asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state how many officers are now drawing colonels' allowances in India, and how many officers altogether are now drawing colonels' allowances, the payment of which is borne on the Indian Exchequer; whether an officer "on colonels' allowances" payable by the Indian Government, if he resides in Ceylon, or in any part of the world except India, is permitted to draw his allowances in England in full sterling value; whereas, if he resides in India, his allowances are converted at the rate of 2s. 0½d. the rupee, the value of the rupee being at present under ls. 5d., thereby entailing upon him a loss from 25 to 30 per cent of his income as compared with his brother officers, in precisely the same position, residing else-where; whether he will state the entire sum saved to the Indian Exchequer per annum by this mode of settling accounts with the officers who reside in India; and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of altering a policy which has the effect of dissuading officers trained and acclimatised in India from residing in that country after retirement?

There are 430 officers drawing colonels' allowances from the Indian Exchequer. Of these, 418 reside in the United Kingdom, and 12 in India. An officer on colonels' allowances, residing in India, receives his pay and allowances in Indian currency like all other officers on full pay. If residing out of India he may, under the Regulations, draw his pay and allowances in sterling at the rate fixed for the purpose in 1854. It is the view of the India Office that there is no saving by paying the officers in India at the fixed rate; but there is a very heavy charge owing to the fall in exchange by paying those in England at the rate fixed in 1854, and this charge would be increased by the proposed measure. The objection raised to alter the Rule is that to do so would abrogate the rule that officers in India not on the retired list are to draw their pay in the currency, and at the rates of the country in which it accrues; but the Secretary of State does not at present see his way to make the alteration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the same or similar Regulations exist permitting naval medical officers to serve on courts martial as is the case with officers of the Army Medical Staff; and, if not, can he state the reason for this difference?

The Regulations do not admit of naval medical officers serving on courts martial. In common with officers of the other civil branches of the Navy they are debarred from this duty by Section 58 of the Naval Discipline Act, which lays down that—

"No officer shall be qualified to sit as a member of any court-martial, unless he be a flag officer, captain, commander, or lieutenant of Her Majesty's Navy on full pay."

(for Colonel HAMBRO) (Dorset, S.) asked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, By what authority Her Majesty's Charity Commissioners, in the absence of any scheme for the management of the Milton Abbas School, Bland-ford, endeavour to restrict an appointment about to be made by the Trustees of the school, of a head master in, or intending to be in, Holy Orders, to a temporary appointment only; and, if he can assure the Trustees of the Milton Abbas Grammar School, that if they appoint a master under whom the school flourishes, and meets the requirements of the district, the fact that the master is in Holy Orders, or intends to take Holy Orders, shall not be a reason for the Charity Commissioners to remove him if at any future time they prepare a scheme for the school?

Under the Endowed Schools Acts the Charity Commissioners have authority to make a scheme for Milton Abbas School, and therein to direct that a new head master be appointed. By Section 18 of the Act of 1869, it is expressly directed that, in any scheme for such a school as this, it shall be provided that a person shall not be disqualified for being a master therein by reason only of his not being, or not intending to be, in Holy Orders. A scheme being now in contemplation, and the Trustees having meanwhile advertised for a master, "who must be already in, or preparing to take, Holy Orders," the Commissioners thought it right to advise them that any appointment so made should be regarded as temporary. In reply to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, the mere fact that the master proposed to be appointed is in orders, or is about to take orders, will not afford a ground for interference with his tenure by the Commisioners. Beyond that the Charity Commission is unable to give any pledge which would in any way fetter the discretion of the Governing Body which may be appointed under any future scheme.

(for Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN) (Birmingham, W.) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that the Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook was purchased by the Government about two years ago, on the liquidation of the Small Arms and Ammunition Company, Limited; whether, since the purchase, a sum of about £50,000 has been spent in laying down new machinery and improving existing plant; whether the Government are now removing large quantities of the new machinery to the Enfield Factory; and, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government to transfer the manufacture at Sparkbrook to the works at Enfield?

The Small Arms Factory at Sparkbrook was purchased in 1885. About £31,000 has been spent in laying down new machinery and improving existing plant. Some of the machinery is in course of removal to Enfield, for the purpose of starting the manufacture of the new magazine rifle. The intention may be stated generally to be that the Government manufacture of small arms will be carried on at Enfield alone; but large contracts for arms have been placed in Birmingham, so that the artizans there will not suffer by the removal of this machinery from Sparkbrook, and this place will be utilized as the principal Government depôt for repairs.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Civil Estimates of the last two years and of this year pro- vide for the payment of a Consular official at Massowah; whether a Consular official was, in fact, appointed to this post about two years ago; and, whether this officer has for the last two years been working in the Foreign Office instead of going to Massowah?

The Estimates of last year and those of the current financial year provide for the payment of a Vice Consul at Massowah. A Vice Consul was appointed on October 26, 1886; but in consequence of the unsettled state of the country it has been decided from time to time to defer his departure. He has been employed on important duties in the Foreign Office.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, as the Revenue Bill now stands, farmers' locomotives used solely for agricultural purposes will be exempt from the Cart and Wheel Duties.

In answering this question I must repeat a caution which I gave a few days ago, that any reply I may give must be taken as explanatory only of my proposals in the Bill, and not as a pledge as to the manner in which it may be interpreted when it becomes law. The interpretation of the Act will rest with the Board of Inland Revenue, subject to the Courts. With this reserve I may say that farmers' locomotives used solely for agricultural purposes will not be exempt from duty if they are used upon a road for drawing or propelling any vehicle. But I think it would be better if hon. Gentlemen interested in such points as this would wait to discuss them in Committee on the Bill, instead of asking me Questions over the Table, as any short answer I may give may lead to misapprehension.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether carts belonging to market gardeners who were also nurserymen and florists would be exempt from payment under the Wheel Tax?

Yes, Sir; such carts will be exempt if they are used solely for the conveyance of fruit and flowers grown upon lands in the occupation of their owner. But I must repeat the caution I gave in answer to a previous Question dealing with the provisions of the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the average daily population of the prison of Perth is 620; of Glasgow 500; and Barlinnie 500; whether the English Prison Commissioners recommended in their first Annual Report that chaplains in prisons of an average population of 400 and upwards should be appointed at a salary of £300, rising to £400; whether the average daily population of Glasgow, Barlinnie, and Perth, is equal to the average daily population of Birmingham, Leeds, and Durham; and, whether prison surgeons in those prisons are appointed at a salary of £320 a-year, while in the Scotch prisons they begin at £200 a-year; and what is the reason for the difference of salary?

The hon. Member has now asked specific Questions about particular prisons; and, in reply, I have to inform him that the surgeons at Glasgow and Perth receive higher pay than they would in English prisons of corresponding population; while the surgeon at Barlinnie and the chaplains at all three prisons receive less, the figures given by the hon. Member being substantially accurate as regards these four officers. The Scotch scales of salary were fixed by a Committee which had full knowledge of those adopted in England. In regard to the officers who are paid at a lower rate than the English scale will give them according to population, I wish to point out that although it is so in these particular cases, there are other cases, as I have already stated, in which reductions will have to be made.

asked, how the hon. Gentleman reconciled his answer with the previous answer he had given? The Question was, whether the highest salary was £200? The answer to that Question was that that was the case. Now the hon. Gentleman told them that in the English Provincial prisons the salary was £320.

said, the hon. Member was aware that applications had been received in these particular cases where there was a disadvantage in the case of Scotland, and these applications were now under the consideration of the Treasury. If it were found necessary to make an alteration it would be made.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any steps can be taken to ensure a record being kept by each Colony of the number and tonnage of steam vessels entered and cleared from and to foreign countries viâ the Suez Canal, so that information may be included in the Statistical Abstract for the several Colonial Possessions, similar to that furnished in No. 78, Statistical Abstract, British India?

Her Majesty's Government will consider how far a complete record of the nature desired can be obtained.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he can state the acreage represented respectively by the 136,722 cases of fair rent disposed of in Court, and the 94,469 cases of agreement out of Court, reported by the Irish Land Commission up to end of March, 1888?

The Land Commissioners inform me that no record is kept of the acreage represented by the cases which are struck out, dismissed, or withdrawn. These cases number 37,059. Judicial rents were fixed in Court up to the end of March, 1888, in 99,663 cases. The acreage represented by these cases is 2,966,026. The acreage represented by the 94,469 agreements is 2,441,846.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any representations or remonstrances have been addressed to the Foreign Office by the French Government in connection with the proposed tax on bottled wines; and, if so, what the representations or remonstrances may be?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to my answer to the hon. Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) on the 26th of April.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an application was made to the Sub-Commission Court (Messrs. Edward Greer, O'Callaghan, and Sproule) sitting at Downpatrick on Friday the 4th instant, that a case in which an hon. Member was coming over from London to give evidence in might be fixed for Tuesday the 8th instant was refused; whether the case was fixed for Saturday positively; whether, on Saturday, the hon. Member being in Court, having been summoned by telegraph, the Sub-Commissioners refused to take the case on that day, and postponed it until Tuesday; and, whether the action of the Sub-Commissioners can be justified on grounds of public convenience; and, if so, what were those grounds?

, in reply, said, the Land Commissioners had not yet been able to give him the information he had asked for. He imagined they found that local reference was necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, How many sum- monses are heard on an average in a week at Bow Street and Marlborough Street Police Courts respectively; and, whether the two Courts are required?

(who replied) said: The weekly number of summonses heard on an average in a week at Marlborough Street Police Court for the year 1887 was 112; at Bow Street the weekly average is 132. Judging from the number of cases disposed of at each Court, and from the fact that the Committee which lately inquired into the disposition of magisterial business in the Metropolis, after full consideration, did not recommend the abolition of the Court at Marlborough Street, the Secretary of State is not prepared to say that the two Courts are not required.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now see his way to frame Regulations to allow the importation duty free of tea unfit for human food, with precautions to prevent its getting into the market, for the purpose of the production of coffein, a chemical industry which our present Custom House Regulations drives completely to Germany?

The subject is now under reference to the Board of Customs. The firm who are seeking such a facility have undertaken to furnish further particulars desired by that Department; and, in the meantime, no definite answer can be given.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the intended prosecution for insurance frauds at Belfast, Whether it is the intention of the Crown to change the venue from Belfast to Dublin?

This matter is now under the consideration of the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to confer upon the new District Councils the right of cremation, if the said Council should think this desirable in the public interest?

No, Sir; I have no such intention at present.

had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the reported narrow escape of the mail steamer Arizona on Monday night last, that during the prevalence of a thick fog ran into Dunmanus Bay, and very nearly went ashore; whether this is the place where the Iberian was lost; and, whether, in view of the fact that this Bay lies unprotected, parallel and close to the track of the American liners, the Board will recommend the placing a fog bell or gun on the Mizen or Three Castle Heads? The hon. Member said, he did not intend asking the first part of the Question, as he understood the thing did not occur. He would, however, ask if it was not a fact that the steamship Catalonia narrowly escaped going ashore at or about this very place during last week?

, in reply, said, that was not exactly the same Question as that which the hon. Gentleman put on the Paper; but he had to say with regard to the lights on the coast at this place, of course it was not the business of the Board of Trade to initiate the establishment of any light. The Irish Lighthouse Authorities were now in the course of erecting a lighthouse at a place called Bull Rock, or Mersey Head, close to this very part of the coast. He was also informed that if mariners would use the ordinary precautions of taking soundings the danger to which the hon. Member referred would be avoided.

asked, if Bull Rock was not about 50 miles west of this place?

No, Sir.

It is about 45.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What steps have been taken by the Government to press on the Government of Portugal the claim for compensation by British Indian subjects at Minengani on the Zanzibar Coast for their losses due to the bombardment of that place by the Portuguese in February, 1887?

For reasons, into which I cannot enter, no claim has yet been presented; but the case of the British Indian subjects at Minengani forms part of an affair which is under consideration.

said, claims had been sent to the Government; but the Government had not yet made any claim.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any, and, if so, what, information regarding the disturbances and insurrectionary movements recently reported from Macedonia?

We have received information of acts of brigandage in the neighbourhood of the Greek Frontier, and in the Sandjak of Serres; but not of anything that could be called an insurrectionary movement.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If, having regard to all the circumstances, he can see his way to grant some further camp allowance to the Volunteer Force than that notified, so as to prevent, as far as possible, any reduction in the number applying to go into camp for training?

The amount of camp allowance already authorized is in excess of the sum included in the Estimates, though overestimated numbers and failures to appear will probably equalize them. I cannot, therefore, authorize additional issues; but if at the end of the camping season a saving should appear in the item for camps in the Volunteer Vote, I will consider whether it could be divided proportionately among the corps which may earn more than the amount allotted to them. This was done in 1884, and resulted actually in all corps getting as much as they had earned.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is contemplated to increase the hours of Customs House officers, and to what extent; and, if so, whether they will receive any compensation for their increased attendance; and, whether it is a fact that, whilst the average attendance of officers in the Outdoor Department exceeds 10 hours daily, many of them are compelled to remain on duty for alternate periods of 24 hours?

I would ask my hon. and learned Friend not to press for an answer to his Question; I am not in a position to make any statement. Even if it be contemplated to make some change, he will feel that it is not to the advantage of the public interest that such matters should be made the subject of Question and answer in this House before they are completed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the trial of Mr. Creedon, under "The Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887," at Macroom, for an assault on a policeman named O'Shea, on the 8th of April last, no attempt was made by the prosecuting counsel to prove that the meeting out of which the said assault arose was an illegal and unlawful assembly; and, whether he will order an inquiry into the facts of this case?

I am advised that it was not necessary for the prosecuting counsel to prove the nature of the meeting. Creedon was tried not for taking part in an unlawful assembly, but for a cowardly and brutal attack on a police officer.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is not the fact that Creedon was struck first by this man O'Shea, and, that being the case, if he was not justified in striking O'shea; if the meeting was not an illegal one—in other words, if the meeting was not an illegal one, was the policeman justified in striking him first?

I believe the hypothesis on which the hon. Gentleman founds his Question is an inaccurate one.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, has he seen the report in the Cork newspapers of this case, in which it is distinctly stated by evidence for the defence, and admitted in evidence for the prosecution, that in this case the policeman struck this man Creedon in the first instance, and that the apparent justification for so striking him was that the meeting was an illegal one?

I am not informed in reference to that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

I have already given an answer on the subject.

Being an eye-witness of the occurrence, might I ask the right hon. Gentleman his authority for making the statement he has made in this case? I saw the assault committed.

The hon. Gentleman has asked for information, and I have given him the best information that I have at my command.

Can he give me his authority? I am perfectly aware that the right hon. Gentleman is making the best statement that he can on the subject; but I, at the same time, would wish to know his authority—if he is able, or not afraid, to give it.

It is not the practice to name authorities.

Are you afraid to give it?

Order, order!

asked the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, as a Charity Commissioner, Whether the United Westminster Schools Charity has entered into any agreement to sell or lease the land belonging to the Charity in Victoria Street; and, whether such sale or lease has been approved by the Charity Commissioners?

The Governors of the United Westminster Schools did, in December, 1883, with the sanction of the Charity Commissioners, enter into an agreement for the sale (at the price of £56,375) of a piece of land having a frontage to the south side of Victoria Street of 255 feet. The terms of the agreement were some-what altered in April, 1888, and the agreement so altered has just received the sanction of the Charity Commission. This is the only uncompleted transaction of which the Charity Commission have any information.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he has seen a statement in The St. James's Gazette of the 9th instant headed A Danger in the Pacific, and in which attention is directed to the great disparity between the Russian and English Squadrons in those waters, and which, in the words of the article—

"Is known in Singapore and Hong Kong, where they excite the gravest uneasiness, and in Russia, where they excite a corresponding degree of satisfaction;"

The article in question purports to give with great detail and authenticity the relative strength of the Russian and English Squadrons in that part of the Pacific which is comprised in the China. Station; and it draws from the statement so given certain conclusions that are affirmed to be endorsed by the great commercial ports of Singapore and Hong Kong. Both these statements and conclusions are equally fictitious. The article asserts the Russian Squadron to be at this moment composed of four ironclads and 10 cruisers, and that it is about to be re-inforced. The real strength of the Squadron is one ironclad and five cruisers, and this Squadron is far inferior both in numbers and strength to the British Naval Force on the China Station alone. There are two other English Squadrons in the Pacific, one at Esquimalt and another at Sydney, making a total of three Squadrons. It is needless to add that these facts are well known, both at Singapore and Hong Kong. Sir Richard Vesey Hamilton, the late Commander-in-Chief on the China Station, has recently returned to England, and he is satisfied with the adequacy of the force on that Station.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the fact that the Island of Ascension is to be given up both as a Naval and a Health. Station, and the stores to be divided between Simonstown and Sierra Leone; when such arrangement is to be carried into effect; what measures the Government propose to adopt to prevent the Island, when thus abandoned, from falling into the hands of a Foreign Power; and, whether he will give the House an opportunity of considering the policy of such abandonment before it is carried out?

(who replied) said: Ascension is to be abandoned as a Naval Station and Sanitarium, and this arrangement will be carried out as soon as the Naval Authorities at the Cape decide the Stations to which the stores are to be transferred. The Island will still remain a British Possession. The present course of action has been strongly advocated by the Colonial Defence Committee, a Royal Commission, and many naval officers. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the abandonment of this Island he has the opportunities available to private Members of publicly protesting against it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether Her Majesty's Government, in view of the interest taken in the proceedings of the "Hyderabad Deccan Company" Committee, and of the serious nature of the charges to be investigated, will take measures to enable parties interested to be heard by counsel before the Committee?

The question of allowing parties interested to appear by counsel before the Committee is one entirely for the Committee and the House of Commons, with which it would be unbecoming in the Government to interfere.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether carts belonging to market gardeners, who are also nurserymen and florists, will be exempt from payment under the Wheel Tax?

Yes, if they are used solely for the conveyance of fruit grown on the land of the owners of the carts.

(for Lord CHARLES BERESFORD) (Marylebone, E.) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has nominated the promised Committee to experiment with shell charged with high explosives; and, if not, whether, having regard to the importance of the question, he will state to the House the reason the Committee has not been nominated?

The Members of the Committee on Explosives are—Sir Frederick Abel, F.R.S., Chemist to the War Department; Professor Dewar, F.R.S., Professor of Chemistry at the University of Cambridge and at the Royal Institution; and Dr. Dupré, F.R.S., Consulting Chemist to the Home Office on Explosives. They are, during the present week, making experiments with shell charged with high explosives.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Government will lay upon the Table of the House the Papers in connection with the proposed scheme of emigration from the Highlands of Scotland?

I beg to refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Wands-worth (Mr. Kimber) last Monday, that the Government would be prepared to give all necessary information with reference to the scheme of emigration from the Highlands before the Vote for it is taken.

asked, whether this meant that the Government would spend the money and then come to the House for it; or would they have an opportunity of discussing the subject before the money was spent, and the people sent away?

I must ask my hon. Friend to give me Notice of that Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were convicted in April, 1879, for shooting, and sentenced to 20 years' and 15 years' penal servitude respectively; whether he is aware that, in answer to an application on their behalf, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt), on the 23rd of August, 1880, re- fused to interfere with the sentences; whether he is aware that, after this refusal, two other persons then undergoing sentence for another crime confessed to having committed the crime for which Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were then undergoing punishment, and exculpated them from all complicity; whether he is aware that, in consequence of these confessions, Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick were liberated from gaol on the 27th of February, 1883, after having undergone four years' penal servitude; whether he is aware that, on the 19th of March, 1883, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, promised that if further proof should be given of their innocence the question of granting them a free pardon should be considered; whether further proof on affidavit has since been given to the Home Office, confirming the confessions above mentioned, and exculpating Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick; whether he is aware that in 1885 arrangements were made by the Home Office for allowing the men to report themselves by letter, and why; and, whether he is prepared, under the circumstances, to grant Richard Walford and Henry Hardwick a free pardon?

My answer to the Questions of fact is in the affirmative, except that the two persons mentioned in the Question did not confess that they had committed the crime of which Walford and Hardwick were convicted. And that the affidavits recently sent to the Home Office did not contain any fresh evidence; but were the same as my Predecessor had considered in 1883. The privilege of reporting by letter is occasionally conferred on licence-holders, where the circumstances of the case justify any such concession. I am not prepared on these materials to depart from the decision of three of my Predecessors—that this is not a case in which the grant of a free pardon can be advised.

said, that in February, 1883, it was decided, as the case was surrounded with doubt, that the prisoners ought not to be punished any longer; but after consultation with the Judge who tried them, and the Law Officers of the Crown, the Home Secretary declined to advise that they should be pardoned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the severe censure of Mr. Vaughan, at Bow Street Police Court on Wednesday the 9th, on the conduct of the police in refusing admission to certain persons at the police station on Saturday last, when they had attended to tender evidence in favour of persons charged with assault, and arrested in Trafalgar Square; and, if he will take steps to give the police magistrate's censure some practical effect?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the conduct of the police in Trafalgar Square on Saturday last, and to their evidence in the Bow Street Police Court, at the trial of a Mr. Thompson, on Wednesday last, alleging that stones had been thrown in the Square on that occasion; and, whether he will direct the Chief Commissioner of Police to make a special inquiry into their conduct, which elicited severe comment from Mr. Vaughan, the magistrate at Bow Street?

The rule and the practice which ought, in my opinion, to be followed is to admit to the police station persons who apply for admission in order to testify in favour of an accused person. On some occasions this is impracticable, when crowds follow prisoners to a station. On the evidence before Mr. Vaughan I understand that he thought that the police were to blame for not having admitted certain witnesses who appeared in defence of Mr. Thompson. I have caused full inquiry to be made; and I am informed that these witnesses were kept back in the first instance as they were accompanied by a disorderly crowd pressing into the station, and when their application to be let in as witnesses was made at another part of the station premises the charges had already been taken. Mr. Vaughan informs me that he discharged the defendant Thompson because upon the whole evidence he thought the blow given by him to a police constable was accidental and not wilful. I am not aware that he censured the conduct of the police in the Square or in the Court.

asked, whether one of the persons refused admittance was the mother of the boy, and whether she was ejected by the police with foul language?

I have no information to that effect. Mrs. Thompson and two men were kept back in the first instance. They then went round to the entrance in the station yard; but the Inspector told them the charge had already been taken.

Will the right hon. Gentleman insist on an inquiry as to whether the woman Thompson was dismissed and called by a foul epithet by the policeman, she being a perfectly respectable woman?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether Mrs. Thompson's poverty gives the police a right to call her by this foul name?

Order, order!

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to institute such an inquiry that the public concerned may have some confidence in the proceedings?

said, that not having had any answer to that Question he would put another—whether it was a part of the duties of the police to address foul and abusive language to unoffending persons?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member.

I have another Question to ask. It is whether, in view of the fact that some of us will be in Trafalgar Square to-morrow, the right hon. Gentleman will state, for the guidance of ourselves and the police, whether we have not a right to circulate in Trafalgar Square?

Order, order! That again does not arise out of the Question on the Paper. If the hon. Member has an independent Question to ask, he must wait until the Questions are disposed of.

inquired, whether the police had any authority to hustle persons when they stopped for a moment to speak to personal friends in Trafalgar Square; also, whether the police were authorized to interfere with persons who might be walking or standing in the Square, when no attempt to hold a public meeting was being made by anybody?

The hon. Gentleman has asked me a Question to which he must be aware that the answer is obvious and can only be in one shape. If he merely puts the Question with the intention of throwing obloquy on the police, it can hardly be proper for me to answer it.

I have done nothing of the kind. I have asked the Question, as I have a perfect right to do, because what I referred to happened to myself. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the police have no authority, then I will ask whether he will permit me to lay evidence before him, and whether he will act upon that evidence, to prove that the police did hustle inoffensive persons, and did use insolent language to them? If the right hon. Gentleman says that the police have no such authority, I shall claim protection at his hands, and ask that the police, whose conduct has been reflected upon, shall be properly punished.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is possible during the Whitsuntide Recess, to give effect to some, at any rate, of the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Admission of strangers?

In answer to the Question of the hon. Member I have to say that the Speaker would desire to be guided in the matter by the convenience of the House. The Speaker is aware of a difference of opinion as to accepting without further discussion all the decisions at which the Committee have arrived; but, pending the decision of the House, the Speaker is prepared to do this much—to throw the two Galleries, the Speaker's and Strangers', into one, thus gaining an additional row of seats, and providing admission to what would be henceforth one Gallery by the entrance in the Central Hall. All the other arrangements would go on as at present, till the House had come to a definite decision on the subject.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which I have given him very short private Notice; and that is, whether he has seen in The Star and other evening newspapers a statement to the effect that the Government had decided on founding and endowing a Catholic College in Ireland; whether that statement is true; whether there have been any negotiations that could reasonably give rise to such a report; and what has been the tone of such negotiations, if any? It is right I should say that I regret that there has not been time to give longer Notice than I have been able to give; but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that if the answer is in the negative the sooner it is given the better.

The hon. Gentleman gave me Notice of this Question a few minutes ago. I am sorry to say that I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the evening papers. There is no truth in the statement that Her Majesty's Government has decided to found or endow a Roman Catholic College in Ireland, and there have been no negotiations which could reasonably give rise to such a report.

In answer to a Question of mine on Tuesday last, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury hinted that it might be necessary to take a Morning Sitting on Friday next. In consequence of the rapid transaction of Public Business since that Question was answered, I suppose we may take it for granted that that idea is dropped?

I should be exceedingly glad that there should be no Sitting on Friday morning next; but the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that there is usually some time consumed on the Motion for Adjournment: and as Thursday is fully appropriated for other Business, unless the House is willing to adjourn without discussion on Thursday evening, it will be necessary to have a Morning Sitting. The Business on Monday, as I have stated, will be some Irish and other Bills. I am afraid it will be necessary to have a Morning Sitting on Tuesday, unless we can reach a Motion which it will be my duty to make with reference to the Imperial defences, and on which some discussion is likely to arise. I should regret exceedingly to deprive hon. and gallant Gentlemen on either side of the House of the opportunity of which, I understand, they wish to avail themselves of debating the proposal on which the Bill will be founded to provide for the Imperial defences. Unless that is reached by 10 o'clock on Monday evening it will involve a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. On Thursday it is intended to take the Employers' Liability Bill.

said, the Committee on the Local Government Bill would not be taken before the Monday after the re-assembling of the House.

said, the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) was on the Paper for Tuesday, which attracted deep interest among Members on that side of the House; and he asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not defer his Resolution on Imperial defences until Thursday?

said, he understood there was a very strong desire that the Employers' Liability Bill should be read a second time before the Whitsuntide holidays; and if the Motion he proposed to make was put down for Thursday, he was afraid there was little chance of an adequate discussion on the Employers' Liability Bill.

said, he thought he might appeal as to the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, as those near him had done their best, especially since Easter, to facilitate the despatch of Public Business. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: Hear, hear!] He feared there would not be facilities sufficient to deal with the Bill on the eve of the Recess, as a number of his Friends had made arrangements to leave London before Thursday.

said, he thought that the desire to place the Bill in a secure position was greater than the contemplation of a holiday. Under the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with the arrangements which had been made. He should do his best to shorten the discussion prior to his Motion on Tuesday, and keep a House, so that adequate attention might be given to the subject. He wished to endorse the remarks of the hon. Member as to the conduct of the Opposition in facilitating Public Business.

With regard to the question of the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, in the event of the Business not concluding at 10 o'clock, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has put Irish Business on the Paper for Monday which it will be wholly impossible to conclude by that hour? Might I, therefore, suggest to him that he should postpone the first Order—the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill—and then we might get on with the other Bill—the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill—and perhaps conclude the debate by 10 o'clock.

I am exceedingly anxious to meet the convenience of hon. Members on both sides of the House; but I think it is better for the Government to adhere to the announcement that they have made.

observed that, as it appeared by the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Morning Sitting on Tuesday was required, not for the advancement of the Employers' Liability Bill, or for the discussion of the Motion with regard to the National defences, but for the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill, he would give Notice that when the measure was brought forward he would move the postponement of the debate.

Might I remind the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there is also Irish Private Business fixed for Monday? The Ulster Canal and Tyrone Navigation Bill is fixed for that day, and it will necessarily involve considerable discussion. Might I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he would arrange with the hon. Baronet the Member for Mid Armagh (Sir James Corry) to take that measure on some date after Whitsuntide, at a time when it would be more convenient to give the measure adequate time for discussion?

I am exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his suggestion, and I will see what arrangement can be made.