asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, Whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor General, at page 194 of the Army Appropriation Account recently distributed, as to the age of Chelsea In-Pensioners; and, whether he will consider if the Secretary of State cannot make use of his powers under the Yeomanry Act of 1884, to so interpret the Chelsea Warrant as to allow the autho- rities of the Hospital to continue the practice of admitting a few men who are able to work and perform duty for the help of their weaker comrades?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been drawn to the objections of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and steps are being taken to remove technical difficulties, and to continue a practice which is necessary for the service of the Hospital.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that a marriage between George Mummery, widower, and Jane Johnston, widow, was duly solemnized, on the 11th May 1885, before W. T. Ward, Registrar of St. Olave, Southwark, and was duly registered; whether, after, and with the knowledge of such marriage, the Rev. W. J. Batchelor, Rector of St. John, Horsleydown, incited the said George Mummery and Jane Johnston to be re-married before him, by licence, in the parish church, on the 1st July 1885; whether such second marriage was also registered, in contravention of the 19th and 20th Vic. c. 119, s. 12; whether he is aware that the parties to the marriage were respectively beadle and pew-opener in the said parish; whether, under the incitement, and with the knowledge of the said Rev. W. J. Batchelor, the marriage before the Registrar was disregarded, and treated as if it had not happened, and the parties were still described in the declaration for the licence, and in the parish church register, as widower and widow, as though the marriage before the Registrar had not taken place; and, whether he will direct the Public Prosecutor to take any action in the matter?

, in reply, said, he had communicated with the rev. gentleman, who had written and also called upon him. It was true, the rector said, that alter the marriage before the Registrar he advised Mummery to obtain a licence, with a view to his marriage being celebrated according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church; and the marriage was subsequently solemnized and registered, as stated in the Question. He was not then aware of the provisions of the Act of Parliament, or should not have so acted. He had no intention of contravening the law, but simply to superadd the sanction of the Church to the secular ceremony. Mummery was the beadle and his wife had been pew-opener, but was not now so employed. Mummery stated that his reason for going before the Registrar rather than to the church was his desire to avoid any public or general notice; and seeing that he was about to marry his fourth wife, and that his intended wife was about to marry her third husband, perhaps their modesty was not unnatural. He did not think that on the whole it was desirable to take any further notice of the matter.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether a further Report has been published by members of the Commission appointed by the French Chamber of Deputies to inquire into the situation of the agricultural and industrial classes in France; and, whether, if such further Report relates to the agricultural classes, he will lay upon the Table of the House extracts from such Report, in continuation of Return [C. 4667], relating to certain industrial classes, which was recently presented to the House?

No Report of the French Commission has yet been received relating to agriculture. When it comes to hand it shall be dealt with in the same manner as the Industrial Report and submitted to Parliament.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a man, named Mortimer Doyle, was arrested in Dalkey, county of Dublin, on the 23rd of November last, as he was leaving a Nationalist election meeting, for having, on the morning of the same day, in assertion of title, thrown down a wall the height of which the Board of Works had, against his previous protest, raised; whether Doyle was detained in the company of common criminals in the police cells till the following day, although solvent bail was offered on his behalf; whether on the trial of the case Doyle was discharged, the magistrate observing that he had done nothing but what he was justified in doing; whether the same magistrate, at the first hearing of the case, at once declared his opinion that it was a case for a civil action rather than for a criminal prosecution; whether he will state the name of the official responsible for the arrest; and, whether the Government will compensate Doyle for the wrong to which he has been subjected?

, in reply, said that it was a fact that Mortimer Doyle was arrested in Dalkey on the 23rd of November last for having thrown down a portion of a wall between his premises and the police station. The police had been previously informed that the wall was regarded as the property of the Chief Commissioner, and they made the arrest on their own responsibility. Doyle was not placed in the cell, but allowed to remain at the fire in the reserve room. No offer was made to bail him. He was discharged by the magistrate, who considered that, so far as pulling down the wall was concerned, Doyle acted under a fair and reasonable supposition that he had a right to do what he did. He added, however, that if Doyle suffered anything in consequence he had only himself to blame, as he had used threats, and the case was not considered one in which compensation should be given.

The right hon. Gentleman has not stated the name of the official responsible for the arrest.

Unfortunately I do not know the name.

Will you inquire.

I will.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Coffey, Taxing Officer, Four Courts, Dublin, was recently frequently applied to by the defendant and his solicitor, in the case of M'Meekan v. Thomson, for copies of an affidavit made by the plaintiff, which said Mr. Coffey had characterised as "wilful and deliberate perjury;" whether Mr. Coffey declined to give the copies applied for; whether it is now alleged that the documents cannot be found; and, whether it is the practice for Mr. Coffey to reecive, in the discharge of the duties of his office, affidavits which have not been regularly filed; and, if so, whether he will bring the fact under the notice of the Attorney General for Ireland, with a view to a change of practice in Mr. Coffey's office, so as to make persons responsible for what they state on oath?

, in reply, said, the affidavit was made in the course of the taxation of a bill of costs, and as to the payments alleged to have been made to a witness. Master Coffey, in the discharge of his duty, considered it necessary to comment on the nature of the explanation. It was not the practice, as he was informed by the Attorney General, to file affidavits made for the purpose of vouching items in a bill of costs. The original affidavits were interchanged between the parties, and afterwards handed to the solicitor for the party who produced them. That course, he was informed, was found convenient and economical, and was followed in this case; consequently Mr. Coffey was unable to comply with the application. He was advised that the Attorney General could not interfere in the case.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is a fact that Mr. Isaac Notter, of Crookhaven, has a monopoly of the boat attendance to the Fastnet Rock Lighthouse; if other inhabitants of Crook-haven have repeatedly offered to supply a better boat and crew on cheaper terms; and, whether, in future, the boat attendance will be thrown open to public competition?

The Commissioners of Irish Lights inform me that Mr. Isaac Notter, of Crookhaven, has had the carrying out of the boat attendance on Fastnet for over 20 years. Applications have, from time to time, been received for this contract; but the Commissioners have strong objections to intrusting this particular contract to inexperienced persons, owing to the danger of the service; and as the Fastnet is exceptionally difficult of access for reliev- ing the light keepers and supplying them with provisions, the Commissioners are not at present inclined to disturb Mr. Notter in his contract.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government is aware that, quite recently, George Marton, in charge on an evicted farm near Clerihan, in the Rose Green Dispensary District of the Cashel Union, in the county of Tipperary, was, while very ill, refused a ticket for medical relief by Mr. E. Heffernan, of Mocklers-town, on the grounds of his being an Emergency man, and was told he might get a doctor for himself, the consequence being that Marton, although seriously ill for ten days, was unable to procure medical relief, through there being no one within two miles who could issue medical relief tickets; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take such steps as may prove necessary to prevent the issue of medical relief tickets being influenced by personal motives?

I would ask the Chief Secretary whether Emergency men are entitled to outdoor relief out of the poors' rate, having regard to the fact that their wages are generally 1s. 6d. a-day?

I am informed that Marton was refused a dispensary ticket by Mr. Heffernan on the ground that he was in receipt of wages of £1 a-week, paid every Saturday. If the man was seriously ill and unable to pay a doctor, it seems strange that he should have omitted to communicate with the relieving officer, who is a responsible person, and who would not have refused relief without due cause.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the recent trial and conviction of George M'Garrigle on the charge of setting fire, by means of a dynamite explosion, to the house of one Robert Marshall in Derry, on St. Patrick's Day 1885; whether he is aware that it was alleged at the time of the occurrence that this outrage was perpetrated by the Nationalists of Derry, in consequence of Robert Marshall being obnoxious to them; whether Marshall actually brought a claim for malicious injury before the Derry Grand Jury; whether a Crimes Act inquiry into all the circumstances of the case was several times demanded, and was refused by the authorities; whether, as a consequence, Marshall evaded all suspicion, and M'Garrigle, being released on bail, fled the Country, and was only brought to justice several months after; whether he is aware that upon the recent trial it was conclusively proved that M'Garrigle was the tool of Marshall, who bribed him to commit the outrage; whether he is aware that M'Garrigle was recommended to mercy by the jury, on the ground that "he was a tool of Marshall's," the learned judge who presided saying "there was no doubt about that;" whether Marshall has successfully evaded justice; and, whether the Government can give any information as to the number of cases recently in which outrages to property in Ireland, attributed to the people, have subsequently been proved, as in this case and the case of Mrs. Lucas in Cork, to have been perpetrated by the owners of the property themselves?

, in reply, said, that the first eight paragraphs in the Question were correct statements of the facts. It was always believed by the authorities that Marshall had employed M'Garrigle to blow up the house with gunpowder, not dynamite. An inquiry under the Crimes Act was suggested at the time; but it was ultimately determined that no benefit could accrue from it. The Inspector General informed him that he was not aware of any recent cases, except this and the case of Mrs. Lucas mentioned in the House the other night, in which outrages to property were proved to be perpetrated by the owners of the property themselves.

Does not his Excellency know of the case of the Orange member of the Corporation of Derry, who was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for burning his own house?

The hon. Gentleman misapprehended what I said. I said the Inspector General was not aware——

He ought to be aware.

asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether he has yet confirmed the bye-law recently passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland, with reference to beam-trawling in the Firth of Forth and certain other territorial waters; and, whether this bye-law will come into force upon the 5th of April next, as its terms show was intended by the Fishery Board?

Before confirming the bye-law recently passed by the Fishery Board for Scotland for closing certain in-shore waters against beam trawling, I have arranged to receive deputations from the General Steam Fishing Company, and representatives of the various Bodies who have memorialized the Fishery Board on the subject, together with the members of the Fishery Board itself, in order to give the opportunity of a full hearing of the arguments of all parties concerned. The bye-law will not come into force on the 5th of April unless it shall have been confirmed by the Secretary for Scotland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What decision the Lord Chancellor has come to in reference to the conduct of Messieurs Truell, Barton, and Acton as Justices of the Peace, in sentencing Mr. Storey to six months' imprisonment, without the option of fine, for a nominal assault; and, whether the Lord Lieutenant has acceded to the application made to him on behalf of Mr. Storey, and remitted the penalty of five ponnds imposed by the County Court Judge in reversing the decision of the Magistrates?

The Lord Chancellor has received the ex- planation of the magistrates. They state that it was proved before them that the peace of the district was seriously endangered, and, therefore, that they thought it necessary to impose a severe sentence. The Lord Chancellor sees no reason to doubt that they arrived at the conclusion in good faith; but he concurs with the County Court Judge in thinking that the original sentence was, under the circumstances, one of undue severity, and he has so informed the magistrates, with an intimation that he hopes in future they will exercise a more careful discretion in fixing the amount of punishment. His Excellency has declined to remit the fine which was attached to the reversal of the decision of these magistrates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Was it reported to the police, that, on the night of 21st December last, a man disguised and with his face blackened visited the houses of John Armstrong, Jonathan Colbert, Thomas Armstrong, Samuel Somerville, John Macwhinny, and William M'Kenna, near Castlecaulfield, county Tyrone; is it the fact that the man had a book with him, from which he pretended to read, and in which he seemed to make entries; that he asked who lived in each house, and for whom he had voted at the late election; said he was from Dublin and had other boys with him; that he told them to pay no rent, or, if they did, they would not have long to live; whether, when he came to the house of M'Kenna, he said, "All right, you are a Nationalist," and, pointing to a school-house, which had been an Orange Lodge, said, "That must be removed;" was he hunted down and captured by two men named Bunnes and Armstrong, and did it transpire that he was an Orangeman named Robert Cuddy, junior; is it true that Cuddy and his lather were brought by the police before a local justice, Colonel Burgess, and discharged without a prosecution; and, was the case reported to the resident magistrate, and have any steps been taken to punish the author of this outrage; and, if not, who is responsible?

, in reply, said, a Report was being prepared with reference to the circumstances, and was under consideration. He would ask the hon. Member to repeat the Question, so as to give him an opportunity of fully inquiring into it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that, on Saturday night last, a stone was flung into the shop of Miss Fearon, newsagent, Portadown, and two panes of plate glass broken; has Miss Fearon's house been repeatedly attacked and her life threatened unless she ceased to exhibit the cartoons of the Nationalist papers in her shop window; was a stone or bullet fired through the window on the night of the 22nd February last; was another stone flung into the shop on the evening of 18th February, and a Mr. M'Intyre, who was standing by the counter, struck; have the police failed to bring the authors of any of these repeated attacks to justice; and, whether adequate police protection will be afforded to Miss Fearon in the exercise of her lawful calling, against the intimidation practised against her?

, in reply, said, that the police were aware that two stones and a marble were thrown into the shop of Miss Fearon, in whose shop Nationalist newspapers were sold, and that notices were posted cautioning her against exhibiting the cartoons. The police had not heard of the incident of the 18th February mentioned in the Question, and therefore they assumed it had not occurred. The police had instructions to keep watch on the house in their order to detect the guilty parties; but efforts had hitherto been without success.

I would draw the attention of the Chief Secretary and the Government to the singular supineness of the authorities in dealing with Orange rowdies, and will ask a Question on that subject.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, With reference to statements in the press to the effect that a force of constabulary has been engaged in aiding the sheriff to carry out evictions on the estate of the Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, whether the only ground for the statement is that the sheriff of Galway, last month, executed a writ of habere upon a holding of which the Archbishop is trustee on behalf of a charitable institution; whether the holding formed an undivided moiety of a certain parcel of land, the tenant being the owner in fee of the other moiety; whether, before the execution of the writ, the Archbishop's solicitor and agent informed the sheriff that there was no occasion for the employment of the constabulary, that it would involve entirely unnecessary expense, and that the ejectment of the tenant was not required, the object of the writ being, as was known to the sheriff and all the parties concerned, to procure a legal partition of the moieties of the land; whether, notwithstanding, the sheriff brought a large force of constabulary to the spot; whether he and his bailiff insisted on putting out the tenant, against the expressed desire of the agent; how the cost of the force of constabulary will be defrayed; and, what course the Government will take in regard to the conduct of the sheriff?

, in reply, said, that there was only one eviction in this case, and it was simply of a formal nature to enable possession to be assumed of an undivided moiety, the tenant being the owner in fee of the other undivided moiety. It was carried out without the slightest difficulty or inconvenience to the tenant. The Archbishop did intimate, through his solicitor, to the sheriff that no difficulty whatever was expected, and that the police might be dispensed with. The sheriff, however, from considerations of a general character, and without reference to the particular circumstances of the case, concluded that he would not be justified in going into the locality without protection, and he was accompanied by eight men. The cost only amounted to one guinea, which would be paid out of the Constabulary Vote.

I shall move to take that guinea out of the Constabulary Vote.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can, without detriment to the Public Service, inform the House of the precise terms of the understanding with the Governments of France, Germany, and Zanzibar, to which reference was made by him on the 11th instant, to the effect that no annexation of territory will be made while the Zanzibar Delimitation Commission is sitting; and, when it is expected that the Commission will complete its work?

No reference was made in my answer on the 11th instant to any understanding with the Governments of France or Zanzibar. The understanding with Germany is informal; but Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that it will be observed. It is at present impossible to form an estimate as to the date when the work of the Commission will be completed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Proclamation made by the Government of Cape Colony, allowing the sale of intoxicating drinks in the Transkei is still in force, or if it has been withdrawn; and, if the latter, what was the date of the withdrawal?

By a Proclamation dated October 8, 1885, of the Government of the Cape Colony, and amended by a Proclamation dated December 31, 1885, the sale of spirituous liquors to any Native, unless he should produce a permit signed by a magistrate, a Justice of the Peace, or field cornet, was prohibited in the Transkeian territory. These Proclamations are still in force. There is no prohibition against the sale of other liquors to Natives, although the importation of wine, beer, and other intoxicating liquors into the territory, except under certain conditions, is strictly forbidden. Papers relating to the subject were laid by me yesterday on the Table, and will be circulated in a few days.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make arrangements for the issue to the public of a limited number of the new Martini-Enfield ·400 rifles, with ammunition, on payment of four pounds for each rifle and ten shillings for each hundred rounds of ammunition, in order to subject the new arm to independent criticism?

The pattern of the new rifle which has been approved by the Military Authorities was elaborated, after numerous experiments, by a committee of officers thoroughly conversant with the requirements of the Service. As an additional precaution, a tentative issue of 1,000 rifles will be made to the troops in order to see if they may require alteration in any minor points. Under these circumstances, I do not consider that it will be necessary to resort to the plan suggested by the hon. Member.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following facts relative to the estates of Sir Henry Burke and Mrs. Lewis, in the vicinity of Woodford, are correct:—That on the estate of Sir Henry Burke, comprising one hundred and thirty holdings, there has not been a single rise of rent in the memory of the oldest tenant; that not a single tenant entered the Land Court to obtain a reduction of rent; that, in November last, Sir Henry Burke voluntarily offered a reduction of fifteen per cent; that, on the estate of Mrs. Lewis, almost all the tenants have had judicial rents fixed; whether the tenants, at the usual time for paying their rents, marched in, in a body, headed by four priests, and demanded a reduction of fifty per cent; whether these reverend gentlemen were members of the National League, and if the murdered man, Finlay, was refused Christian burial by any of them; whether it was on account of this demand, and the threats and intimida- tion accompanying it, that legal proceedings were instituted; and, whether the Irish Executive still decline to afford assistance to Sir Henry Burke and Mrs. Lewis to enable thorn to assert their legitimate rights?

I have no reason to doubt the substantial accuracy of the statements contained in this Question, except that, with regard to the burial of Finlay, I am informed that he was buried with the rites of his Church, and that one of the clergymen referred to in a preceding paragraph of the Question officiated. As to the last paragraph, I have only to observe that there is no pretence whatever for the assumption that either in these or in any other cases the Government have declined to afford assistance in the assertion of legitimate rights.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a memorial has been presented to the Irish Executive for the remission of sentences of twelve months' imprisonment passed on two men named O'Brien, at the Winter Wicklow Assizes, for having waylaid and badly beaten a carman named James Dunne, who was boycotted for driving the police; whether, after the trial at Wicklow, a hay-rick, the property of James Dunne, was maliciously burnt; and, whether it is the intention of the Executive to accede to the prayer of the memorial?

, in reply, said, the memorial was under the consideration of the Government. It was a fact that a hayrick, the property of Dunne, had been burned, and Dunne had announced his intention to seek compensation; but he attributed the act to no one in particular.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following account of the conduct of the Police in Leeds on Friday 19th instant:—

"Yesterday afternoon a scene of an unusual and not very creditable character took place in Briggate, the principal street of Leeds. The management of the Grand Theatre had issued placards 'to the unemployed,' offering work to two hundred men. The men were to apply at the stage door of the theatre at half-past twelve, and some hundreds congregated in Harrison Street. Some of the theatre officials, it is understood, became alarmed at the language used by some of the men who were rejected, and word was sent to the Police Station that a riot was in progress. A few minutes later, while the crowd was peaceable and orderly, half a dozen policemen, mounted on horses from the Fire Brigade Station, dashed along Briggate, and, turning into Harrison Street, rode down upon the closely-packed mass outside the theatre door. A scene of great confusion and terror ensued, the people flying in all directions to escape the horses' hoofs, while those who attained places of safety hooted at the Police. The latter, turning, rode out again into Briggate, which was now full of excited spectators, and these latter, to their dismay, were then charged by the horsemen, who dashed along the pavements, driving the unfortunate bystanders and pedestrians into shops, &c. and pursuing them up the side streets they sought refuge in. Returning to the main street, now crowded, they dashed repeatedly along the pavements and road, one man even kicking at the crowd as he dashed by them. An order was given for the men to confine themselves to the road, and to behave with more moderation, and after some time the excitement abated, and in an hour or so the crowd dispersed:"

said, he had asked for a Report from the Leeds authorities into the conduct of the police of that borough on the 19th instant, and had been promised a Report of the facts of the case when the Watch Committee had ascertained the full particulars. When the Report reached him he would consider what was necessary to be done. He reminded the hon. Member that he had no authority over the borough police, and that none had authority but the elected Town Council.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, having regard to the additional powers and responsibility conferred on and vested in the eight Chancery Taxing-Masters, by Order 65 of "The Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883," and the Rules of December 1885, and to the fact that the fees earned by them amount on an average to £32,215 per annum, showing an annual profit, after payment of their salaries and the salaries of their clerks, of between £9,000 and £10,000 per annum, the Government will take under their consideration the propriety of appointing an additional Taxing-Master, making the ninth, thus completing the number contemplated and provided for by section 5 of the 5th and 6th Vic. c. 103?

, in reply, said, he would take care that this point was submitted to the Lord Chancellor?

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, with reference to the statement of the Indian Finance Minister, Sir A. Colvin, in his Budget Speech, that—

"The earnest attention of the Secretary of State has been called to the subject of the silver difficulty by the Indian Government, who have pressed on him the necessity of seeking, in concert with the Great Powers and the United States, a solution of the question,"

On January 26 last a letter on this subject was sent by order of the noble Lord the late Secretary of State in Council to the Treasury. This was followed by a further letter, inclosing, by the direction of the present Secretary of State in Council, a despatch from the Government of India. The questions involved are now under the consideration of the Treasury, and no reply has yet been received.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as a large number of Volunteers are desirous of joining the 1st Gloucestershire (Western Counties) Engineers' Corps, but are prevented by reason of the Regiment having attained its regulation strength, he will sanction the formation of two additional com- panies, or the enrolment of supernumeraries?

The corps in question has already 10 companies, and the addition of a submarine company at Cardiff has been sanctioned. This is considered by the Military Authorities to be as large for administrative purposes as any Volunteer corps should be. The enrolment of supernumeraries is contrary to regulation.

asked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether he will, for the convenience of Members of this House, permit two or more men of the Corps of Commissionaires to attend in the Lobby?

said, he would take care that the suggestion of the hon. Member should be brought under the notice of the proper authorities.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following paragraph in the Report of a speech delivered by Mr. Frank Brook, at Brookborough, county Fermanagh, and reported in The Fermanagh Times of the 18th instant—

"But, brother Orangemen, if England spurns us from her then, and, if by the vote of the men who are tied hand and foot to Gladstone's chariot wheels, and who would follow him to perdition sooner than vote against him—if, I say, by these votes Home Rule is granted to the Parnellite rebels, then, I say, England scorns us; and we must let her know, with no uncertain sound, that we, the loyal minority, will never, no, never, allow the rebels to place their yoke around our necks, at least not without a struggle; and, before accepting their law as the law of the land, we will rise as one man and fight for our liberties, our homes, and our glorious religion;"

This Question appears without Notice, and I have not been able to ascertain whether this quotation is correctly given. If I find, however, that there is reason to believe that Mr. Brook used the language imputed to him, I may consider it my duty to bring the matter under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Telegraph Department have refused to continue the registered telegraphic address "Cotton-bag," adopted by Messrs. J. and W. Judge, of Kennington, some years ago, and selected by the Post Office at the time as being a suitable one for them, and if the refusal is solely on the ground that it is a double word, and "might" cause difficulties in transmission; whether the Department has given this firm two months summary notice to discontinue the address, putting them to considerable inconvenience and expense, advising correspondents, renewing stationery, &c.; and, if there is any instance where this anticipated difficulty has occurred with the address in question, and is it a fact that a large number of commercial houses in London are at the present time using double words?

, in reply, said, the address referred to was registered before addresses of telegrams were charged for, and now there were frequent disputes as to whether it was one word or two. Consequently, the Postmaster General had given notice that the word must be changed, but was willing to allow a sufficient interval to elapse to prevent inconvenience.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the reward of two thousand pounds, offered in 1885 for information which would lead to the conviction of Cunningham and Burton, the dynamitards, has yet been awarded; whether Mr. and Mrs. Herrod, who were fellow passengers with Cunningham on board the Shannon, were subpoenaed by the Solicitor to the Treasury to attend the Sessions at the Old Bailey in May last, and there gave important evidence identifying the prisoners; and, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to grant Mr. and Mrs. Herrod any of the promised reward?

Yes, Sir; so much of the reward as it has been deemed advisable to distribute has been already apportioned by the Police Authorities in accordance with the instructions of the Treasury Solicitor. The noble Lord may not be aware that this reward referred only to the four explosions which took place at London railway stations in February, 1884, and that Cunningham and Burton were proved to have been connected with only one of these. It is true that Mr. and Mrs. Herrod gave useful evidence; but they have not been rewarded, as they did not come within the terms of the reward bill. They were ordinary witnesses, brought forward as the result of police inquiry, and did not give information such as that for which the reward was offered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with the view of enabling the local authorities to more effectually control places of public entertainment, he would bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Act 25 Geo. 2, c. 36, s. 2, at present only applicable to the Metropolis, to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Except in a letter from the hon. and gallant Member himself, I have had no information laid before me showing that the Local Authorities have not, under the present law, sufficient power to control places of public entertainment. Under these circumstances, I cannot pledge myself to recommend legislation in the direction proposed—that is to say, by extending the operation of Section 2 of the Act quoted, by which any house, garden, or other place kept for public entertainment without a licence shall be deemed a disorderly house or place. This now only applies to the cities of London and Westminster, and to places within 20 miles of them.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Surveyors of Taxes are paid poundage on the amount of Income Tax collected in their districts?

No; surveyors of taxes are salaried officers, and are not paid poundage on the amount of Income Tax collected.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Is it true that, in 1877, when the Inland Revenue Department, Somerset House, was reorganised under the Playfair Scheme, an actuary was employed by the authorities to calculate the exact amount of compensation due to each clerk whose prospects had been interfered with by the re-organization; and, whether such compensation was forthcoming, in the shape of an immediate increase of salary; if so, is the Treasury prepared to similarly deal with the case of the ex-redundant Customs' clerks who were distinctly promised speedy promotion, to induce them to join the Outdoor Branch, but whose prospects have since been almost destroyed by the abolition of a large number of surveyorships?

No actuary was employed by the Inland Revenue Department to calculate the exact amount of compensation due to clerks whose prospects had been interfered with by the re-organization under what is called the Play fair Scheme. Calculations were made by the Inland Revenue Department as to the loss of prospects by certain existing clerks owing to the abolition of the class system and the consequent loss of "jumps," or increase of salary on promotion from class to class, and in making their calculations the Board of Inland Revenue conferred with Mr. Vaughan, the actuarial clerk of the Board of Trade. The Treasury compensated the clerks for the loss of "jumps" by an immediate addition to their salaries, restricting, however, their maximum pay to £380, the maximum of the old seniority class. No promise of speedy promotion was ever made to induce the redundant Customs clerks to join the outdoor branch, nor was there any understanding that the number of surveyorships would not be reduced if found too large for the requirements of the Service. In fact, many of the redundant clerks only joined the outdoor service when the alternative was placed before them of doing so or being placed on the pension list.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury minute of 15th February 1839 (directing that, from the 5th April 1841, the sum of £630 14s. 2d. should be deducted from the annual amount of £16,216 15s. 1½d. paid to the Duchy of Cornwall), was not laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 19th April 1839, pursuant to 1 and 2 Vic. c. 120, ss. 6 and 7; whether by s. 6 of the said statute the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury were directed to grant such compensation as seemed to them just and proper, and by s. 7 to lay before Parliament a return showing the amount of the compensation so granted by them; whether the Treasury minute of 15th February 1839 was ever formally revised and at what date; whether such revision was ever communicated to Parliament on that occasion; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the objections taken on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall to such annual deduction of £630 14s. 2d. and a copy of the Treasury minute on such deductions?

The Treasury Minute of the 15th of February, 1839, was laid before both Houses of Parliament on the 19th of April, 1839, under the Act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 120, s. 7. The compensation referred to in Section 6 of the Act is compensation to officers whose emoluments were affected by the operation of the Act, but does not affect the payment to be made to the Duchy of Cornwall. The Minute was never formally revised; but, as I stated last night, the Treasury acquiesced in the view taken by the Council of the Duchy of Cornwall, and have acted accordingly during the last 45 years.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, If it is the fact that the Oregon, in common with all steamers conveying passengers between this Country and the United States, had to obtain not only passenger certificates from the Board of Trade, but had also to undergo a periodical examination in the United States by inspectors appointed by the Government of that Country, and that no such vessel can obtain a clearance unless provided with a certificate from their inspectors that she complies with the American law as to efficiency of hull and engines, and as regards the sufficiency of her boat accommodation, life saving, and fire appliances, and that the same requirements in these respects are imposed on British ships by the United States Law as apply to vessels under their own flag; and, whether he can state if it would be possible to require such a vessel as the Oregon to carry a larger number of boats than she had, with a due regard to the safe navigation of the vessel, to the rapid lowering of the boats when required, and to their safe carriage in bad weather?

As I came down to the House to-day I received a telegram from Messrs. Ismay, Imrie, and Co., of Liverpool, who, I believe, are the owners of the Oregon. [Mr. FORWOOD: No!] Well, they are large owners of steamers running between this country and America. The telegram says—

"Our attention having been directed to Mr. Forwood's Question in The Times of to-day, we beg to state that the facts he assumes are quite correct, and in strict accordance with our actual experience."

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Government will consent to the facilities for the formation and working of Tramways given by the Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883, being extended to those parts of Scotland included in the Crofters Bill of the Government now before Parliament?

asked the hon. Gentleman to postpone the Question, so as to give time for its consideration.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in a recent case in the Divorce Court, it was decided that evidence upon which a respondent was found guilty of adultery was not receivable as against the co-respondent; whether, in cases of conspiracy, it has been decided that evidence receivable against one prisoner is receivable also against another prisoner who is jointly charged with that offence; whether it has also been decided that, where two persons are jointly charged with conspiracy, both must be found guilty or both acquitted; and, whether he is prepared to take steps with a view to making the Law of Evidence in cases of adultery similar to the Law of Evidence in cases of conspiracy?

The rule as to the non-admissibility of evidence mentioned in the first part of the Question is one which has been recognized in every Court of Law in the Kingdom, and is well established. A statement made, as in the case put, is evidence against the person making it, but not against any other person, if that person was not present when it was made. This rule does not affect the law relating to conspiracy, which is as stated in the Question. I see no reason, as at present advised, for such an alteration in the rules of evidence as the hon. Member proposes.

With your permission, Sir, I wish to throw myself upon the indulgence of the House while I say a few words with reference to the Question which has just been asked. It is apparently an abstract Question; but it cannot but be taken as referring to the case in which I was recently concerned. I wish to ask the leave of the House to appeal to the hon. Member who put the Question that if he thinks right that the matter should be mentioned here, he should raise it in a form which would enable me, in some way, to meet it in the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he has received a copy of a resolution passed at the "Ulster Liberal Convention" on Friday last; and, if not, whether he is aware that the resolution stated that the Liberal party in Ireland would offer a most determined opposition to the establishment of a separate Irish Parliament, as it would be certain to produce a disastrous collision between sections of the people holding conflicting views on social, economic, and religious subjects, and would produce a feeling of insecurity which would jeopardise all industrial and commercial pursuits, and that the maintenance of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland was the best safeguard for the peace, prosperity, and liberty of all classes in Ireland; and, whether he would endeavour to produce a copy and lay it upon the Table of this House, the declaration of the opinions from those who were the adherents of the Liberal party in Ireland?

In reference to this Question, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the resolution referred to was adopted at a preliminary meeting only by a majority of one; if at the Convention itself an amendment declaring confidence in the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy was made the subject of a division; that the chairman refused to ascertain in a conclusive way the result of the division; and that the mover of the amendment and those who supported him maintained that the amendment was in reality supported by a large majority of the Convention?

I have been made cognizant of the resolution to which the Question refers, and I have also heard some statements with regard to the proceedings at the meeting at which the resolution appears to have been adopted. I do not think it my duty to enter into an examination of those proceedings, and all that I have to say is already covered by what I stated on a former occasion—namely, that I shall endeavour to see whether, from the papers expressive of the views of important bodies in Ireland, a selection may be made which would be instructive.

I am anxious to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question with reference to the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday. The Chancellor of the Exchequer informed the House that it was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman on the 8th of April to make a statement with respect to his Irish policy. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell the House in what form that statement will be made; whether in such a form as to admit of the subject being fully discussed, and, if necessary, of an issue being taken upon it? I shall be happy to ask the Question on Monday if the right hon. Gentleman requires Notice.

Most certainly, Sir, I have no difficulty in answering, in particular, the last part of the Question. The statement will be made in such a form as will admit of debate, or of any course which hon. Members may think fit to take. It will place the subject completely under the command of the House. The purport of it will be to procure the opportunity for the introduction of a Bill for the future government of Ireland. I will consider the particular form of the Motion, and lay its terms upon the Table either on Monday or Tuesday.

said, that the Report of the Commission on Mines had been laid on the Table, and there would be no delay in circulating it. He fully expected to be able to introduce a Bill founded on that Report and upon certain other things immediately after Easter.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that the Antrim Artillery is to be trained at Plymouth this summer; and, whether the necessary guns and appliances to enable the men to obtain sufficient knowledge of their drill are still at Carrick-fergus Castle, and whether there is an excellent sea range for practice; if so, would he state what is the object in sending the regiment to England, at considerable expense?

It is the usual practice to train two brigades of Artillery Militia yearly at the large fortresses in the South of England. This year the choice falls upon the Antrim Artillery. It is only at large fortresses of this class that there are sufficient modern appliances as regards guns, mountings, &c, for the effective training of Militia Artillery in the use of recent armaments.