said, he rose for the purpose of moving the Amendment which stood in his name, and which was, in fact, to leave out Clause 15, which provided that the question of purchasing the land should be decided by a public meeting of ratepapers held in the Vestry Hall and presided over by the rector of the parish, after the necessary advertisement, unless at least one-fourth of those present should demand another, making requisite the approval of the ratepayers shown by a poll to be taken in the same way as under the Public Libraries Act, and re-insert in a clause which that House agreed to unanimously with the consent of all parties concerned in the matter.

No; that is not quite accurate.

said, that his hon. Friend said that that was not quite accurate. He wished to be strictly accurate. The clause to which he wished to refer was agreed to by hon. Gentlemen opposite; at least no objection was taken to it, and there was no Division upon it.

said, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow him to explain how the matter stood. He said that the clause he proposed to insert was agreed to. That was not the case. A certain proposal had been assented to, and that was embodied in the Bill as it stood.

believed his hon. Friend was technically right; but an Instruction was agreed to on that occasion, and the new clause he had now to propose would carry out that Instruction. The object of the clause was to provide that the question whether the Bill was to be adopted and the purchase of that plot of land assented to, should be submitted to the whole of the ratepayers, and not be decided by the Vestry or by a public meeting. So far as the clause was concerned, which had been inserted by the Committee after the Instruction he had alluded to was agreed to by all parties, he should have to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while he explained how the matter stood. He would state, as shortly as he could, the history of the Bill, and the reasons why he opposed it. Now the Bill related to a plot of ground on Brixton Hill, which was owned by a Vestryman, and the son of its owner was also, or had been, a Vestryman. The land was originally purchased for building purposes, no doubt with a view of bringing shop fronts up to the margin of the pavement. That House, in its great wisdom, in the early part of last year defeated a scheme which had for its object the breaking of a law in reference to property in that part of London, and which provided that within a certain distance of a main road no permanent building should be erected. They defeated a Bill which was introtroduced into that House for the purpose of breaking that law. The owner of the property immediately turned round when he saw there was no hope of the Bill being passed by that House, and got up an agitation for the purchase of the property for a park. It seemed to have been discovered at once, but not until after it became known that there was no prospect of passing the Bill, that this was an admirable place for a park, and an agitation was at once commenced at the instance, he believed, of the owners of the property, in order to induce the Lambeth Vestry to take steps for purchasing these 12½ acres of land for a park site. He wished hon. Members present to notice the fact that there were three acres of this ground which could not possibly be built upon, and which consisted of enclosed gardens, nor could any building be erected upon that ground. Therefore, all the calculations made as to its value were erroneous, because they had been based on the theory that the whole of the 12½ acres were available for building purposes; whereas three acres could not be touched, because they were protected by the Act he had already referred to—namely, the Rush-common Act. What happened after the agitation for the purchase of the property in order to convert it into a public park was this—There was another Vestryman who had a site for sale. He also seemed to have discovered that that part of Lambeth was very much in want of a park site. He (Mr. Broadhurst) had no doubt that Vestrymen who were landowners had very great sympathy for one another, and he had not the least doubt in his own mind that the Vestryman to whom he had referred took a course which best suited his own interests, and, consequently, he was desirous of securing the interests of a friend who was in a similar situation, and that, last of all, he took into consideration the necessities and requirements of the poor ratepayers of the parish. The first step taken in this case was the promotion of a Private Bill. It was presented to that House, promoted and petitioned against; but who were those who petitioned against it? He hoped hon. Members would mark this fact. Among the Petitions presented against the Bill, the chief Petition was one from the man who desired to sell the land. He petitioned the Committee, presumably, against the Bill; but his Petition had been rightly and properly described as a bogus Petition, because it was a Petition presented in order to mislead, and, no doubt, it did mislead, the House, although, happily, it did not deceive, because everything in relation to that particular Petition was discovered. The next step to take was to negotiate with the Metropolitan Board of Works. Now, there was a distinguished gentleman, an architect named Fowler, who represented one of the wards of Lambeth on the Lambeth Vestry, and represented Lambeth Vestry on the Board of Works. In consequence of certain statements, or revelations, which had been made, Mr. Fowler no longer represented Lambeth on the Vestry, and the Vestry had rejected him as their representative on the Metropolitan Board of Works. Consequently, that connection between the Lambeth Vestry and the Metropolitan Board of Works no longer existed, and another representative had been sent by the Vestry to the Board of Works in the place of Mr. Fowler. He came now to the question of the necessity of acquiring this land for the purposes of a public park, and he wished to point out to the House that although the site was a small one of 12½acres, about two acres of it were already built upon, and contained houses and gardens which could not be got rid of for some years, because there were 22 or more years lease yet to run. That meant a very small piece of land available for park purposes; and it was a piece of land which lay at right angles back from the main road, so that it presented itself in the form, as it were, of a hole in the wall—there was only one way in and one way out. Now, they were all in favour of open spaces where they were reasonable and required by the public, and where proper arrangements in every shape might be carried out. But as to the requirements of this particular parish—and he spoke as a friend of open spaces—they were far less than the requirements of other parishes. In that instance, the whole of the ratepayers of Lambeth were to be called upon to pay through their rents an exorbitant price for the purchase of this piece of land which was situated at the further end of the parish of Lambeth, where open spaces were least necessary than in any other part of the parish. If this were a space near the Westminster Bridge Road, they would all be at once prepared to support its conversion into a public park on account of the over crowded condition of the neighbourhood. But this neighbourhood was not over crowded. Unfortunately, he had not got the figures with him, but he read them to the House on the last occasion that that Bill was discussed, and he thought he said that there were only from 140 to 150 persons to a square mile. Certainly, that was not a very over crowded neighbourhood. In the next place, Clapham Common was within less than a mile of this very spot, and within one mile and 100 yards in another direction there was Tooting Common. Consequently there were two fine commons within easy walking distance of this wretched little plot of land for which the Vestry sought to extort an exorbitant price out of the pockets of the ratepayers. And what had been the means employed to bring this matter underneath the notice of the ratepayers? All sorts of schemes and plans had been adopted, one of which was the recognition of the Temperance League, who held a large meeting on this site on Whit Monday. Happily for his quietude and peace of mind, he was not at home on that day; but he was told that the temperance demonstration resulted nearly in a riot, and nearly everybody who attended it was exceedingly drunk, and that the whole scene was one of the wildest disorder that could be imagined. It disgusted the whole neighbourhood, and people came to the conclusion that if this piece of land were turned into a public park, it might on any day be employed for a similar purpose. It carried reason on the face of it, and he had no doubt it was drawn by the Committee without knowing much of the depth of cunning which animated the promoters of this scheme. The clause in its beautiful innocence said that—

"The decision of the ratepayers is to be taken at public meetings assembled to be held at Brixton Hall, Acre Lane, after proper and necessary advertisement had been given, and is to be presided over by the rector of the parish."

"Shall be decided by the majority of the ratepayers present and voting thereat; provided that not less than one-fourth of the ratepayers present, on the show of hands taken for the purpose, shall demand that such question be taken by a poll of the ratepayers, such poll to be taken in the same manner as under the Free Libraries Act."

said, the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broad- hurst), in his opening remarks, stated that he intended to give a short history of the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member would permit him (the Marquess of Carmarthen) to give the House a short history of his action in regard to it. The hon. Member said that he was in favour of open spaces wherever they were needed and wherever they were necessary. But when this Bill came before the House on the first occasion he opposed it on three grounds. Firstly, because he maintained that it was a great piece of jobbery, although he produced absolutely no evidence whatever to make good that assertion in any way; secondly, because he thought the price proposed to be paid for the land was excessive, although evidence was brought before the Committee to show that, in the opinion of Messrs. Debenham and Mason, the eminent firm of auctioneers, the price was a very reasonable one indeed; and, thirdly, because there were houses upon it. The promoters suggested at the time the Bill was brought in that those houses might be kept up, and that arrangement made by which they could be utilized for the purpose of keeping up the park. The hon. Member, however, objected to that proposal, and to meet his objections the promoters withdrew that clause altogether. As the hon. Member very well knew, the houses to which he objected were only to stand until the lease expired, when they were to be pulled down, and there was a clause in the Bill which said that no house was to be re-erected. When these provisions were inserted in the Bill it was thought that they would draw the teeth of the hon. Gentleman's opposition, but it appeared now that his opposition was of a different character. He must confess that the course he had pursued was somewhat remarkable. If there was one scheme which he denounced more strongly than others it was the Vauxhall Park Bill; but where was his opposition now? It had vanished into thin air. His reasons, as he (the Marquess of Carmarthen) had explained, for opposing the Bill were that it was a piece of jobbery, that too great a price was to be paid for it, and that there were buildings upon it. One would certainly have thought that if his opposition was based on such grounds he would have had a word or two to say against the Vauxhall Park Bill, which was to acquire a site of only eight acres, whereas the site for the proposed Brixton Park was 12½ acres. He should certainly offer to the proposal of the hon. Member a strenuous opposition, because he regarded it as absolutely unnecessary. Certain Instructions were given by that House to the Committee on the last occasion that the Bill was under discussion, and the Committee, with those Instructions before them, inserted the clause which now stood in the Bill, which gave the ratepayers full control over the purchase of this piece of land. If the ratepayers were strongly opposed to the Bill, it was no great hardship to ask them to attend a public meeting and declare their views. The hon. Member said that Brixton Hall was only capable of holding 600 or 700 people. Perhaps his (the Marquess of Carmarthen's) experience was greater than that of the hon. Member. He was sure he had seen more than twice the number mentioned by the hon. Member assembled in that hall. [Mr. BROADHURST: Nothing of the kind.] For those reasons he wished to oppose the clause which had been submitted by the hon. Member. He considered it nothing more nor less than a direct attempt to wreck the Bill, and it was thoroughly characterized by the hon. Member's action throughout. The hon. Member never liked the Bill, but he never cared to get up in his place in that House and say so. He should undoubtedly divide against the Amendment, because he would be no party to saddling the ratepayers of the parish with the expense of opposing the Bill. He saw that the hon. Member was making signs to his hon. Friend the Member for the Norwood Division of Lambeth (Mr. Bristowe), who was sitting on that side of the House, with a view of inducing him to get up in his place in opposition to him. He was afraid that his hon. Friend, whose constituency the future park was to serve, would have nothing to do with it. He feared that he was much more interested in another scheme which was not quite in so forward a stage. Nevertheless, his name appeared upon the back of the Bill. He sincerely trusted that the House would support him in opposing the clause.

said, his noble Friend (the Mar- guess of Carmarthen) had said that his (Mr. Bristowe's) name was on the back of the Bill. That was quite true, but he put his name on the Bill because he considered it his duty to do so, seeing that he represented the division in which the proposed park was situated. He was certainly not prepared to back up every word that had been stated by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Broadhurst) with reference to this part of Brixton in the division of Norwood not being in want of open spaces. He believed that open spaces were highly advantageous to all parts of London, and he was very much in favour of them. He was certainly not aware of the unseemly meeting which the hon. Member said took place on this piece of ground on Whit Monday. At the same time, he should go into the Lobby with his hon. Friend for this reason, and this reason only—that there was a strong feeling in the parish of Lambeth in regard to this question of the purchase of the park. He, therefore, did not think that any arrangement should be entered into, except with the consent of the ratepayers generally. On the 30th of April a Petition was presented to that House in reference to the Vauxhall Park Bill, which ran on all fours with that scheme from the Lambeth Vestry, asking that the matter should be decided by the ratepayers. Since then there had been another election, and nothing had taken place to alter the decision of the Vestry with regard to that Bill. The question, therefore, should be left to be settled by the ratepayers themselves. Now, he considered that what had taken place with regard to the Vauxhall Park Bill applied also to Brixton, where the feeling undoubtedly ran high. At the last meeting of the Board, on the 14th of June, several divisions upon this question took place, and the voting was in one case 49 to 48, in another 53 to 52, and in a third 51 to 50. Therefore, although he was in favour of open spaces, and his hon. Friend was perfectly aware of that, seeing that the feeling of the parish ran so high, and taking into consideration that the Vestry did not wish to have this power thrown on them, but desired that it should be placed in the hands of the ratepayers, he supported the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend opposite. Perhaps he might have a little more respect for the Vestry than his hon. Friend had. At all events, they were the representative Body of the parish of Lambeth, and he considered that he was only acting in accordance with their wishes and what he believed to be the feelings of the ratepayers of the parish, if he went into the Lobby with his hon. Friend, with a view of throwing the responsibility of the purchase upon the ratepayers.

said, ho wished to make the House acquainted with the exact point which was to be considered. His hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) had posed before the House as a lamb. Now, in the days of Mr. Bernal Osborne, the House used to hear about the Nottingham lambs, but they were always supposed to be able to take care of themselves. He had no doubt that his lion. Friend, one of the present Members for the borough, was quite able to take care of himself. Whatever amount of accuracy there might be in the allegation that the price to be paid for the park was excessive, or that the feeling in Lambeth was against the purchase, none of these questions were involved in the issue before the House. His hon. Friend made many objections to the second reading of the Bill, and ho would make similar objections now. The Bill, however, was read a second time, and no step was ever taken to bring before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred, the allegations which were made on the second reading by the hon. Member. Surely, that House was not a proper tribunal for inquiring into the accuracy of the statements of the hon. Member. The issue before the House was simply this—The Bill had been read a second time, referred to a Committee, and in accordance with a Resolution and Instruction passed by the House, the Committee put into the Bill a provision to enable the votes of the ratepayers, if necessary, to be taken, and the only question now was, in which of two ways should the opinion of the ratepayers be taken upon the question of the purchase. The question of the propriety of the purchase itself was not raised; but the question which was raised was, what guarantee they could have that the ratepayers of Lambeth were in favour of the purchase. In the absence of any opposition, the Committee, before whom the Bill went as an unopposed measure, endeavoured to carry out the desire of the House, and provided that the scheme should not be carried out unless the resolution, which must first of all be taken by the Vestry, was brought before a public meeting of the ratepayers. If such public meeting of the ratepayers decided in favour of the purchase, even then the thing was not complete, if one-fourth of those present demanded a poll. But if the opposition at a public meeting did not amount to one-fourth, then the decision of the public meeting would be held sufficient to ratify the decision of the Vestry. His hon. Friend, on the other hand, wished to have the whole parish put to the expense of a poll, even, though, at a public meeting, especially convened for the purpose, there should not be one-fourth of those present objecting to the scheme. It must also be remembered that this was a very large parish extending from beyond Brixton down to Westminster Bridge. Now, he confessed, that it was a serious matter to go beyond the representative authority of the parish at all, and many Members objected to it on principle; but inasmuch as the House decided that there should be a reference beyond the Vestry, the Committee put in a clause embodying a reference first to a public meeting and then to the ratepayers at large. His hon. Friend insisted that the proper course was to appeal to the ratepapers, even, although, more than three-fourths of those present at the public meeting were in favour of the scheme. Now, if it be true that at that moment the Vestry itself was opposed to the Bill, was it conceivable that the promoters of the scheme would succeed in getting a public meeting, presided over by the rector of the parish, so packed that the opponents of the Bill would not be able to number one-fourth of those present. He certainly thought that they would expose the ratepayers of Lambeth, or any other parish, to very great hardship if they were to insist upon saddling them with the expense of a poll taken for so large a parish, when the Vestry were opposed to the scheme and a public meeting was to be called for an express purpose of giving a decision by a majority of three to one. That was the whole point. If a public meeting decided by three to one, then the matter was complete. He did not think they ought to put the parish to the expense of a poll in opposition to the wishes of three-fourths of the ratepayers assembled at a public meeting. He confessed that that was not a reasonable proposition, and he asked the House to reject it.

asked, might ho point out, in answer to the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Courtney), that he had a considerable natural distrust of the operation of these public meetings. In this case, the ratepayers of Lambeth were threatened to be saddled with an enormous burden of taxation for the purchase of that park, and it was alleged that the sum to be paid for the land was greatly in excess of what it ought to be. He should certainly be disinclined to accept the opinion expressed at a public meeting as the ultimate decision of a parish, because it was perfectly well known that that test had been applied in other cases, and had been found wanting. He thought it would be far better in this case to adopt the course which was pursued in connection with another important matter—namely, the establishment of free libraries. In that case, if there was a difference of opinion, it was competent for a small minority to force a ballot upon the parish, and have a poll taken for the purpose of ascertaining what were the wishes of the ratepayers. It appeared to him, therefore, that the lion. Member for West Nottingham was strictly following a precedent which had been long accepted by the House and the country, in asking that a similar method of ascertaining the wishes of the ratepayers should be adopted on that occasion. He was not, for the moment, going to suggest that any public meeting which might be held on that occasion would be packed or otherwise, but it was a matter of general experience that meetings of that kind had proved very unsatisfactory. Many people were not able to attend them, and many who did attend were unable to give a satisfactory expression to their views. He thought it was worthy of the consideration of the House whether, in view of the County Council which was proposed to be established for the Metropolitan area, and the municipal duties which were about to be conferred upon the Metropolis, it would not be wise and beneficial to the people of Brixton to allow this important question to be decided by that newly constituted authority when it was called into existence, rather than have it thrust on them at the hands of a moribund authority which was certainly not a representative authority. It must be fully borne in mind that if that park was purchased, the burden of taxation in the parish would be greatly increased. He thought the principle he suggested had invariably been acted upon in connection with Acts of Parliament passed by that House, and he trusted that it would be adopted here. He was sure that it was a suggestion worthy of consideration.

said, he was sorry to find himself in conflict with his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham. Ho fully recognized his efforts in reference to the open spaces, and he regretted, therefore, on the present occasion, to find that he could not concur with the views he had expressed. But in all these cases he was opposed to a reference to the ratepayers. As, however, the House gave an Instruction to that effect to the Committee, he had not objected. In the case of Vauxhall Park, if he had been present, he should certainly have opposed the provision which was inserted in the Bill to that effect; but he had not thought it right to propose that the Bill should be altogether rejected on the third reading. He thought that the course suggested by the Chairman of Committees would, to a great extent, remedy the evils which had been pointed out; and he thought that, on the whole, the House would act wisely in agreeing to the clause as it stood in the Bill, and in not adopting that which his hon. Friend proposed to substitute. His only object in rising then was to protest against the insertion in future of clauses of the kind.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is in a position to state the number of applications to fix, under the Land Act of 1881, in which the Land Commissioners have made an order under the 19th section of the Act for the erection of labourers' dwellings, the number of eases in which such orders have been complied with, and the number of cases in which steps have been taken to enforce such orders?

The Land Commissioners inform me that the number of orders referred to is 820, together with one made under Section 3 of the Labourers' Cottages and Allotments Act, 1882. The duty of securing compliance with such order is attached by Statute to the Sanitary Authority of the district concerned; and I find that in order to reply to the concluding portion of the Question it would be requisite to call for Reports from the clerks of each of the Unions in which orders have been made, which would necessarily take some time. If my hon. Friend thinks it necessary I will make further inquiry.

gave Notice f a further Question on Monday.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Why, on the occasion of the recent visit of the Channel Fleet to Belfast Lough, Her Majesty's ships anchored in Bangor Bay instead of the usual man-of-war roads, midway between Bangor and Carrickfergus; whether the anchorage at the roadstead is much superior to that in Bangor Bay; whether the contracts are held in, and the mails sent to and from, Carrickfergus, which necessitated the ships' boats having constantly to cross the Lough; and, whether orders will be given for Her Majesty's ships in the future to adhere to the man-of-war roads?

Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to answer the Question on behalf of the First Lord. The Admiral commanding the Channel Squadron was ordered to visit Belfast Lough in the course of his cruise, but no restriction was placed on his selection of the anchorage which ho considered most convenient. With certain winds the Bangor anchorage is stated to be preferable, and communication with the shore is easier. The Admiralty have no contracts for the delivery of the mails to the Fleet in Home Waters, which is conducted by the ordinary Packet Service of the country. As the Admiral is responsible for the safe conduct of the Fleet, it is not desirable to fetter his discretion in the selection of the place of anchorage for his Squadron, and it is not proposed to issue any orders to that effect. No part of Belfast Lough has been set apart for a man-of-war anchorage, as the Question implies.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, assuming that Major Roe is not able to do the duties in the 5th Battalion Royal Fusiliers which he has actually performed for three years, it is a fact that the remaining seven captains are so inefficient that none of them are fit for promotion, although the drill and discipline of the battalion has been reported to be in the highest state of efficiency up to the date of the honourable Charles Edgcumbe's resignation of the command in 1887; and, whether officers of the Militia are to understand that a certificate from a School of Instruction is not ipso facto official proof of military competency?

I do not think it is desirable that through the medium of Question and Answer a discussion should be carried on as to the relative merits of officers of the Army. I may, however, inform my hon. Friend that two of the captains referred to are not recommended for promotion; and that the remaining five have not yet passed the prescribed examination. The answer to the second part of the Question is given by paragraph 42, Militia Regulations, 1886, which lays down that—

"It is extremely desirable that officers should attend a School of Instruction to learn their duty thoroughly; but the possession of a certificate from a School of Instruction will give no claim to promotion, irrespective of other qualifications which are necessary for superior rank."

(for Sir HENRY ROSCOE) (Manchester, S.) asked the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the statement reported to have been made at an inquest held at Lewisham on June 20, that the son of a chemist and druggist had dispensed eight grains of strychnine in one dose of medicine instead of 1–24th part of a grain, is correct; whether the statements that the son of the chemist was often left in charge of his father's branch shop, and that he passed his examination when he was 15 years of age, are also correct; and, whether, in view of such an alarming accident, the Government will give facilities for the consideration of the Pharmacy Bill now before the House, which is intended to provide against such accidents by requiring all managers of branch shops to be qualified and registered?

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the statements recited in the Question. Speaking for the Government, I should be glad if the Bill to which the hon. Member refers could be proceeded with; but in the present state of Public Business, I cannot undertake to afford it any special facilities.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Resolution passed on the 7th instant by the Cork Board of Guardians with reference to the case of William Robinson; whether it is the fact that this man, aged 58, was removed from the Croydon Union to Cork, his place of birth, notwithstanding that he had gone to reside in England when three years old; whether the Guardians are correct in the complaint they make, that, while English Unions possess the power of deporting paupers who have not obtained a settlement to their place of birth, no corresponding power is possessed by Irish Unions; whether he is aware that the ratepayers of the Cork Union suffer in an especial manner from this state of things, owing to the fact that many strangers, stowaways, and others are landed from vessels touching at Queenstown; and, whether he proposes to amend the Law, so as to put English and Irish Unions on an equality in the matter in question?

The reply to the inquiries in the first three paragraphs is in the affirmative. Complaints have been made by the Board of Guardians of Cork Union to the effect indicated in the fourth paragraph. The consideration of legislation on the subject is, in the present state of Public Business, quite impracticable.

asked, did not the right hon. Gentleman think the matter deserved consideration?

admitted that it did deserve consideration; but he could make no promise of legislation on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the following statement in The Globe of Saturday last is correct—namely:—

"Colonel Battye and Captain Urmston were attacked by Gujars and Akazais while out with 58 Goorkhas and 19 police for an exercise march on the Black Mountain. The troops were a portion of the force of 300 Goorkhas holding Oghi, the outpost which Colonel Battye commanded. They were within our border when fired on near the crest of the Black Mountain. Colonel Battye and Captain Urmston were shot while succouring a wounded Havildar. The bodies of the two officers were taken to Abbotabad, and buried there on Wednesday with military honours. The Punjab Government desired to punish the Akazais for their misconduct last spring by an Expedition, but the Government of India negatived the proposal. The tribe was placed under blockade, and the outpost at Oghi was strengthened to guard against surprise; 250 more men have now been sent down there, and a squadron of Guides. Cavalry will also probably be sent. Besides the two British officers, six Goorkha sepoys were killed, and one Havildar wounded;"

The Secretary of State has received official information of the unhappy loss of two valuable and distinguished officers—Colonel Batty and Captain Urmston—under circumstances which have been described with substantial accuracy in the public Press. He has no official information of any proposal of the Punjab Government to direct an Expedition against the Akazais last spring. Such an Expedition might, no doubt, have cost many lives. In the last Expeditions against the Black Mountain Tribes, in 1868, there were 17 killed and SO wounded. The Secretary of State has no reason to think that the troops attacked were outside the British Frontier.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, before the Government arrive at any conclusion to grant the use of Richmond Park for a Volunteer Camp, an opportunity will be given for the inhabitants of the adjoining parishes of Putney and Roehampton, and other parishes in the borough of Wandsworth, containing 75,000 inhabitants, to consider any proposals which may be in contemplation, and to express their opinions thereon?

The proposals made by the National Rifle Association, with a view to obtaining a site for their annual shooting competition in Richmond Park, were conveyed to me on the 14th of June, but no final decision has yet been taken by the Government on the subject; and any consideration which may be urged within a reasonable time for or against those proposals, either by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood of Richmond or from any other quarter, will be carefully considered.

What does the right hon. Gentleman consider a reasonable time?

I suppose about a fortnight or three weeks.

wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the Government had taken any steps to have a survey and inspection made of other sites suitable for the Volunteers in South-East Essex.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must see that it is quite impossible for me to answer a Question of this kind without Notice.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any Register of Retired Civil Servants fit for service, with a view to reemployment in other branches, has yet been established by the Government pursuant to expectations held out by him on July 26 last in this House; and, if so, where, and whether it is open for inspection; and, if not established, has the scheme yet been laid before, or received the assent of, the Treasury, as was then suggested would be necessary?

I found that the form of such a Register existed under the title of "Civil Pensioners under 50 years of age available for further service." No further scheme or assent of the Treasury was necessary, and I am giving directions to have the Register made up to date; but the Register would not be open to individual inspection. I shall have no objection, however, to a Return being moved for giving the full particulars.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the matter of the vacant Registrarship of Births and Deaths in the No. 1 (sub-divided) Dispensary District of the Poor Law Union of Kilkenny; whether, a vacancy in such Office having occurred in the month of November last, the Guardians, in pursuance of the directions of the Registrar General, proceeded to make an ap- pointment therein within the statutable period of 14 days; that two candidates presented themselves, duly qualified; that one of them, Dr. Hackett, claimed a "preference," pursuant to the Statute (26 Vict. c. 11, s. 23); that the Guardians, having given consideration to this preference, nevertheless, in the lawful exercise of their discretion in the matter, made their selection, and appointed the other candidate, Mr. Carroll, as Registrar, and did then call upon, and have since repeatedly urged, the Registrar General to sanction such appointment; whether, upon the occasion of the previous vacancy in this Office, the same claim of preference having been made by the same medical officer, under precisely similar circumstances, the Registrar General sanctioned the appointment of one Mr. Lalor; and, whether, in view of the public interest, he will call upon the Registrar General to ratify this exercise of the lawful patronage of the Guardians of the Union?

, in reply, said, the Registrar General reported that the facts as stated in the Question were substantially accurate. The difference between the cases in question arose from the fact that legal proceedings were instituted in the latter case, and not in the former. The Registrar General had found it necessary to take legal advice in the matter, and the question was now before the Attorney General for Ireland.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can now state how many fair rent applications from the Union of Ballycastle were heard by the Sub-Commission sitting in County Antrim in July last; whether he can mention how many of the applications then listed for hearing were adjourned; whether he is aware that a number of the applications entered from this Union in the year 1885 still remain undisposed of; and, whether it is the intention of the Land Commission, as was stated, to move to County Antrim in July next the Commission now sitting in County Down?

The Land Commissioners inform me that 35 applications from Ballycastle Union to fix fair rents appeared in the Sub-Commission list for July, 1887. They were all disposed of at that sitting. No applications received in 1885 from that Union remain undisposed of. The oldest outstanding fair rent case was received in June, 1887. The Commissioners find it necessary, having regard to the claims of the County Fermanagh, to move the Sub-Commission sitting in the County of Down to the County Fermanagh for the month of July next.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not a fact that about 3,000 or 4,000 applications by tenants to have fair rents fixed were still remaining unheard in the County Down, and also when a Sub-Commission would next sit there?

said, be was afraid he could not give the hon. Gentleman a more specific answer than he had already given as to the time a Sub-Commission would sit.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether all the Sub-Commissioners whose appointment had been approved of by the Treasury were actually working?

said, that he could give no answer; but the hon. Gentleman knew that he had a plan at present before Parliament for dealing with the existing block in the Land Court.

, speaking on behalf of the tenants in Fermanagh, asked, would the Government take any steps to deal with the great number of applications that still remained unheard in that county?

said, he proposed to take steps to deal with the arrears in the Land Courts by a plan which was embodied in a Bill now before the House.

When is that Bill likely to come on?

That is a Question which I think should be addressed to the Leader of the House. As far as I am concerned, I am extremely anxious to push the Bill forward.

Might I ask the Leader of the House, what steps the Government intend to take with regard to the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill; and if it is not the intention of the Government to take that Bill soon, will the Government take some temporary steps for relieving the block?

I do not know, Sir, whether I am quite in Order in answering the Question now; but if I am, I may say that it is the intention of the Government to make the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill one of the first measures after the Committee on the Local Government Bill. I trust the House will not think it necessary to prolong the discussion on the Bill, seeing that it would interfere with the progress of other important Business.

May I ask the Chief Secretary, whether he is aware that the effect of postponing the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill until after the Local Government Bill will be that no effective steps can be taken to bring the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill, when it passes, into actual operation until the month of November next?

Well, Sir, I do not know that that is the case; but I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the decisions of the Land Court are retrospective, and date from the time that the application is made.

Is it not the fact that, in the meantime, tenants are obliged to pay the old rents?

I am not aware of a single case in which a landlord whose tenants have gone into Court has tried to extract the old rent.

I know of hundreds of cases.

I should be very glad if the hon. Member would furnish me with any of them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that no arrangement has yet been made to hold a sitting of a Sub-Commission in Keady, which it was promised would be held in June; whether about 200 applications to have fair rents fixed in the district of Keady remain unheard; whether he is aware that in a number of these cases eviction notices have been served by the landlords on the applicants; and, if he can state on what date a Sub-Commission will sit at Keady, and the names of the persons who will constitute the Sub-Commission?

The Land Commissioners inform me that in March last they hoped to be in a position to have a Sub-Commission at Keady in June; but the cases in the County of Down were very important, and it was found more to the public advantage to continue the Sub-Commission in that county. There are about 190 applications to fix fair rents undisposed of from the Keady District. The Land Commissioners cannot yet state when the next Sub-Commission will sit at Keady, or the names of the persons who will constitute the Sub-Commission.

asked, whether in view of the positive promise made in March last by the Chief Secretary that a Sub-Commission would sit at Keady in the month of June, he would take steps to see that a Court would immediately sit there, especially as numbers of unfortunate people were threatened with eviction?

said, it was not in his power to determine when a Sub-Commission should sit, nor did he ever give a promise that one would sit at Keady in June. He said that the Commission intended to have a sitting at that place at that time.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state the date on which the Sub-Commissioners will hold their next sitting for the County of Westmeath, and the names of the gentlemen who will constitute the Commission; and, whether, having regard to the large number of fair rent applications remaining undisposed of, an early date will be fixed?

The Land Commissioners inform me that a Sub- Commission sat in the County Westmeath so recently as February and March last. Having regard to the claims of other counties, they are not at present in a position to state when the next sitting will be held.

asked, had not the right hon. Gentleman given a promise that a Sub-Commission would sit in Westmeath at the end of June?

said, he had given no promise.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that of the 100 appeals listed for hearing by the Land Commission at Belfast on July 2 next, 75 are from the Union of Magherafelt, County Derry; whether he is aware that Magherafelt is a Quarter Sessions town, and has a commodious Court-house; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will advise a sitting at Magherafelt, and save the tenants and their witnesses from the long and expensive journey to Belfast?

The Land Commissioners inform me that there are 37 cases only from the Magherafelt Union to be re-heard at Belfast at the approaching sitting, the other cases listed from that Union having been either settled or withdrawn. The cases from Magherafelt Union are listed for hearing at Belfast, as that town is of more easy access than Londonderry, the county town where, under other circumstances, the cases would naturally be heard. In arranging the places where appeals and re-hearings shall be heard, the Commissioners have endeavoured to meet, as far as possible, the convenience of suitors. They cannot undertake to alter their existing arrangements.

asked, if there was any reason why these three gentlemen who constituted the Sub-Commission should not hold a sitting at Magherafelt, having regard to the fact that, on the one hand, only the three of them would have to journey to Magherafelt; while, on the other hand, the whole number of applicants in Magherafelt would have to travel to Belfast?

said, he could not answer without Notice Questions relating to the arrangements of the Land Commissioners.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to the assurance frauds at Belfast, Whether he can now state what steps have been taken to bring to justice the parties responsible for the issue of the policy on the life of Finlay M 'Cance, esquire, J.P., which was obtained in favour of Mr. James Henderson, proprietor of The Belfast News Letter, by means of misrepresentation, and by the forgery of the name of Mr. M 'Cance; whether he can state if the proposal on the life of Mr. M 'Cance was admittedly signed by Mr. Henderson; whether this proposal contained several gross misrepresentations, which induced the issue of the policy by the Company; and whether the name of Mr. Henderson, who obtained the policy was sent forward to the Attorney General with the names of others now on their trial, charged, among other things, with having attempted to obtain policies which were not issued; and, whether the Government intend to take any further proceedings in this matter?

As I have already stated to the hon. Member in reply to previous Questions, I must refuse to answer any Questions relating to the particular facts of this case to which he has referred, pending the proceedings which are now going on.

begged to give Notice that at the earliest opportunity he should call attention to the fact that the Government instituted proceedings against certain persons charged with making fraudulent applications for insurance policies, while they had refrained from instituting a criminal prosecution against the proprietor of The Belfast News Letter, who was charged with having actually obtained a fraudulent policy, and would move—

"That, in the interests of public justice, it was not desirable that the Government should refrain from proceeding with a public investi- gation into a criminal charge when the person charged was the publisher of a newspaper in their interest."

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If voters who receive medical relief on a doctor's order through a relieving officer are disfranchised?

I can hardly undertake to give an abstract opinion of law; but if the hon. Member will mention any particular case, I shall inquire into it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that it is the desire of the residents of south-west Dublin to have Revision Courts established at each polling place in the Division; and, if he will use his influence to give effect to their wishes?

None of the persons concerned appear to have made any representations to the Irish Government on the subject; nor, so far as I can ascertain, is there any necessity for such additional Courts.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, To state the reason why the honourable Recorder of Dublin, in the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Curry," heard at the Quarter Sessions, Kingstown, on April 15, 1887, gave Constable Curry a "special certificate," "exonerating" him from "from all blame;" why, and when, did the Recorder direct the amount of the verdict obtained for the plaintiff to be paid to the jury; and, did the Superintendent of Curry's Division, who was present during the trial, make a Report to the Commissioner of Police, as to the nature of the evidence; if so, was it sent forward, with the cer- tificate given by the Recorder, to the Attorney General, who sanctioned the payment of the verdict and costs out of the public funds?

, in reply, said, he was unable to state what the Judge's reasons were in the matter, nor had he the right or the desire to inquire into them. The Superintendent's Report was submitted to the Attorney General.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he would be prepared to instruct the Board of Inland Revenue to remit the penalties payable on stamping instruments executed prior to the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888, which are presented to them for the purpose at any time before the 1st of January next?

The question has been fully considered; and the penalties payable on stamping instruments executed prior to the passing of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act of 1888 will be remitted, subject to certain conditions, which will be laid down in a Memorandum which will be issued to solicitors and others by the Board of Inland Revenue.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will order an inquiry to be held into the conduct of the Sub-Sheriff in evicting Hugh Bogue when he was in a dying condition; whether the attention of the Government has been called to the statement of Father M'Kenna, P.P., of Clogher, that he publicly protested at the eviction that the man was absolutely dying when carried out; and, whether, in view of these facts, the Government intend to take any steps to prevent the forces of Her Majesty being used to evict under such circumstances?

The District Inspector who was in charge of the Constabulary reports that the facts are as stated. Father M'Kenna arrived after the formalities of the eviction had been completed, and Bogue was being placed in a cart. He appears to have said that it was a hard case, and that a medical certificate ought to have been procured; but this was after the eviction was over. The tenant had paid no rent for five years; in fact, from the period that his fair rent was originally determined.

I beg to give Notice that on the Constabulary Vote I will call attention to the indefensible use of the Constabulary in Ireland for the purpose of evicting people.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether a Sheriff in Ireland had power by law to postpone an eviction when it appears that the lives of the persons to be evicted are in danger; and, whether the police in such a case have instructions to refrain from carrying out such evictions? [No reply.]

I wish to ask—

Order, order!

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will explain the nature of the recent troubles in Zululand; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will refrain from any action in South Africa likely to lead to a war with any of the Native Tribes?

The recent troubles have been caused by Dinizulu, the son of Cetewayo, who has, without justification, attacked other Chiefs in Zululand and Government police stations. Her Majesty's Government have at no time relaxed their efforts to carry out the policy best calculated to prevent the recurrence of war with Native Tribes, and have no reason to think that that policy has failed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any further information as to the state of affairs in Zululand?

The following telegram was received on Tuesday from the Governor of Natal, in reply to an inquiry from the Secretary of State:—

"Your telegram of yesterday. Usibepu and followers were attacked and defeated by Usutus near Ivuna, 23rd June. It has consequently been found advisable to withdraw police office at Ivuna, which was attacked at the same time. Usibepu took refuge with police. No casualties among police. Force sent from Nkon-jeni safely returned yesterday; brought back all from Ivuna, including Usibepu and families, women, and wounded of his tribe. Have just conferred with Lieutenant General, Cape of Good Hope, as to sufficient number for force. He reserves opinion until arrival in Zululand, whither he proceeds to-morrow."

asked, whether it was not the case that Dinizulu was merely re-capturing cattle that had been stolen from him by Usibepu; and whether the land had not been in the possession of Dinizulu for several years; and, whether Usibepu, since he was sent there, had begun cattle raiding, as he had done before? He further wished to ask, whether other native allies were being used in this manner; and whether the Government would take care that this did not happen again?

Order, order! The Question was to ask the Under Secretary whether he had any information. The Questions must be given Notice of in the usual way.

asked, whether the Government had given General Smyth, who would proceed in a short time to Zululand, any particular instructions with regard to the disposition of the force there?

I do not think that it would be in the interest of the Public Service that I should give information to the House.

I beg to give Notice that on the Estimates I will call attention to the action of the Government, which is certainly leading up to another war in Zululand.

rose to put another Question.

Order, order!

I want to—

Order, order!

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on Saturday the 24th instant, Mr. Michael Noud, T.C., of Roscommon, having driven from there to Boyle, a distance of 20 miles, upon important business, on arriving there at 1.30 p.m. and calling at the only hotel in the town, Monson's Hotel, was refused admission or refreshment for himself or his horse by order of the police, who told the hotel owner to "admit no outsiders;" whether Mr. Noud again applied at 4.30 p.m., and was again refused for the same reason, and was obliged to drive to Elphin, a distance of nine miles, before he could get anything to eat or drink; whether Noud's son and two others who were in his company were treated in the same way, although they, as well as Mr. Noud, claimed and were entitled to be served as bonâ fide travellers, and were ready and willing to pay for what they required; and, if the facts stated are found correct, what steps the Government propose to take in the matter?

The local Constabulary authorities report that on Sunday (not Saturday), the 24th, in view of apprehended disturbances, the magistrates ordered that all sellers of retail drink should close their houses. In accordance with this order—not by order of the police—Mr. Noud and his party were refused admission to Monson'S Hotel, which was included in the order.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Superintendent of the Carriage Department, Royal Arsenal, employs several of the employés of the Department as members of the crew of his private pleasure yacht; whether he can give the names and character of the employment respectively of the several persons so employed, and the several periods at which all or any of such employés were absent from their duties at the Arsenal, and, if by leave, then by whom such leave was granted; and, whether the pay and allowances of such persons continue during their respective absences?

I am informed that there are no men belonging to the Royal Carriage Department employed on the yacht referred to; nor have any men been so employed while belonging to the Department.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether there is at present any Secretary to the Board of Customs, since the abolition by the Treasury of the post last year to secure a saving of £1,400; whether there are more than two Surveyors General; whether one of them is now acting as Secretary; why the Estimates provide for a resuscitation of the post of Secretary, and also for three Surveyors General; and, what has become of the reduction effected last year?

The post of Secretary to the Board of Customs never was abolished, only suspended; so there is no question of its resuscitation. There are at present only two Surveyors General, one of whom is also acting temporarily as Secretary, and there is also a Surveyor acting temporarily as Surveyor General; the third Surveyor Generalship is thus also in abeyance. The Estimates provide for a Secretary at a salary of £1,200, and for three Surveyors Generals, the same as last year. The ultimate staff is dependent upon the question of amalgamation; but, in any case, there will have to be a Secretary for Customs business. In the meantime, it is necessary to make pro- vision for the normal strength of the Office, until some decision is come to as to the practicability of amalgamation. But, of course, the money will not be spent unless the places are filled up.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that helmets, knapsacks, gaiters, pouches, and other accoutrements, have been for about 18 months, and still continue to be, manufactured for the British Army in a foreign prison by a large contractor still on the Government list of selected firms at prices much below even those paid to sweaters; whether the condemned mule traces at Woolwich are now being fitted with new iron squares; and, if so, whether it is intended to issue them to the troops in the event of war; whether saddles are now being padded with what is described by an eye-witness as filthy, rotten hair out of condemned hospital beds; and, whether he has consulted the Law Officers of the Crown as to the possibility of proceeding against contractors who supply, and officials who admit, bad stores under the existing law?

In answer to the first Question, the War Office has no reason for suspecting the existence of any such practice as that referred to. If the hon. Member will give me privately the name of the contractor he refers to, further inquiry shall be made. In answer to the second Question, no condemned mule traces are being fitted with iron squares, or are to be issued to the troops. In answer to the third Question, no saddles are being padded with filthy, rotten hair out of condemned hospital beds. I should like to add that the hon. Member, by holding personal communication with disaffected workmen at Woolwich, is doing his best to make the maintenance of discipline impossible.

Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is exceeding the usual limits of an answer to a Question.

I at once bow to your ruling, Sir. I withdraw at once this statement, which I recognize I should not have made I Wish add, however, that the duty of any man there, if he thinks he sees anything going on which is detrimental to the Public Service, is to report it to Colonel Barrington. In answer to the last Question, there can, I think, be little doubt as to the existing law; but I am taking further advice upon the subject.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he knows that I have communicated with anybody whatever except the man Dunn, who disclosed the whole of this scandal?

I am not able to express any opinion about that; but as the hon. Member refers to an eyewitness as to what took place recently, I have no doubt the information has been communicated to him.

Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in describing Dunn and Moody as disaffected workmen?

I have not done so in any way.

But the right hon. Gentleman distinctly said that I had been in communication with disaffected workmen.

Owing to your ruling, Sir, I am not able to deal with that particular part of my answer.

I shall refer to this matter when the Vote for the Director of Contracts comes on.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Colony of New Zealand has passed an Act or Acts granting special fiscal advantages or bounties on the manufacture and export of sugar; whether the repeal of these Acts forms part of the policy of abolishing sugar bounties contemplated in the recent negotiations; and, whether there are any other British Colonies which give bounties on the manufacture or export of sugar?

There is an Act in New Zealand to encourage the cultivation of beetroot and sorghum for the purpose of making sugar. It was passed in 1884. It is practically inoperative; and the Colonial Government have undertaken to enter into the Sugar Bounty Convention. According to the latest information in the Department, there is no other Colony which gives any bounty on the manufacture or exportation of sugar.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Irish Local Government Board and the Irish Registrar General took any, and, if so, what steps, to ascertain whether Mr. Peter Sweeny was arrested at any time under "The Prevention of Crime (Ireland) Act, 1882," before refusing to sanction his appointment by the Loughrea Board of Guardians to the offices of Sanitary Officer and District Registrar, on the grounds that Mr. Sweeny was arrested on a charge of suspicion of murder in the years 1880, 1881, or 1882; whether there is any truth whatever in the statement that Mr. Peter Sweeny was ever under arrest on such a charge; whether he is aware that Mr. Sweeny has undertaken, by contract, to sink two wells in the Craughwell Division, and has had to suspend work, after having gone a considerable depth, because of the refusal to grant him a licence for dynamite and blasting powder necessary for the work; whether, for the same cause, he is unable to proceed with the building of two schools in the parish of Kiltulla; and, if he can state the grounds for the persecution to which Mr. Peter Sweeny is subjected?

The Local Government Board, in the course of their inquiries, ascertained that Sweeny had been in prison for three weeks in Galway Prison under the Peace Preservation Act; and, further, that his antecedents were such as to render him an unfit person for service under the Poor Law Acts. It is the case that he was arrested on the 4th of July, 1882, under the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881, on suspicion of being accessory to murder, and his two brothers were likewise arrested on the same suspicion. The Guardians did not make an appointment within the statutable period to the vacant office of Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, which thereupon vested in the Lord Lieutenant, who appointed the interim Registrar, who had discharged satisfac- torily the duties of assistant and deputy for some time. I am not aware of what contracts the man may have undertaken. The responsible authorities, however, cannot consent to his holding a licence for dynamite and powder.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the documents containing particulars of the financial condition of the University and other Colleges in England have now been received; and, whether, if so, he can state when the Education Department will be able to report to the Treasury thereon?

The information asked for has, I believe, been made complete within the last few hours, and the Department will lose no time in making their Report to the Treasury.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether, with reference to the equitable provisions of "The Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1887," he is aware that in holdings where the gale day is the 1st November, and where there is only one gale day in the year, the tenant to whom the section applies was, under the 29th section, entitled to adjustment of the rent for the year ending November 1, 1887; whether it was intended that he should also be entitled to adjustment of the rent for the years ending November 1, 1888, and November 1, 1889; whether he is aware that, with regard to the second year's adjustment in such cases, the section provides that it shall be for the year commencing from November 1 (the first gale day) in 1888, and no provision is made for adjustment of the rent for the year ending on November 1, 1888; and, whether, considering this serious defect in the section, he will advise the Government to take steps to have it remedied?

I will give the matter my very best consideration, having regard particularly to the fourth paragraph of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that on Wednesday last, when the people were quietly and peaceably moving from the Dundalk Railway Station, where they had met the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) and his friends, Mr. Cullen, Divisional Magistrate, ordered the dragoons and constabulary to stop the procession, and thereby caused considerable confusion and disorder, during which several persons were thrown down and injured; and, whether Mr. Cullen had received instructions from Dublin Castle to act in this way?

also asked, whether it was not admitted on all hands that the people of Dundalk and Louth were exceedingly peaceable and law-abiding people; that the crowd on this occasion were perfectly orderly, and largely composed of women and children; that being so, what was the object of an armed demonstration on the day against respectable men, women, and children; and he would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not also true that a large number of people were injured in Dundalk on that occasion by police and military?

I do not know the circumstances referred to well enough to express an abstract opinion on the peaceableness of the Dundalk people. Mr. Cullen reports that he did not act in the manner described, and he had no instructions from Dublin Castle to do so. He is not aware that any persons were injured.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will hold an inquiry? I assure him that I heard Mr. Cullen using the words.

Order, order!

Since the information supplied to the right hon. Gentleman differs entirely from that which was given in the Press, and stated by hon. Members of this House and other eyewitnesses, will he make a full and open inquiry into the matter? [No reply.]

said, he hoped he would be excused for again asking the Chief Secretary what he was going to do with regard to what happened on the occasion of Mr. Dillon's trial? He had it on the best authority that a number of his constituents were ridden over by the dragoons and struck down by the police with their batons. Was the right hon. Gentleman going to let the matter fall to the ground because the incriminated person said these things did not happen? Would he grant an inquiry? He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, was it a fact that the chief officer who had charge of the police on that occasion was the same who was gravely censured by the late Under Secretary for compounding a charge which was made against him of perjury and assault?

I have not the slightest idea of what the hon. Member refers to in the latter part of his Question. As to the former part, I may remind him that the incidents occurred on the occasion of a very large gathering of people, at a time when a gentleman was being tried on appeal. On such an occasion it is absolutely necessary to take precautions, and it is almost absolutely necessary to disperse the crowd. Of course, that ought to be done, if possible, without injury to anyone. I am not aware, nor are the police aware, that any people were injured on this occasion; and if the hon. Gentleman is aware of it, I am very sorry.

Is it not the function of a public highway to allow people to proceed quietly and unmolested?

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

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was not lawful for Mr. Dillon and his friends to proceed from the railway to the Court House without molestation?

That does not make it right to have a large concourse of people accompanying him in triumphal procession.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman, is it not the fact that the large concourse of people were in town because it was a fair-day, and because they had business to transact?

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether there was any threatened disturbance to justify the attack on the people?

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if in the necessary precautions for taking a prisoner for trial in Ireland is included the breaking of people's heads?

Order, order!

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. John Dillon, while exempt from all forms of prison labour, has access to books and writing materials in the infirmary of Dundalk Prison?

, in reply, said, he could not answer the Question without further Notice; but he could tell the hon. Gentleman that the ordinary Prison Rules were applied in the case of Mr. Dillon the same as in that of any other prisoner.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would consider, in this case, whether a condition of laborious idleness was not more exasperating and injurious than hard labour itself.

As Mr. Dillon has been placed in the infirmary in consequence of the condition of his health, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the medical officer of the prison has the power of ordering him the means of reading and writing?

I believe it is in the power of the medical officer of the prison to take any steps for the preservation of the health of any prisoner in his charge.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in view of the recommendations of the Committee appointed by him to inquire into the accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial at the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction, he proposes to take any, and, if so, what, action to remedy the present defective arrangements?

I am now in communication with the Office of Works and the other authorities in whom the control of the Police Courts of the Metropolis is vested, and have earnestly invited their co-operation in carrying out such alterations as will be necessary to secure an improved accommodation for prisoners awaiting trial. I have also communicated with the authorities responsible for the accommodation at all Stipendiary Courts; and I have, in several instances, received from them satisfactory assurances that substantial improvements will be effected. I have now under my consideration the best course to pursue with the view of securing satisfactory accommodation at the Petty Sessional Courts throughout the country. That is a much larger question, owing to the number of such Courts.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether under the arrangements for the Summer Assizes on the Midland Circuit a week is given at Aylesbury, where there is little business, and two days are given at Leicester, where there is much business; whether these arrangements have been made after communicating with the leading counsel on the Circuit; and, whether he will endeavour to induce Her Majesty's Judges to give more time for the business at Leicester?

I am informed by the Lord Chancellor that at Aylesbury (where the Assizes have already been held) there was one clear day—namely, Monday, the 25th—besides the Commission Day. At Leicester the Commission Day is on July 10, and the next Commission Day (at Oakham) is on the 13th, giving two clear days. The arrangements are made by the Judge going the Circuit, after ascertain- ing the probable amount of business, in such manner as he thinks fit. It is part of the Circuit system that no case shall be left untried; and if the time allowed for Leicester proves to be insufficient the Commission Day at the next place will be deferred.

asked the Postmaster General, By whose authority are the letters of Irish Members of Parliament opened in the post; and, if he will take steps to put an end to the practice?

To the Question of the hon. Baronet the answer is simple—that it is not in my power to put an end to a practice which does not exist.

If a case is put into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in which letters to an Irish Member from his constituents were opened, will he order an inquiry to be made into the matter? I also wish to ask him, is it not a fact that there is in the post office at Cork an individual especially employed for the "Grahamising" of letters from America?

Certainly. I will have an inquiry made into any case that may be brought before me.

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the practice does exist.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is correct that Her Majesty's Privy Council has advised Her Majesty to grant a "Supplemental Charter" to the Royal College of Surgeons of England; and, whether the said Charter recognizes, and, if so, to what extent, the claims of the members of the College to take part in the election of, and to representation on the Council of the said College, as embodied, with other requests, in a Petition signed by 4,665 members, and presented to the Privy Council in May, 1887; if not, whether Her Majesty's Ministers will be prepared, at the urgent request of the members, to recommend Her Majesty to delay the granting of the said Supplemental Charter until such time as a Report from a Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the constitution of the College and the position of its members shall have been received, or until some further investigation shall have been made into the several matters contained in a Petition of the Members to the Privy Council?

The Lords of the Council have agreed to advise Her Majesty to grant a Supplemental Charter to the Royal College of Surgeons of England. The Charter does not in any way deal with the question of election. The Government do not consider it necessary to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the constitution of the College, or the postponement of the grant of a Charter, which does not affect any of the questions which have been matters of controversy.

gave Notice that, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, he would move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her Majesty not to grant a Supplemental Charter until such time as a full inquiry had been made into the constitution of the College.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What are the Regulations of the Treasury as to the disclosure by officials of public scandals of which they have knowledge; whether such knowledge constitutes an official secret; and, whether an official, who is aware of such scandals, and has unsuccessfully brought them to the notice of his official superiors, renders himself liable to punishment for disclosing, in good faith, the fact that the public, his masters, are thereby being injured?

There are no general instructions to officials as to the disclosure of public scandals of which they may have knowledge, although there are instructions relative to the divulgence of official documents. It would be the duty of a public servant to report an official scandal to his chiefs. Any official who is aware of such scandals, and has unsuccessfully brought them to the notice of his official superiors and to the notice of the Government, would, undoubtedly, be protected for disclosing, in good faith, the fact that the public, his masters, are being injured. But such public servant is under the same responsibility as other subjects; and the fact of his being a public servant would not protect him if he should make false charges, or should publish libels on character.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps, if any, he has yet taken to give effect to the Resolution of this House for the abolition of perpetual pensions; and, whether, in accordance with the remainder of that Resolution, the Government are now prepared to make any statement to the House on the subject of pensions generally?

A Treasury Minute on the subject of perpetual pensions has been prepared, and will shortly be laid on the Table. The question of pensions generally is, I understand, being dealt with by the Commission on Civil Service Establishments, and I have every reason to believe that they will report very shortly.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will take into consideration the advisability of requiring from all future recipients of literary pensions an assurance, similar to that obtained by the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) from certain political pensioners, that in case they should receive a considerable addition to their incomes they will cease thereafter to draw their pensions?

asked, whether, in the event of the reply of the right hon. Gentleman being in the affirmative with regard to these small allowances, it would be possible to carry out the same arrangement in the case of statutory allowances to ex-Cabinet Ministers?

I think the answer will cover that ground also. The Act (1 Vict. c. 2), under which Civil List pensions are granted, gives no power to the Government to demand from recipients the assurance suggested by the hon. Member. These pensions, which are not largely literary, are, for the most part, granted to those who, in addition to other claims on the nation, are in urgent need of such assistance; and in the Annual Return made to this House of pensions granted during the year a statement to that effect is made. The pensions being given on these grounds, I think the question of their surrender on accession of wealth may be left, as in the case of the political pensions alluded to, to the honour of the recipients.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he had given private Notice, Whether his attention has been called to the publication in that day's Times of the Majority Report of the Royal Commission on Education; whether last week a confidential document, together with some conclusions of the Commissioners, did not appear in the same journal; whether the Report of the Commission, or any part of it, had yet been received at the Home Office to be submitted to Her Majesty; and, if not, whether he could in any way account for this scandalous irregularity? He (Mr. Mundella) found that a Manchester paper had also published what purported to be a complete version of the 143 paragraphs of the Majority Report, as well as an indication of the Report of the minority.

I was aware that the Majority Report was published in this morning's paper. It has not yet reached the Home Office; and I am at a loss to understand how any gentleman who has access to a document which is confidential and has not been laid before Her Majesty can possibly have communicated it to the Press.

Has it escaped the observation of the right hon. Gentleman that the Report only appeared in The Times?

Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to follow up this scandalous ease of breach of confidence?

I wish to ask, whether the Government are prepared to take any measures to prevent and punish such scandalous breaches of public confidence?

asked, whether the observation of the right hon. Gentleman covered the confidential Memorandum referred to in the Question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield?

I had not noticed the publication of the Memorandum. With regard to the other matter, I will certainly inquire how it is that this document has been published. There is a Bill on the Table that may possibly reach such a case; but, except in that manner, I know of no other way of punishing it.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had noticed that the document had not appeared in any other London paper except The Times?

I have not seen all the London papers; but I will take it from the hon. Member that it is so.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would grant, as an unopposed Return, a copy of the shorthand writer's notes of the Judgment delivered in the Killeagh conspiracy case on the 20th of June?

I think that there were no official shorthand notes taken; but, even apart from that, it would be extremely inconvenient to present them.

Then will the Chief Secretary lay on the Table a copy of the document—whatever it was—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer quoted in the course of the recent debate?

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not quote from any official documents. The rule is to lay upon the Table official documents from which extracts are quoted. This was not an official document.

What was the manuscript from which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Solicitor General for Ireland quoted the language of the Lord Chief Baron and other Judges?

I must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be kind enough to answer the Question; because the practice—which is new—has become so habitual on the Ministerial Bench of quoting documents night after night which they do not produce. ["Order!"] I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the documents from which he quoted?

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the Question on another occasion.

I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a shorthand note of the Judges' Charges taken by a person paid by public money?

I believe it was not. But if the hon. Member will put a Question again I will answer him categorically; but I believe it was not.

asked, When the Parliamentary Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland Bill would be further proceeded with?

It cannot possibly be taken until after the Committee stage of the Local Government Bill. In reply to Mr. LABOUCHERE (Northampton),

said, that some Votes on the Civil Service Estimates would probably be taken on Monday. He would, however, make a statement to-morrow as to the order of Business.

Will there be a Morning Sitting tomorrow.

Certainly.