asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he could state the cost of the Military and Constabulary on the occasion of the trial of the Rev. James M'Fadden, P.P., at Dunfanaghy, County Donegal, on 27th January?

(who replied) said: The cost of the Military throughout the period they were employed on the duty referred to, including the expenses of the return journey to barracks, was £615 9s., and of the Constabulary £480 14s. 2d.

What was the daily cost?

This extended over a period of about three weeks.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he can give any Estimate for the year ending 31st March, 1887, or that ending 31st March, 1888, of the value of the Post Office stamps which are used as Inland Revenue stamps for cheques, receipts, agreements, & c.; and, if he can, whether he will lay the Estimate upon the Table; and, if he cannot, in what way he can satisfy the House that the Post Office produces a large annual surplus, or any surplus at all?

The value of the postage stamps used as Inland Revenue stamps for receipts, agreements, & c, during the year ending the 31st of March, 1887, was estimated at £488,120. This amount was paid by the Post Office to the Inland Revenue Department, and is not included in any published statement of Post Office Revenue The stamps sold for Post Office purposes during the year ending the 31st of March, 1887, amounted to £10,213,000.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that literary men engaged in the Public Record Office have been prevented from using ink in transcribing, on the ground that the public have damaged the records; whether he is aware of any actual case of such damage; whether the Master of the Rolls last year received an influentially signed Petition on the subject; and, whether any decision has been arrived at on such Petition?

It is true that all persons using the public search rooms in the Public Record Office, either as taking extracts from or making notes of, or transcribing, the public records, are by Rules forbidden to use ink. Indelible pencils are now directed to be supplied to every person using those rooms, to be used by them instead of pens and ink. The Master of the Rolls has, after careful consideration, resolved to adhere to those Rules; because he has himself seen many valuable ancient rolls which have been injured by ink, and has, after inquiry, come to the conclusion that serious injury has been caused by accident, or want of care, while the rolls were being used in the public search rooms—the Master of the Rolls has no means of ascertaining by whom. Anxious as he is to afford every safe facility to the frequenters of the public search rooms, the Master of the Rolls, after carefully considering the safety of the records on the one side, and inconvenience to the public on the other, and after having personally visited the rooms and conversed with various frequenters of them, has thought himself bound to adhere to the Rules; he has received a Petition, signed by 64 persons, advocating a return to the use of ink; and a Petition, signed by 84 persons, in favour of continuing the existing Rule.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that the authorities in Dublin Castle have refused to sanction the appointment of the Rev. Mr. Kerr as Presbyterian chaplain to the Cork District Lunatic Asylum; and, what reasons have been given for the alleged decision?

(who replied) said: The Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council made an Order on the 1st of February authorizing the appointment of a Presbyterian chaplain to Cork Asylum. They have not refused to sanction the appointment thereto of the rev. gentleman named.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the number of Protestant inmates of the Macroom Union in the past 12 months; and, whether it is true that the Protestant chaplain receives £10 per annum for ministering to the religious wants of one poor old woman?

(who replied) said: There were now two Protestant inmates of the Macroom Union, and that number has not been exceeded during last year. The salary of the Protestant chaplain is £10; and the duties of the chaplain are not confined to the workhouse, but he has to visit any Protestant patients who may be temporarily admitted into the workhouse hospital.

May I ask, as there are only two Protestant persons in the Macroom Union, how there can be any extra attention to any other Protestant persons?

There are only two persons on the regular number of inmates in the Union; but it may be possible that persons may be brought into the workhouse hospital as temporary inmates.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state when the Sub-Commission for County Donegal will hear the fair rent applications entered from the Union of Stranorlar; and, whether he is aware that a large number of tenants residing in this Union had their originating notices served on the Land Commission before the gale day at November last, and, although entitled to the benefit of the reduced rent in respect of the half-year expiring on the gale day next previous to the passing of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," they will be obliged to pay the old rent up to the date of the decision of the Commissioners?

(who replied) said: The Land Commissioners have promised to supply me with a detailed answer to-morrow.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What was the sum of arrears of instalments of purchase money under "The Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act, 1885," on the 31st January, 1888?

The total amount of instalments due up to the 31st of January last was £50,910. Of this amount £2,702 was uncollected on that day; but £417 has since been collected, and the balance is in course of collection. The arrears on account of gales due before the gale day in November last are under £70.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Returns of Judicial Rents decreed since August, 1887, will be distributed?

(who replied) said: The Returns in question were laid on the Table the day before yesterday.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the condition of the trees in and round St. James's Park; what steps he proposes to take with reference to them; and, whether he intends to remove those which are dying or have lost their leader, and replace them by younger and healthier trees?

It is, unfortunately, true that some of the trees about Birdcage Walk and the Mall are not in a healthy condition. As we see occasion we remove those which seem to be dying, and replace them by younger and more vigorous ones. But the soil is not very favourable, and the trees when originally planted were not skilfully treated.

said, he could not answer it, as he was not an ædile at that time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have taken into their consideration the question of holding another Colonial Conference, for the purpose of discussing matters of Imperial interest, and especially the question of Colonization; and, if not, whether they will do so at as early a date as convenient?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that to hold another Colonial Conference at an early date would put the Colonies to very great inconvenience, which could only be justified by the necessity of discussing urgent questions not capable of being otherwise dealt with. Colonization, though a subject of great importance, is one which can be conveniently dealt with by correspondence; and, therefore, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that a Conference should be summoned for the purpose of discussing this question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to introduce the Bill, promised last Session, to amend the Industrial Schools Act of 1875, so as to give greater facilities to the managers of Industrial Schools for emigrating those children whose cases appear to be suitable for emigration?

Yes, Sir; I intend to introduce a Bill to consolidate and amend the Industrial Schools Acts, and have now under consideration the provisions of that Bill. I am not prepared to state what those provisions will be until the Bill is presented to the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. William Cotter, who resides at Breenymore, near Bantry, County Cork, has been refused by Mr. Warburton, R.M., for a licence to keep and carry a gun on his farm, though recommended by a local magistrate; whether he is aware that Mr. Cotter holds a farm of 170 acres, and requires a gun to protect his crops from vermin; and, on what ground Mr. Cotter was refused a licence?

(who replied) said: The Resident Magistrate has been absent from the district on duty, and I have not been able to get materials of a detailed answer to the Question. I hope to be able to answer the Question in a day or two.

asked the Postmaster General, Why the Rule of the Service was not carried out in the recent promotions in the Sorting Office, Dublin, when a second class sorter was promoted to the first class over 28 seniors, some of whom are at the maximum of their class for years?

The Question implies that on the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers the Rule of the Service was departed from; but such was not the case. I think the House will agree that I am always extremely reluctant to supersede seniors by their juniors in cases of promotion unless there is good reason for so doing. I was assured, on this occasion, that not one of the second class officers senior to the one promoted was fully qualified to perform the different duties which had to be provided for.

The expression "was not fully qualified" has, doubtless, reference to the suitability of such persons; but do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that out of the large number of persons of the same rank not one of those persons was so qualified?

That was declared to be the ease.

How was the qualification to be tested?

The superior officers have always to make a Report to the Postmaster General with a view to these promotions; and, of course, in so large a Service it is impossible for the Postmaster General to be personally acquainted with the particular qualification of every clerk. He must be guided in a great measure, almost entirely, by the advice of those who are responsible to Mm. But I am always ready to investigate any of these Questions if there appears to be reason to do so.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether Irish Resident Magistrates have power to refuse bail, as they have done to the hon. Members for West Water-ford and West Cork; would an indictment lie against Justices for refusing bail in the case of prisoners entitled under section 16, sub-section 2, of the Petty Sessions Act, as of right to bail; and, is it the law, under the sub-section quoted, that any ordinary Justice of the Peace of the county may attend the gaol and take bail for prisoners awaiting trial, except in cases of the serious offences therein specified?

In the cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member, the granting or refusing of bail was in the discretion of the magistrates, and this was recognized by the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of the application to that Court of the hon. Member for West Cork (Mr. Gilhooly). The Court, while admitting the hon. Member to bail, stated that the magistrates had a discretion in the matter, and that they had exercised it rightly. The section of the Petty Sessions Act referred to in the Question deals with the case of committal to trial for an indictable offence, and has no reference to remand or adjournment before committal or sentence, in which cases bail is discretionary with the magistrates. The legal questions contained in the second and third paragraph do not arise in relation to the particular cases referred to; but, in reply to the hon. and learned Member, I may say that a Justice illegally refusing to accept bail in the case of a prisoner entitled to bail does not commit a misdemeanour if he acts under a bonâfidemistake of the law. The law is as suggested in the third paragraph of the Question in the case of persons committed to trial for indictable offences; but not in the case of prisoners committed to gaol under remand.

May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether these cases were not indictable offences capable of being tried by juries, but which, instead of being tried by juries, are tried by Resident Magistrates; and, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that bail up to £5,000 was offered and refused in the hon. Member's (Mr. Pyne's) case, and that the same magistrates who refused bail afterwards dismissed the charge as unsustainable?

Even if the case came within the category of indictable offences, and came under the section referred to, in cases of remand bail is always discretionary. I know nothing as to the amount of bail tendered.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Has his attention been called to the fact that, on charges where Resident Magistrates have no special jurisdiction (such as the preliminary hearings at Tralee into the murder of Quirke), the police are bringing prisoners solely before Resident Magistrates; did the Quirke investigation at Tralee begin in Potty Sessions; if so, has he any information to show why all the unpaid County Justices were absent; has his attention been called to the statement of Mr. Cecil Roche, R.M., at Tralee, to the unpaid Justices sitting in Court there, that he would direct the notice of the Lord Chancellor to their conduct, in refusing to give priority to the hearing of cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; on what principle was this demand made for the postponement of the ordinary Court business; has Mr. Roche, R.M., made any representation in the matter, or will any notice be taken by the Government of the language reported to have been used by Mr. Roche; how long has Mr. Roche been himself a Resident Magistrate; can he state the circumstances under which Mr. Roche went to Tralee Gaol and obtained from a prisoner the statement to which he deposed in the Quirke case; had Mr. Roche previously sat in this case as one of the Resident Magistrates before whom the prisoners wore originally brought; did he adjudicate thereon, refusing remands, & c.; if so, how does it occur that Mr. M'Dermott, R.M., now sits alone in the case; is there any precedent for an adjudicating magistrate becoming a witness before a Court of which he is a member, as to matters occurring between remands; how many different Resident Magistrates have dealt with this case since the crime was committed; and, in what way, and by whom, is it decided that cases cognizable either by Resident Magistrates or Justices of the Peace, such as an assault on a policeman, are to be tried by Resident Magistrates to the exclusion of the unpaid Justices?

I cannot find that there is any ground for the allegation contained in the first paragraph of this Question. With reference to the Quirke case, it appears that Mr. Roche, having held a magisterial investigation, and having satisfied himself that the case was one for further inquiry as against the accused, remanded them to Petty Sessions, whore the case was heard in the usual way. It was open to the unpaid magistrates to attend, and I am unable to say why they did not do so. As to the third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs of the Question, Mr. Roche never had any controversy whatever with the local magistrates at Tralee as to the priority of cases under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; but a question of the kind did arise at Rathmore. If this be the matter referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I shall be happy to make inquiries if he repeats this portion of his Question. Mr. Roche was appointed on the 23rd of October, 1886. With reference to paragraphs 7 to 11, I have to state that it was at the urgent request of the prisoner, conveyed to him through the Governor of Tralee Gaol, that Mr. Roche visited him and obtained from him the statement that had appeared. Mr. Roche had previously heard some of the evidence; but after his interview with the prisoner he took no further part in the case, except to take the prisoner's depositions. Three magistrates acted in the case. The Attorney General for Ireland decides before what tribunal important cases should be tried; and in less important cases the directions are given by the Divisional Magistrates.

Who gave the direction in the case of the Mayor of Cork?

The prosecution in that case was directed by the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on coming to Dublin for his recent trial, permission to wear his own clothes while attending Court was (unasked) offered to Mr. Wilfrid Blunt; by whose instructions, and on whose authority, this offer was made; why a similar permission (though asked for) was refused to the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) when brought up as a witness on Mr. Blunt's trial at Portumna; and, whether it is true, as stated in the Press, that the hon. Member was driven sis miles between Birr and Portumna (a distance of 12 miles) bareheaded, on an open car, during inclement weather?

(who replied) said: The General Prisons Board inform me that, at the instance of the Attorney General for Ireland, they accorded to Mr. Blunt the privilege of wearing his own clothes; but that he declined to avail himself of it, with the exception of wearing his private overcoat. The Governor of Clonmel Prison states that the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) did make application to him for permission to wear his own clothes on the occasion referred to; but that he did not consider that he had authority to sanction it, and accordingly refused the request. The Governor, however, permitted him to wear his private overcoat. The allegation referred to in the last paragraph is not true. The hon. Member was driven each time in a covered carriage. He was also provided with a cap.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say why the Attorney General for Ireland interfered in one case and did not interfere in the other?

I cannot say.

Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say whether it is the invariable practice in England to bring up prisoners who are witnesses in cases in their own private clothes?

That Question should be put to an English Minister.

Arising out of the answer of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, would the Chief Secretary for Ireland be able to tell us whether the Governor of Tralee Gaol in my case applied for permission to send me in my own clothes down to the Court House; and whether an answer did not come back that if I resisted going in the prison clothes I was to be bound hand and foot and forcibly taken down?

If the hon. Gentleman will give me Notice of that Question I will answer him.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that in this country, and in London especially, prisoners undergoing their sentences, and brought up as witnesses at trials, are invariably brought up in their own private clothes?

I am not able to answer the Question with precision; but I do not think the practice is invariable.

Are we to understand that the hon. Member for South Galway (Mr. Sheehy) was driven out with a cap; because I saw him carried by the police, and he was without a cap?

Order, order!

asked the Postmaster General, If it is approximately true that the Peninsular and Oriental Company receive a subsidy at the rate of 6s 8¾d. per mile for carrying the mails to India at the average rate of 12·50 knots per hour, and the Royal Mail Company a subsidy at the rate of 5s. 4½d. per mile for carrying the mails to the West Indies at the average rate of 11·87 knots, and the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient lines together a subsidy at the rate of 3s. 8d. a-mile for carrying the mails to Australia at the average rate of 11·3 knots per hour, whilst the Union and Castle lines are only paid at the rate of 1s. 8d. a-mile in the new contract, now practically concluded, for carrying the mails to the Cape at the average rate of 12½ knots; and what is the explanation of this great discrepancy; and, whether ocean postal rates could be very much reduced if all the mail services were paid at the same rate as the Gape Mail service?

The hon. Member's figures are approximately correct as regards the first three Services he mentions; but as regards the new Cape Mail Contract, which is stated to have been made by the Government of the Cape Colony, I have no official information. I really do not see how it would be possible to fix a standard scale of speed and price for all ocean mail contracts alike. The Post Office makes its contracts after open tender; and has no more power to prescribe universal rates for the carriage of mails to all parts of the world than merchants have to fix a universal tariff for the conveyance of goods. I think this must be obvious to the general intelligence of the House.

asked the Postmaster General, during the discussion on the Mail Contracts to and from Australia, Was the attention of the Government called to the fact that the Messageries Maritimes (French) and North German Lloyd (German) Steamers have privileges allotted to them in the Adelaide, Melbourne, and Sydney Harbours not granted to the Peninsular and Oriental and Orient Companies; and, has any, or is it proposed to take any steps in the matter in order to remedy the anomaly?

The point referred to by the hon. Member was duly considered in making the new Australian Mail Contracts; and it has been arranged that the two British Steamship Companies carrying the mails shall be placed on equally favourable terms with the French and German Companies as regards the privileges conceded to them in Australian ports.

Will the Postmaster General state if any steps are being taken in regard to giving the same privileges to English mail steamers at Ceylon and other Crown Colonies as are given to foreign semi-Government vessels?

Yes; the matter is now engaging the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the Colonial Office.

asked the Postmaster General, If it is a fact that Postmasters and letter receivers in Ireland were not paid the salaries due to them for money order business for the quarter commencing 1st September, 1887, until the 21st instant; and, if the Government intend to adopt any moans by which this great delay will be avoided, and which will insure the payment of their salaries when due to these hard-worked officials?

In reply to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that sub-Postmasters and letter receivers in Ireland, as well as in other portions of the United Kingdom, are paid for money order business by commission, and that the computation of the commission, applying, as it does, to a very large number of transactions at several thousand offices, necessarily occupies a good deal of time; but I will see whether the interval between the end of the quarter and the payment of the remuneration can be shortened in any way.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the preliminaries for the erection of a Coastguard Station on Bere Island have been completed; and, if so, when the building of the same will commence?

, in reply, said, the negotiations which commenced some time back for the purpose of removing the Coastguard Station from Bere Island to a more convenient situation had not yet much advanced; and until the conditions which the Admiralty considered necessary were fulfilled he could not undertake that the building would be commenced.

was understood to ask, was the noble Lord aware that the delay arose owing to some objection on the part of the landlord to the granting of the proposed site for the new Coastguard Station?

repeated that the negotiations were proceeding.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Treasury Minute, by which the recommendations and decisions of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 1887, are rendered operative, has been issued; and, if not, what is the reason of the delay; and, what is the ordinary date of issue?

The Treasury Minute dealing with the Report of the Public Accounts Committee of 1887 is dated the 23rd of January, 1888; the decisions contained in it have been communicated to the Departments concerned; and it will, according to custom, be laid before the Public Accounts Committee of this year at its first meeting. The last two Minutes bore the dates of the 3rd of November, 1885, and the 27th of December, 1886.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether Mr. F. Werter Smith, the paid Secretary of the Conservative Association and Secretary of Mr. Darling's Committee, is a Lower Division clerk in the Admiralty; and, whether the only difference between Mr. Werter Smith and Mr. C. H. Andrews is that the former is paid for his services to the Conservative Party, and the latter acts in an honorary capacity?

Mr. Werter Smith is the Secretary of the Conservative Association in Deptford, and he is also a Lower Division clerk in the Admiralty. The second part of the hon. Gentleman's Question shows that he did not understand the answer which I gave on Tuesday last in reference to certain Dockyard Regulations laid down for the guidance of officials employed in those Departments. The object of the Rule which I then read out is not to prevent persons in the employ of the Government from voting or taking part in political contests. It is to restrain officials who are placed in positions of authority over employés in Government establishments from taking such a part in political elections as would enable them to politically influence those over whom they have official authority.

asked whether the noble Lord would be prepared to proceed against such a Head of a Department who unduly used his political influence?

Undoubtedly. Any official connected with the Admiralty who infringes the Dockyard Regulations will be liable to punishment, quite irrespective of political Party.

wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in reference to the last answer, whether the same Rules obtained in all the Departments of the Public Service as obtained in the Admiralty?

I must have Notice of that Question. I can only say, from my general knowledge, that the same principle absolutely and impartially prevails in all Government Departments.

In the Inland Revenue?

I believe so.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is a fact that, at the recent election for Winchester, the Conservatives were allowed to canvass the military at the barracks, while the Liberals were prevented doing so?

The officer commanding the troops at Winchester reports that the Service Rules regarding the admission of strangers to barracks were strictly carried out at the last election, and that no distinction was made between one political Party and another.

asked, whether it was not the case that when the orderly sergeant came to him with orders from the Commanding Officer not to canvass the soldiers, and he desisted from doing so, the Conservative Party had already canvassed every soldier in the barracks?

I am aware that certain persons, both male and female, of both political Parties obtained entrance to the barracks, and began canvassing. The Commanding Officer thought that they were a great nuisance, and gave orders that they should be kept out without distinction.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that certain persons, both male and female, were allowed—

I did not say "allowed." I said certain persons "obtained" entrance.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the persons who obtained entrance represented the Tory Party; and that the prohibition to further entrance of strangers did not begin until that Party had completed their canvass?

No, Sir; I am not aware of it.

I am.

Order, order!

The officer commanding makes no inquiry with reference to political Parties; but excludes them indifferently.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, That since it appears that the Government do not propose to make the free grant towards the cost of the drainage of the River Barrow more than about one-fifth part of the cost of the works recommended by the Royal Commission on Public Works in Ireland, how is it proposed that the balance is to be provided; and, what is the estimated sum per acre per annum which will be assessed upon the lands to be benefited?

(who replied) said: I do not think any public advantage will be gained by entering into preliminary statements of the estimated expenses of carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If it is a fact that a young man named Patrick Hongan, within the past fortnight, applied for a summons to the Petty Sessions Clerk at Kanturk against Constable Egan of that town, and that the clerk refused to issue a summons without the directions of a magistrate; whether Hongan then applied to Mr. Crawford, J.P., who refused to grant a summons until Hongan went before the Petty Sessions Bench and formally there applied for same; whether Mr. Crawford, at Kanturk Petty Sessions, on Saturday last, the 18th instant, stated from the Bench that it was always the custom not to issue summonses against policemen without the sanction of the Bench; and, whether there is any legal foundation for such a custom?

I have caused inquiries to be made; but I have not yet received a Report. I would, therefore, ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone his Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Lord Chancellor has inquired into the charges against Mr. Stoney, who he stated in September last was guilty of gross dereliction of duty, or something more, in connection with the money entrusted to him in carrying out the Government emigration scheme; whether Mr. Stoney is still on the Commission of the Peace; and, what steps the Government are taking in the matter?

(who replied) said, the charges against Mr. Stoney were fully inquired into by a Local Government Board Inspector, who found that the irregularities were attributable to a want of administrative foresight on the part of the committee. In one case, however, he attributed personal misconduct to Mr. Stoney for having permitted a girl to emigrate with a family to which she did not belong, contrary to a Rule of the Local Government Board. The Lord Chancellor then inquired fully into the case and all its circumstances, and has censured Mr. Stoney for having yielded to the girl's entreaties, thereby transgressing the Rules laid down by the Local Government Board, and also for not having taken sufficient steps to prevent the irregularities which had occurred. The Lord Chancellor saw no reason for removing Mr. Stoney from the Commission of the Peace; and the Government did not contemplate taking any further action in the matter.

said, he would like, as he now saw the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place, to refer him to the extraordinary language he used last year in reference to Mr. Stoney in the debate on the Estimates; and when his hon. Friend the Member for West Mayo was dealing with the question the right hon. Gentleman had said, interrupting his hon. Friend (Mr. Deasy)—

"Perhaps it may shorten the hon. Gentleman's case if I say that the evidence he has quoted is admitted, and that it is not my intention to make any defence."

And he continued—

"I cannot pledge myself to go as far as the hon. Gentleman"

—who wished to institute a criminal prosecution—

"but I am quite ready to admit that Mr. Stoney has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty, and possibly, in some cases, of something more."—(3 Hansard, [320] 794.)

He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he, when that gentleman had been guilty of gross dereliction of duty, and something more in some cases —namely, peculation of hundreds of pounds—transmitted to the Lord Chancellor, with the Report of the Inspector of the Local Government Board—

It is not my function to convey anything whatever to the Lord Chancellor.

You promised to do it.

The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the last part of his Question, appears to have misquoted me—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: I quoted from Hansard.]—because in the last part of the Question he said that I had expressed a distinct opinion that the gentleman in question was guilty of peculation. I beg to say that I never accused him of peculation. I do not understand the quotations which he has read from Hansard, and which I have not had an opportunity of looking at.

said, that perhaps, as the matter was one of great importance to the persons concerned, the House would permit him to repeat the quotation for the right hon. Gentleman. [The hon. and learned Gentleman again read the quotations, pointing out that the right hon. Gentleman had twice interrupted the hon. Member for West Mayo in order to make the statement which he had read.] He asked the Chief Secretary, whether he expressed to the Lord Chancellor, as the Chief Law Administrator in Ireland, an opinion that Mr. Stoney was "guilty of grave dereliction of duty and something more;" and, whether he would state what "the something more" was?

I again say that it is not my duty to give my views as to Mr. Stoney to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor is perfectly capable of drawing his own deductions from the Report; and I maintain that the hon. and learned Gentleman will now see that it is so—that I never went the length of accusing the gentleman in the House of peculation. It has been already stated that the only charge sustained against Mr. Stoney was that he allowed a young woman to be emigrated as a member of a family to which she did not belong.

wished to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, whether one of the charges which he admitted was brought against Mr. Stoney was that he used the public funds for the purpose of evicting his own tenants, and in order to get possession of their farms; and whether, under the circumstances, he considers Mr. Stoney a fit and proper person to hold the Commission of the Peace?

Give Notice of the Question.

I beg to give Notice that I shall move a Resolution on the subject of Mr. Stoney upon the House going into Committee on the Supplementary Estimates.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether any steps are being taken to give effect to the Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into matters connected with the Royal Foundation of the Blue Coat School, presented more than 10 years ago, and which concluded with the unanimous recommendation that,

"For a thorough reform in the management and discipline of Christ's Hospital, we think that its removal from London is indispensable;"

whether it is true that the Charity Commissioners have satisfied themselves that the funds of the Charity are sufficient for the education of 1,300 boys, 900 girls, and 120 infants, in all 2,320 children, 1,320 of them as boarders, or more than double the number at present benefited; whether it is true that the opposition to the official scheme, issued two years ago, is, in a large measure, due to the action of the Aldermen of the City of London, and others, in respect of their "vested interests" in such Charity; and, whether he can state to the House when the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and of the Charity Commission, providing increased accommodation for more than 1,000 children, urgently needing such educational advantages as Christ's Hospital affords, will be carried into effect, so as to facilitate increased accommodation being provided at St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which is so sorely needed, and which has been so long delayed?

The scheme of the Charity Commissioners, involving the removal of Christ's Hospital from its present site, and largely extending, as the hon. Member correctly states, the benefits of the Institution, is now engaging the attention of the Department with a view to progress being made with it. The scheme can scarcely be said to be opposed on grounds so restricted in their character as the hon. Member seems to suppose; but I hope before long to be in a position to make a definite announcement in regard to it. The increased accommodation of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, though depending, no doubt, upon the removal of the School, does not come within the cognizance of the Department.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in September last, the 5th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers applied for permission to raise a second battery at Blackpool, and a battery at Morecambe; and, whether, in view of the fact that further delay in enrolling recruits would probably involve the loss of the capitation allowance for this year, he can yet conveniently state whether the required permission will be granted?

Applications from Volunteer corps for increase of establishment can only be considered together when the Estimates are in preparation. Having in view the greater requirements of other districts under the general scheme for the defence of the country now being worked out, I am sorry to say that it will not be practicable at present to grant an augmentation to the 5th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to The Cork Herald, in which appears a report of a case heard at Bantry Petty Sessions on Saturday, 18th instant, where four men were charged with attacking a dwelling house; whether Mr. Warburton, R.M., refused to allow evidence for the defence unless the defendants or their solicitor would pay, or guarantee to pay, for the depositions about being taken; whether it is customary to require this; and, by what authority such a demand was made?

The case referred to was heard at Bantry Petty Sessions on Saturday. The Petty Sessions Clerks' Act requires that all depositions must bear a 1s. stamp; and the whole of the evidence tendered by the defence was received on the solicitor undertaking to pay the Stamp Duty. The course taken by the Bench was fully justified by the statute to which I have referred.

asked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the case of Samuel Harvey, a letter carrier, who was dismissed from the Public (Service on the 14th of January, 1882, on the charge of having obtained admission to the Agricultural Hall on false pretences; and, whether he has considered the fresh evidence that has been brought forward; and, if so, what is his decision?

My attention has been called to Harvey's case; and, after considering the additional statements which Harvey has put in, I can see nothing to impugn the justice of my Predecessor's decision.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received the Report of the Royal Commission for arranging the electoral districts of Malta; and, whether they intend to present such Report when received to the House?

, in reply, said, the Report had been received, and was included in the collection of Papers relating to the Constitution of Malta which were presented yesterday. The printing of these Papers vas nearly completed, and he hoped that they would be distributed in a very few days.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will request the Crofters' Commission to report on the causes which have led to the circumstance that no holdings have been enlarged under the provisions of the Act of 1886?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the Lord Lieutenant, with a view to make a settlement with, or to sell their holdings at 20 years' purchase, to his County Down tenants, extended the time within which they could make applications to have fair rents fixed and be entitled to the reduction on the half-year's rent due at 1st November last, as provided by the 5th section of "The Land Law (Ireland Act, 1887;" whether he can state how many originating notices to fix fair rent were served on the Land Commission by the tenants of His Excellency between the 31st October last and the 1st February instant; whether notices were served on the tenants who had not made application to the Court, offering 20 per cent reduction on the old rents; and, whether, considering that there are upwards of 4,000 applications at present entered for hearing in the County of Down, and that one Sub-Commission could not dispose of all these cases for years, he will now consider the desirability of having a new Sub-Commission appointed for the County of Down?

(who replied) said, he had not had time to get the information sought by the hon. Member, and he would, therefore, request him to ask it again.

asked the Secretary of State for War, When the Evidence and Report of the Committee, presided over by the Judge Advocate General, to inquire into the supply of Leather by Army contractors will be published; whether Messrs. Ross and Company, of Bermondsey, will be required to make good anything wanting in past supplies; whether the greater proportion of defective leather already supplied has been issued; what will be done with the hides remaining in store; whether it was at one time decided to rescind Messrs. Ross's contract; and whether that decision has been reversed, and why?

asked, "Whether some of the experts called were not of opinion that the leather supplied was equal to the pattern; whether the contractors had proved that a large number of the hides rejected were sold in the trade at a price considerably above the contract price; and whether Messrs. Ross and Co. did not express themselves ready to do anything that the Department thought right when a complaint was made?

I am informed that the Report of the Judge Advocate General on the supply of leather to the Army, with the evidence, will be issued to-morrow. As regards hides, Messrs. Ross and Co., who have placed themselves in the matter entirely at the disposal of the Department, will be required to make good anything wanting in past supplies. All defective hides remaining in store have been returned to them, and they will replace them at their own cost. There are no standing contracts for hides, and, therefore, none to rescind. Hides are bought by competition as required. The greater part of the hides had been issued; but a large number have been returned from out stations, and will be treated in the same way as those in stock.

asked, Whether it was not the case that the contractor in question and the Director of Contracts both belonged to the local Conservative Association?

I consider such a question a public disgrace.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he considers that no disgrace attaches to a refusal to answer the question?

asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the commissions in the Chaplains' Department, vacant by the retirement of the Reverend W. C. Magill and the Reverend J. F. Browne, have not been filled; whether it is a fact that a Catholic chaplain to the forces in Egypt is to be withdrawn and not replaced; what is the number of troops now stationed at York; and, why there is no Catholic chaplain there?

The only vacancy not filled among Roman Catholic chaplains is that caused by the retirement of the Rev. J. F. Browne in December last. It is not proposed to fill this vacancy at present, as there is no station at which there are sufficient Roman Catholic soldiers to justify the employment of a commissioned chaplain. No order has been given for the withdrawal of the chaplains of this denomination from Egypt. The Roman Catholic soldiers at York are only about 160; and an officiating chaplain has been appointed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in order to obtain the release of Sullivan, the Kerry blacksmith, from the sentence of Resident Magistrates under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, no less than nine applications on different days had to be made to the Superior Courts in Dublin; that though the Court of Exchequer decided that there was no evidence on which the man could be convicted, yet they held there was no power to give costs against the Crown on habeas corpus; is it the fact that in the case of the sentence on Mr. Walsh, of The Wexford People, of three months' hard labour for publishing the reports of suppressed branches, which the same Court quashed, the costs of the argument of the "case stated" will not include the heavy costs in the hearing below before the Resident Magistrates; and, whether, as these convictions were held illegal and unwarrantable, the Government intend the prisoners to be left charged with the costs involved, thus involving practically the infliction of a heavy sum on men declared innocent by the highest authority?

(who replied) said: The Chief Crown Solicitor reports as follows: —

"In the case of Sullivan proceedings were at first taken for certiorari before the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, and the Court, composed of four Judges, unanimously refused the application of Sullivan. Proceedings were then taken for habeas corpus to the Exchequer Division; and the Court being composed of three Judges, two of them ruled in Sullivan's favour, and he was accordingly discharged, but no costs were given. I am unable to state the number of days on which these applications were made."

The Attorney General adds—

"In Sullivan's case, which was an application for a writ of habeas corpus, the Court of Exchequer decided that there was no power to give costs; but in Walsh's case, which was a case stated by the magistrates, the Court decided there was power to give costs. This was the decision of the Court of Exchequer, which decided both cases."

As to the release of Sullivan on the ground that there was no evidence, this arose from the accidental omission of not entering in the particular case of Sullivan the evidence of Mrs. Curtin, which had been previously recorded, and which applied to all the cases heard on that day, including Sullivan's. The Government have no intention whatever of paying Sullivan's costs.

Apart from the argumentative matter which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has thought fit to introduce into his answer, I have to say that the latter portion of his answer is grossly inaccurate.

Order, order!

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that a communication from the Civil Service Commissioners has been sent to three writers—namely, Mr. Brattle at the War Office, Mr. T. Knighton at the Custom House, and Mr. Franklin at the Admiralty—informing them that—

"Further proceedings in connection with their promotion have boon suspended for the present;"

and, whether he will state what essential difference exists between the position of these gentlemen, under the provisions of the Treasury Minute of December, 1886, and that of M. A. J. Rothon, notice of whose promotion to the Lower Division was given in The Civilian newspaper of the 18th instant?

The four copyists named in the Question were recommended for appointment to the Lower Division, in the belief that they had passed the age at which they could compete in ordinary course. It was subsequently ascertained that this belief was erroneous, and that these copyists are still of age to compete; the appointments were therefore cancelled. In one case, however—that of Mr. Rothon—the appointment had been completed before the error as to his age was discovered; and the Treasury have that case under consideration.

asked the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, Whether it was a fact that the workmen engaged at Sir William Ewart's mill assaulted the funeral procession of a priest in Belfast yesterday; whether an attempt was made to upset the hearse; whether they threw stones; and, finally, whether the crowd had to be dispersed by the police; whether in view of these occurrences, and the Report made by the Committee which inquired into the Belfast riots, and of the amendments made by the Select Committee when passing the Municipal Franchise (Belfast) Bill, he proposed to take any steps to promote legislation for the better government of Belfast?

I have telegraphed for a full report as to the truth of the allegations made in the hon. Member's Question, which was only received at the Irish Office at 3.40 this afternoon. Since I came to the House I have recived the following telegram from the Town Inspector of Belfast: —

"Referring to the alleged attack upon funeral procession published in The Freeman's Journal to-day, full report goes by post. Newspaper report is greatly exaggerated."

I do not consider, having regard to the peaceable condition of Belfast and its neighbourhood, one isolated outrage would in itself be sufficient to induce the Government to introduce legislation of the nature contemplated by the hon. Gentleman in the present Session.

said, with reference to the exaggerated case in Belfast to which reference had been made, he wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether he was aware that a similar outrage was perpetrated last year at the very same place; and whether, under those circumstances, he does not consider that some legislation for the preservation of the peace of that town was required?

I have no information, on the subject.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, What is the course of Business for the coming week?

I should have been glad to have arranged to take the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Charles Russell) with regard to public meetings in Trafalgar Square on Monday; but I can only do so on the understanding that the remaining days of Supply between Thursday in next week and the 15th of March would be sufficient to vote the Supplies necessary for the Public Service. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, there are only five days when it is possible to put down operative Supply after Monday next. We have to obtain the Supplementary Estimates which have been presented to the House, and we have also to take a Vote for the Army and Navy, and a Vote on Account for the Civil Services. If the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to intimate his belief and to give us his assistance to secure that those Votes shall be passed by the 15th of March, I will gladly surrender Monday next for the discussion which, it is desired to raise. The question is one on which the Government are anxious to obtain the judgment of the House with the least possible delay; but if there is any doubt as to the time that would be taken by the Estimates I shall be compelled to take Monday for them, and in that event I would give Thursday for the Motion.

When that sort of question is put to me, perhaps I am justified in rising to reply. I entirely agree as to the reasonableness of the object that the right hon. Gentleman has in view; but he will not be surprised when I say that it is not in my power to give him the assurance that a certain number of days will be sufficient for Supply. I cannot give that assurance; therefore, I think he would do wisely to take his own course.

Under these circumstances, I am only discharging my duty in fixing the Supplementary Estimates for Monday. I hope and believe that that will suffice, so that Thursday may be given for the Motion.

said, the Estimates bad not been issued.

said, they were laid on the Table that morning, and were now in the Vote Office.

inquired whether, in the Constabulary Estimates, any sum had been put down for the additional money required for the services of the police?

None.

asked, whether there was anything in the Estimates referring to magistrates in Ireland?

There is.

asked, whether there was any Vote in the Estimates on which they could raise the case of Mr. Stoney?

I rather think not.