asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Government have yet decided what course they propose to adopt with reference to the financial condition of the unions reported upon by the Irish Poor Relief Inquiry Commissioners?—The hon. Member also asked, Whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention has been directed to the deepening poverty of a large section of the population of the province of Connaught, owing to certain causes set forth in the report of the Irish Poor Relief Inquiry Commissioners, to the increase of population in the congested districts, and to the great increase of ejectments and decrees for rent in those districts; and, whether the Government have in contemplation any measure to avert the dreadful suffering, which it is feared will ensue during the coming autumn and winter, if something be not done to meet this condition of things?

(who replied) said: The policy of the Government with regard to the distressed Unions referred to is fully disclosed in a Bill which has been drafted and might have been in the hands of hon. Members this evening but for the action which certain hon. Members from Ireland, sitting below the Gangway, thought fit to adopt in opposing its introduction yesterday. The Government, however, propose to bring the Bill forward again as soon as possible.

asked if the opposition to the Bill which had been mentioned by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was made by one or more than one? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman spoke of certain Members.

said, objection by one Member would be sufficient to prevent the Bill being brought forward; but he believed two Members objected to it.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been drawn to the working of the Londonderry Railway between Sunderland and Seaham Harbour; whether the line is the property of the Marquess of Londonderry, and was originally made, and at present is extensively used, for the conveyance of coals from his Lordship's collieries in the district of Seaham to Sunderland Docks; whether it is a fact that coal trains are being continually run between the places named, and that about nine passenger trains are run each way per diem, and are usually well filled; whether the following facts are correctly stated—namely, that there are no continuous brakes in use on the passenger trains, and no steam brakes on the engines; that there is no attempt to carry out the block system in any way on the line; that there are neither guards nor vans for the coal trains during the day; that at night a guard rides on the last waggon on the coal trains with a hand lamp, but has no equipment, such as fog signals, and, should anything occur, has nothing but his hand lamp to protect his train; and, whether the Board of Trade has any means to enforce the adoption of some safety appliances suitable to the nature of the line and its traffic, and will they take any steps toward that result?

The Londonderry, Seaham, and Sunderland Railway is the property of the Marquess of Londonderry. It was inspected by an officer of the Board of Trade in 1855, and authorized to be opened for passenger traffic. The line, which is about six miles in length, is partly interlocked, but continuous brakes are not used on the passenger carriages, and the line is not worked on the absolute block system. The Board of Trade have no information as to the other Questions asked; nor have they power to enforce the adoption of safety appliances.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the proceedings of John Mackinnon, Kyle, Isle of Skye, a magistrate for the county of Inverness, upon Wednesday the 15th June instant, in depriving one man, two women, and three children of their liberty for several hours, by padlocking upon them the outer door of a house at Kyle, has been duly reported to him by the Local Authorities; and, if not, whether, in the interests of law and order, he will order a searching inquiry?

John Mackinnon was tenant on Kyle for many years, and his gardener occupied the house in question. A gardener who had been in his employment for five years vacated the house lately, and a man, Munro, who was son-in-law of the former gardener, who died five years ago, took forcible possession of the house, without any right or title of any kind, and refused to leave. John Mackinnon did put a padlock on the door, and it was on for about three hours. The whole matter relating to a dispute as to legal right, the parties may be left to a civil remedy for any wrong that may have been done on either side.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Government has decided to take steps with reference to the navigation works of the River Bann, in consequence of the recent Report of the Commissioners on Public Works in Ireland, or whether the subject is intended to be left in the first instance to the action of the grand juries of the respective counties of Antrim and Derry; and, whether the Government will take the necessary steps to bring the subject before such grand juries, as was the case after Lord Monck's Commission, 1881?

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is now prepared to state how much of the proposed grant of £50,000 for arterial drainage will be given for that of the Bann River; whether two Royal Commissions have reported against the maintenance of the navigation on the Lower Bann, and if that maintenance is useless and the cause of serious flooding in the district; whether the inhabitants on the Bann are compelled to pay taxation to support a work that only floods their land; and, whether the Board of Works cannot make an order for the removal of the wooden lock gates, or take some immediate steps before the summer is over to give relief to the inhabitants of the district?

The Government has already taken the necessary steps to consult the Grand Juries of the counties of Antrim and Derry as to the navigation of the River Bann, and to urge upon them the considerations in favour of abandoning the navigation which are put forward in the Report of the Royal Commission. Upon the decision of the Grand Juries will depend, to a certain extent, the character of the works which the Government are prepared immediately to undertake for the better drainage of the valley of the Bann. In any case the Government intend to insert sluices in the weir at Toome. That will be necessary, whether the abandonment of the navigation be decided upon or not, and about £3,000 out of the £50,000 will be devoted to that purpose. If the Grand Juries decide to maintain the navigation, it will likewise be necessary to insert sluices in the other weirs on the River; and it may be possible to do some work this year on that at Cortna. Either or both of these works will be of considerable advantage to districts liable to floods. With regard to the lock gates, the Board of Works cannot make an order for their removal without legislation.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, at Uckfield, on 23rd Juno, Lewis Miller was fined for not procuring his child to be vaccinated; whether Lewis Miller had been three times previously prosecuted and fined at the instance of the Guardians of the Uckfield Union in respect of the same child; whether, on or about the 14th April last, the Local Government Board, in consequence of the previous prosecutions against Lewis Miller, wrote to the Guardians of the Uckfield Union, deprecating generally repeated prosecutions against the same man for the same offence; and, whether Captain Noble, Chairman of the Uckfield Board of Guardians, is also Chairman of the Uckfield Bench of Magistrates?

On the 23rd instant, an order was made on Lewis Miller to have his child vaccinated within a month, and to pay the costs, amounting to 9 s. 6 d. He had been proceeded against three times previously at the instance of the Guardians. On the first occasion an order was made on him to have his child vaccinated, and on the second and third occasions he was fined, the fines being 10 s. and 5 s., and the costs 12 s. and 9 s. In a letter addressed to the Guardians on the 21st of April last, Mr. Miller stated that his fines and costs were paid by a society for the abolition of compulsory vaccination. The Local Government Board have informed the Guardians generally of their views as to repeated prosecutions, as expressed in the letter to the Evesham Guardians. It rests with the Guardians, and not with the Board, to decide as to the course the Guardians shall adopt in any case of default. I have communicated with the Clerk to the Guardians, and am informed that Captain Noble, the Chairman of the Board of Guardians of the Uckfield Union, is also Chairman of the Uckfield Bench of Magistrates. He believes Captain Noble was not on the Bench on the 23rd instant. If he had been, he would not have taken part in the proceedings in the case of Lewis Miller.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, by permission of the Colonel Commanding, the band of the Dorsetshire Regiment is advertised to play, on the 27th July, at a Conservative fête, in aid of the Conservative cause, in the grounds of Pensylvania Castle, Portland; and, whether he will take any action in the matter?

The permission for this band to play at a political gathering was given without the authority of the General Commanding, and will be withdrawn.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, With reference to the case of Mr. H. J. B. Montgomery, late Assistant Paymaster of H.M.S. Duncan, Sheerness, who was lately sentenced by court martial to two years' hard labour, and to be dismissed from Her Majesty's Service with disgrace, for stealing a sum of £500 and for desertion; whether he is aware that the said Mr. Montgomery returned of his own accord as soon as he heard that the money was missing, and that on his return he was kept a close prisoner, deprived of all his private effects, and for three days not allowed to communicate with his solicitor or anyone else, not even his brother, by which means he was kept from taking any steps to ascertain how the loss occurred; whether it is a fact that the prosecution took no steps to trace the missing notes, and that the court martial convicted Mr. Montgomery of the theft merely on the circumstantial evidence, although Mr. Montgomery had offered to refund the money, and of desertion, although he returned of his own accord; whether all the clothes and private effects of Mr. Montgomery are forfeited to the Crown; and, whether the Admiralty intend to take further steps to inquire into this loss, and to alter and annul the sentence?

Mr. Montgomery returned to his ship of his own accord; I am not aware of the reasons which prompted him to so act. He was kept a close prisoner, and not allowed access to his cabin; but permission was given for him to have from his cabin any letters or clothes that he might want. Communication with his solicitor was refused for one day only, until instructions were received from headquarters. The prosecution did take steps to trace the missing notes, but the efforts made were unsuccessful. The evidence on which the prisoner was convicted, though mainly circumstantial, was conclusive to the Court. Under Section 19 of the Naval Discipline Act, the effects of all persons convicted of desertion are forfeited to the Crown. The Admiralty do not propose to interfere with the sentence.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, If he can inform the House when the 12-inch breech-loading, mark V, 45-ton guns ordered by the late Board of Admiralty, on the 11th June, 1886, for the Collingwood, Colossus, and Conqueror, and promised by the War Office to be completed last October, are likely to be fit for service; if he can state when the guns ordered for the Hero are likely to be delivered; and, if he can acquaint the House how many of the 22 breech-loading guns ordered for the Naval Service by the late Board of Admiralty, on the 11th June and 16th July, 1886, have been handed over to the Admiralty?

The guns for the Colossus and Conqueror are of mark III., and have been on board those ships for some time past.

All of them?

Yes, all of them. The guns for the Collingwood were being made by contract, and there had been some delay with them. It is expected that the guns for the Hero will be ready in the autumn. Of the 22 breech-loading guns, 10 have been handed over to the Admiralty, and the remainder will be handed over at the end of the year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Correspondence between the Home Office and the local authorities as to the defects in the accommodation for untried prisoners, in time for the House to consider during the present Session whether the engagements undertaken by the local authorities to remedy the existing defects are or are not adequate and satisfactory?

No, Sir; I do not consider that any advantage would be gained by laying this Correspondence, which is very voluminous, upon the Table of the House. As I before stated, the Correspondence is not yet complete; when it is complete, it will have to be considered whether any legislation may, or may not, be necessary.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the sum lying to the credit of what is known as the Royal Irish Constabulary Fund?

(who replied): The Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary reports that the amount at present lying to the credit of the Constabulary Force Fund is £133,489, which is invested in Government Stock.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, in view of the anxiety felt by both employers and employed in the manufacturing districts, If he can state when Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce a measure for the amendment of the Law as to limited liability?

The subject is receiving the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; and if the state of Public Business admits of it, they hope to lay a measure of this description before Parliament during the present Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Why the name of Major Gosselin, R.M. was left out of the recent return of Resident Magistrates; whether his name appears in the Irish Constabulary Guide as an Irish Resident Magistrate without a station in Ireland; where does he reside; what are his judicial duties; and, what is his salary?

(who replied): Sir, Major Gosselin is not for the present employed as a Resident Magistrate and does not receive pay as such. His name does not appear, therefore, on the list of Resident Magistrates.

It appears in Thom's Directory. Do I understand the Under Secretary to say Major Gosselin receives no salary?

He has not received any pay as a Resident Magistrate since the present Government came into Office.

Does he receive pay of any kind as an official?

I am not aware.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the imprisonment of Robert Essam, of Kettering, for nonpayment of a fine under the Vaccination Acts; whether Robert Essam was, during his imprisonment, compelled to pick oakum, lie on a plank bed, and generally submit to the same diet and treatment as if he had been sentenced to im- prisonment with hard labour; whether such treatment, diet, and discipline are applicable to cases of non-compliance with the Vaccination Acts under the existing Law; and, whether he will advise the magistrates to treat such prisoners more leniently, or take steps to amend the existing Law, so as to prevent prisoners under the Vaccination Acts from being treated in the same way as felons?

I am imformed, by the Prison Commissioners, that it is not a fact that Essam was treated as a prisoner under a sentence of hard labour. He was treated in the manner legally applicable under prison rules to those who are under sentence of simple imprisonment. He made no complaint as to his treatment to anyone connected with the prison. I am not prepared to advise any special mode of treatment for persons imprisoned under the Vaccination Laws different from the treatment in numerous cases in which civil duties are enforced by imprisonment in default of payment of fines.

Will the right hon. Gentleman state whether it is a fact that Essam was compelled to pick oakum, to lie on a plank bed, and to have the diet of a prisoner sentenced to hard labour?

It is the case that Essam picked some oakum, and had to lie on a plank bed; but it is not the case that he had the diet applicable to prisoners with hard labour.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that it is the intention of the authorities at the War Office to place over ninety commanding officers on half pay, under the Warrant of 1881, which was repealed by the present Government last January, on the ground that it was detrimental to the interests of the service; and, what are the reasons which induce the War Office to compel ninety officers to retire after less than two years in command and from 25 to 30 years' service, thereby increasing the amount of the non-effective Vote, when, by the recent Warrant of January 1887, they have declared that it is injurious to the service that commanding officers should be compulsorily retired under four years' command?

The recent Royal Warrant specially provides that a lieutenant colonel shall be removed from his regiment after completing six years' service in the ranks. The reduction of one lieutenant colonel in each regiment of Cavalry and battalion of Infantry has already seriously diminished the promotion open to majors. To prolong the service of the remaining lieutenant colonels would not only add to this hardship, while conferring on the lieutenant colonels privileges to which they had no claim under the former Warrant, but would force on the Retired List many majors who have now every prospect of, and a fair claim to, promotion. It does not follow that the lieutenant colonels removed to half-pay would burden the Non-Effective List for any long time, as they will be eligible for employment on the Staff or in command of regimental districts and otherwise, and many of them will, presumably, be so employed. The actual number of commanding officers whose period of regimental service will expire during the present year is for the Cavalry regiments, 16, with an average period in command of two years and seven months; and for the Infantry battalions, 54, with an average command of two years and four months.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state what was the number of police and military engaged in carrying out the recent evictions at Bodyke; what length of time they were engaged on this work; how many families were evicted; and, the total cost to the country of these proceedings?

, in reply, said, there were 209 police, including officers, and 100 military engaged at these evictions, and the time occupied was from the 25th May to the 17th June. Twenty-five families were evicted; but he was unable to state the costs, as the accounts had not yet been furnished.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can explain under what circumstances the proportion of Dog Tax payable in Ireland under "The Dogs Regulation Act, 1865," to the treasurers of counties and boroughs, has been reduced during recent years from the amount of contribution originally payable; what becomes of the surplus after the expenses and contributions to local bodies have been paid; and, whether he will consent to a Return giving details of the disposal of the fund?

, in reply, said, that the reductions in the amount of the contributions was due to the operation of Section 2 of the Act 44 & 45 Vict. c. 18. The reason of the reduction was that the ordinary sums for the payment of clerks' salaries had fallen short, owing to a reduction in receipts of fines, &c., and the surplus from the Dog Tax had to be devoted to the purpose of paying these salaries.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, on the occasion of Francis Cooke being charged with presenting a revolver at Mr. Veich Simpson, Sergeant Henry said he was prepared to swear Cooke was sober; whether Cooke is now permitted to carry firearms; whether Sergeant Henry charged Mr. Veich Simpson a few nights afterwards with being drunk, while Constable Farrell appeared as plaintiff in the summons; whether Mr. Turner, R.M. at petty sessions, commented strongly on such a breach of discipline as putting the constable forward as complainant, the sergeant being the senior on duty; and, whether the Government intend to take steps, in accordance with the Constabulary Code, to remove Sergeant Henry from the district, if they still consider him fit to have charge of a station?

, in reply, said, the District Inspector of Constabulary reported that the sergeant did not say he was prepared to swear Cooke was sober on the occasion in question. Cooke was still permitted to carry firearms, if he so desired, the Resident Magistrate saying, after the case was over, he saw no reason to recommend that the licence should be revoked. Simpson was not charged a few nights after, but a little over three weeks afterwards he was summoned. A constable acted as complainant by the direction of the sergeant, in accordance with the general instructions the latter had received, to the effect that junior men should conduct a case whenever necessity arose, so that they might become accustomed to that duty. The Resident Magistrate did not comment strongly on this fact; but defendant remarked it was strange that the sergeant did not prosecute. The Resident Magistrate then inquired if it was not senior men who prosecuted; but on hearing the sergeant's explanation he was satisfied. The sergeant seemed to have properly discharged his duty, and the Government saw no reason to order his removal from the district.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he is aware that the existence of certain mines in the Deccan was well known to the Natives, and that since the concession to the Deccan Company no fresh discoveries of minerals have been made; If he will lay upon the Table of the House the details of the concession, giving the date of the commencement of the negotiations for it, and the names of the negotiators on both sides; if he will state whether any other offers were made; and, whether the intention to let the mines was advertised; and, if so, where?

I am aware of the fact stated in the first paragraph of the Question. If the hon. Member will move for Papers on the subject of this concession, the Government will direct them to be furnished. The negotiations commenced in 1883, between Sirdar Diler Jung, on behalf of the Hyderabad State, and Mr. Watson on behalf of the projected Deccan Company. I am not aware that any other offers were made, or that the intention to let the mines was ever advertised.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the tender of the Peninsular and Oriental Mail Company for the conveyance of the India and China Mails carries out the conditions on which tenders were invited, or in what particulars it introduces other and different conditions; whether the rejected tender or tenders were not more in accordance with the terms laid down by the Post Office; whether an opportunity will be afforded for fresh tenders on the part of any firm which may have thought it necessary to adhere to the conditions on which such tenders were invited by the Post Office; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the original conditions?

In inviting tenders for the conveyance of the India and China mails, the Post Office specified the several services required, but stated that it would be open to persons tendering to make an offer for the whole or any part of the services enumerated, or to serve the several places mentioned by other lines or routes. The Peninsular and Oriental Company sent in six tenders for services, varying in character as to route of conveyance, rates of speed, and the amount of subsidy required, and the accepted tender clearly comes within the definition laid down by the Post Office. The rejected tenders were not more in accordance with the terms laid down by the Post Office; and as the time for tendering expired in March, 1886, it would be a departure from the engagement to which the Department was publicly committed to call for fresh tenders. As the conditions are practically embodied in the contract now before the House, I do not see that any advantage would result from laying on the Table a copy of the original conditions.

Does the Treasury Minute clearly represent the conditions of the tender; and, if so, is it not the fact that the accepted tender differs both as to time, speed, and route from the tenders invited?

I have already pointed out that it does not differ as to route or as to speed from the original conditions laid down, but with regard to time, there is, of course, some difference.

In view of the discussion on this subject to-night, I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will consent to an early adjournment of the debate on the Criminal Law (Ireland) Amendment Bill?

It is not proposed to take the adjourned discussion on the mail contract this evening.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been drawn to the repeated requests made by the ratepayers of Rushden, in the Wellingborough Union, Northamptonshire, for one or more additional guardians to be authorized; whether the following facts are correctly stated:—That the representation of Rushden on the Board of Guardians for the Wellingborough Union has not been increased since the formation of the board; that, in 1874, the number of houses in Rushden was 476, whereas there are now 1,060 houses, and more are being constantly built; that the population of Rushden was 2,122 in 1871; 3,658 in 1881; over 5,000 in 1886, when a school census was taken and (allowing for 72 houses since completed and occupied) must now exceed 5,300; that the rateable value of the parish of Rushden was, in 1879, £7,292, whereas it is now, in spite of reductions in assessment of agricultural land, over £12,000; that, while throughout the union, in the aggregate, there is one guardian for every 1,000 persons, Rushden has only two guardians for a population of 5,300 or more; that the Board of Guardians passed a resolution, on the 7th of April 1887, that application be made to the Local Government Board for an additional guardian for Rushden, on account of its large increase of population; that the Local Government Board, in several letters, has admitted that Rushden is entitled to increased representation; and, whether, having regard to the increased population of the whole union, and to the very great increase in the population and rateable value of Rushden, the Local Government Board will consent to an additional member of the board for the union to represent Rushden?

The Local Government Board, both last year and in the present year, received a representation from the Guardians of the Wellingborough Union, in favour of an increased representation of the parish of Rushden on the Board of Guardians of that Union. The number of Guardians for Rushden has not been increased since the formation of the Union. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements in the Question as to the number of houses in the parish, and its population and rateable value; but I have no means of verifying the statements as to certain of these particulars. There is some case in favour of an increased representation of the parish, and the Local Government Board would not be unwilling to assign an additional Guardian to Rushden, provided that the total number of Guardians, which is 38, is not increased. With that view the Board proposed that the parish of Strixton, which, according to the Census of 1881, had a population of only 75, should be annexed to another parish for the purpose of the election of Guardians. The Board of Guardians have hitherto been opposed to this proposed annexation, but before the next annual election of Guardians takes place, the Board will consider whether the changes referred to as regards Rushden and Strixton should not be made, notwithstanding the objection of the Guardians.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether the Government intend to make progress with the Bill to amend "Lloyd's Act, 1871," in order to enable "Lloyd's" to connect lighthouses with the mainland, and especially to connect Tory Ireland with the mainland of the north-west coast of Ireland?

The Bill to which the hon. Baronet refers is one to confer upon Lloyd's certain powers with respect to sites for signal stations, and it is intended to pro- ceed with it; but the details of the measure are still under consideration.

asked the Lord Advocate, If the Department of the Secretary for Scotland will expedite the Scotch Local Taxation Returns, so as to lessen the long period between the date for which prepared, and the date on which these Returns are in the hands of Members, for instance, the last delivered Returns for 1884–5 were only delivered nearly three years after date, on the 22nd June, 1887, and these Returns, though ordered by the House to be printed on the 24th June, 1886, were only available a year later?

, in reply, said, the Secretary for Scotland would take steps to expedite the issue of these Returns, which, should be in the hands of Members as early as possible. He might be allowed to state that, in his previous answer to a Question of the hon. and gallant Member, he did not intend to suggest that there had been any dilatoriness on the part of the Board of Supervision, or the Crown Authorities, in the work done by them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in April, 1886, tenders were invited for the supply of drugs and sundries to Her Majesty's Prisons; whether the accepted tender was at the rate of 12½ per cent discount off the list of prices supplied by the department; whether one of the rejected tenders was at the rate of 20 per cent discount; and, whether the firm sending in the lower tender has been in the habit of supplying several great hospitals, and furnished testimonials of competency and trustworthiness from upwards of thirty well known medical men in various parts of Great Britain and Ireland; and, if so, whether a reason can be assigned for the payment of a price 7½ per cent higher than that for which the drugs could have been obtained?

Yes, Sir; I am informed by the Chairman of the Prison Commission that the facts are substantially as stated in the Question. It is held, and very reasonably, by the Medical Inspector of the Department, that contractors who have been tried and tested as supplying pure drugs should be preferred, unless some considerable advantage is to be gained by not doing so. The difference of price referred to in the Question would not, for the whole of the prisons, amount to more than £95. I see no reason to interfere with the practice of the Department, which is, I believe, similar to that followed in other Public Departments and large hospitals.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether Lieutenant Colonel Hope, V.C. and Captain Armit stated, in paragraph 228 of the Report of the Ordnance Inquiry Commission, as the witnesses "who charged corruption against certain Officers and gentlemen in connection with the system of contracts for stores for the public service," which charges are stated to be, in the opinion of the Commissioners, in the last paragraph of their Report, "false and unfounded," still hold commissions in the Volunteer Forces; and, if so, whether the Government, under the circumstances, intend to take any, and, if so, what, steps with reference to these Officers?

Sir, Her Majesty has been advised to dispense with the services of Captain Armit. As regards Colonel Hope, his case rests on a somewhat different ground, and my decision is contained in a letter, which I caused to be addressed to Captain Noble on the 27th instant, which, with the permission of the House, I will read.

"War Office, June 27, 1887. Sir,—I am directed by the Secretary of State for War to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th inst., relative to the charges made against yourself and others which have recently been investigated by a Royal Commission. Mr. Stanhope entirely agrees with the finding of the Commissioners that these charges were based on pretexts which were 'not enough to raise in any fair mind even a passing suspicion that there might be corruption,' and as regards the transactions in which you were more immediately concerned, that the charges were 'not only wholly unfounded, but there never was any evidence whatever to justify their being made.' He finds it difficult adequately to express his condemnation of the conduct of those who have made these false, calumnious, and disgraceful charges; but the whole subject having been referred by his Predecessor to a Judicial Commission, and the Commissioners having reported that in their opinion Colonel Hope's charges, though' culpably reckless,' were not 'intentionally false'—that Colonel Hope 'had admitted his mistakes with honourable candour,' and had 'more or less atoned for his conduct in making these charges by the frankness with which he had admitted his mistakes when they were pointed out to him,'—Mr. Stanhope feels himself debarred from taking any action against that officer. As regards Captain Armit, His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief has submitted to Her Majesty that he be removed from the Volunteer Service.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant, RALPH THOMPSON."

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman's attention had been called to a pamphlet, in which Colonel Hope virtually repeated some of the charges in question?

, in reply, said, that he had seen the pamphlet referred to, and it was under his consideration; but as regards that pamphlet it was open to him to bring an action against Colonel Hope, if he thought any of the charges made in that justified such action.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, having regard to the strong interest felt by the Australian Colonies in the maintenance of the engagements entered into by Great Britain and France for the non-occupation by either Power of the New Hebrides, he can state what progress is being made in the negotiations with the French Government on the subject, and can assure the House that there is reason to expect a speedy withdrawal of the French troops from the position they now occupy in those islands?

Our representations to the French Government have not at present resulted in the acceleration of the negotiations; but I still hope that the discussions with that Government will very shortly be concluded, and that the withdrawal of the detachments in the New Hebrides will be arranged.

asked, whether, considering the great length to which these negotiations had extended, the right hon. Gentleman could not state any date when they might expect to learn the result?

, in reply, said, as far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned, there had been no delay, and no ground for delay. But, while awaiting a reply from a Foreign Government, it was impossible to ask that a date should be fixed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, With regard to the fact that six thousand shipwrights, lately on strike in Belfast, in consequence of the refusal of their employers to pay wages weekly instead of fortnightly, have returned to work, after petitioning this House, in the hope that the House would favourably regard their claim, what provision the Government will agree to have inserted in the Truck Bill to regulate the weekly payment of wages?

If the hon. Member was present at the discussion on the Truck Bill on Tuesday, he will be aware of the great difficulty felt by the Government in framing any fixed rule as to the period of payment of wages which would suit the varying circumstances of all industries. I observe that some clauses have been set down for consideration on Report of the Truck Bill, and the House will then have an opportunity of further considering the question. Personally, I am in favour of weekly or fortnightly payment of wages where the workmen are paid according to time, and where no special circumstances exist to render impossible the weekly or fortnightly measurement of the work done. I could not, however, without Notice, say whether I could advise the insertion of a clause dealing with the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the recent Quarter Sessions at Nenagh, in the North Riding of Tipperary, on the 8th June, the only case for trial was one for the larceny of a duck; whether the finding of the Grand Jury in the case was "no bill;" whether witnesses were brought from Roscrea, a distance of twenty miles, and jurors from their homes even more distant; whether five jurors had fines of £2 2 s. each recorded against them, for not at once answering to their names, although no petty jury was empannelled; whether the Crown Solicitor, Mr. George Bolton, was in attendance, in charge of this prosecution; how much did this alleged larceny of the duck cost the county; whether he will consider the advisability of having such cases disposed of by the magistrates in the district at Petty Sessions; and, whether, in face of such an entire absence of crime in the North Riding of Tipperary, the extra police will be withdrawn from that district? The hon. Member said, he wished to draw attention to the fact that a passage in his question relating to the enormous expense incurred in bringing such trifling cases before a Court of Quarter Sessions had been expunged.

(who replied) said, it was only his duty to answer Questions as they appeared on the Paper. He was informed, that the facts were substantially as stated in the first three paragraphs of the Question. The jury panel was called over, and it was imperative on the Court to call over the panel whether there were any cases for trial or not. Some jurors had fines recorded against them, but they afterwards attended and got these fines remitted. Mr. Bolton did not appear to have had anything to say to the criminal proceedings. Mr. Bolton happened to be present, but he did not interfere in the case. The expenses of the prosecution referred to in the Question had not yet been ascertained. They would probably not exceed £3. The Government could not adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member as regarded the disposal of cases by magistrates, who must be clearly guided by the merits of each case. The question of the reduction of the police force in the North Riding of Tipperary had been considered, and a reduction of 10 men had been approved of from the 20th instant. No further reduction could at present be made.

asked what fee would be paid the Crown Solicitor for attending to prosecute about this expensive duck?

I must ask for Notice of the question.

Would the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether the duck was included in these fees?

[No reply.]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has been informed that, at a meeting of magisstrates of the City of Cork, held on Monday on the requisition of the Mayor, it was resolved unanimously to request the Government to order a sworn inquiry into riots which occurred in Cork on the previous Tuesday, their cause, their result, and the police arrangements existing on the occasion; whether, in the event of such inquiry taking place, the Mayor of Cork will be a member of the Court of Inquiry; and, upon what grounds Captain Plunkett, Divisional Resident Magistrate refused to attend the above-mentioned meeting of magisstrates, though requested to do so?

(who replied) said: I have already replied to the first paragraph of this Question. As regards Captain Plunkett's absence from the meeting, I have not had time to receive a statement from him on the subject; but I presume that he had other official engagements.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, during the last few weeks, there have been about 500 men discharged from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield; and, whether it is intended to still further reduce the number of men employed?

asked, Whether large sums had not recently been spent in extending the buildings and machinery at Enfield, to the amount of £32,000 for the latter, and £20,000 for the former?

(who replied) said: I must ask for Notice of this latter Question. The discharges at Enfield from all causes since the 1st of April have been 152, of which 60 have been by way of reduction. No decision has yet been come to as regards further reductions.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Maxim Gun has been fired without fault since Mr. Maxim visited Portsmouth to instruct the sailors in loading and handling the gun and magazines; and, whether the so-called failing of the gun when Members of the House were present on the invitation of the noble Lord the Member for East Marylebone, was due solely to the fact that the sailor had not previously been instructed in its use?

The gun in question has been successfully fired by Mr. Maxim since his visit to Portsmouth, but it took a day to put it in order before firing. The failure of the gun on the occasion referred to was not from any want of instruction on the part of the seamen who fired it, but owing to one of Mr. Maxim's men having changed the gun which had been prepared for firing for one that was out of order.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in the event of a vacancy taking place in the office of Attorney General for Ireland, the emoluments of that office will be fixed in accordance with the terms fixed by the Treasury, and stated in the letter from the Secretary to the Treasury to the Chief Secretary, dated 10th April, 1886?

(who replied) said: The present Irish Government agree with the opinion held by their Predecessors, and conveyed to the Lords of the Treasury by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) in his letter of May 27, 1886—namely, that it would not be reasonable or fair to fix the salary at a less rate than £5,000 a-year.

gave Notice that, at the earliest opportunity, he would take the opinion of the House upon the question whether the decision of the late Government that the salary should be £4,000 ought not to be adhered to.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he proposes to introduce a Bill for a reduction of the number of the Irish Judges; and, whether, in the event of any vacancy occurring in the Judicial Bench, he will take care that no fresh appointment is made until Parliament has had the opportunity of considering such Bill?

(who replied) said: The Government have already expressed their desire to see the number of Irish Judges reduced; but, having regard to the present state of Public Business in the House, they are unable to say when they will be in a position to propose legislation on the subject. They will do so as soon as possible.

May I point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not answered the second part of the Question?

The Government cannot undertake to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.

Subsequently,

said: I wish to ask a Question arising out of the answer given to the previous Question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton; and it is only fair to explain to the House what is exactly the purport of my Question. When the Bill dealing with the Chief Judges of the Irish Courts was passing through this House there was considerable opposition to it on this side, and in the end an arrangement was made between the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and myself that that opposition should not be carried on, on the distinct agreement by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that he would bring in, during the present Session, a Bill to deal with this question of the number of Irish Judges on the lines of the Bill which I brought in in 1885. He was careful to say there might be differences on some points of minor detail, but that the Bill should be based on the Bill of 1885, and should be brought in as early as possible. The answer which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary just gave was that he could not say whether such a Bill could be brought in or not; and I rise to appeal to the Leader of the House, in order that we may have an assurance from him that the pledge given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland will be redeemed in its entirety.

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him whether he is not aware that I withdrew an Amendment which stood in my name against the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which would have prevented the appointment of an additional Judge, on the distinct pledge given by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Government would bring in a Bill to reduce the number of Irish Judges? I would ask whether the Government will take care, in the circumstances, that no additional Judges are appointed?

Any engagement which the Government have entered into with the House will be observed in letter and in spirit. They will not withdraw in any degree from the spirit of the engagement into which they have entered. The right hon. Gentlemen are both aware that it is not within the power of the Government to force a measure on Parliament of this character. I will undertake that the engagement, whatever it was, shall be exactly fulfilled.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the signa- ture to the Queen's Letter of Thanks, issued at Windsor Castle on 24th June, and addressed to the Secretary of State for the Home Department on Saturday 25th June, is in accordance with the solemn pledges given in Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister in 1876, when the Royal Titles Bill was carried, when the former stated, "We, the Government, will endeavour to prevent the use of the title in the United Kingdom," and the latter said "I am sure that under no circumstances would Her Majesty assume … . the title of Empress in England;" and, whether the Government will undertake that in future the title of Empress shall only be used in accordance with the pledges given in 1876?

The Queen's Letter of Thanks was addressed to her whole people, including her Indian subjects, many of whom took part in the festivity of the past week. Hence the use of the title Empress. But in all documents relating to the business of the United Kingdom Her Majesty abstains from using the title of Empress. It does not appear to the Government, therefore, that there has been any violation of the assurances given in 1876.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had had his attention drawn to the fact that in 1876, when the Royal Titles Bill was carried, the Lord Chancellor said the title of Empress should be "localized to India?"

[No reply.]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps have been taken about the drainage of the River Barrow; and, whether, with a view to the progress of work, and the relief of the great distress in the district amongst the labouring class from the want of employment, the Government will take the necessary steps to have the works commenced this summer?

(who replied) said: The hon. Member is aware that legisla- tion would be necessary to enable the Government to adopt or carry out any general scheme with regard to the drainage of the Barrow. The Government propose to undertake the preliminary surveys necessary for the preparation of a Bill dealing with the case of the Barrow; and they hope also to be able to carry out some minor work on the river, which can be effected without change in the law if no difficulties are raised locally. The expense of these proceedings will be a charge upon the sum of £50,000, which, in compliance with the promise of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House will be asked to vote for expenditure in Ireland during the present financial year.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is a vacancy in the office of Factory Inspector in Belfast; and, whether, if so, he will appoint a competent working man to the position?

asked, whether an application for the post had already been sent in by a Nationalist?

There is no vacancy in the office.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; Whether the Government intend to bring in the Ulster Canal Bill this Session?

(who replied) said, the Government would be very glad to bring in the Ulster Canal Bill, if the hon. Gentleman could give him the assurance that it would not be opposed, as it was before, by hon. Members who sat near the hon. Gentleman.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What portion of the sum of £50,000, which he has promised to devote to purposes of Irish improvement, it is intended to expend on the drainage of the Barrow; and, whether the work can be commenced at once?

This Question has already been answered. I am afraid it will not be possible to undertake works costing more than £5,000 upon the Barrow during the present financial year. There will be no delay in commencing the work in question, and preparatory steps are already being taken by the Irish Authorities.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether facilities cannot be afforded for the families of Members of Parliament to view the Royal Review of Troops, at Aldershot, on 9th July?

, in reply, said, he was sorry to say there would be comparatively little accommodation for Members of the House and their families on the stands erected near the scene of the forthcoming Review. He had not thought it right to submit any estimate for the purpose of defraying the cost of erecting a stand for Members. On the stand that was being built there, there would be 250 places for Members of the House of Lords and 400 for Members of the House of Commons. But there would also be an enclosure for carriages and other places from which the Review could be seen. As to refreshments, there would be a contractor on the ground who would supply them.

asked, what means would be taken to test the security of the seats to be erected at Aldershot on the occasion of the Review; and, also whether, as the accommodation appeared to be limited, the Secretary of State would see that larger accommodation was provided, making the necessary charge for it?

said, a contractor was putting up certain seats, of which 400 had been allotted to Members of the House of Commons and the remainder would be let by the contractor.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, as he deems it too late in the Session to refer the two Welsh Intermediate Education Bills to a Select Committee, he will afford an opportunity for the discussion of these measures by the House?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are prepared to recognize the great interest taken in the subject of Welsh Intermediate Education throughout the Principality by the appointment of a Select Committee to consider the Bills which now stand for Second Reading in the House; and, if not, whether they will give the whole question their serious consideration during the Recess, with a view to legislation at as early a period as possible in the next Session of Parliament?

In answer to the Questions of the hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and for Denbigh, I regret that it will be impossible at this period of the Session to read the two Welsh Intermediate Education Bills a second time, and then send them to a Select Committee; but recognizing the great interest taken in the subject, Her Majesty's Government will, during the Recess, give the matter their careful consideration with a view to legislation next Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can name a day when the Coal Mines Bill will be proceeded with?

asked, whether the Bill would be reprinted?

I will undertake to see if the Bill can be reprinted. It is within the knowledge of the hon. Member (Mr. J. E. Ellis) that an endeavour is being made to arrive at an understanding with hon. Members who have a practical knowledge of the questions dealt with in the Coal Mines Bill as to the Amendments which they deem to be of importance. I have every hope that a practical agreement will soon be arrived at, and directly I am able to do so, I will confer with hon. Members who are interested in the measure, and arrange for its further progress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What course the Government propose to take in reference to the Railway Rates Bill; and, whether, considering that a similar Bill was fully discussed and read a second time last year in this House, and that the present Bill has been sent down from the House of Lords, the Government will endeavour to obtain the Second Reading at an early date, in order that it may be sent to a Select Committee, with a view of becoming Law during the present Session?

The Government are anxious to proceed with the Bill, and if the House will accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman to read the Railway Rates Bill a second time, and refer it to a Select Committee, with a view to its becoming law this Session, I shall be glad to do all in my power to afford facilities for the purpose.

doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord had considered it would be unsatisfactory to refer so important a measure to a Select Committee in the month of July. He (Mr. Mundella) for one, would be unwilling to serve on a Committee appointed at such a time.

I have only said that if the House desires that the course suggested in the Question should be taken, I shall be glad to facilitate it. Of course, if the right hon. Gentleman, who has special knowledge of this subject, desires to delay the progress of the measure, he can oppose the course which is suggested.

(who rose amid cries of "Order!"): My only reason for rising is to disclaim any desire to delay this Bill. Therefore, I am quite in Order. I think the House knows something about the interest which I take in the measure. I desire that the House should get on with it; but I believe that the course which is proposed will prevent the due discussion of it.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Russia or France have remonstrated against the proposed conditions of the Convention now being promoted by Sir Henry Wolff; and, whether the Government propose to give the House an opportunity of considering the provisions of that Convention before it is finally ratified?

Neither France nor Russia has made any com- munication whatever to Her Majesty's Government with reference to the ratification of the Turkish Convention. That Convention has been ratified by the Queen; but, at the present moment, the Sultan, as stated in the other House of Parliament, a few days ago, has requested a few more days before finally ratifying it.

Subsequently,

I rise for the purpose of putting a Question, with the view of removing what appeared to be an ambiguity in the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the Turkish Convention. The expression used by the right hon. Gentleman, I think, was that the Sultan had requested "a few more days'" delay before finally ratifying the Convention. I only wish to know, simply for the sake of preventing any misapprehension, whether the Sultan has requested a few days' delay for the further consideration of the entire subject, or has signified his intention of ratifying it; or had stated his desire that the ratification should be delayed for a few days?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I beg to ask, are we to understand that the Convention has been signed or concluded so far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned? I mean, is it still open for Her Majesty's Government to withdraw or resile from that Convention?

I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to correct a slight ambiguity in my answer. He is correct in saying, or suggesting, that the Sultan of Turkey has requested further time for the consideration of the question. We have received no engagement that it will be absolutely ratified, though we have every reason to believe that it will be. I believe that it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government are bound by the signature of the Convention. What I intended to convey was, that the ratifications had not been exchanged.

asked, whether the Leader of the House laid it down that this country, or any country, was bound by the terms of a Treaty until the ratifications had been exchanged.

As the hon. Member for Northampton is aware, no Treaty is binding on a country until the ratifications have been exchanged; but Her Majesty's Government are bound by the signature which has been given.

said, that it was the hope of the Government that they would be able to pass the Tithes Rent-charge Bill that Session; but he was not then able to state when it would be introduced into the House.

On the occasion of the naval review at Portsmouth on Saturday, July 23, 1887, the Admiralty will arrange for the accommodation of those Members who wish to attend. Tickets of admission to H.M.S. Crocodile will be placed at the disposal of the Speaker for issue to Members who wish to be present. The tickets will not be transferable. Arrangements will be made for special trains to convey Members from London into Portsmouth Dockyard, and the particular train will be indicated on the tickets. These railway tickets will be procurable some days before the 23rd, such tickets being available for the return journey on Saturday, Sunday, or Monday. It would assist the Admiralty in the arrangements they are now making were Members to apply at once to the Speaker, so that the Admiralty may be informed of the total number of tickets required.

asked, Whether the Government were prepared, in accordance with their promise, to state the result of their consideration as to the necessity of an Amendment providing that the 14 days for the consideration of a proclamation should in- clude a certain number of effective Parliamentary days?

, in reply, said, that he did not know that any such engagement had been entered into by the Government.

said, that the Attorney General for England had distinctly said that he would consider the question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he does not think it would be more convenient for the House, if the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was present?

Subsequently,

asked the Attorney General for England, if he could throw any light upon the question of the 14 days?

, in reply, said, he could not then deal with the question. It would have to be dealt with when the clause in question was before the House.

asked, Whether the Irish Land Law Bill, which would come down next week from the other House, would be read a second time before the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, or whether the Government intended to force through the latter Bill before making any progress with the former Bill.

, in reply, said, he did not think it would be possible to read the Irish Land Bill a second time before the House was asked to read the Criminal Law Amendment Bill a third time.

asked the Leader of the House, whether he did not intend to answer the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury)?

It is obvious that it was a question which was asked under the heat of the moment, and I am not called upon to answer it.

Then I beg to give Notice that on the Estimates I shall call attention to what I consider a novel Parliamentary practice of questions relating to Ireland being answered by the Parliamentary Under Secretary instead of the Chief Secretary.

asked the Leader of the House, with reference to his reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), when he said that the House should have the Irish Land Law Bill before it, before it was asked to read the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill a third time, whether what he meant was that the Bill should be on the Table of the House, or whether he meant, as they all supposed, that the House should first have some opportunity for its consideration.

I have uniformly said that the House should be in possession of the Irish Land Law Bill before we parted with the Criminal Law Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and I will redeem that promise by taking care that the Bill shall be read a first time and printed, and in the hands of Members before we ask the House to read the Crimes Bill a third time.

May I ask whether the Bill does not read itself a first time on coming down to the House?

[No reply.]