whether an important portion of such conclusions is the imposing of certain pecuniary liabilities upon Great Britain with regard to Egypt; and, whether he is now prepared to redeem the pledge he then gave.

The important part of this Question is in the second paragraph. In reference to that I can only say it has not entered into the arrangements that have been made.

Am I right in supposing that no conclusion has been arrived at with regard to pecuniary liabilities?

I thought I had made it clear before by previous answers that the whole subject had been reserved for the decision of the Conference.

explained that when he had stated that the Powers had accepted the invitation to the Conference he had not included the Porte, which was not generally included in the term "the Powers;" but, in order to prevent any misunderstanding, he ought to say that the Porte would attend the Conference, though it was doubtful whether it would have a Representative present on the first day.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in 1855, he did not join with Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Cobden, Mr. Ricardo, Mr. Laing, and other members of the Tory Party and of the Radical Party, in strong opposition to the proposals of Lord Palmerston, with reference to a guarantee of a Turkish Loan of £5,000,000; whether Lord Palmerston only succeeded in defeating the opposition of the First Lord of the Treasury by a majority of three; whether the First Lord of the Treasury is correctly reported by Hansard as having used the following words, in his speech against the Second Reading of the Bill:—

"It is the prerogative of the Crown, under the advice of the Ministers, to determine the terms of these Conventions, but I am not to he told that the functions of this House, with regard to entailing charges on the people, are to be set at nought by this doctrine of prerogative;"

This Question is made up of certain matters of public notoriety and public record. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go over all these matters to ascertain who did and who did not support a certain Motion, or by what numbers it was carried; but as to whether I am correctly reported, I cannot say whether these are the exact words I used, but certainly they contain extremely sound doctrine, and I could not express it better if I attempted to do so. I am glad to find from the Question of the noble Lord that he concurs in that doctrine. I have seen this Question for the first time this morning, and I have not really had the time to refer to my speech, as I have been engaged in attendance upon Her Majesty at Windsor.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to find a few moments?

The noble Lord is asking me to perform a most disagreeable task. But out of respect to the noble Lord, and to acknowledge the compliment he has paid me in rescuing from the dust of oblivion my old speeches, I will endeavour to make the reference as soon as I can.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on the 10th August 1882, the Earl of Dufferin, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and Plenipotentiary at the Conference then being held, wrote to Lord Granville in the following terms: —

"I think it advisable to put on record that, when complying with your Lordship's instructions to acquiesce in the Italian proposal relative to the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal, I was careful to make it perfectly clear to the Conference that the arrangements under discussion did not in any sense or degree imply the neutralisation of the Canal, which was a principle to which the British Government would never subscribe. All the Representatives fully recognised the distinction, and the Russian Representative repudiated the idea of even hinting at such a proposition;"

"I have received your Excellency's Despatch of the 15th instant, and, in reply, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government approve of your having explained to the Conference that their acquiescence in the Italian proposal for the temporary organisation of a maritime police in the Suez Canal did not in any sense imply an agreement on their part to the neutralisation of the Canal;"

The noble Lord has, perhaps, been misled by some ambiguity as to the sense in which the term was employed. Her Majesty's Government did come to the conclusion that what is commonly called the neutralization of the Suez Canal was not expedient. The other day I stated — I am not sure that I applied the word neutralization to the Suez Canal — that there would be a plan of neutralization in Egypt, and that the Suez Canal would be embraced within that plan; but to prevent any possibility of mistake I said that the plan of neutralization of Egypt would be founded generally, so far as the case would admit, on the principles applied to the case of Belgium, and that the plan as regarded the Suez Canal would be founded on the principles which were, I think, very clearly and distinctly set out in a despatch of Lord Granville, dated January 3, 1883. There is no change in the view of Her Majesty's Government since that time.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the statement made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the Porte, when inviting Turkey to the Conference, that financial questions would only be considered thereat, the proposal made by Her Majesty's Government to that of France, that the Military Occupation of Egypt by England should be continued till January 1888, was communicated to Turkey either before or at the time of making it?

Yes, Sir; the statement of arrangement with France was communicated to Turkey even before the time of making it. The arrangement was communicated to Turkey as well as to the other Powers.

said, Ms Question had been anticipated by an impromptu Question put to the Prime Minister by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith); but he wished a reply to the last paragraph — Whether the engagement referred to the laying of an arrangement with the Powers, and not to the laying of an arrangement with France, before the House, at a date anterior to the Conference; whether the replies from the Powers who had been consulted had been received; and, if they were not received before the date fixed for the meeting of the Conference on Saturday next, how he proposed to fulfil his engagement to Parliament unless the meeting of the Conference was postponed?

Yes, Sir; I consider we are bound, as soon as any arrangement with the Powers is made, to make that arrangement known to Parliament. We have not made it known now because it has not been concluded. We have no right to say that definitive answers will be received until the Powers are aware of the whole of the propositions we intend to make. Then, the hon. Member asks whether we are to propose that the Conference should be postponed. I do not consider that we have ever made an engagement to postpone the meeting of the Conference for the purpose of receiving these replies. I have the gravest doubts whether we could obtain those replies before the meeting of the Conference.

Is it not the case that the right hon. Gentleman undertook on the part of the Government, after several consultations had been held with the Powers, to place the result of those consultations before the House of Commons at a date anterior to the holding of the Conference?

As far as regards our consulting with the Powers, that is certainly true. We have made known our consultations to the House; but, as far as regards the answers from the Powers, we never made any engagement.

How can you fulfil your engagement to place them before the House before the meeting of the Conference?

I have made no engagement at all to give those answers before the meeting of the Conference, nor was it in my power to make any such engagement. The Conference was invited for the purpose of considering urgent financial questions connected with Egypt; and it would not have been tolerated that we should postpone such a meeting until we had the answers of the Powers with regard to our communications with France.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, if he is correctly reported to have used these words—

"We have spoken not of laying the arrangement with France, but of laying the arrangement with the Powers before the House at a date anterior to the Conference;"

I cannot say, on a challenge across the floor of the House, whether the words quoted by the hon. Member are precisely reported or not. I should require to have an opportunity of comparing the different reports. We have consulted the Powers on this subject; and, undoubtedly, I am under the belief that I conveyed to the House that that which we contemplated would ultimately come to be an arrangement with the Powers, and not with France alone.

I beg to give Notice that I shall ask a further Question on the subject; and I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of verifying the reports of his speech.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the engagements made with the Powers will be made dependent upon the decision of the House; and whether the Powers will be told that the engagement will not be final or conclusive until it has been submitted to the House?

I have said, I think many times, that the whole of the preliminary engagements and the plans, which may be accepted and adopted by the Conference, will ultimately depend upon the vote of Parliament.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean by Parliament both Houses of Parliament?

I think I need not go further than to say that it will be dependent upon the vote of Parliament. I wish to qualify what I said in reference to a reply which I gave a short time ago to a Question of the hon. Mem- ber for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) as to the Forte's accepting the Conference. What I said was about the acceptance of the Porte. It is what we have reason to believe; but it has not been notified to us in any formal or official manner.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister, whether the first meeting of the Conference will be on Saturday?

Yes, Sir; it will.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What facilities he will afford to the Member for Portsmouth for bringing forward the Motion of which he has given Notice?

I assume that we shall dispose at once of the third reading of the Franchise Bill; and upon that assumption we shall be prepared to place Monday at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman. We have anticipated that, under the circumstances of the case, the House would certainly not be satisfied with conducting a debate of that kind except from day to day.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government accept the interpretation as to the new powers of the Caisse Internationale which the French Prime Minister attributes to it, and especially that

"It is expressly stipulated that the Budget shall be submitted to the Public Debt Commission in time to allow it to make observations, which will be considered; and it will thus exercise a powerful influence over Egyptian finances. Comparing this institution with the old one, which had to be abandoned, we may say that the Public Debt Commission will have nearly all the powers of the old Control except the right of attending Cabinet Councils?"

The hon. Member apparently quotes from an authentic and official report of M. Jules Ferry's speech, giving a very clear, able, and comprehensive account of the whole arrangements relating to the Dual Control and to the international authority which is to be attached to the Commission of the Caisse. The hon. Gentleman has selected a single passage of that speech of M. Jules Ferry, and has asked me to pronounce an opinion upon it. I decline to do so. It would be very hard indeed if the Parliament of England were supposed to be bound by every explanatory expression used by the Minister of France, as it would be very hard if the Chamber of Deputies in France were to put to M. Jules Ferry questions founded on partial extracts of statements of mine. Having said that, I should say that, in point of fact, this passage of M. Jules Ferry's speech is strictly correct; and the whole discussion by him of the subject of the international arrangements is full, clear, able, and true, and I have no fault to find with it at all.

I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government seriously contemplate proceeding with the London Government Bill?

In the circumstances in which we are now, with a debate such as that anticipated on Monday, I cannot give any answer as to the date of proceeding with this Bill or with other matters, however important they may be. The hon. Gentleman will be entitled to put a Question to me on another day.