asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will be good enough to lay upon the Table a Return embodying the details of the four groups of figures (between the years 1858 and 1885) introduced by him into his Budget Speech, to institute a comparison of the incidence of taxation on "Articles of Consumption" and on "Property" respectively?

(who replied) said: My right hon. Friend will be happy to lay on the Table a Return as desired by the hon. Member.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in the case of officers and servants for the service of the Metropolitan Asylums Board Hospitals, a proper interval is always allowed to elapse between their re-vaccination and their entering on their duty; and, whether it is the fact that certain officers or servants at the Fulham Small Pox Hospital have entered on their duties without re-vaccination?

(who replied) said: We have made inquiry, and find that in the cases of the North-Western, South-Eastern, and Southwestern Hospitals an interval is allowed to elapse between the re-vaccination of the officers and servants and their entering on their duties. In the first mentioned hospital the interval is stated to be 48 or 72 hours. As regards the Eastern Hospital, it has been the custom to re-vaccinate the officers and servants on the day of arrival at the hospital or the day following. At the Hospital Ships no interval elapses betweeen the re-vaccination and exposure to small-pox infection. At the Western or Fulham Hospital the officers and servants are usually re-vaccinated on the day of their entering on their duties. There have, however, since May, 1884, been two instances in which the re-vaccination was not performed until some days after the assistants had commenced discharging their duties, and this was in consequence of an omission to report the cases to the Medical Superintendent.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been called to the allegations contained in The West Lothian Courier of April 25th, that public houses were engaged, and "free tables" established, for the promotion of the interests of certain candidates at the recent election of the Shotts School Board, and that "as much as five shillings was offered to certain voters for their votes;" and, whether, in view of the numerous complaints as to bribery and treating at School Board elections that have recently appeared in the Scotch Press, he will consider the propriety of extending the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Acts to School Board elections at as early a date as possible?

I have seen the letters in The West Lothian Courier. On inquiry I can find no confirmation of the statements that public-houses were engaged and free tables established in the interests of the candidates, and I have not learned of any instance in which money was offered for a vote. The only foundation for the last statement which I have been able to trace is that in the case of two miners who were asked to assist one of the candidates in his election, 1s. or 2s. were given to the children of each of them. It appears, however, that certain of the candidates treated the voters to drink. The instances which have recently been brought to light appear to me to establish the necessity for extending the Parliamentary Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Practices) Acts to School Board elections in Scotland; and, as I think I have already mentioned, a Bill is in preparation which will extend those Acts to such elections, as well as to municipal elections. We cannot hope to pass the Bill this Session; but the School Board elections will not recur for three years.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been drawn to the form of a Return under the provisions of "The Representation of the People Act, 1884," which has been issued by the Parochial Authorities of the Metropolis, requiring Returns to be made, as follows, under a penalty of forty shillings: —

, in reply, said, he had seen a form of Return in the Representation of the People Act of last year, which had been issued by the Parochial Authorities to the ratepayers of the Metropolis. This form was enjoined by the Act. When it was being discussed in the House the view of the Government was to leave the drawing up of the form to the authorities; but the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Stanhope) expressed a strong wish that a form should be placed in the Schedule, and after consideration this form was adopted and inserted. He admitted the difficulty ratepayers would experience in understanding the form; but he had that morning received from the Vestry Clerk of St. Marylebone an instruction which had been issued along with the form, and which appeared to make the matter much more clear. He (the Attorney General) would suggest that in the Registration Bill now before the House a provision might be inserted in the Schedule enjoining upon the overseers the issue of a similar instruction. He would confer with the right hon. Gentleman opposite on the question.

expressed the hope that the Attorney General would confer with the Irish Attorney General, in order that Ireland might participate in any benefit from the conference.

intimated his readiness to do so.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether with reference to the Report of the Select Committee on Westminster Hall Restoration, and in view of the indefinite recommendation of the Committee that they

"Suggest for consideration, that the wall of the two storied building should be somewhat lowered, and that a plain coping should be substituted for the battlemented parapet,"

(who replied) said: Mr. Pearson has reported that the models on the side of Westminster Hall, being only of canvas, are already in such a state that it is necessary to remove them without delay; and the Department cannot go to the expense of erecting further models to show the exact elevations. But the Appendix to the Evidence of the Committee will contain a drawing by Mr. Pearson showing the modifications which he proposes to make to meet the views of the Committee. The evidence and plans laid before the Committee will supply all the information required as to the rooms in the gallery proposed to be erected under the buttresses. These rooms are not intended as Committee Rooms for the use of the House; but will be available for conference or deputation rooms, or for such other purposes as may be ultimately found desirable.

said, that an alternative design had been laid before the Committee by Mr. Pearson as to the restoration of Westminster Hall, and was now under consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How often Mountjoy Prison was visited in 1883 and 1884 by the visitors appointed for that purpose by the Lord Lieutenant; and, whether, as recommended by the Royal Commission on Irish Prisons, full Reports in writing as to the condition and discipline of that prison for the above years were presented to the Lord Lieutenant?

It appears that when the term of office of the Visitors of the Dublin Prisons expired at the close of 1882 their appointment was not renewed, nor were new appointments made. This appears to be entirely due to an inadvertence, so far as I can see. Last year the Royal Commission was sitting, and no appointments of Visitors were made pending their Report. They have reported strongly in favour of such Visitors; and His Excellency, who fully concurs, has appointed five Visitors for the Dublin Prisons—namely, Viscount Powerscourt, Sir James Mackey, Mr. Joshua Pim, Mr. Robert Warren, and my hon. Friend the junior Member for Dublin City (Dr. Lyons). I understand they visited the prisons last month, and made observations in the books provided for the purpose; but their formal Report will not be presented until the end of their year of office. If the hon. Baronet will be good enough to move for it, I shall be happy to lay on the Table a copy of the letter of appointment and instructions given to these gentlemen.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether, in view of the reported destruction of the wooden sleepers on the Suakin-Berber Railway, directions will be given to employ metal sleepers in future, the latter having been found serviceable on the Indian Government Railwavs and elsewhere?

asked whether the construction of the Suakin-Berber Railway was to be continued at all?

The noble Lord asks me to prophesy, which I must decline to do. In answer to the Question of the hon. Baronet, I have to say that the relative advantages of metal and wooden sleepers were carefully considered before shipments were made for Suakin. Upon the advice of the contractors and their engineers it was decided to use wooden sleepers in the first instance, on the ground that they were best adapted to the rapid construction of a temporary line; they were ready to hand, while steel sleepers must have been specially manufactured, and would not have been so useful in completing cargoes. Under the circumstances which were sure to prevail at Suakin during the pressure incident to the disembarkation of troops, transport, animals, and stores, it was thought that the use of wooden sleepers, which could be floated on shore, would greatly facilitate the difficult process of unloading, while for rough and uneven ground they would offer great advantages in making a more secure road. A limited supply of metal sleepers has been sent out for use in watercourses; and in the event of a continuation of the line, or of the permanent completion of the part now constructed, under circumstances offering less difficulty, both in respect of the delivery of cargoes and of the rate of construction, metal sleepers would no doubt be preferred.

Is the report true which has reached me, that a portion of the railway plant has already been shipped homewards?

No, Sir; I am not aware that there is any truth in the report.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Belgian Government have recently proposed that a Conference should be held on the subject of Sugar Bounties; what answer has been given by Her Majesty's Government; and whether he can lay any Papers upon the Table on this subject?

An invitation to attend this proposed Conference was conveyed to Her Majesty's Government in December last by the Belgian Minister. Baron Solvyns was informed, in reply, that, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, any active steps for the relief of the sugar industry must be taken by the countries whose duties and bounties have placed this industry in an artificial position. Her Majesty's Government, before accepting the invitation, wished to know whether the Governments of the countries which grant bounties had expressed their intention of being represented at the proposed Conference. An answer was shortly afterwards received to the effect that the proposal was postponed. I will consult the President of the Board of Trade, whose Department deals with the general question, as to the presentation of the Papers on the subject to Parliament.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government can state what is the present position of the proceedings for enforcing payment of the amount duo from the Municipality of Zamora, in Spain, to the Zamora Waterworks Company; whether it is the fact that whereas the Spanish Government at one time used their powers so as to compel the municipality to pay, they have now not only ceased to do so but are placing difficulties in the way of the creditors; and, if there are any papers on the subject which can be produced?

The real estate of the Municipality of Zamora was put up for sale on October 16 last, but there was no bidder, The Company then applied for a second sale at a reduction of 25 per cent on the upset price. In consequence of the action of the Spanish Home Office on the subject, Her Majesty's Minister felt obliged to address a protest to the Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs, who promised to insist on the property being at once put up again for sale at the reduced price. Nevertheless, the property was again offered for sale without any reduction, with the same result as before. There is reason to fear that the Spanish Home Office contemplate a revaluation of the property, which would entail a further delay of many months. Her Majesty's Government hope, however, to effect a speedy settlement of the case. They are in communication with the German Government, whose subjects are also interested. I cannot undertake at present to say whether Papers can be laid on the Table or not.

asked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is a fact that the condition of the Japanese Exhibition had been brought to the notice of the Metropolitan Board; if so, what action was taken; and, whether, if it is true that the premises are to be rebuilt, he will guarantee that sufficient protection will be afforded to the public against fire, both as regards the construction itself and also for proper means of exit?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to inform him that the attention of the Metropolitan Board was called, at the end of January last, to the state of the building in which the Japanese Exhibition was held, and that previous to that time communications had taken place between the Board's Superintending Architect and the District Surveyor on the subject. In the result, the owner of the hall was summoned by the District Surveyor before the magistrate, in order to obtain an amendment of certain irregularities in the construction of the hall, and the magistrate made an order that the works should be amended in accordance with the requirements of the District Surveyor. This order was not, however, complied with; and subsequently the Board was informed that the owner had obtained a licence for music from the Justices of Middlesex, although the Board had not issued a certificate that the building had been completed in accordance with their regulations, as required by the Building Act of 1878. Proceedings were accordingly taken to recover penalties against the proprietor of the Japanese Exhibition, and the case was heard at the Westminster Police Court on April 23; but at the bearing the owner of the hall put himself forward as, in fact, responsible for keeping open the entertainment, and, under these circumstances, the magistrate dismissed the summons. I may add that the Board had prepared a series of requisitions for remedying the structural defects of the building, which would have been served in a few days but for the recent fire, which has shown conclusively that the Board has throughout been right in its contention that the building, until amended in accordance with the requirements, was totally unsafe and unfit for a place of public entertainment. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the event of the premises being rebuilt, the Board will spare no effort to secure proper protection for the public, both as regards construction and exit.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that a Freemason Lodge was held in the County Court House, Maryborough, on the 14th of April last; and, if this is the usual place for meetings of this Society; and, if so, have the Freemasons any special right to make use of this building, erected by the ratepayers of the Queen's County for public purposes?

I am informed that the Freemasons use this Court House in common with other persons. The control of the Court House is vested in the Grand Jury, and the Government have no power to interfere in the matter.

Would the right hon. Gentleman be in favour of a branch of the National League holding its meetings there?

I have no power one way or the other.

Who are the other persons who meet there?

I have no knowledge on the subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Returning Officer and the Mallow Board of Guardians have refused Mr. Thomas Barry, candidate for the poor law guardianship of the Clemor electoral division, permission to examine the claims lodged by landowners for property votes in the said division; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will direct that facilities be given to Mr. Barry for the purpose of testing the legality of these votes; and, whether in view of the charges made by Mr. Barry that the votes cast against him by Lord Doneraile, Mr. W. Johnson, and Mr. B. V. Mackay were bogus property votes, and that two men named Hunter and Nagle, having three votes apiece, and having filled up their voting papers in Mr. Barry's favour, were intimidated into tearing up the papers, a sworn inquiry into the circumstances attending the election will be ordered?

I understand the Guardians have passed a resolution to the effect referred to, and they were within their right in doing so. It is, of course, open to Mr. Barry to appeal to the Local Government Board. If he does so, and furnishes particulars of his objections, the Board will take the matter into consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, Why the Sunday Post established last year between Ballandine and Irishtown (county Mayo), on a numerously subscribed Memorial from the inhabitants of the district, has been discontinued; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the district served by the Sunday delivery contains three thousand persons, and that, under the present arrangement, letters arriving at Ballandine at twelve o'clock on Saturdays are not distributed until nine o'clock on Monday mornings, to the great inconvenience of trade in the district, arrangements will be made to reestablish the Sunday delivery at Irish-town?

The hon. Member appears to be under a misapprehension in stating that a Sunday post was established to Irishtown last year, and has since been discontinued. There never has been a post on Sundays; but the late Mr. Fawcett pro- mised that the accommodation should be afforded if applied for in accordance with the rule by persons receiving two-thirds of the letters for the district. No such application has yet been received; but when it is I shall be glad to give it my best consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he could not take steps to have even one delivery of letters on Sundays in the Metropolitan district, and thus obviate the inconveniences of the present system to dwellers in London?

There does not appear to be any such general demand for a Sunday delivery in London as to justify me in making any change in the existing arrangements.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the 20th ultimo, a young man named George Napier, of Roscrea, was charged before the magistrates at Nenagh with having, on the 6th of the same month, "presented a revolver at a number of children;" whether several witnesses deposed to his having gone through the streets of Nenagh shouting "for the north," and calling the people "papists and rebels," and saying that he would "put a bullet through a Catholic or a rebel;" whether he was discharged without punishment on the occasion, and on what grounds; whether Major Waring, R.M., in giving the decision of the Bench, said—

"The magistrates who gave the defendant license to carry arms did not use discretion in doing so, and that he handled the weapon in a manner he ought not to have done;"

Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat this Question on Monday, by which time I hope to have a written Report of the case which is on its way, but has not yet reached me.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances under which Mr. Bor, clerk of the union and returning officer for the Esker Division of the Edenderry Union, failed to send a voting paper to one Luke Dunne, and afterwards, at the casting up of the votes, rejected the voting paper of Dunne, on the ground that he had not applied for it on the 20th March; whether, in fact, Dunne applied on the 19th March at the workhouse for the voting paper in question, and filled it up under the direction of Mr. Bor himself, to whom he then and there delivered it; and, whether the Local Government Board have already had cause to complain of the conduct of this officer in similar matters?

It appears the clerk made a mistake in allowing Dunne to vote on the wrong day, and on an objection being made to the vote on this ground, he felt himself compelled to disallow it; but this did not affect the result of the election. The Local Government Board had some reason to complain of the manner in which this clerk discharged his duties last year; but this proceedings have been more satisfactory at the recent election.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would extend by a year the time allowed the Unions to collect Seed Rate; and, if this extension can be legally granted by an order of the Local Government Board or the Treasury, or if special legislation would be requisite?

There does not appear to be any necessity for this extension of time, which would require legislation. It is open to any Board of Guardians desiring additional time to make application to the Board of Works, who, I believe, usually accede to any request of the kind made on reasonable grounds.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether My Lords will consent to stay the sale of the Ulster Canal until further evidence be taken as to the bearing and influence which this important link of connection in the inland waterways of Ireland may possibly exert in facilitating the transport of the materials and products of an extended system of industries in that part of the United Kingdom?

The Question of my hon. Friend affords me the opportunity of explaining the position of the Government with respect to this matter. The primary object of the Government throughout has been to do what seemed the best for the interests of the locality concerned, so far as could be done consistently with our duty to consider the pecuniary interests of the general taxpayer. As far as it was possible to ascertain it, the opinion of the districts through which the Canal passes was, and is, unanimously in favour of its retention as a water communication. There is also a general desire that the Canal should be improved, so as to make it more available for traffic; and my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) thought that he had secured both these objects with terms favourable to the interests of the locality and fair to the public by the scheme which is embodied in the Bills of the last and present Sessions. The local opinion appears to be in favour of this scheme, subject to certain amendments with respect to details, which have been accepted by the Government; but I have gathered, greatly to my surprise, that, although the opinions of the localities are favourable, the feeling amongst the Irish Members is adverse to it. The objections of hon. Members seem to rest mainly on financial grounds; but they could be remedied by modifications in the scheme.

Does that mean that the Government will withdraw the Bill?

No; but that they will consider what modifications could be made in it.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If the Treasury will grant the prayer of the Memorial of January last from the Sligo Harbour Commissioners, for extension of time for repayment of loan, postponement of instalments of principal, and lowering of rate of interest?

A full Report of this case has recently been received for consideration. I have already told the hon. Member that the interest on existing loans is based on the lowest rate legally possible, and therefore cannot be reduced. The decision as to prolonging the period of repayment of the present loans must depend on the willingness of the Harbour Commissioners to improve the securities which they have offered by a re-adjustment of the tolls.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that fresh mutton from Now Zealand has been refused and beef from Russia accepted for British troops at Suakin; and, if so, whether it would not be possible to give a preference to Colonial meat, which would, in certain eventualities, probably become a matter of necessity?

The requirement of the Commissariat at Suakin was live cattle. The supply from New Zealand consisted of dead meat, frozen, and unsuited for use at the front. If Colonial live stock could be delivered at a price not greater than that paid for the produce of other countries, there would be every desire to give it the preference.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that, with the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, Mr. Errington has been making endeavours at Rome to prevent the ap- pointment of a particular ecclesiastic to the See of Dublin?

Sir, I am desired by Earl Granville to state, on his behalf, that I have no further information to give in addition to the statement which I have already made.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the letter published by their Cairo correspondent in The Standard of May 5th, from an officer in the camp at Kurot, near Debbeh; and, if the statements therein made, that the huts will not be completed till August, that seven men have died of enteric fever in the last twelve days, that, although the camp was only begun to be formed five weeks ago, there are already 150 sick, are correct; if so, and it is determined to keep the troops in that pestilential climate, if nothing can be done to alleviate their sufferings?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the following extract from the letter of an officer in the camp at Kurot, near Debbeh, on the Upper Nile, in The Standard, of Tuesday, May 5th:—

"We are all in miserable bell tents, the huts cannot be finished till August. The temperature is now 120 degrees:

"Every day is 24 hours of physical torture:

"Seven of our men have died of enteric fever in the last twelve days, and although we only began to form our camp here five weeks ago, we have already 150 sick. It is a disgrace to keep us in such a fiendish country; nothing can excuse it:

"The food is bad, we are still in rags, as no clothing has come up yet:

"If they keep the troops here all the summer none will be left worth a straw:

"Now the correspondents are gone everything is concealed, and there is no one to say a word for the soldier;"

I have asked Sir Redvers Buller for information on this matter, and, by a tele- gram, dated from Dongola, this morning, he reports as follows: —

"Hutting not yet finished at Kurot, Tani, or Merawi; should be this week. But troops have had day shelter for more than three weeks. Principal medical officer reports percentage sick, 71. Health of troops not so good, but not materially worse than at the date of last returns—viz., loth April. Doctors report health at Dongola, Abu Gus, Tani, Merawi as good; at Shabadood, Kurot, and Fatmeh as fair."

Are we to understand from the noble Marquess that the troops are still living in bell tents on the Upper Nile?

I presume that, at stations where the hutting has not been completed, they are; but, as stated by Sir Redvers Buller, day shelter during the great heat has been provided in all those stations for the troops for a considerable time.

Can the noble Marquess tell us what kind of hutting it is?

No, Sir; I cannot describe it accurately; but I presume it is in the nature of shedding.

asked upon whose authority the noble Marquess made the statement that the troops were hutted? Last year the noble Marquess made a statement in that House that the troops were hutted on the Nile at a time when all the troops in the Valley of the Nile were living under canvas.

I have already stated that what I have said is on the authority of Sir Redvers Buller, who is the officer commanding at Dongola.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the woman Johnson, sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment for the alleged abduction of the daughter of the widow of a labouring man named Hearnden, of Acrise, in the parish of Folkestone, is about to leave prison; and, whether he has ordered any steps, and, if so, what, to be taken, in order to trace out the still missing child?

With regard to the first part of this Question, I am informed that the prisoner will not be discharged till July. Every effort has been made by the police to find the missing child, both at home and abroad, but without success. The police are not of opinion that a reward should be issued.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commission appointed early in the year to inquire into the Barrow Drainage has yet proceeded to work, and if he can say where and when it is proposed to take evidence, and what (if any) further surveys are considered necessary; and, whether they have yet been directed, and how long they are expected to take?

My hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Secretary of the Commission informs me that they held their first meeting last month, and adjourned until they got the valuation, which is being made. This they expect to get in a few days, and they will then at once arrange for local sittings. No further surveys will be necessary.

asked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, What the Government intend to do with the large stock of Boxer cartridges to which he alluded on Monday; and, whether he will endeavour to arrange that they shall be used only for target practice, and not for purposes of war?

, in reply, said, he had answered this Question the other day; but for the information of the hon. Gentleman he would repeat his answer. Those cartridges would be issued for purposes of practice to the Auxiliary Forces.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of the arterial drainage scheme in the Goula and Erkina district, extending over portions of Tip-perary, North Kilkenny, and the Queen's County for a distance of over twenty miles; that the land occupiers, mainly the tenant farmers of the locality, promoted this scheme, and subscribed a considerable sum out of their own resources to have the necessary surveys, maps, plans, and specifications executed by the county surveyor of Kilkenny, and further to have the same lodged with the Board of Works; that in due course, and during last autumn, the Inspector of the Board of Works, Mr. H. Barrington, C.E., inspected the drainage district and made his Report thereon, which was of a most favourable character, showing that it would highly improve the lands in the locality, and yield a considerable percentage upon the proposed outlay, besides exhibiting advantages of a sanitary nature, and further calculated to afford considerable employment in an impoverished district; that the summer period of the year is now at hand, when not only the proposed works can be executed with facility, but the labour market of the locality can be largely and beneficially availed of; and, whether the Board of Works, taking all these circumstances into favourable consideration, is prepared to carry out the undertaking of his predecessor in the office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by forthwith giving effect to the long-continued and expensive efforts of the promoters of this important and desirable drainage operation?

I fancy that this is the same district as that about which a Question was asked me on February 24. If so, I can only say that the Government have every willingness to help this work forward. But there is no power under the present law to overrule the objections of the owners, which, apparently, are the sole obstacles to the completion of the Provisional Order. A Bill giving us that power is before the House, but it is blocked by the hon. Member for Cavan; and if the hon. Member could induce his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) to allow that Bill to proceed, this defect might be remedied.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can state his decision in the case of the trust money of Eliza Colgan, appropriated by an Irish Crown Solicitor?

(who replied) said: In accordance with his promise, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered this question, and has reviewed all the facts and circumstances of the case, dating back to 1852. He has come to the conclusion that Mrs. Colgan may properly receive a further sum of £250, in addition to the amount already given, and payment of this sum was made to her on April 30.

On behalf of this poor woman I beg to thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for looking into her case after she has been for 20 years in vain seeking justice from Dublin Castle.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the decision of the Court of Appeal, in the Lewes lunacy case just concluded, in which, owing to a difference of opinion among the Judges on the Law, Mr. Hill-man, who was unlawfully placed in an asylum, has to pay all the costs; whether it is true that the Lord Chief Justice of England decided in favour of Mr. Hillman, while two other Judges held opposite views; and, whether he will cause the Law regarding the confinement of persons alleged to be insane to be so altered as to be intelligible to those who have to administer it?

asked, Whether it was not a fact that Sir James Hannen and Lord Justice Lindley held in the Court of Appeal that Mr. Hillman had been lawfully placed in an asylum, and that there was no justification for the suggestion that the magistrates had acted in the slightest degree in any improper manner, or had not made a proper examination of Mr. Hillman before signing their certificate?

, in reply, said, that considering that the Court of Appeal had decided that Mr. Hillman was not unlawfully placed in an asylum, he did not see how he could interfere- It was, however, to be borne in mind that the judgment of the Court was not unanimous, and no doubt the Lord Chancellor would keep this case in view when dealing by legislation with the whole subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has observed a statement, which appeared in a letter addressed to The Times by Mr. Wilfred Blunt, and which was published by that journal last Monday, that rewards had been given to any person belonging to the "friendly tribes," in the vicinity of Suakin, who brought in a human head; and, whether he will cause inquiry to be made, in order to learn whether there is any foundation for this report; and, if true, who is responsible for this barbarity?

No such information has been received; and until some evidence is adduced in support of Mr. Blunt's statement it does not appear necessary to make any inquiry on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When was Sir Peter Lumsden appointed on the Afghanistan Boundary Commission; what were the terms and tenure of his appointment; is his appointment over by his recall to London; what is the date of the letter or telegram summoning him to London; when Sir Peter Lumsden and Colonel Stewart leave Afghanistan, will any of their subordinate English officers remain; and, if so, what is to be their office and function; and, what is to become of the troops employed to escort Sir Peter Lumsden's Mission? He also wished to ask whether the Earl of Dufferin approved of the recall or withdrawal of Sir Peter Lumsden?

(who replied) said: Sir Peter Lumsden's formal appointment bears the date of the 25th of August last, and nominated him as Her Majesty's Commissioner for the demarcation of the North-West boundary of Afghanistan. The instruction sent to him does not cancel his appointment, but requests his presence in London. It was despatched by telegraph on the 4th instant. Colonel Ridgway will remain in charge of the Commission, with Captain Yate and other officers as his assistants. Their office will be to examine and trace on the spot the details of the line of frontier under the conditions agreed upon in London. With regard to the future employment of the escort nothing is yet definitely settled.

Has Sir Peter Lumsden been summoned to London to assist Her Majesty's Government on the question of the frontier?

No, Sir. The facts have already been stated by the Prime Minister.

asked, Whether the escort which accompanied Sir Peter Lumsden will remain on the frontier of Afghanistan, or will at once return to India; what officers will remain to deliminate the frontier with the Russian Commissioner; and, whether the Ameer is to be represented on the new Commission; and, if so, whether his Representative will have an equal voice with the English and Russian Commissioner in the settlement of the frontier line? The hon. Member desired also to ask the Prime Minister, Whether the initial step for the withdrawal of Sir Peter Lumsden came from this country or from Sir Peter Lumsden; and if from the latter, how long ago had he tendered his registration to Her Majesty's Government?

No time has yet been fixed for the return of the escort to India. A portion of it will, in any case, remain to attend Colonel Ridgway and Captain Yate, who will carry on the work of the Commission. There will be no change in the position of the Ameer's Representative.

Has any explanation been received from the Russian Government as to the reasons which prevented General Zelenoy from meeting Sir Peter Lumsden?

The hon. Member in putting the Ques- tion is attempting to anticipate the information which will be in possession of the House when Papers on the subject are laid on the Table.

When will the Papers be laid on the Table?

I cannot give the exact date; but I will present the Papers as soon as possible.

said, the noble Lord had stated that there had been no change in the position of the Ameer's Representative; but the House had never been informed what the position of the Ameer's Representative was. Perhaps the noble Lord would now explain what the position was?

I believe this subject has been fully explained to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Did he officially authorise the letter, published on the 22nd inst., signed by his secretary, apologising for having addressed the Protestant Synod as "the Synod of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland," and consenting to address that body as "the Synod of the Church of Ireland," if so can he state under what circumstances the latter title has been officially given, is he aware that the Government have always hitherto refused to the Disestablished Church the title it claims, that in the draft charter which the Government was asked to sanction they struck out the words "Church of Ireland," inserted by the representative body, that as in the Marriage Act of 1870, members and clergymen of this church are designated "Protestant Episcopalians," the Irish Registrar General, acting under the advice of the Law Adviser, Dublin Castle, directed clergymen of the disestablished religion to enter their church in the marriage register as the "Protestant Episcopal Church of Ireland;" that the Lord Lieutenant, in the recent order as to precedence, published in The Dublin Gazette of April 3rd, styles its bishops "Protestant Episcopalians;" that at the last Census members of this denomination numbered only 639,574 as against 3,960,891 Catholics, 470,734 Presbyterians, and 103,107 persons of other persuasions, and do the Home Office intend officially to style the Disestablished Church by a title calculated to give offence to other religious bodies in Ireland, while the Irish Government avoids the title complained of?

I have not an intimate acquaintance with this matter—indeed, I never heard of it until I saw this Question on the Paper. This Question comes within the Heraldic Department of the Home Office, and, like all questions of nomenclature — especially ecclesiastic nomenclature—it is a very complicated question. However, I may tell the hon. and learned Member that I will consult the Irish Government as to the practice in the matter, as whatever is the practice of the Irish Government, it ought to be followed by the Home Office. The matter will be cleared up, so that in the Home Office and the Irish Office the Government might use some practice in the matter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman, or the person in his Department who will consult the Irish Government, also look into the various Acts of Parliament relating to the matter, beginning with the Church Act, and see that they all recognize the title of "the Church of Ireland?"

What is the Heraldic Department of the Home Office? Who is the Head of it? I never heard of it.

These heraldic questions are extremely complicated questions, as are mostly all questions of changes of name when other people object to have the name changed. The question was dealt with by those of the Department having to do with the styles and titles, proceedings of which I am not very fond.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can state whether the letter signed by his Secretary, apologizing for calling this Body the "Protestant Episcopal Church," was written without his authority, because this was a matter that created a great sensation in Ireland?

I am not sure when the letter was written. I am aware of the importance attached to these matters, and I can assure the hon. and learned Member that this matter will be carefully considered.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that when a short Bill was passed after the Church Act, and when it was proposed to call the Church "The Church of Ireland," it was called "The Disestablished Episcopal Church in Ireland?"

I am not aware of that; but I see that I will have to get up this subject.

Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to consulting the Irish Government as to whether there could be any reason in calling a certain Church "The Church of Ireland," when everybody knows the Church of Ireland is another Church altogether?

asked the Secretary of State for War, If there is any truth in the following statement from the Cairo Correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, dated Cairo, March 23rd, and appearing in The Daily Telegraph of April 3rd: —

"You have already heard that Olivier Pain, the Communist, is 'wanted,' and efforts are being made to capture him on his way down country. Whether he has had enough of the Soudan, and wishes to avoid spending the summer there, or has been sent north on a mission by the Mahdi, is much in doubt. The official information about him is meagre; simply that he was seen near Debbeh with a small retinue, making his way on camel-back down country. The following is the official notification:—'£50 Reward. The above reward is offered to anyone producing Olivier Pain (and his papers) dead or alive. He left Debbeh on a camel on the 13th March 1885. His description is as follows: Pair, with light hair and beard, about 5 feet 7 inches high, blue eyes, slight build, thin compressed lips, with a cruel looking face, reticent in speech and manner. He is very probably disguised as an Arab. His blue eyes should betray him. G. F. Wilson, Capt. R.E. Commandant, Sarras, March 16th 1885.' I knew of Pain's efforts to get down country at Dongola, but because of official interposition could not wire about him at that point;"

, in reply, said, that he was not aware that the facts were as stated with regard to M. Pain, or with regard to the reward said to have been offered. The proceedings had not received the attention of Her Majesty's Government.

asked whether the Government would hold an inquiry into the case?

replied, that no information had been received from Sir Evelyn Baring on the subject, and that no instructions had been given by the British Government to countenance the arrest of M. Pain.

asked whether the noble Marquess would undertake to give orders that the offer of the reward should be withdrawn?

I am not aware that the reward has been offered. If the hon. Member wants any information on the subject he had better give Notice of a Question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to it.

asked whether any such reward as this could be paid out of the Army Fund, or whether it would be paid out of the Secret Service money?

said, he did not think that any such payment could be made a charge against the Army Fund.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the failure of Arklow Harbour Works, and the preliminary Report sent to the Treasury, which was alleged to be most re-assuring, Whether the preliminary Report has been borne out by the Report of Mr. Manning, Engineer in Chief to the Board of Works in Ireland, just laid upon the Table, in which the following statements are made:—

"On the 4th January a Report was received from the Superintendent of the works that on the previous day he observed cracks in the parapet of the sea wall, and that some of the face blocks had moved out. The principal Assistant Engineer was at once despatched to the Harbour, which he visited on the 5th, and reported that for 90 feet in length (of the 458 feet constructed) the face blocks had moved out from 2 inches to 20 inches, and had sunk a few inches, and that the sand had been scoured away from along the sea face of the Pier…

"I visited the work myself on the 6th of February, when it was in the same state as reported by Mr. Greene, and although it was to be regretted that any damage whatever had been done, still the amount of it was comparatively little, and its repair presented no difficulty, but it was obvious that the sand foundations had been scoured out…on the 3rd March fresh subsidence was re- ported. On the 9th March, Mr. Henry Keating, Assistant Engineer, was sent to Arklow to make a survey, but the weather was not sufficiently moderate to enable him to take soundings till the 14th and 16th of that month. This survey shows that for about 130 feet in length the sea slope had been more or less damaged, and that the sand foundations had been scoured out by the sea, forming a trench parallel with the Pier from 40 to 50 feet wide, and of an average depth of about 6 feet under the previous level of the bed of the sea.

"I need not here enter into more detail; it is sufficient to say that the damages described are to be entirely attributed to the scouring out of the sand already described, and which extended under the foundations of the storm wall for its entire width of 19 ½ feet;"

"It has been stated that the mode of construction adopted at Arklow was objected to by the members of a local committee; I have only to state in reply, that for the nine years during which I have been engaged on the subject of the design and erection of Harbour Works at Arklow, I have never upon any occsion received any suggestion of the kind from anyone;"

The hon. Member's quotations from the Parliamentary Papers are accurately given so far as they go; but I do not know whether he disputes the statement which he omits to quote— that the local objections related to the general design, not to the method of execution. As the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, I have not been able to look over the Papers bearing on this point; but I will obtain copies of them from Ireland, and show them to the hon. Member. The suggestion regarding the suspension of the works at the present moment seems to me inadvisable, as it would involve the loss of the favourable summer weather and incur the risk of exposing the works in an unfinished state to another winter's storm.

asked whether, having regard to the fact that the official who reported was an employé of the Board of Works, and consequently interested in screening that Board, the Treasury would consent to the appointment of an independent engineer to give a Report on these works?

I would be glad to consider such an application if the Local Authority bore the expenses of it.

With regard to the matter, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider again the desirability of sending over from this country some distinguished English engineer, so as to see how the Board of Works executes these undertakings.

I will consider the question of sending over an independent engineer to report on the matter.

asked, did not General Sankey make a special inspection of the works, and why was not his Report published?

General Sankey's Report is not considered of any great importance; but if the hon. Member wishes to get it it will be given.

If an independent engineer is appointed, why should the locality be asked to bear the expense, seeing that the whole thing has arisen from the failure of the Board of Works' officials?

Order, order!

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Stamp Duty of 10 per cent. upon bonds to bearer is to be levied upon all existing bonds to bearer of Foreign States, the coupons of which are paid in London; and, if so, how this Stamp Duty is to be levied in the case of bonds the interest of which is paid, either in England or abroad, at the option of the holder?

The rate in question is 10s., or one-half per cent, not 10 per cent. It will not apply to existing bonds of the nature referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared to support Lord Wolseley's proclamation that our troops would remain a hundred years, if necessary, in the Soudan in order to recapture Khartoum; and, if they are not prepared to abide by this declaration, what steps they intend to take to defend the friendly tribes from the fatal consequences of trusting to these assurances?

I am not aware that Lord Wolseley ever issued any Proclamation in the sense of the Question. I have seen a report of a speech said to have been made by Lord Wolseley to some Black troops of General Gordon in which there is some expression to the effect stated; but I do not think that Lord Wolseley ever issued a Proclamation containing any statement of that kind. As I have stated already, we hope very shortly to be able to make a statement as to our intentions with regard to the troops in the Soudan; and I cannot say more upon this occasion except that I have not the smallest doubt that, on the movement of the troops in the Soudan, the officers in command will make as good arrangements as possible for the protection of persons who stand in need of protection.

asked whether the noble Marquess would be in a position to make the statement to which he referred before the discussion on Monday?

I doubt whether I can make that statement to-morrow; but on Monday, before the discussion, I shall probably be able to state what orders have been given.

asked whether the noble Marquess would take into consideration the desirability of issuing orders to the General commanding at Suakin to stop the attacks on the Arabs until the Government had made up their mind what they were going to do in the Soudan?

I do not think that Question arises out of the Question on the Paper.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the complete text of the Despatch from M. de Giers, which contains the following words:—

"It is impossible for us not to trace back the cause of the present situation to the military aspect with which the English Government thought it their duty to invest their Boundary Commission," and "we cannot pass by the fact that the loudly proclaimed interview between the Amir and the Viceroy, and its bellicose surroundings, must certainly have emboldened the Afghans to the point of committing such acts of provocation as could not be tolerated by the Russian military authorities;"

The hon. Member will receive the information which he desires from the Correspondence which will shortly be laid before the House.

(for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT) asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Ministers will lay upon the Table the words of

"The expression of regret to the French Republic, in which Her Majesty's Government associated itself with that of Egypt;"

The words used by Earl Granville to the French Ambassador were recorded in a despatch to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, which will be laid before Parliament. I am informed that the owner or editor of the paper has announced that it will appear in a few days. I have no reason to believe that this will be the case.

said, that the Prime Minister had stated that the Papers could not be laid upon the Table until the unknown future had been rather more unrolled. He should like to know when they were to have Papers laid on the Table relating to matters as far as they had gone, and down to what date the Papers would go?

The right hon. Gentleman has substantially conceived the Question in a proper manner, and conveys it very properly in his own poetical phraseology.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, considering the necessity for clearness and concise definitions in all matters connected with the Redistribution of Seats and the registration of great numbers of new voters, he will recommend on Consideration of the Redistribution of Seats Bill that no alternative names shall be given to the new divisions of counties, but that every such division shall be known solely and always by one single name?

I have frequently expressed my dislike for double names; but, looking to the most recent decisions of the House, I doubt if the House would agree to strike out all double names.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken to inform the Ameer of Afghanistan of the agreement recently arrived at between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Russia on the subject of arbitration on the unprovoked aggression of General Komaroff on Penjdeh; and, whether the Viceroy of India has signified his approval of the recent decisions of Her Majesty's Government?

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the words "unprovoked aggression" ought to be allowed to appear upon the Paper; and whether it was not an insult to a Foreign Power on a very delicate matter?

I understand that the Question of the hon. Member alludes to an expression previously used, and that the words are referred to as a quotation.

If the expression referred to is intended to be a repetition of a phrase expressive of my own opinion it is nothing of the kind, and, moreover, it is not an accurate quotation. What I said was as follows:—Upon the very first day, I think, of the arrival of the first telegrams from Sir Peter Lumsden, having gone through all the material parts, or what we judged to be the material parts, of these telegrams as they had arrived, I stated that upon the face of those Papers what had taken place appeared to be an unprovoked aggression. I never presumed at that moment to qualify or to describe the incident in conclusive terms, because I knew very well that the information which we had received was partial; and, in point of fact, it was within 24 hours, or certainly within a very short time after the receipt of those telegrams, that very important qualifications of the information they conveyed were received from Sir Peter Lumsden himself. So much for this expression; and I will only observe that there is now a constant practice of inserting in Questions, as if they were matters of course, matters which do not touch the point of the Questions, but involve assumptions of the utmost consequence, and that these assumptions are sometimes made—as in the present instance—with very slight regard to accuracy. As to the substantial part of the Question, I am bound to say that this expression had escaped my attention, because it does not belong to the main issue of the Question. The Viceroy of India has arranged with the Ameer the basis upon which the British Government is proceeding; and if any further communication on the subject with the Ameer should be requisite he will make it. To that Question the hon. Member adds the inquiry whether the Viceroy of India approves the decisions which Her Majesty's Government have come to? I do not see that it would be any part of my duty to answer such a Question. The Viceroy of India must be taken to approve these decisions; and when the proper times comes the hon. Member will have plenty of information—perhaps a little more than he may like—as to what the Viceroy does think on the point.

I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Viceroy, in the speech he made after his return from Rawul Pindi, also made use of the words.

I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on the point of Order arising out of your ruling a moment ago, whether, if an expression is used in the course of a debate in this House, it will afterwards be in Order if quoted in a Question?

The hon. Member is putting an utterly strained interpretation on my words.

May I ask the Prime Minister whether it is not the case that the Viceroy of India, in a speech at the Durbar, in presence of a large number of Natives, described the attack of the Russians on the Afghans as an "unprovoked aggression," without any of the qualification which the Prime Minister now seeks to introduce?

I have not before me the exact words of the Viceroy on the occasion. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I am not surprised at that demonstration; but I must enter my protest against it on behalf of the dignity and the traditions of the House. To me, personally, it is a very small matter that such demonstrations should be made; but to this House, and the future of this House, it is a very grave matter. ["Order!"] I am not out of Order. I have not the smallest doubt that the expressions used by the Viceroy have been perfectly warranted by the circumstances.

I shall put the Question to the right hon. Gentleman to-morrow.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the letter in The Daily News of Tuesday, from a Correspondent who was present at the battle of Pul-i-Khisti, in which it is stated that Colonel Alikhanoff ordered his Sarik Turcomans to attack Captain Yate's party; whether Captain Yate was deputed by Sir Peter Lumsden to watch the course of affairs at Penjdeh; whether Captain Yate had taken any part in the engagement of March 30th, or in any way transgressed the limits of his Commission; and, whether Colonel Alikhanoff is one of the gallant Officers whose conduct is not to be inquired into?

The Question of the hon. Member is in four parts, and I shall reply to them as they are stated. With regard to the first statement, as far as the Russian Government is concerned, the report has been repudiated by them in the strongest terms. As far as we are concerned, I am not aware of any foundation for the report except rumour. I have not seen the letter referred to. As to the second part of the Question, Captain Yate was deputed by Sir Peter Lumsden to watch the course of affairs at Penj-deh. With regard to the third paragraph, so far as we are informed, Captain Yate took no part in the action, and did not transgress the limits of his commission with regard to it. With regard to the fourth paragraph, Colonel Alikhanoff, as I presume, stands relatively to the agreement in exactly the same position as all the other officers on both sides who were concerned in directing the operations.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can make any statement with regard to the policy they intend to pursue in the Soudan in the event of a peaceful settlement of the present controversy with Russia?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, perhaps he will allow me to put another Question on the same subject. I must apologize for not giving due Notice; but the point is one of great and immediate urgency. My Question is, whether it was in accord with the policy announced by the right hon. Gentleman in presenting the Vote of Credit that what was called the "brilliant engagement" of May the 5th took place when an encampment of Bedouins, their women and children, and their flocks, were attacked by General Graham, and 150 men killed, although it is alleged by eye-witnesses that they never made any serious defence?

In regard to the first Question, I am not about to make any statement on the subject. With respect to the second Question, I think my hon. Friend would do well to put this Question to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for War, to whom it belongs, to receive information on the subject.

May I ask the noble Marquess the Question now?

I have received nothing but a very short telegram from Lord Wolseley, containing a very short account indeed of something that appears to have been in the nature of a reconnaissance by General Graham yesterday. If I had thought the Question would have been put, I would have brought down the telegram and read it to the House. As far as my recollection serves, it does not con-firm the particulars the hon. Member refers to as contained in the telegram of one of the correspondents. The hon. Member asks whether such an operation is consistent with the terms made use of when the Vote of Credit was laid on the Table. As far as my recollection serves me, what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said with regard to the Suakin Railway was that it was not intended to prosecute it for military purposes to Berber; but that it would be continued to such a point as the Government might consider expedient after consulting with the Military Authorities, and that, in the meantime, further proceedings with regard to the railway would be considered. Under these circumstances, I do not think it is inconsistent with that statement that the railway should be continued till such progress has been made as may be desired by the Military Authorities. While any progress is being made by the railway, of course adequate protection must be given, and measures of the kind referred to may be found necessary by the Commander-in-Chief.

May I ask the noble Marquess whether he is aware that the telegram from Lord Wolseley has been communicated by the War Office to the evening papers, and that, so far from the operation being a reconnaissance, the words used are, "Graham made this morning a most successful raid?" I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether, in the course of the evening, he will despatch orders to Suakin absolutely prohibiting the repetition of such aimless and purposeless raids?

Is the noble Marquess aware that a great number of sheep and cattle were driven off, that the village was burnt, and that the wells were blown up with gunpowder?

May I ask whether the noble Marquess is aware that not only one correspondent, but two, have confirmed the report? I am told that even three have done so. It is confirmed in strong terms by the correspondent of The Morning Post.

I have no doubt the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) is correct in regard to the description that is given of the operation by Lord Wolseley. It appears to me to be a matter of very little importance whether it is described as a "raid" or as a "reconnaissance." No doubt there was a military movement, and no doubt some fighting took place. In regard to the other Questions, hon. Members appear not to be aware that a body of troops, or more than one body of troops, under Osman Digna are still threatening, not only the advanced posts held by our troops, but would also threaten Suakin itself. Until a decision has been arrived at entirely to abandon the further construction of the railway, I consider that the General Officers are entitled to take such measures as they may consider necessary for its protection.

I beg to give Notice, in consequence of the answer of the noble Marquess, that I will put the Question on the Paper for to-morrow, in order to enable the noble Marquess to give all the information in his power.

May I ask the Prime Minister, considering that the House is occupied in voting money for the Soudan, and considering the slaughter that is going on in that part of the world, how soon he expects to be able to make a statement on the subject?

My noble Friend has already stated that on Monday he expects to be able to convey to the House the instructions which have been sent to the military officers in the Soudan, and I think it is too soon to make any statement on the subject generally. It is not usual, when one great subject of public policy is locked up with another, and dependent upon the conclusion of another, to make any statement in regard to it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was or was not a statement of policy when, in presenting the Vote of Credit, he told us that, as to the Soudan, it was the intention of the Government not to prosecute further offensive operations?

Most certainly that was a statement of policy, I conceive, of the utmost importance; but the Question put to me by the hon. Gentleman asks me to make a statement with regard to the policy we intend to pursue in the Soudan in the event of a peaceful settlement of the present controversy with Russia. I think I ought not to be called upon to say when I will make a further statement.

(for Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have offered to allow the Russian Government to retain Ak Tépé and the Penj-deh oasis; and, whether an arbitrator has yet been found to adjudicate upon the breach of the sacred covenant?

That is a Question with regard to particular communications now going on between the two Governments with respect to the Afghan Frontier, and I cannot enter into explanations while these negotiations are in progress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Commission for the Delimitation of the Afghan Frontier is still in existence or has been dissolved by the recall of Sir Peter Lumsden and Colonel Stewart; if it is still in existence why it is considered desirable, as stated by the First Lord of the Treasury on Tuesday, that these officers should come home to London forthwith; whether the settlement in London of the main points of the Afghan Frontier will be postponed until the arrival of Sir Peter Lumsden; whether the date of Sir Peter Lumsden's recall was prior or subsequent to the departure of Mr. Condie Stephen for England; and, whether such date was prior or subsequent to the receipt of Russia's acceptance of the proposal of arbitration?

I think it has already been stated by my noble Friend, as to the first head of this Question, that the Commission of Sir Peter Lumsden is still in existence. With regard to the second head—if the Commission is still in existence, why it is considered desirable that these officers should come home to London forthwith?—the fact is this, that as negotiations are to be carried on here, and only details are to be examined on the spot, it is not considered that the examination of details is a proper employment for Sir Peter Lumsden, a functionary who was despatched to that country for a purpose of a much higher order, and that is the cause of the change which has taken place in the instructions to Sir Peter Lumsden with Colonel Stewart to repair to this country. In reply to the third head of the Question—whether the discussion of the main points will be postponed till the arrival of Sir Peter Lumsden?—there is no such intention. We are in full communication with Sir Peter Lumsden, and I am not aware that there is any necessity for a postponement. In regard to the fourth Question, the dates, I believe, are as follow:—The telegram requesting Sir Peter Lumsden to come to England was sent on the 4th; the acceptance by Russia of the reference proposed to a friendly Sovereign was received on the 3rd. As regards the priority between the instructions to Sir Peter Lumsden and the information from Sir Peter Lumsden about Mr. Stephen, that information made us aware that Sir Peter Lumsden had directed Mr. Stephen to come home. It did not state the date when the direction to Mr. Stephen was given; but the information to us was despatched on the 22nd, and I have no doubt that the direction to Mr. Stephen must have been either on the same date or a date immediately antecedent to it. I have no doubt that the latter gentleman left about the same date.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the House may entertain the hope that the permanent presence of some Consular or Diplomatic Agent at Herat will form part of the contemplated arrangement with regard to the settlement of the Afghan north-western frontier, to whom the Russian Government may apply in case of any local disputes arising in connection with the frontier, and who will be in a position to advise Her Majesty's Government as to their merits?

I take this Question to be in the nature of a friendly suggestion, which might well deserve consideration; but I think the hon. Gentleman will see that it would be too early to make any Parliamentary statement on the subject.

With respect to the answers of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for War in regard to these statements in The Times, I would really ask the Prime Minister, Whether he himself has read, or will read, what is stated by The Times' Correspondent; and, whether some communication will be made at once to General Graham, or the other officers commanding, to tell them that these acts are not in accordance with civilized warfare'—that villages being looted and burned, and women and children being fired upon—

This is an argument, not a Question.

With regard to the first part of the Question, it will be my duty, in conjunction with my noble Friend, to get the most authentic information of what has taken place; and my hon. Friend may rely upon it that any orders it will be our duty to give will be in strict conformity with the pledges we have given.

wished to ask, Whether there would be any objection to take the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill first to-morrow, on the understanding that on the Motion for the Speaker leaving the Chair on going into a fresh Committee the question of the payment of registration expenses should be raised by an Amendment, and that the result of the debate and division on that Amendment should be held to decide the question of the payment of such expenses with regard both to Ireland and England?

said, when he was informed yesterday that the question which had been decided on Tuesday by a small majority was about to be raised again in Committee on the Registration of Voters (England) Bill, he felt it necessary, especially in the absence of many Members of the Government, to reserve the matter for consideration. With re- gard to the course of Business, on reflecting on it, it appeared quite evident upon the face of it that when it was desired and intended to raise again a question which had been settled in a House of nearly 500 Members that that was rather what might be called a serious intention. It was an intention to challenge the House at large, and the Government were of opinion that there ought to be sufficient Notice to Members of the de-bare and division which would take place. That being so, the Government could not propose to take that debate to-morrow. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has proposed that the Irish Bill should be taken first. There was no very great question of convenience in point of time as between the two Bills. Both were admitted to be urgent; but as the English question was much the larger, and was that upon which the House had already been called upon to give its opinion, the view of the Government was that they ought to proceed with the English Bill first. That was the appropriate method to give hon. Members the means of again raising the point. They had before them the Registration Bills, the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill, and the arrangement made with regard to the Vote of Credit. What the Government proposed was this—that they should make an effort to finish what remained of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill to-morrow; and he thought —considering the importance of that question, and the relations of different portions of the House to one another with regard to it, and the general desire there was to close it without associating it with contested questions—what he hoped was that if it should be found that it could not be finished to-morrow, the House would not, for once, grudge meeting on Saturday for that purpose. There was no reason to suppose that there would be any large residue of Business after tomorrow. He sincerely hoped it would be finished to-morrow; but if a small residue were left, he gave Notice, without asking any pledge from the House, that the Government would think it their duty to propose that course. With regard to the Registration Bills, which were undoubtedly urgent, what the Government thought was that they should take those Registration Bills on Monday, if hon. Gentlemen opposite were disposed to allow the debate on the Vote of Credit, which had been fixed for that day, to stand over until Tuesday. He should, however, have no power to secure Tuesday for that purpose by any right of the Government; but he thought he could undertake to try it if the arrangement were agreeable to hon. Gentlemen oppposite. If, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite attached importance to keeping their hold on Monday for the Vote of Credit, the Government would take Tuesday for the Registration Bills.

asked whether, if the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution') Bill was finished to-morrow or Saturday, the Prime Minister would on Monday make his promised Statement as to the legislation contemplated for the remainder of the Session?

said, the pressure upon the Government had been so great that he was not certain that he could make that Statement fully; but he would make a Statement sufficient for the convenience of the House, and consider what might remain. If the Business proceeded as was expected, he should make the whole announcement in the course of next week.

said, it had been thought convenient to have the question on the Registration Bills decided before the end of the week; but if the right hon. Gentleman thought the other course more convenient, the Opposition were, he believed, disposed to take the arrangement he proposed. But what was more important than the question of redistribution, or registration, or anything else, was that they should have, as early as possible, a fair opportunity of hearing, and as soon as possible afterwards of discussing, the statement promised by the Secretary of State for War, because they felt it was becoming urgent—namely, an explanation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Soudan. He should be extremely sorry to consent to any arrangement for putting off the debate on Monday, which would deprive them of that opportunity. Were they to understand that in the event of the Parliamentary Elections (Redistribution) Bill being finished this week and the Registration Bill put down for Monday, that the latter would be preceded by a state- ment of the character they had reason to expect from the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War?

said, his noble Friend had given the engagement with respect to Monday with every disposition to keep it; and he hoped his noble Friend would be in a position to keep it in the letter and the spirit. But it was really in the discretion of hon. Gentlemen opposite to determine what the course of Business should be on Monday and Tuesday as between the Registration Bills and the debate on the Vote of Credit. What he thought would be an inconvenient arrangement would be that they should nominally fix the Registration Bills for Monday, and then spend it on a debate on the statement of his noble Friend.

thought that the arrangement proposed by the right hon. Gentleman would be satisfactory. They understood that they were to have the statement of the noble Marquess on Monday, and that the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to get Tuesday for the discussion of the Vote of Credit. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Yes.] There seemed to be some misunderstanding, if they had the statement of the noble Marquess on Monday, whether they would not run the risk of losing the opportunity of discussing the Registration Bill.

replied that the Government had the arrangement of the Orders, and, that being so, they could provide against that.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether, as the matter in controversy was raised first on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, and as it was proposed by the Government to insert a clause in that Bill which they did not propose to insert in the Registration of Voters (England) Bill, it would not be more convenient that the question should be discussed on the Irish rather than on the English Bill? Gentlemen on his side had no desire to raise the same question twice, and they would be content to take the vote of the House on the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill.

said, that as the House, with a very large attendance and upon good Notice, had previously decided the point in reference to the English Bill, he hoped that they would proceed on that footing.

said, that Members in. his part of the House did not understand how any assurance could be given that there would be no debate upon the statement of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for War on Monday, even if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite raised none.

said, that if he might be allowed to state his opinion, the best and the clearest course would be if his noble Friend made his statement on Tuesday.

said, he hoped that favourable consideration would be given to the suggestion that the noble Marquess would make his statement to-morrow.

said, he could not give an undertaking to the House, because the communications that were going on might not be complete. He might not be able to give a full statement to-morrow.

put it to the Prime Minister whether it would be fair to allow the question as to registration expenses to be decided, and the discussion taken on the Irish Bill, in view of the fact that, practically, there had been no debate on the merits of the question so far as the Irish Bill was concerned. When the question was raised and decided the other night, it was done in a very thin House, and almost without debate.

said, that the argument of the case, as he was at present advised, was quite the opposite to that indicated by the hon. Member.