I wish to ask for the indulgence of the House while I call attention to a matter of Privilege in connection with this Bill. At any rate, if it is not actually a question of Privilege, it is, at least, a matter which ought to be brought under the notice of the House as something which may be considered gross misconduct. This Bill, about a fortnight ago, was before a Committee of this House, of which the hon. Baronet the Member for South St. Pancras (Sir Julian Goldsmid) was Chairman. The other Members of the Committee were the hon. Member for the Totnes Division of Devon (Mr. Mildmay), the hon. Baronet the Member for the Lewes Division of Sussex (Sir Henry Fletcher), and my hon. Friend the Member for Dublin. The Bill was promoted by the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, and among the opponents of it were the Waterford and Limerick Railway Company, of which Mr. Spaight is Chairman. At a meeting of the Limerick Harbour Board, of which Mr. Spaight is also Chairman, he is reported to have made some observations attacking the conduct of the Chairman of the Committee and the Committee itself, which I wish to bring under your notice, Sir, and that of the House, because I believe that the remarks made by Mr. Spaight, as Chairman of a meeting of shareholders, really amount to a Breach of the Privileges of this House. The remarks Mr. Spaight is reported to have made were to the following effect:—

"Mr. Grierson, the Manager of the Great Western Railway, gave important evidence, but he was not listened to. The Chairman (Sir Julian Goldsmid) absolutely turned aside, put his arms over the back of his chair, and affected to go to sleep. From the very commencement of the inquiry the Chairman seemed to have made up his mind on the question. He knew from the start that they had no chance, owing to the apparent bias of the Chairman."

"We complain that the Chairman of the Committee held and expressed such a strong feeling in favour of the promoters and against the petitioners, from the opening of the case, that everyone who listened to the proceedings was quite satisfied from the first day what the decision would be. Our opponents will, I think, admit that such was the general impression."

Order, order! The hon. Member is not entitled, in discussing a Private Bill of this character, to bring forward a matter of Privilege. A question of Privilege must be raised separately after this Bill has been disposed of, and not at the time of Private Business. I would ask, however, when the statements were made or published?

The speech was delivered on Monday, and the letter was published on the 9th of May. It was only last night that the paragraph in the newspaper article was brought under my notice, and therefore I have had no opportunity of consulting with you, Sir, as to the proper course of action to be taken. When the Order for the Third Reading of the Bill was read, I thought that would be the proper time for bringing the conduct of this gentleman under the notice of the House.

I should have been happy, if I had not been otherwise engaged at the moment, to give the hon. Member any advice on the subject. Perhaps the hon. Member will consult me after the Bill has been disposed of. The remarks of the hon. Member relate to a question of Privilege, and have no connection with the Question before the House, which is the Third Reading of this Bill; nor do they affect the passing of the Bill.

No, Sir; they do not affect the passing of the Bill. On the contrary, I am anxious that the Bill should pass.

I beg to move that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow. Hon. Members will then be able to have the Bill before them, and the question can be properly discussed. I think that would be the1 most convenient course to take.

As a point of Order, I have stated that it is not proper to debate a question of Privilege upon a Private Bill. Nor is it necessary to move the adjournment of the debate, because, if the hon. Member objects to the Bill, the matter must, in accordance with the Standing Orders, stand over.

Then I do object.

And I also.

Then the Motion must stand over until tomorrow.

I beg to move the omission of Clause 112, and, in doing so, I desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which has been placed before us in the Report of the Committee which sat upon this Bill. The Bill originally gave power to the Corporation of Darwen to establish sanitary regulations in excess of the provisions of the general law. In 1885 a Special Committee of this House was appointed to consider the Police and Sanitary Regulations contained in certain Private Bills which had been introduced into this House; and the decision which that Committee arrived at was that, unless strong reasons could be assigned, no deviation should be allowed from the provisions of the ordinary law of the land. In regard to the present Bill, the Local Government Board have reported very strongly on some of the provisions contained in it, and asked that they should be amended. I believe that they have been amended accordingly, and, therefore, I do not propose to press the Motion which stood in my name originally—namely, that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee with respect to Clauses 96 to 131, inclusive, which the former Committee have reported as containing Police and Sanitary Regulations in excess of the provisions of the general law; but I ask the permission of the House to move that Clause 112 be omitted from the Bill. Is it in Order for me to do that?

Yes.

Then I ask leave to withdraw the Motion for the re-committal of the Bill, and to move the omission of Clause 112. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that this clause is directed against processions of the Salvation Army.

I believe that the promoters have agreed to omit the clause to which my hon. Friend objects.

I will only say that the powers contained in this clause are of a very exceptional nature; and, although they are intended to prohibit Sunday processions, and are specially directed in this case, I am told, against the Salvation Army, they may have a much wider application. I think it is a most undesirable thing that processions should take place on Sunday, and I am not in favour of them myself; but I think that if it is considered desirable by this House to put a stop to meetings and processions on Sunday it should be done by a Public Bill, and not by a clause inserted in a Private Bill.

I hope I may be allowed to say a few words in regard to this Bill, and I promise that they shall be confined within the narrowest compass. I only wish to say, on behalf of the promoters, that they have no objection to withdraw this clause. I should not have said a word if my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, who was Chairman of the Committee which inquired into the Bill, and upon which I had the honour to serve, had been present. This clause was carefully considered by the Committee, and we followed the precedent which has been set by former Committees of reporting to the House that the Bill contained clauses in contravention of the general provisions of the law, and in inserting in the Bill the clause to which exception is now taken. The House has itself created a precedent by sanctioning the same clause on the recommendation of the Committee in former years. I feel it right to say, however, both on the part of the Committee and on the part of the promoters, that there is no objection to the withdrawal of this clause on this occasion.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Murphy, landlord of the Crown Hotel, Castleisland, County Kerry, was recently fined £2, in consequence of there having been, on the 24th April, on the balcony of his hotel a piece of calico with the words "God save Ireland" thereon; whether such prosecution was at the instance of the Irish Government; whether such prosecution was made in virtue of s. 8 of c. 38, 6 & 7 Will. IV., which enacts (inter alia) that on no occasion or pretence shall any flag, symbol, colour, or decoration be hung out of licensed premises, except the accustomed sign: and, whether this law has been, or is to be, universally enforced throughout Ireland?

(who replied) said: This publican appears to have been fined as stated. He had positively refused to remove the banner when directed to do so, and said that he would take the consequences. The prosecution was at the instance of the police, and under the provisions of the Statute quoted. This law has been enforced, and no doubt will continue to be so wherever and whenever the preservation of the peace demands it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at a recent eviction of a tenant" named Barrett at Shanbally, near Minkston, County Cork, an Emergency man named Denis Lynch presented a revolver at a number of women in Barrett's house though no resistance was being offered whether reports have reached him that Lynch was under the influence of drink; whether any Report has been received on the subject from the Constabulary; and, whether the authorities will order an inquiry into the case?

(who replied) said: It appears that Barrett was put out of a house in which he had acted as caretaker; and while the furniture was being removed, his daughter, a young girl, ran out and stated that Lynch had presented a revolver at her. The police who were on duty on the spot inquired into the case, and could find no grounds for the allegation. They also state that Lynch was not under the influence of liquor, and the authorities see no ground for ordering any further inquiry.

May I ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, if these allegations in my Question are substantiated on an affidavit, will he take any further action in the matter?

I did not gather the allegations were founded on an affidavit. If they are, of course I will make inquiries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any steps have been taken to fill up the vacancy at the National Board of Education caused by the death of the Duke of Leinster; whether repeated representations have been made to the Government, complaining of the inadequate representation of the Irish Presbyterian Church on this and other public Boards; and, if the Government intend to avail themselves of the present opportunity to bring the Presbyterian representation at the Board of Education more in harmony with that of other Churches?

(who replied) said: Yes, Sir; the Government are taking steps to fill up the vacancy caused by the death of the Duke of Leinster on the National Board of Education. The Government are of opinion that the Irish Presbyterian Church is not adequately represented on the Board; and they will take the present opportunity of in- creasing the representation of that Body, if possible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have reached him that Constable Kavanagh, of Durras, at the recent election of a Guardian for the Glenlough Electoral Division of the Bantry Union, left a voting paper at the house of Timothy M'Carthy, Glenlough; whether he called for same voting paper, and, if not, why not; whether he left one voting paper each at the house of Ellen Kingston and Cornelius Brien; and, whether he returned two voting papers for each of these persons to the Returning Officer of the Bantry Union, to which their names were attached; and, if true, whether, at future elections of Guardians in the Bantry Union, the Government will see that the policemen entrusted with the distribution and collection of voting papers will act impartially?

(who replied) said: The constable stated that he called for the voting paper at M'Carthy's house, but it was in the possession of Patrick Arundel, one of the candidates for the election, who refused to give it up. With regard to the other part of the Question, I have already replied to that in answer to an inquiry put by the hon. Member on the 3rd instant. The Irish Government have no reason to believe that the constables did not act with impartiality.

Can the right hon. and gallant Member say how it was he returned two voting papers for these houses?

said, two papers were returned; but there were grounds for believing they were forgeries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Messrs. Gregory and Wilson, and Colonel Davys, have been appointed Sub-Commissioners under the Land Act; whether there are other ex-Sub-Commissioners whose past ser- vice has been longer than that of these gentlemen; upon whose recommendation Colonel Days was appointed; and, whether the Land Commission has been consulted in these appointments, or its opinion obtained?

(who replied) said: Sir, I am aware that the three gentlemen named have been appointed, and it is quite possible that there are other gentlemen whose past services have been longer than theirs. In one instance this certainly is the case; but seniority cannot be regarded as the sole ground for consideration in making these appointments. The Government, however, cannot discuss the grounds on which they make their appointments, which are made with a full sense of their responsibility in the matter, and they endeavour to secure the services of the best available men. I may remind the hon. Gentleman that Mr. Wilson was one of a list of nine persons specially recommended by himself.

said, he did not send in any such list. He would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he had not answered the latter part of the Question.

No, Sir; the Land Commission is not directly consulted upon these appointments.

Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that Colonel Davys has had a serious dispute with his tenants, who have, within the last week, obtained large reductions in the Land Courts at Roscommon?

I am not aware, nor do I think it my duty to inquire into this matter.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the clause in the recent Treasury Minute respecting writers, which provides in special cases for the promotion of writers on the recommendation of the Heads of their Departments to the Lower Division, will be given effect to; whether the various Heads of Departments have already sent in their Reports, with the names of those writers whom they recommend for pro- motion; and, whether, in view of the fact that it is now Dearly six months since the Minute was first issued, he can explain the delay in giving effect to the clause referred to?

(who replied) said: In answer to the hon. Member, the Treasury Minute laid down that a limited number of copyists of admitted merit might be promoted to the Lower Division. It was not intended that any large number would be thus promoted; but the Heads of Departments have been asked and have sent in lists of names, which are being considered, and I anticipate that promotion will shortly be made of a limited number. It is not intended to increase the total number of Lower Division clerks.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many special inquiries into charges made against the Resident Medical Officer of the Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum have been held within the last five years; and, whether there is any objection to lay the several Reports relating to such inquiries upon the Table of the House?

(who replied) said: No special inquiries of the nature indicated have been held. There was a Departmental Inquiry held by order of the Government towards the close of 1881, and in the beginning of 1882, into a number of matters connected with the administration of the asylum, as to which the hon. Member was informed in reply to a Question put by him to the then Chief Secretary, on May 3, 1883. In 1885 there was an inquiry on the general operation of this asylum, and as to the advisability of structural additions and re-arrangement of buildings. As the hon. Member has been already informed, in reply to his former Question on this subject above referred to, Reports of this nature are regarded as confidential, and the Government cannot undertake to lay them upon the Table of the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can state why Army Medical Officers are placed on a footing with Departmental or non-combatant officers, and disqualified from reckoning time on half-pay towards promotion or retirement, in view of the fact that they are required by the Regulations to go under fire, and in time of war, do so?

There are several reasons why medical officers do not count time on half-pay towards promotion and retirement, as combatant officers do. In the first place, the early voluntary retirement of a combatant officer is often an economy to the public, and the means of saving another officer from compulsory retirement at a comparatively early age. This does not apply in the Medical Staff, where there is no compulsory retirement before the age of 55, and it is desirable to retain trained medical officers as long as they continue efficient. Moreover, the retired pay of medical officers is on a more liberal scale than that of combatant officers.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of the Police Constables dismissed, and also the number reduced in class, and for what offences, during the time that Sir Charles Warren has been Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Force?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has no objection to lay on the Table a Return showing the number of police constables dismissed, and also the number reduced in class, since Sir Charles Warren has been Chief Commissioner. That number has been below the average of former years. The Secretary of State does not think it will be expedient, in the public interest, to give a Return of offences for which constables have been dismissed or re- duced. The Commissioner has, by Statute, the power to dismiss constables without assigning any cause. The Secretary of State will, however, be happy to give the hon. Member privately any information as to any particular case in which he takes an interest.

Will the hon. Gentleman make the Return divisional?

I will consider that point.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that six bandsmen of Her Majesty's Hussar Regiment, quartered at Colchester, took park in uniform at a concert given by the Conservative Club in that town on Monday, 9th May; and, whether this was not contrary to the Regulations that are in force with regard to the presence of regimental bandsmen at political gatherings?

It appears that the officer commanding did allow some of his bandsmen to play at a workmen's Conservative Club in uniform, as the meeting was merely social, and without any political significance. But he has been instructed not to allow the bandsman to take part in any concert without the permission of the General Officer commanding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What is the geographical limit of the Zululand that has been annexed, and does it include any part of Tongoland; is the annexation approved of by Dinizulu, Undabuka, Umnyamana, and the principal Chiefs of the Zulu people; and, will Zululand become a portion of Natal, or a separate Crown Colony?

The Zululand which has been annexed includes all the Kingdom of Cetewayo, excepting what has been assigned to the new Republic. It does not include any part of Tongoland. The areas of the parts of Zululand are:—New Republic, 2,854 square miles; British Zululand, com- prising the Reserve Territory and Eastern Zululand, 8,220 square miles. The new Republic is, therefore, little more than a fourth of the total area, whereas under the Agreement of August, 1884, the Zulus had practically ceded 4,234 square miles to the Boers; the difference, 1,380 square miles, has been secured to them by the friendly intervention of Her Majesty's Government. Dinizulu, Undabuka, Umnyamana, and the other principal Chiefs of Zululand, received favourably the intimation that Her Majesty's supreme authority and protection would be extended to their country. It is proposed to grant them pensions during their lives. Zululand will not be annexed to Natal—at all events at present—and will be administered as a separate Crown Colony for the benefit of the Natives.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could inform the House as to the estimated cost to the Imperial Treasury of the new Crown Colony of Zululand?

said, the increase in the cost of administration was estimated at £6,037 a-year. The Government hoped to meet this in future years by a native hut tax, and by licences and imposts such as were now levied in the Zulu Reserve; but for the £5,000 of the current year it was not proposed to ask the British taxpayer to pay anything, because it would be met out of the Cash Reserve Fund, which had accumulated under the careful management of the Reserve. That territory would now become part of Zululand; and, therefore, it was fair to use the balance this year.

asked whether a map of the country would be published?

said, that a map would be published with the Papers.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether complaints have reached Her Majesty's Government with regard to the position of emigrants who recently went out to Tennessee in connection with the Tennessee Coal, Iron, and Railroad Company; whether inquiry is being made into the circumstances; and, if so, whether the results of such inquiry will be made public; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take any action in the matter, should the complaints prove to be well-founded?

Inquiries on this subject are being made through the Home Office. Any further action will depend upon the result of those inquiries.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that it is intended to increase the number of magistrates acting in and for the borough of Hanley; whether the selection of the gentlemen nominated has been made without the knowledge, consent, or approbation of the Town Council of that borough; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, under the corporate seal, have memorialized Her Majesty and petitioned the House of Commons to the effect that the suggested appointments would not conduce to the respect in which the Bench should be held by the inhabitants, he will advise the Lord Chancellor to take steps to obtain the concurrence in any selection for these important posts of the governing body most competent to advise as to the gentlemen best qualified in the esteem and confidence of those among whom they will have to administer justice? The hon. Gentleman said, he was informed that since the Notice was put on the Paper and subsequently to the presentation of the Memorials referred to, in spite of the protest of the Corporation, the names of six gentlemen had been added to the Commission of the Peace. Such being the case, he would not trouble the Secretary of State to reply to the Question.

(who replied) said: The hon. Member appears to have been under some misapprehension. On the 28th of April the Lord Chancellor gave the necessary directions for the insertion of additional names in the Commission of the Peace for the borough of Hanley. Before that time a letter was sent to the Town Council by the Lord Chancellor, in terms which are now often used in such cases, inviting observation as to the fitness of the gentlemen proposed. The Council raised objections to certain of those gentlemen; but the Lord Chancellor, after considering the objections, made the appointments. It is not intended to make any further addition to this Bench at the present time. The Secretary of State does not conceive it to be a part of his duty to interfere with the discretion which the Lord Chancellor thinks right to exercise in the selection of persons to be Justices of the Peace.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that Jeremiah Connolly, of the townland of Derrylugga, Barony of East Division of West Carberry, County Cork, a tenant of Thomas E. Whitney, Blackrock, County Cork, served an originating notice to have a fair rent fixed on the 11th November, 1881; whether his rent was £17, and valuation £12 5s.; whether his case was not adjudicated on till June, 1883, when the old rent of £17 was confirmed without reduction by the Sub-Commission presided over by Messrs. M'Devitt and Walpole; whether Connolly appealed from this decision on 15th July, 1883, and whether said appeal is still unheard; whether, if the facts are as above stated, he will explain the delay that has occurred in the hearing of this poor man's appeal, whereby he is still condemned to pay what may be ultimately decided to be an unjust and exorbitant rent; and, whether he can hold out any hope that the Chief Commission will soon hold a sitting in Cork to hear appeals so long pending?

(who replied) said, the facts of the case were substantially as stated in the Question. The delay, which was a serious matter, had arisen through inadvertence on the part of the Land Commission. The Commissioners reported that a sitting would be held in West Cork in October or November next, when the case would be tried.

asked, whether, considering the fact that this man's case had been so long delayed, he would not get the benefit of any reduction which might be made in the rent from the time he served his notice?

said, he had rather anticipated this Question; and he was prepared to say that, considering the gross negligence which had been shown on the part of some of the officials of the Land Commission, the circumstances mentioned would be taken into consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether an application has recently been made, by Henry Goodchild, for an appointment as auxiliary letter carrier in the Metropolitan District, to supplement his present income, which he has been in receipt of for the past two and a-half years, as verger in a Church of England, and that such application was refused; whether the said applicant was a police constable in the Metropolitan Police Force, and took a leading part in a movement for an increase of pay and a reduction in the hours of duty, which was conceded by the then Chief Commissioner of Police, in consequence of which Goodchild was dismissed; and, whether the refusal to appoint him an auxiliary letter carrier was owing to such dismissal from the Police Force?

Henry Goodchild did, in August last, apply for employment as an auxiliary letter carrier in London; but, as it was ascertained that he had been dismissed from the Metropolitan Police Force, it was not deemed expedient to comply with his request. Even in the absence of such objection I should, of course, exercise my discretion in making the selections for such employment from among the very numerous applicants.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government intend to bring forward this Session the promised reform of the Tweed Acts; and, if not, whether they will take steps to satisfy the strongly-expressed wish of the people living in Berwick and the adjoining part of the Tweed District, to have an extension of the time for net fishing for salmon on that River beyond the date fixed for its closing by the present law?

asked the Lord Advocate, whether, before introducing any Bill regulating the fisheries in the River Tweed, he would give an opportunity to the Tweed Commissioners to express their views?

Her Majesty's Government adhere to their intention of dealing with the Salmon Fishery Laws in Scotland; but the state of Public Business renders it most unlikely that this can be accomplished during the present Session. It is not thought advisable to deal by separate Bill with any special matter relating to salmon fisheries. In reply to the supplementary Question, the Government would be glad to receive any representations from the Tweed Commissioners on the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade will consider the advisability of instructing their Inspectors, in making their Reports upon accidents, in all cases to append to such Reports a reference or references to Reports, if any, of the Inspectors of the Board of Trade upon previous accidents of a similar character on the same lines of railway, where the Inspectors of the Board of Trade have drawn attention to similar defects of plant or working, and have had occasion to make similar recommendations to the same Railway Company?

It has been the practice of the Inspecting Officers generally to refer to recommendations previously made by them upon other accidents where similar recommendations had been made. Attention will be paid to the suggestion contained in the Question of the hon. Member; but it would be difficult to make an absolute rule in the matter.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Charity Commissioners have received from the Local Board of Tonbridge a Memorial praying that a scheme may be prepared for the establishment of a Second Grade School at Ton-bridge, in connection with the Judd Foundation; and, whether the Commissioners will accede to the prayer of that Memorial?

The Charity Commissioners have received the Memorial mentioned in the Question; they have, in consequence, had under their consideration the present application of this wealthy endowment, and propose shortly to communicate with the Skinners' Company, as the Governors of the School, with a view to the furtherance of the proposal made by the Memorialists.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in view of the fact that the annual receipts from disturnpiked roads to the Imperial Exchequer is £215,000, and the contribution to the local expenditure in regard to those roads is given in proportion to their mileage alone, and not in reference to the previous increment from the tolls, nor to the present cost of the wear and tear, the Exchequer contribute a sum of only £1,000 annually in aid of the previously disturnpiked roads within the Metropolitan area; and, if such be the case, whether the road made through the Park by the First Commissioner of Works at Hyde Park Corner might be maintained out of the receipts received from the previously referred to disturnpiked roads generally?

There are no receipts to the Imperial Exchequer from disturnpiked roads, and "the contribution to the local expenditure in regard to those roads" is not given "in proportion to their mileage alone;" but is based, in the case of the Metropolis, on the estimated annual cost of maintaining the roads as turnpike roads. The amount contributed by the Exchequer last year in respect of disturnpiked roads in the Metropolis was £1,759. As to the new streets at Hyde Park Corner, the expense of maintaining them has now for four years been borne by the Exchequer without local contribution of any kind; and it is to put a stop to this state of affairs that I have asked Parliament to pass the Hyde Park Corner (New Streets) Bill.

asked, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention had been directed to the great necessity of a crossing between Westminster Abbey and the House?

I am afraid that question does not spring very directly from the last one.

gave Notice that he would put down a Question on the subject.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he is aware that, in the borough of Bradford, the actual rate paid for School Board purposes much exceeds the rate nominally levied; and, if so, whether he would submit a Statement to the House of the amount of School Board rate in the £1 nominally levied, and that actually collected from the ratepayers?

The actual rate paid for School Board purposes may, in many cases, exceed the amount in the £1 nominally levied, as the Return submitted to Parliament is based upon the gross rateable value from which considerable deductions have to be made in the process of rating. I believe this to be the true explanation of the discrepancy; but I have no means of furnishing the information asked for in the latter part of the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will state whether the Zulu people have given their sanction to the annexation of their territory to the British Empire; and, whether information has reached him that the Cape Colonists are very much averse to the extension of the British Possessions in South Africa?

The first Question has been, I think, sufficiently answered by my replies to the hon. Member for Caithness (Dr. Clark) to-day, and to the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Richard Temple) on the 17th. With regard to the second Question, my reply is that, so far as Zululand is concerned, the Cape Government and people have for a long time desired that, in the interests of peace and public safety in South Africa, Zululand should be brought under the Queen's Sovereignty; and Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that there is any body of opinion in South Africa averse to the recent extension of the British Possessions. I may call the attention of the hon. Member to a speech made on Tuesday by Mr. Robinson, the Natal Delegate to the Colonial Conference, and a man of high intelligence and political experience. He expressed his belief that the Proclamation of the annexation of Zululand will be hailed with great satisfaction both by the European and Native populations of South Africa.

said, he wanted to know, were any steps taken to ascertain what the views of the people of Zululand were with regard to the annexation?

replied that some time ago, in answer to a Question, he stated that he had been informed that the Zulus themselves had asked us to come in and protect them from the Boers. He also said he had telegraphed for information when it was decided to take further steps, and that Mr. Osborne and Sir Arthur Havelock informed the Colonial Office that the majority, inclusive of the people and the Chiefs, would gladly accede; that the people would be specially glad of British rule; and that that was the opinion of the Chiefs and those skilled in the government and knowledge of the people.

What is the date of that telegram?

That telegram I have already read? It is dated the 13th, and was received on the 14th February last.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true, as stated in The Standard of the 17th instant, that England and Turkey have agreed to the evacuation of Egypt in three years, on certain conditions; and, if so, what are these conditions, and when will the Government inform Parliament as to the instructions given by the Cabinet to Sir Henry Drummond Wolff?

I am unable to give the hon. Member any information on the subject.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to conceal all information from Parliament?

Order, order!

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that in the rural parish of Crossgate, in Durham, a rate of 2s. 6d. in the £1 was levied by the Durham Rural Sanitary Authority to construct a sewer discharging unfiltered sewage into the River Wear; that the Auditor, having decided the construction of such sewer to be illegal and in contravention of the Rivers Pollution Act, there upon disallowed and surcharged the members of the Board the amounts paid in respect thereof; that the Local Government Board, when appealed to by the Durham Rural Board, confirmed the Auditor's decision, but remitted the surcharge, thus depriving the ratepayers of any redress, although they admitted the rate of 2s. 6d.in the £1 wrongfully and illegally levied for such a purpose; and, if the circumstances are as stated, will the Government say whether the ratepayers of Crossgate have any means of recovering the rate of 2s. 6d. thus illegally levied on them?

Sums amounting to about £130, which had been expended by the Durham Rural Sanitary Authority in providing a sewer for the contributory place of Crossgate, were disallowed by the Auditor on the ground that unpurified sewage was discharged through the sewer into the River Wear in contravention of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act. On an appeal by the members of the Sanitary Authority who were surcharged, the Local Government Board confirmed the Auditor's decision. It appeared, however, that the river was largely polluted from other sources, and that, in fact, the new sewer had not occasioned any material increase in the pollution. It did not seem to the Board necessary to require that the members surcharged should personally bear the cost of the works, and they, therefore, remitted the disallowance and surcharge. I am not aware of any means by which the ratepayers of Crossgate can be recouped the amount in question.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that on Saturday last an examination in Bankruptcy in proceedings against Mr. E. M. Langworthy was conducted in private, and the Press prevented from reporting what took place; if he will state under what provision of the Bankruptcy Acts the proceedings were kept secret; and, whether he will consider the advisability, if necessary, of amending the Law so as to secure publicity in cases where, as in the one referred to, the question at issue is an alleged fictitious transfer of property by a debtor with a view to defraud his creditors?

An examination of certain persons is taking place in the bankruptcy proceedings against Mr. E. M. Langworthy at the instance of the Chief Official Receiver. The proceedings are carried on under Section 27 of the Bankruptcy Act for the purposes of discovery, and the mode in which they are conducted is a matter within the province of the Bankruptcy Court itself. Such an examination is, however, as a matter of fact, conducted in private, in accordance with the practice of the Court, and the ends of justice might be entirely defeated if that were otherwise. But the ulterior proceedings to which the result of the examination may give rise will have the usual publicity.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention had been called to the Memorial from a Committee of the Free Church of Scotland with regard to certain property belonging to their Mission Station at Constantinople, dated 4th May, 1887; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will, in view of the statement of facts therein set forth, and considering that no pecuniary liability will be cast upon the Treasury, reconsider the instructions recently issued to Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte, and allow the property in question to be vested in the Embassy on trust for the Mission, in accordance with precedent and the prayer of the Memorialists?

The Memorial in question has been communicated to the Treasury, who have decided that, under the circumstances set forth in it, the property may be hold in trust by the Embassy, on the condition that it shall entail no pecuniary liability on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the alarming increase in the number of emigrants from Ireland during the month of April of the present year; and, whether he can give the House any idea as to the cause of the increase?

(who replied) said: My attention has been directed to the considerable increase of emigration referred to in the Question. The hon. Gentleman might have gathered from the numbers which I stated a few days ago that my attention has been directed to the subject. In addition to the usual causes operating towards emigration, at present there is a considerable want of employment in the country, and there is a fear on the part of many as to the consequences likely to ensue from their past misconduct. There is likewise a disinclination on the part of many others to join Secret Societies, which, if they remained in the country, they would most probably be compelled to join.

asked, whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not think the increase was due, at least in part, to the introduction of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill into this House, and to the conviction on the part of the people of Ireland—

Order, order! that is a matter of opinion, and not the subject of the Question.

The right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in answering the Question, had used the words, "My attention has been directed." The Question on the Paper was, whether the attention of the Chief Secretary had been directed to the subject?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the following General Instruction to the Surveyor of Taxes has been altered or cancelled:—

"A wife receiving an allowance or remittances from her husband abroad is to he charged for the same as his agent, under the second proviso to s. 45 of Act 5 & 6 Vict., c. 35, when the remittances are derived from any kind of property out of the United Kingdom, whether real or personal, movable or immovable. But remittances derived from trade profits, salary, &c, are not chargeable;"

, in reply, said, that the Instruction referred to had not been altered or cancelled. In answer to the second Question, he had to say that remittances such as the hon. Member had described were not liable to Income Tax pro- vided the husband had not been at any time resident in this country during the year of assessment. But the exemption was not granted in connection with the payment of Income Tax in India. He was not aware that the wives of Indian officers were charged Income Tax under the circumstances mentioned; but if the hon. Gentleman brought to his notice any case in which that had been done it would receive attention.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the alleged immigration into this country of a large number of foreigners in a destitute condition; and, whether, if the statement is correct, the Government will endeavour to make such representations to Foreign Governments as will put a check upon so heavy an addition to the burdens of the ratepayers of this country?

There has been a considerable increase of foreigners in the East End of London who have become chargeable to the public, and complaints are also made of the impoverishment of wages caused by the competition of foreign labour in certain industries. If it were determined to take any steps to check the immigration of persons not in a condition to maintain themselves the matter would be one of domestic legislation, rather than for representation to Foreign Governments.

inquired, whether foreigners who entered English workhouses were sent back to their own country in the same way as Irish people were?

replied that it was notorious that they could not send foreigners abroad in the same way that destitute people were sent to their own parishes.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to a Return, re- cently presented to this House, of deaths from starvation and privation in the Metropolitan District, whereby it appears that in the case of George Hicks, on -whom an inquest was held on 12th March, 1886, the verdict of the jury was to the effect that—

"Death was accelerated by exposure to cold in the wood shed of Paddington Workhouse;"

"Had been deterred from asking farther parochial relief "by letters demanding repayment for a loan"

I have seen the Return referred to. The attention of the Local Government Board was drawn to the case of Hicks at the time when it occurred, and they ascertained that a committee of the Paddington Guardians had inquired into the matter, and had come to the conclusion to make provision for warming the wood shed at the Workhouse. This report was adopted by the Guardians. I am inquiring whether the necessary alterations have been carried out. As regards the case of Turner, I am informed that when in June, 1886, he made application to the Edmonton Guardians for relief he applied for it on loan. He received relief in the months of June and July, but did not afterwards apply; and it was not until November that application was made to him to commence the repayment of the value of the relief granted him. Whether this application deterred him from asking for further relief I am not at present able to say; but I am making further inquiries on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, as all the bayonets in the hands of the Regular Infantry have now been re-tested, he can state what was the test to which they were submitted, and when it was introduced, how many were so tested, and how many failed to pass the test?

The long triangular Martini-Henry bayonets and the sword bayonets in the United Kingdom have been re-tested. The former were sprung on all three faces round a curved block 2½ inches high in the centre—struck twice on each flat, and gauged; also a large percentage were twisted from point to socket through a quarter of a circle; 40,180 in the hands of the troops, and 123,400 in store were thus tested; 4¾ per cent of those with the troops and 3 per cent of those in store broke; 4¾ per cent with the troops and 1½ per cent in store were under gauge; 21½ per cent with the troops and 11 per cent in store were found to be soft; and 69 per cent of those with the troops and 84½ per cent of those in store passed the re-testing. Of the sword bayonets, 12,800 in the hands of troops and 22,000 in store were re-tested by being sprung round a curved block 2½ inches high, or over a bridge giving the same bend, struck on an oak block on back and edge and on each flat, troughed, and gauged; 90 per cent of those with troops and 89½ per cent of those in store passed the test. Of the remainder, in each case 9 per cent were soft, and 1 per cent of those with the troops and 1½ per cent of those in store broke. Of the weapons which were returned as "soft," 50 per cent of the sword bayonets passed, after being re-hardened and tempered; and of the triangular bayonets, 75 per cent of those from the troops and 86 per cent of those in store passed under similar circumstances. As a much larger proportion of the weapons in the hands of the troops failed to pass the test than of those in store, it is evident that the bayonets have seriously deteriorated since their issue to the troops. Troops at home are, of course, all armed with re-tested bayonets. Supplies have been sent to the Mediterranean, Egypt, and South Africa, and those in the hands of the troops at those stations have been recalled for the purpose of being re-tested. Those only that pass the re-test will be placed in store. As previously stated, the bayonets in possession of the Militia will be re-tested during the present year, and replaced as necessary. I will now, with the permission of the House, refer to two Questions as to imperfect arms which my hon. Friend has previously addressed to me. He inquired as to an alleged testing, with very bad results, of the swords of the Royal Horse Guards in October last; but the officer commanding the regiment reports that no such test took place. Then, as regards the shovels which broke in the hands of men of the East Kent Regiment at Dover, I have to say that they were of a pattern introduced in 1871 from America as reserve intrenching tools. It was soon found that they were too light for ordinary unskilled work, and in 1875 a heavier and stronger pattern was introduced for general service; but the store of the light pattern was retained to be used gradually up. The tool is really a shovel, and answers fairly well at Chatham in the hands of the Sappers; but it is not fit for use as a spade thrust into heavy soil. The central store of these shovels at Woolwich is exhausted. Those at out-stations will be recalled, and replaced by proper spades. Steps are in progress to thoroughly overhaul all intrenching tools, and to reject from store all as to the utility of which there can be any serious doubt. There remains the question of the sword bayonets of the City of London Artillery Volunteers. After repeated applications, since my hon. Friend's Question, I have only this afternoon received Colonel Hope's Report as to the tests to which they were subjected. I should, therefore, prefer to reply on this point to-morrow.

asked, whether the test to which the sword bayonets had been recently subjected was the same as that to which they were subjected when they were first issued?

No; it is a much more severe test. Of course, the original testing took place along time ago.

inquired, whether the new test would be applied to the intrenchment shovels in the possession of the Infantry?

said, he understood that the arms and tools of all troops would be overhauled.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the annual pension of £40 of a Custom House official, named Leckey, who retired at the age of 67 in 1845, and died in 1852, was drawn by his wife for 23 years after his death, and for a further 12 years by his daughter, up to March of this year; whether he has reason to believe that similar cases are not uncommon; what precautions are taken to prevent imposition of this kind; and, who are the officials to whose neglect the waste of public money in this instance was due?

also asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any step will be taken to inquire into the abuses recently exposed of persons receiving pensions for many years after the lawful recipient has died; and whether during the present Session the Government intend to ask the House to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the Pension List?

Perhaps the hon. Member for the Leigh Division of Lancashire will allow me to deal with the Question which he has addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the same time as the Question of the hon. Member for! Preston. As the House is, no doubt, aware, the offender in this case was prosecuted by the Board of Customs, was convicted of felony, and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. I have made inquiries of the Offices that pay pensions, and I am informed that no similar case has been discovered in any of the Civil Departments, though in military pensions attempts at personation appear not to be uncommon. The Regulations for the payment of pensions require the production of a certificate, attested by a Justice of the Peace, notary public, or a member of certain specified classes of the community, of the continued existence of the person claiming to be entitled to the pension, and a false declaration, of course, exposes the offender to legal penalties. In addition to this, though not prescribed by the Regulations, it has been the practice in, I believe, all paying Departments, except the Customs, to chock the age of all claimants at certain intervals, and to exercise extreme care whenever the lapse of time since the grant of the pension or the age of a pensioner gave cause for exercising caution. I am considering whe- ther tills practice, or some development of it, should not be embodied in the Regulations. In the meantime, a general and careful scrutiny of pensioners is in progress. The method appears to me to be one entirely for Departmental regulation, and in no way to call for inquiry by a Select Committee of this House.

Is nobody responsible in this matter?

Obviously the persons responsible are the officials in the Custom House.

Will the hon. Gentleman endeavour to trace the persons who are responsible?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that until a few years ago there was a person who appeared in the Pension List as receiving a pension for services rendered in the American War of Independence?

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of any communications that have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the French Government on the subject of the French Exhibition?

I shall be happy to lay upon the Table a copy of those communications.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the fact that the hours of 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., during which goods may be landed out of vessels arriving from beyond the seas in four months of the year without payment of charges for overtime for the officials attending, are not suitable for the present state of navigation, which has changed so greatly from sailing vessels to steamers, and to ask if the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury will exercise their option of appointing "other hours," by making the time 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.?

My attention has been called to this subject by Memorial from certain Chambers of Shipping. I will consider the question in concert with the Customs authorities, and see whether any extension of the hours can be obtained without any serious increase of expense to the Customs Department.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the Memorandum issued on the Immigration of Foreigners into the United Kingdom, he will consider the advisability of framing some such Regulations with regard to this immigration as are in force at Now York?

The matter to which the hon. Member refers is one of great intricacy; but I can assure him it is engaging the attention of the Board of Trade.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If a Sheriff and those policemen who accompany him are entitled, whilst on eviction duty, to force their way through, the lands of any farmer who objects, and says he will treat them as trespassers; if they should refuse to leave, is the owner of the land empowered to use as much force as is necessary to remove them; and, if so, will the Government, in order to prevent collisions between the policemen and the people, direct that, for the future, the evicting force shall go to the house to be evicted, by the ordinary road; and, is it a fact that the Sheriff and police have often forced their way through the lands of farmers who have objected?

, in reply, said, that the Sheriff was not under the control of the Law Officers of the Crown. No complaint of the police had hitherto been made on the subject; but if any case, in which it was alleged the police acted improperly, was brought under his notice, he would cause inquiries to be made into it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If Her Majesty's Government will consider, in connection with the forthcoming Jubilee rejoicings, and in concert with Colonial Governments, the desirability of advising the Crown to recognise the progress made during the 50 years of Her Majesty's reign by Canada, Australasia, South Africa, and many of the Colonies founded by the British people, by such further extension of the Royal titles as may place other portions of the Empire on an equality in this respect with Great Britain, Ireland, and India?

also asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any action had been taken in consequence of the agreement unanimously come to at the Colonial Conference that, subject to Her Majesty's pleasure, there should be an extension of the present title of Her Majesty, so as to include a distinct reference to the Colonies?

My answer to this Question will also be an answer to a Question of which I have received private Notice from the hon. member for the Kirkdale Division of Liverpool. The Question of the hon. Member for Sheffield was brought under the consideration of the Colonial Delegates at the Conference; and after some discussion they expressed themselves in favour of an extension of title, which would include the Colonies by special and distinct reference. Upon receiving an intimation of the opinion of the Delegates, Her Majesty's Government instructed the Governors of the responsible Government Colonies to ascertain the views of their respective Ministers upon this question. To this inquiry full replies have not yet been received; and there seems some little difference of opinion on the subject. It will, however, receive careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any official information in regard to the proposals, as reported by cable, of the Dominion Government to increase the import duties on pig iron by 100 per cent, on bar iron by 150 per cent, and on puddled bars by 350 per cent; and, if these reports are correet, whether Her Majesty's Government will use their good offices with the Dominion Government to procure a modification of proposals, which, if carried into effect, would prove highly detrimental to the iron trade of this country?

Her Majesty's Government have not received any official information in regard to any such proposals as these mentioned by my noble Friend; but the Government would not be justified in making any official representation on the subject to the Government of the Dominion, oven if such information had been received. Any representations should be addressed to the Dominion Government by parties who may be affected by the fiscal policy of Canada.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What business the Government intended to take on Monday and Tuesday, and on Monday the 6th June?

The Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill will be proceeded with on Monday. I will on Monday state what Business will be taken on June 6. On Tuesday there will be the usual Motion for Adjournment, and perhaps one or two small measures.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which I gave him Notice yesterday, but which I was not in my place to ask. The Question is this—Whether the Government have proclaimed the anti-coercion meeting at Dungannon; and, if so, on what grounds; and perhaps the Chief Secretary would take this opportunity of stating to the House, as he promised to do, what the policy of the Government in Ireland is to be in reference to anti-coercion meetings?

With re- gard to the meeting at Dungannon, it has been proclaimed. The ground for the Proclamation is that, in the opinion of those responsible for the peace of the district, the meeting could not be held without endangering the public safety. The reasons for that opinion will not surprise hon. Gentlemen, and it is that party feeling runs very high in the district. It was found that even if the second meeting were prohibited, the chance of disturbance would have been very great, as those who had intended to hold, the second meeting would have attended the first meeting, with the probable result of great disturbance and loss of life. Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that the local magistrates did their duty in proclaiming both meetings.

The Chief Secretary promised, the other day, that the whole of this subject would be taken into the serious consideration of the Government; and I would ask him a further Question on this matter—Whether, in the first place, it is not now the deliberate and avowed policy in the Province of Ulster to call rival meetings in every instance where an anti-coercion meeting is called; whether, Sir, that policy was not previously adopted and put down by force by Earl Spencer; and, whether the Irish Government will not follow the policy adopted by Earl Spencer under precisely similar circumstances?

The Government propose to take any measures they think desirable and necessary to pro-serve the public peace; but I am perfectly ready to give a pledge that I will do what I can to frustrate any intention on the part of any party, whatever that party may be, in Ireland, to stop the right of public meeting by calling bogus meetings at the same place and on the same day.

I am very thankful to hear this declaration by the Chief Secretary. Will he show us that he means it in this very case at Dungannon by permitting the first meeting?

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not asking a Question.

Excuse me, I am asking a Question.

The hon. Gentleman is arguing the Question.

I will ask this Question. Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the case of Dungannon, or in the next similar case, allow the first meeting and prohibit the second, and put down the men who interfere with the first?

No, Sir; in any case similar to Dungannon I should act exactly as I have acted in that case. Hon. Gentlemen must allow me to follow the example of Earl Spencer in reserving full discretion to the Government. I have stated the general lines of policy that we shall pursue; and I think hon. Gentlemen must allow me to act on my own judgment.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the case of the very Dungannon meeting in 1884 Earl Spencer allowed the Nationalist meeting to be held, although a rival meeting was held and addressed by Colonel King - Harman, who expressed his regret that the Nationalist meeting was protected and allowed to be held by Earl Spencer? I wish to ask him whether the Orange meeting attended by Colonel King-Harman, and the Nationalist meeting addressed by myself and others, went off without any breach of the peace whatever?

If the hon. and learned Gentleman is anxious to know what happened in 1884, and will give me Notice of the Question, either I or the Under Secretary will answer it. With regard to the inference he draws from the statement he makes, I^a must inform him that each case must be considered on its own merits; and the fact that a certain policy was right in 1884 is no proof, or even a presumption, that it is right in 1887.

said, the Report of the Commission would, in all probability, be circulated on Monday next.