asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why, although 40 Metropolitan Police constables out of 44 against whom charges having been preferred during the past 12 months of excess of duty have been acquitted, 10 only have been assisted in their defence from public funds; and why the Rule, that the cost of meeting unfounded charges arising out of official duty should be recouped, was suspended in the case of the remaining 30; and, if, having regard to the disastrous consequences frequently resulting from even a false criminal accusation, in the default of legal power for a defendant to recover costs from a prosecutor unable to substantiate his charge, and certified by the presiding Judge or magistrate to have acted upon insufficient grounds, be will consider the adjustment of the Criminal Law in this particular to the liability of an unsuccessful plaintiff in a civil suit?

The Rule was not suspended in the case of the 30 constables referred to; but these were either cases of so simple a nature that there seemed to be no necessity for the employment of a professional advocate, or they were cases in which the charge did not arise out of the performance of police duty. In one or two cases special circumstances existed which demanded special consideration. I have consulted the Lord Chancellor as to the latter paragraph of the Question; and he is of opinion that the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings is so marked that the Government are unable to hold out any hope that they will undertake legislation of the kind suggested.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, among the subjects on which Her Majesty's Government contemplate early legislation, the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which reported in 1883 on Reformatory and Industrial Schools, and the repeated promises of measures on these important subjects have been borne in mind; and, when the Bills which have been prepared for these objects will be introduced?

These Bills will, I hope, be introduced in the House of Lords in the course of the present Session.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been directed to the First Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the Law relating to the Registration of Deeds and Assurances in Ireland, page 100, whence it appears that the official searching room is wholly inadequate and utterly un- wholesome; that there is great complaint by the staff of the ill effects upon their health of the system of heating by hot water pipes; that these complaints are well-founded; that the mode of generating heat in the Office is unwholesome; and that the Treasury are losing because the staff are suffering from ill-health; whether any steps will be taken to remedy these evils, which have, after the lapse of nine years from the tendering of this evidence, increased; and, whether he will be prepared to grant a Return showing how many of the 62 officers and clerks who were on the permanent staff of the Office in June, 1878, are now in the Department, and a Return showing the annual Revenue derived during the five years ending on the 31st day of December, 1887, by the Exchequer through the operation of the Registry of Deeds Office; (a.) On account of Duty stamps on muniments; (b.) On account of fee stamps; and the annual cost to the Treasury during the same period?

The Report of the Commission was made in 1881, since which date the staff to be accommodated in the Registry of Deeds has been reduced from 69 to 50, and it will be further reduced, as vacancies occur, to 48. I have no reason to believe that the existing staff is in excess of the capabilities of the building, or that the latter is not in a wholesome condition; but it is hoped that arrangements may before long be made which will render it possible to transfer the work and staff of the Registry of Deeds to the building in Henrietta Street, now occupied by the officers of the Probate Court. For the last five years the average receipts in stamps have been £12,551, and the average cost of the Office, including non-effective and other charges, £20,668. Probably, with this information, the hon. Member will not think it necessary to press for a Return.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the four deaths which have taken place between the 17th and 21st of July, owing to persons being run over at level crossings by trains at Sittingbourne, Harecastle Junction, Ayton, near Scarborough, and Whyke Lane crossing, near Chichester; whether these deaths were all due to want of proper precautions on the part of the four Railway Companies; whether his attention has been called to the automatic electric alarm, invented by Mr. W. F. Folks, of 30, Mark Lane; and, whether he will have it examined by a Board of Trade Inspector, and if found suitable, have it recommended to these and other Railway Companies?

, in reply, said, that the attention of the Board of Trade had been called to the deaths in question; but he was not aware whether they were all due to want of proper precaution on the part of the Railway Companies. With regard to the invention in question, it was for the Railway Companies, and not for the Board of Trade, to decide on the respective merits of inventions.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in view of the approaching school board elections this autumn, he will recommend to those persons who fix the seven hours during which the poll may remain open that they should in all cases arrange to have it open between 6 and 8 p.m., for the convenience of the working-class electors; and, whether he is aware that in many places at the last election it was only open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.?

By regulations which have been substituted for those to which the hon. Member refers, the Education Department have directed that the poll in every school board election shall be open between the hours of 6 and 8 p.m.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the post office which for the last 30 years was held in the village of Kilmore, County Roscommon, has recently been changed from there to a public-house half a mile distant; whether the wishes of the people within the postal district have been consulted; if so, how; on what date was the resignation of the late Postmistress made known; when was her successor appointed, and if an opportunity was afforded eligible persons in the village of Kilmore to apply for the appointment; and, whether, in view of the fact that the granting of a post office to be held on licensed premises is contrary to the Regulations, and that the new site is objectionable and inconvenient to the people of the district, he will direct that the office be re-opened in Kilmore?

, in reply, said, no appointment had yet been made to the post office at Kilmore. The late Postmistress resigned on June 30, and on July 4 the office was placed in the temporary charge of the present occupant. The house was a public-house; but the post office was shut off from the licensed premises. The house was in a convenient position. Inquiry was now being made as to the qualification of the candidates, and care would be taken to appoint a suitable person.

, having lived in the place all his life, assured the Postmaster General that he was entirely mistaken in saying that the post office was in a convenient position.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the contract for the building for the new police offices on the Embankment has been yet let; and, if so, to whom; and, whether the granite and stonework for the building is being prepared by the convicts at Dartmoor and Portland respectively; and, if so, whether this work is done for the Government, or whether the convict labour is hired by contractors, and, if the latter, by what contractors?

Yes, Sir; the contract for this building has been let to Messrs. Grover and Sons. The granite required for the lower portion of the building has been worked by convict labour at Dartmoor. The work is done for the Government, and the Receiver of Police pays all expenses incurred, including delivery on the ground. The contract was concluded on the understanding that all the granite would be delivered free of cost, and the contractor derives no benefit therefrom.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that Mr. Dunn, a witness in the recent exposures of the scandals in the Saddlery Inspection Department at Woolwich, has recently been twice passed over for the appointment of viewer in favour of two men, both of whom are his juniors in the Service; and, if so, who is responsible for this treatment; and, whether Mr. Dunn is referred to in the Judge Advocate General's Report as a person who thoroughly understood his business?

also asked, Whether the Judge Advocate General had not stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Dunn, as a viewer, was a far more valuable man than Inspector Spicer himself; and, whether he would interfere to prevent Mr. Dunn from being unjustly punished?

As to the Question whether I will interfere to prevent the improper punishment of Mr. Dunn, I have already denied that there has been, or can be, any improper punishment inflicted in his case. If the hon. Member wishes for further information on the matter, I must request him to give me Notice in the usual way. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I have to say that of the two men who were the principal witnesses in the recent inquiry at Woolwich, one (Moody) is shortly to be promoted. The other (Dunn) has been passed over in favour of men who were better fitted to become viewers.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake that, during his term of office, Mr. Dunn should not be a marked man?

He is not, and will not be, a marked man. I can undertake to say that full justice will be done him.

said, that it was not to be expected that he carried the Report of the Judge Advocate General in his pocket. If the hon. Member desired further information on the subject, he must ask him to give Notice of his Question.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is now able to state the result of his inquiry into the pollution of the Regent's Canal by the sewage of the Zoological Gardens?

The alleged insanitary condition of the Regent's Canal is one which very remotely affects my Office; and, after consulting the Local Government Board upon the subject, I can only point out to the hon. Member that if those who dwell in the neighbourhood of the Canal find that they suffer seriously from the impure state of the water, they may again endeavour to set their Vestries in motion with a view to the abatement of the nuisance, or they might, if they were so advised, take proceedings to bring the case before the Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the 13th section of 23 & 24 Vict. c. 77.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Common known as Fortune Green, Hampstead, is being enclosed; and, whether the provisions of the Metropolis Commons Act of 1866 have been complied with in this case?

I am informed by the Metropolitan Board of Works that the Common in question is a piece of roadside waste of about two-and-a-half acres. Last year the Board was informed that there was a proposal to build upon it, and the Board was asked to interfere, and to preserve the ground as an open space. The parish authorities were, however, unwilling that the Board should interfere; and as the area of the ground was small, and Hampstead was well provided with open spaces, it appeared to the Board not to be a case in which it was desirable to set in motion the procedure under the Commons Act of 1866.

said, that the question of the right to enclose a Common could be raised by an action at law.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that an offer has been received from the officer commanding the 4th Lancashire Artillery Volunteers to horse and drive, at his own expense, a 16-pounder Battery, as in a Field Battery, R.A.; and, if so, what answer the War Office preposes to return to it?

Yes, Sir; it is the fact that in a most patriotic spirit this offer has been made by Lieutenant Colonel Belcher and his officers. I recognize it as one among many proofs of the loyal devotion which characterizes our Volunteer Forces. It is one which primarily must be considered by the Commander-in-Chief, and I propose to consult with him on the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, since the reply given by him last Session, further surveys of the Raian Basin have been made by the Egyptian Government; whether those surveys have conclusively demonstrated the feasibility of the project of Mr. Cope Whitehouse to utilize the basin as a storage reservoir for the Nile flood; if it is true that Nubar Pasha has stated that an expenditure of £2,000,000 upon such a scheme would be recoverable in the value of lands reclaimed; whether he is aware that responsible contractors have offered to cut the canal and construct the essential works for £250,000; and, whether Her Majesty's Government are disposed to give any encouragement to the Egyptian Government in furthering the accomplishment of so important an undertaking?

The question of the feasibility and the expense of Mr. Cope Whitehouse's project are matters upon which the Egyptian Government must necessarily be guided by the opinion of its technical advisers. We have not received a copy of Nubar Pasha's observations on the scheme; but Sir Evelyn Baring has sent home a copy of a Memorandum by Sir C. Moncrieff in reply to those observations. Sir C. Moncrief estimates the cost of the undertaking at £1,800,000, and deprecates its being proceeded with for some years to come. Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in interfering with the discretion of the Egyptian Government in the matter, or in encouraging them to undertake so large and uncertain an expenditure in the present state of their finances without the most careful consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Phillips, of Ballygar, who draws lodging allowance with his pay, has a house rent free from Mr. John Bagot, for acting as gatekeeper for him; whether the constable was changed from Ballygar in February last; whether, on Mr. Bagot's application to County Inspector John Mark O'Brien, he was changed back to Ballygar, and resumed his position in the gatehouse; and, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the Force that a constable may discharge the duties and receive the remuneration above referred to?

, in reply, said, the Inspector of Constabulary reported that it was the case that the constable referred to had a house from the gentleman named; but it was not the case that he had acted as caretaker. It was true that he was transferred; but he was re-transferred at his own request. The constable, being a married man, was not accommodated in the barracks. There was no objection to his holding a house rent free if he could get it; but he was prohibited from rendering service for it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any representations have been made to the Irish Government by the people of South County Dublin, with a view to having Revision Courts held at the different polling stations in the districts; and, if so, whether, in consideration of the hardship imposed upon so many labouring men who have to travel long distances, in some cases repeatedly, to attend the present Revision Courts to secure their votes, losing, very often, several days' pay by so doing, the request will be granted?

Representations have not been made to the Irish Government in favour of having Revision Courts at all the polling stations in South County Dublin, nor, as I am informed, is there any need whatever for such. An application, however, has been received from the Secretary of the South Dublin Nationalist Registration Society for the establishment of a Registration Court in Cabinteely for the convenience of the people of that polling district, and this will be done.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can give the House any information respecting a tribal conflict arising out of a land dispute between Maoris in Whangarei District, New Zealand, in which several Natives are said to have been killed or wounded, as reported in The Times, of 23rd July?

(who replied) said: No official information has been received on this subject; and it is not apprehended that the disturbance referred to, if correctly reported, has any political significance. It appears to have been a quarrel among the Natives in a district in which there are few European settlers.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury. Whether, as stated in the Thirty-Fourth Report of the Department of Science and Art, page xli., the duties of the Lady Inspector of Lace-making in Ireland are confined to—

"Affording advice to the convents in Ireland upon the commercial necessities of trade in lace, as well as upon the variations of fashion and the adoption of good work materials;"

whether the appointment was created at the suggestion of the Lord Lieutenant to supplement and not to supersede the lectures on designing given by Mr. Alan Cole; and, whether, in view of the requests for Mr. Cole to resume his lectures, as well as of the fresh applications which have been made for his services, arrangements may be made for Mr. Cole to lecture at the lacemaking centres in Ireland not less frequently than twice a-year?

When the appointment was first made of the Lady Inspector it was intended that she should visit the schools where lacemaking is taught, inspect the quality of the work, advise as to the best designs and patterns, and as to the relative commercial values of the work turned out. It is not easy to draw a line between her functions and the lectures given by Mr. Alan Cole; but I may say that arrangements have been made, subject to a limit of expense, which will prevent the entire discontinuance of Mr. Cole's lectures.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, in view of the conflict of opinion between the Cork County Grand Jury and the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, in respect to the alleged serious defects in the Ballycotton Pier, and the refusal of the Grand Jury to take over and maintain the pier, Whether he will take steps to insure that a competent engineer, independent of either of these Bodies, shall be sent to examine into and report on the condition of the work?

, in reply, said, he had ordered an inspection of this pier, and he had had submitted to him Reports from the engineers who had made the inspection. He had carefully read these Reports; and although there was considerable conflict of opinion between the Grand Jury and the engineers, he had no doubt that the pier was substantially built and perfectly safe. The pier and walls had been tested, and there was no evidence at all of any movement as stated. The locality might rest assured that the work was well designed, well constructed, and perfectly safe.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether complaints have reached him of the condition of Donegal Workhouse, for the past five years through the action of the Protestant majority of the Board of Guardians, who systematically excluded Catholics from every official position in the Union; whether he is aware that on the 2nd of June last a Resolution was passed by these Guardians that the matter of an appointment of a Catholic to any office in the workhouse be not entertained by the Board for 12 months, and that when on three occasions a vacancy for schoolmistress arose, the Guardians at each time set aside the Catholic candidate, though more eligible, and appointed a Protestant; whether two of the Protestants so appointed were compelled to resign in consequence of not attaining to the educational standard of the National Board; whether the Guardians refused several applications for a catechist to teach prayers and Christian doctrine to the Catholic children; whether afterwards they, on several occasions, declined to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher to the workhouse, although strongly recommended and sanctioned by the Local Government Board; whether he is aware that 90 per cent of the inmates, and nearly all the children, are Catholics; whether he is aware that the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Sir George Trevelyan), and the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) when Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Local Government Board expressed disapproval of the conduct of the Guardians; whether the parish priest, the Very Rev. Hugh McFadden, with the approval of the Catholic Bishop, resigned the chaplaincy of the workhouse on account of the persistent refusal of the Protestant majority of the Board to grant a religious educatian to the Catholic children; whether, in consequence, the workhouse of Donegal has been without a Catholic chaplain for the past five years, 90 per cent of the inmates without Divine Service in the Union on Sundays and Holy Days, and without the opportunity of practising their religious duties; whether the Local Government Board have power, under such circumstances, to dissolve the Board of Guardians; and, whether the Government will take any, and, if so, what, means to remedy grievances suffered so long?

Perhaps it would be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to answer Question 53 at the same time.

I would prefer that my Question should be answered by itself.

I have here the answer both to Question 21 and 53; but as the subject is a purely local one, and as the answer covers about six pages of foolscap, I think it would be more convenient that the hon. Gentlemen should allow me to show them the answer, and then send it up to the newspapers, rather than I should trouble the House with an extremely long and dull recital.

Mr. Speaker, my Question is one of great importance, and I shall insist upon its being answered orally.

It is not competent for the hon. Gentleman to force a Minister to make a reply in a particular form. If the right hon. Gentleman chooses to give his answer in writing, I know of no power to force him to give it orally in the House.

I hope the House will understand it is really out of respect to the House I refrain from reading this document; but if the House wishes to hear it, I shall be happy to read it. [Home Rule cries of: "Read, read!" and Ministerial cries of "No, no!"] The reply was as fellows:—1. The only complaint made, so far as the Local Government Board are aware, respecting the exclusion of Roman Catholics from official positions had reference to the workhouse teachers; but observations may have been made as to the general tendency of the Guardians in that respect. 2. It is not the case that a Resolution was passed that the appointment of a Roman Catholic to any office be not entertained for 12 months. The Resolution of June 2, and a further one of June 16, related only to teachers, and the consideration of that question was postponed for 12 months. With respect to the office of schoolmistress, three vacancies occurred within recent years. The first was in October, 1882, on the resignation of the Protestant teacher, who had held the post for 16 years; the second was in June, 1885, and the third in June, 1887. With regard to the first of these vacancies, the clerk states that a Protestant was appointed who had been trained as a teacher in the Kildare Street Training Institution, and who had been engaged for seven years as a teacher of a school in Donegal. The Roman Catholic candidate was, the clerk says, only 19 years of age, and, therefore, ineligible under Article 32 of the General Regulations. For the second vacancy a Protestant was again selected. This teacher was not classed under the National Board of Education; but she had been trained in the Londonderry District Model School. One of the Roman Catholic candidates had a certificate of the second class under the National Board, besides other qualifications. On the occasion of the third vacancy the highest qualified candidate was elected. She is a Protestant, and holds a certificate of the first class under the National Board of Education, and is now in office. The candidate who was supported by the Roman Catholic Guardians on this occasion was neither trained nor classed. 3. The clerk reports that it is not a fact that any of the teachers referred to were compelled to resign; but it would seem that in 1884 the National Education Commissioners had reported to the Guardians that the then schoolmistress had failed to pass a qualifying examination of theirs. The statements in paragraphs 4 and 5 are correct. 6. The clerk states that 79 per cent. of the inmates, and 78 per cent. of the children, are Roman Catholics. 7. It is the case that the right hon. Gentlemen named, as also the Local Government Board, expressed regret at the continuance of the existing state of things. 8. In April, 1883, the Roman Catholic chaplain of the workhouse (the Very Rev. H. McFadden, P.P.) resigned his position by direction of the Roman Catholic Bishop, on the ground of the non-appointment of a Roman Catholic catechist. 9. No one has acted in the capacity of Roman Catholic chaplain of the workhouse since 1883; but the Local Government Board are informed that all the inmates who are able are at liberty to attend Mass at the chapel in Donegal, which is only a few hundred yards from the workhouse, and that the parish priest visits the sick. 10. The Local Government Board cannot dissolve the Board of Guardians because the Guardians have declined to appoint a Roman Catholic assistant teacher or catechist; and the Solicitor General for Ireland of the day informed this House on December 2, 1884, that the section of the Act authorizing the substitution of paid Guardians does not apply to this case. 11. The Local Government Board have endeavoured to induce the Board of Guardians to appoint an assistant Roman Catholic teacher; but this the Guardians have declined to do, although they are apparently willing to allow an additional salary to the chaplain if he would himself employ a catechist to assist him; and in 1884 the Local Government Board offered to the late chaplain, if he would resume duty, an increased salary in consideration of the extra labour caused to him through the teacher not being a Roman Catholic; but he declined to accept it. I fear I am unable to suggest any further remedy in the matter.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the salary of the Roman Catholic Chaplain of Donegal Workhouse has been raised; and, if so, when; whether any grounds were ever stated by the Roman Catholic chaplain for such increase; and, if so, what were they; whether the duties of chaplains as to catechising children are specified in the chaplain's books; and, if so, what are they; what were the number of visits paid by the respective chaplains of Donegal Workhouse for this purpose in the years 1880, 1881, 1882, and 1883; whether any reports have been made as to the frequency or not of such visits; what are the arrangements with regard to the catechising of Roman Catholic children in Donegal Workhouse, and whether they have hitherto worked satisfactorily; whether he is aware that the Roman Catholic Bishop has prohibited any priest under his jurisdiction from acting as chaplain to the workhouse; and, what are the number of children at present in the workhouse?

handed the reply to the hon. Gentleman, which was as follows:—The Clerk of Donegal Union reports that—1 and 2. The salary of the Roman Catholic chaplain was increased in 1868, on the ground that he was obliged to instruct and catechise the inmates of the workhouse. 3. This duty is specfied in the chaplain's books as follows:—That the chaplains are to examine and catechise the children not less than once in every month, and after each of such examinations record the same, and state the general progress of the children in a book to be kept for that purpose, to be laid before the Guardians. 4. In 1880 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid two visits, the Protestant chaplain 23 visits. In 1881 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid one visit, the Protestant chaplain 20 visits. In 1882 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid 1 visit, the Protestant chaplain 20 visits; and in part of 1883 the Roman Catholic chaplain paid 4 visits, and the Protestant chaplain 10 visits. 5. The Local Government Inspector did complain in January, 1883, of the neglect of his duties on the part of the Roman Catholic chaplain in not catechising the children, and similar complaints had previously been made by successive Inspectors against successive chaplains. 6. When the schoolmistress is a Protestant a senior pupil (R.C.) acts as a monitor to hear the Roman Catholic children repeat their catechism, &c., and to teach the younger, and this system has been carried out satisfactorily. 7. The statement respecting the Roman Catholic Bishop is correct. 8. The number of Roman Catholic children is 14, and of Protestant 5. Total, 19.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If H.M.S. Buzzard has required any, and what, repairs since her trial trip; and, having left England for Halifax on June 16, what time the Buzzard took in making the voyage?

There were various adjustments required to the machinery of the Buzzard after her 96 hours full-power trial; but, with the exception of one slight defect in her cylinder, the repairs required both to hull and machinery were of a trivial nature. She was eight days making the passage to Madeira, and occupied 26 days in proceeding from that port to Halifax under the usual orders to use economical speed and to make use of her sail-power when it was feasible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the three communications from the Prisons Board in Dublin to the authorities of Tullamore Gaol with respect to the treatment of Mr. Mandeville, which the Governor of the gaol refused to produce at the recent inquest?

I find that all the prison papers are away from Dublin at the place where the inquest on Dr. Ridley's body is being carried on. I have attempted by telegraph to find out some particulars about the matter. As far as I can gather from the telegraph, the instructions in question were of the barest possible kind. They were simply that the Governor should obey the Prison Rules, subject to the opinion of the doctor.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether some of the instructions were not conveyed orally by the authority of the Prisons Board?

As I understand the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, it refers to three communications, which, he states, the Governor refused to produce on the ground that they were privileged documents. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has accurately quoted the evidence given at the inquest, or whether he has means of accurately quoting it; but I assume there were three instructions in writing which the Governor refused to produce. The Government could not produce verbal instructions.

Will the right hon. Gentleman have the documents produced?

That is precisely the Question I answered the right hon. Gentleman just now.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Lord Chancellor and the President of the Board of Trade have considered the Draft Rules under section 122 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," prepared by the Departmental Committee appointed last year, and laid upon the Table of the House; and, whether the Lord Chancellor and President of the Board of Trade propose to proceed with such Rules?

in reply, said, it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to proceed with those Rules. The reason for delay was that they had been communicated by Circular to the County Court Judges, and numerous conflicting observations had been made in reply.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, When the Return granted in August, 1887, in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 359, of Session 1873, as to the appointment Medical Officers of Health, will be in the hands of Members?

also asked, When the Return relating to Medical Officers of Health, ordered by the House on August 12, 1887 (No. 22), will be presented; and, whether he can assure the House that it will be ready for the Autumn Session?

It has been necessary to obtain Returns from more than 1,500 authorities, and in some cases several applications have had to be made for the information required. The Returns are now complete; but in some cases further inquiries will be necessary. We hope to have the Return in the hands of the printers in about three weeks from the present time; and we shall endeavour to expedite the printing as much as possible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, By what Rule of the Police Force, or Act of Parliament, the Attorney General sanctioned the payment out of the public funds of the amount of the verdict and costs recorded against Constable Curry, "on the grounds that he had acted reasonably as a public officer," in the action of "Smyth v. Madden and Curry," for slander and false arrest, heard before the Recorder of Dublin, at Kingstown, April 15, 1887; and, upon what authority did the Recorder alter the verdict subsequent to the hearing of the case?

The Rule as to the payment of the legal expenses of constables against whom proceedings have been taken for acts done by them in the execution of their duty is the same in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the London Metropolitan Police, and in the Dublin Metropolitan Police. The invariable practice is for the constable in the first instance to defend himself; and when the proceedings have terminated, the propriety of indemnifying him is considered and decided by Government. I have no knowledge of the matter referred to in the last paragraph, nor have I any title to make inquiry on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is a fact that Police Constable 529 V was sent to the house of a man named Dalshaw, on July 20, to ask him if he contemplated speaking at a meeting next Monday, and if he also stated that he had orders to report the time and place of all Socialist meetings to the District Inspector; if this was by Sir Charles Warren's orders, and if this system of police supervision exists by the Home Secretary's authority; and whether the supervision extends to all public meetings?

I am informed by the Chief Commissioner that no such inquiry was made by the police constable; that no such statement was ever made by him to Dalshaw; that no such orders had been issued; and that, therefore, there could be no system of police supervision; and that the man Dalshaw was quite unknown to the police.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do anything to remedy the insanitary state of the cells at many London and Provincial police stations?

Yes, Sir; it is the intention of the Government to do everything in their power to remedy the insanitary state of the cells in London and the Provinces. Active communication is now proceeding with the various Local Authorities; and there is every prospect that it will be found possible to carry out the recommendations of the Committee.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, on the subject of excluding Catholics from serving on juries, Whether it is the fact that, although the Catholic population of Wicklow stands to the Protestant in the relation of four to one, exclusively Protestant juries have been sworn for the trial of capital cases; whether he is aware that on one occasion the Catholic jurors held a meeting in the Town Hall, and passed a Resolution protesting against their treatment; whether he has seen the following observations, made by the presiding Judge at the opening of the Wicklow Assizes on Saturday last, as reported in the Conservative journal, The Irish Times, of July 30:—

"His Lordship said that at the last Assizes there was reason to complain that without necessity some jurors were required to come into the jury box, which caused great delay, only to be told to stand by, therefore he had conveyed to the Attorney General his disapproval of the course, and he would request the Crown Solicitor to have the names called, and if his mind was made up as to a juror not serving on the jury to say so before he went into the box. Some jurors had complained to him, and there was needless offence caused to them in the Court by calling them into the box and then ordering them to stand by;"

and, whether, in view of the observations of Judge O'Brien, the practice of excluding Catholics from serving on juries will be discontinued?

Perhaps I may be allowed to answer the Question. There is no foundation for the suggestion that jurors were excluded from serving on juries in Wicklow because of their religious belief. A meeting of Catholic jurors is reported to have been hold in the Town Hall. My attention has been called by the Question to the report of the observations attributed to Mr. Justice O'Brien. His observations apply merely to the time at which the Crown Solicitor should direct a juror to stand by, and have no reference to the religious belief of any juror, or to any question as to the exclusion of jurors on any such ground. Those acting on behalf of the Crown will be most willing to adopt the suggestion of the learned Judge; but there is no power to compel those acting on behalf of prisoners to take the same course in the case of challenges.

Is it not a fact that on the day after he made these observations the learned Judge quashed a jury panel on the ground that it had been improperly constituted; whether a number of prisoners had been previously convicted of resistance at an eviction; whether the Judge was asked to make an order for the release of these prisoners, and replied that it was a question for the Executive; and whether, under these circumstances, the Government will see to the release of the prisoners?

There were two objections to a constitution of the jury panel at the Wicklow Assizes. One was a technical matter—non-compliance with the statutes—and upon that ground the whole panel was quashed. On the question of the alleged misconduct on the part of the Sheriff, the triers unanimously found in favour of the Sheriff. I have no specific information with regard to the prisoners referred to by the hon. Member.

asked whether, as the religion of every person in Ireland was officially ascertained by the Census, the hon. and learned Gentleman would have any objection to an arrangement by which the question might be tested? The agents of the Crown systematically excluded Catholics.

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.

said, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had precisely answered the first paragraph of the Question. He (Mr. Redmond) wished to ask him whether it was the fact that although the Catholic population of Wicklow stood to the Protestant in the proportion of four to one, exclusively Protestant juries had been sworn for the trial of capital cases?

said, he had no specific information as to the proportion of Catholic and Protestant population. No juror had been excluded on the ground of his religion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether it was not the invariable practice in England to have no "stand asides" in criminal cases by the Crown; and whether Mr. Justice Stephen had not stated that, in his whole experience, he only knew of two cases?

I think a Question as to the practice of a Court of Law should not be asked without Notice. An objection to a juror is not raised in England the same way as in Ireland. The practice in England is not to challenge the jurors in the box; but to communicate privately with the officers of the Court.

asked whether, in regard to the score of cases which had been transferred, the hon. and learned Gentleman would give the name of a single Catholic who had been allowed to serve on a jury?

said, it was impossible for him to give such a case.

asked whether, if Catholics were not excluded from juries in Wicklow because of their religion, the hon. and learned Gentleman would say whether they were excluded because of their politics? Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish them to believe that it was by chance that Protestant juries exclusively had been appointed over and over again to try cases in Wicklow, although there were four Catholics to one Protestant in the population?

said, he was perfectly willing to lay on the Table the Rules by which the action of the Crown Solicitor was regulated in regard to the challenging of jurors. He had known Crown Solicitors for the last 20 years, and he knew that they went by those Rules, and those only.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in view of the dissatisfaction reported to exist with the method and severity of the examination in specific subjects in the elementary schools of Stirlingshire, he will inform the House the number of presentations in specific subjects in Stirlingshire in Standards V., VI., and ex-VI. in the year last completed, before the present Inspector was appointed; and the number of presentations in the same subjects and standards in the last completed year under the present Inspector?

In 1883–4 the number of presentations in specific subjects in Standards IV. to ex-VI.—the numbers in each Standard not being recorded separately—was 5,688. Of these, 2,594 were in English literature, a subject which is now a class, not a specific subject. In 1886–7 the number presented in Standards V. to ex-VI., to which specific subjects are now confined, was 2,832. In making a comparison, it must be remembered that the figures for the later period include no presentations in Standard IV. nor in English literature. These have recently been excluded by an alteration in the Code.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Government have come to any decision with regard to the advisability of the purchase by the State of the canals throughout the country; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make any statement on the subject?

, in reply, said, what he had suggested to the hon. Member for Glasgow, who advocated the State purchase of railways, was to direct his attention to the purchase of canals as a more feasible proposal, and one to which less objection could be offered. But he did not undertake, on behalf of the Government, to bring in a Bill on the subject. He might say that under the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill of this year Returns would be received from the Canal Companies of the United Kingdom which would throw light which they did not now possess on the traffic of these canals, and the terms on which they could be bought, if their purchase were thought desirable. The subject could not be properly considered until they had these Returns.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Indian Government have yet taken any steps to carry out the unanimous Resolution of this House of June 5 last, in so far as it affects the Cantonments Acts; and, whether he will make inquiry by telegraph as to what steps are being taken in this matter, so that the House may be in- formed of the fact before the Indian Budget is discussed?

The Bill of the Government of India dealing with the subject of contagious disease has not yet been received by the Secretary of State, because there has not been time for its transmission to this country. While awaiting the receipt of this Bill the Secretary of State does not propose to make any further communication to the Government of India.

asked, whether the hon. Gentleman would obtain that information before the Indian Budget was brought on?

had already said that, awaiting the arrival of the Bill, the Secretary of State did not propose to make any further communication to the Indian Government. He hoped that before the Bill arrived the Indian Budget would have been discussed and the House would have adjourned.

asked the Under Secretery of State for India, (1) Whether, in reply to the despatch of the Secretary of State for India, dated August 11, 1887, requesting that any available statistics in regard to lock hospitals in the Punjaub, as well as in other parts of India, should be regularly forwarded in future, the India Office have received copies of the Annual Report of the Secunderabad Lock Hospital for 1887, and of the lock hospital in Lucknow for 1887; (2) whether the India Office possesses the reprint, dated August 1, 1887, of the Cantonment Regulations containing the Special Committee's Exposition of the Lock Hospital Rules, or any other copy of that Exposition; and, (3) whether these Lock Hospital Rules are at present in force or not?

My answer to the first Question is no, they are not yet received; (2) yes; (3) paragraph 7 of the despatch of the Secretary of State, No. 180 of May 17, 1888, which has already been presented to Parliament, instructed the Government of India to undertake a careful revision of the Cantonment Lock Hospital Rules upon the principles there laid down. The carrying out of these instructions will supersede many of the existing Rules.

asked, whether the India Office were generally so long in receiving the important documents they asked for as in this case? The document to which he referred was issued on January 1 last.

said, that Viscount Cross lately stated to a deputation that the whole of the Regulations under the Cantonments Acts with regard to those diseases were absolutely suspended and non-existent; and he asked whether the Under Secretary of State for India would corroborate that statement now?

said that the statement of the Secretary of State ought to satisfy the hon. Member, and that no corroboration of it by the Under Secretary was required.

said, he had only asked the Question in consequence of an answer just given by the hon. Gentleman.

gave Notice that he would raise the question on the Indian Budget.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he proposes to ask the House to vote before the adjournment those Votes which are contentious, and the reduction of which is to be moved, particularly Vote 11, to which Members who had general objections to the first Money Vote were referred when they allowed that Vote to be taken?

, in reply, said, that Vote 11 would not be taken before the adjournment of the House.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he can state the numbers of all bankruptcy adjudications, arrangement cases, and compositions after bankruptcy from Limerick City and County, from the North Riding of County Tipperary, Clare, and north of Kerry within the past five years; whether those districts at present constitute the probate jurisdiction of the Registry at Limerick; whether he can state the amount of liabilities involved in such bankruptcy cases; and, whether he will consider the advisability of constituting the City of Limerick a centre for examination of witnesses and winding up of such insolvent estates?

, in reply, said, he was not at present in a position to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the information he desired in the first paragraph of his Question. The answer to the second paragraph was in the affirmative.

asked the Lord Advocate, What use the Clerks of Kirk Sessions have made of the sums they have obtained in various parishes of Scotland by their exaction of the excessive fee of 10s. for publishing the banns on a single Sabbath?

I am unable to answer this Question. Any person who feels aggrieved at having paid more than the proper fee can raise a small debt action asking restitution, and so have the point settled.

asked, who got the money; was it the Clerks of Kirk Sessions or the Established Church?

asked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question, as he was not at present in a position to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a case heard at the Southwark Police Court on Monday, when a carman named Thomas Russell was convicted by Mr. Slade of assaulting Police Constable 326M; whether the evidence for the prosecution was that of four civilians, who swore that the prisoner did not assault the constable, and that the officer was drunk and struck the prisoner and several other persons; and whether the evidence for the defence was that of an inspector and a constable, who were not present when the alleged assault was committed, but swore that the prosecutor was sober when they saw him about that time; whether Mr. Slade is correctly reported to have said that—

"After the evidence of the Inspector he could not believe in the serious charge of drunkenness made against the constable, and he had come to the conclusion that the evidence for the defence had been got up to screen the prisoner;"

and, whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?

I have obtained a Report from the magistrate on this case, from which it appears that four civilians gave the evidence quoted, for the defence and not for the prosecution. The Inspector who took the charge and two constables who were with 326M before and after the occurrence respectively swore that he was quite sober. The prisoner did not deny the charge at the station, and made no complaint against the constable. The magistrate, after careful hearing, deemed the defence set up to be utterly untrue, and the charge of drunkenness to be amply disproved. He gave the prisoner an opportunity of appealing; but this he refused to do, and paid the fine. I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the magistrate.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Colonel Kinloch actually stood on the platform at the meeting in Enniskillen on July 12; and, whether the Government will give instructions to officers in Ireland to keep away from the vicinity of party demonstrations?

I have already stated that Colonel Kinloch took no part in the meeting referred to. I agree that it is desirable that the Queen's Regulations on the subject of political meetings should be strictly adhered to.

I am really very sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman further about this matter. It is a serious case for me, because the allegations I have made against this gentleman have been denied. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he is prepared to say decidedly that Colonel Kinloch did not go to the platform of this meeting, as I have information from people I cannot disbelieve that Colonel Kinloch did go to the meeting, and conducted two ladies there, and that he stood on the platform if he did not make a speech?

I have already stated to the House Colonel Kinloch's own version. What he assures me is that he was in plain clothes, and that he watched the procession going past as a spectator. The hon. Gentleman was good enough to give me for another purpose a photograph of the platform, about which I will make inquiries; but it shows that Colonel Kinloch was not on the platform.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he will state positively whether Colonel Kinloch was not on the platform; and as Colonel Kinloch states he went to the meeting as a spectator, I wish to ask him whether it is not desirable, in a place where party feeling runs so high as it does in Enniskillen, that officers should not even go as spectators, seeing how hard it is for many people to discern between a man going as a spectator and a man going as a sympathizer?

I have already stated that the Queen's Regulations must be fully carried out. Beyond that I do not think it right to deprive an officer of his civil rights.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the nature and amount of Customs duties levied by the Royal Niger Company on merchandise imported into the countries bordering the River Niger up to Sago, and the River Binne up to Yola, together with the nature and amount of duties levied by the Company on the export of native produce from these countries?

There will be no objection to grant the Return if the hon. Member moves for it.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government has received any Report of recent disputes or hostilities between the servants of the Royal Niger Company and the King and people of Onitcha; and, whether he can give the House any information as to the cause and nature of the dispute?

No such Report has been received. The council of the Niger Company states that there is no truth in the rumour.

asked, whether the name "Royal Niger Company" implied that it was under the British Government, and that they were responsible for it?

replied that the word "Royal" before the name of a Company meant that it was a Company incorporated by Royal Charter. Her Majesty's Government retained a supervision over the Company, which was obliged to render to them Reports from time to time.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report of the Vandeleur evictions in The Daily News, of July 31; whether the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, evicted a tenant named Joanna O'Dea; whether a sick child six years old, afflicted with spinal complaint and idiotic, was lying on a straw bed near the fire; whether the authorities compelled the inmates to remove the invalid from the dwelling house to an outhouse; and, whether he will take steps to prevent such occurrences in future operations?

The Divisional Magistrate reports that at the eviction in question there was a child in the house. The doctor saw it, said it was idiotic, and must have been so for a very long time; but that there was nothing to prevent its being removed. It was taken outside by the woman of the house, and was not taken to an outhouse; and that there was no inhumanity whatever about the proceedings.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to a report in the The Daily News, of July 31, in which it is stated that, on Monday last, at the Vandeleur evictions, the Sheriff, Mr. Croker, broke with a sledge hammer the door of the house of Mary O'Dea, and evicted her, and that she afterwards fainted; and, whether the eviction was legal; and, if so, whether the Government will grant Mary O'Dea compensation, or take steps to compel the party liable to compensate her for the damage and loss sustained and for the illegal eviction?

The Divisional Magistrate reports that the Sheriff informs him that a holding was pointed out to him as the herd's house of the farm just evicted. One of the men forced the door open with a hammer. A man was inside; no woman whatever was seen. When the man said he had not been served, the Sheriff withdrew. They were not evicted, and have their own remedy against the Sheriff if they choose. The Government have no power over the Sheriff.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the telegram in The Star, of the 1st of August, addressed to the hon. Member for North Dublin County (Mr. Clancy), at the House of Commons, from Mr. Kerr, a Scotch Justice of the Peace, stating that he saw with his own eyes—

"The tenants' furniture ruthlessly destroyed, the furniture, bedroom ware, clothes, contents of sleeping room, without any consideration whatever. This happened at Kilrush;"

and, whether, in view of this independent testimony, he still adheres to his statement that he believes the report of the officials in the matter?

I have given the fullest available information on the general subject of this Question. I do adhere to my belief as to the accuracy of that information. The wilful destruction of property alleged would, I apprehend, be clearly illegal, and those concerned in the matter have an ample opportunity of testing it in a legal manner.

If I supply the right hon. Gentleman with the testimony of other independent witnesses, will he still adhere to his references to my veracity in this matter?

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. I expressed no opinion on his veracity. I expressed a very strong opinion on the veracity of Colonel Turner, and to that opinion I adhere.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether in the Vote on Account for the Civil Services, which is to be moved, there is included any portion of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board; and, if so, what amount; and on what day the Vote will be moved?

, in reply, said, the Vote would include a portion of the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary, and he expected that it would be taken to-morrow.

gave Notice to move a reduction of the hon. Member's salary.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, When the Returns relating to the issue of licences for the sale of intoxicating liquors and of opium in Upper Burmah, for which an Address was voted by this House in August, 1887, will be presented to the House?

The Returns are now received, and will be presented this day.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the P. J. Keenan, whose name appears in The Dublin Gazette of July 6 and July 10, 1888, appended to Dublin Castle Proclamamations, and also to many other similar Proclamations on various other occasions, is the same P. J. Keenan whose name appears in the Estimates as paid Resident Commissioner of National Education, Ireland; if so, will he state on what grounds the said P. J. Keenan is exempted from the Rule of the Civil Service requiring all paid officials to devote their entire time to the duties of their offices, and forbids them taking part in other business; whether the meetings of the Privy Council in Dublin Castle are held during the ordinary business hours for Civil servants; and, whether it is the custom in England for Civil servants, who happen to be also Privy Councillors, to take any active part in the Executive Government of the country?

The gentleman referred to is Sir Patrick Keenan, the Resident Commissioner of National Education. It is not the case that his name appeared in The Dublin Gazette of the 6th and 10th of July, or in The Gazette of any other date, appended to Dublin Castle Proclamations, as he has never signed any such Proclamations. His name appears in The Gazette mentioned in two Orders of a routine character, one approving of an expenditure of money for the improvement of a lunatic asylum, and the other approving, as required by Statute, of a Rule as to costs adopted by the Judges. There is no such Rule in the Civil Ser- vice as that suggested. But, in any case, the duties performed by Sir Patrick Keenan as a Privy Councillor do not interfere with the discharge of his official duties as Resident Commissioner of National Education. The meetings of the Privy Council do not take place at any fixed hours, but are frequently held after the ordinary business hours for Civil servants.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he will take care that, before the House is asked to discuss the clauses of the Burgh Police and Health (Scotland) Bill, as settled by a Select Committee, Members are put in possession of the Report and proceedings of that Committee?

I am informed that the proceedings of the Committee will be circulated to-morrow morning.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the Coroner's inquest on the body of William Love, who died on June 4 from the effects of a fall at Wheelock Works, Northwich; whether this man had been at work for 17 hours when the fatal injury occurred; whether it is the case that at these works there are shifts of 23 hours continuously; and, whether he will consider the desirability of introducing a measure to deal with such excessive hours of toil?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to a newspaper report of the inquest, from which it appears that this man had been at work for 17 hours when the accident occurred. He was engaged on a night shift, which lasted from 1 on Saturday till 8 on Sunday morning. I agree with the hon. Member that this was a shift of excessive length; but I gather from the report of the inquest that the death was caused by the imprudence of the deceased in endeavouring to oil the machinery when standing on some pipes, instead of on the platform provided for the purpose. I cannot undertake to introduce legislation for the purpose of curtailing the hours of labour contracted for by adult persons.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether he accepts as correct the statement in the First Report of the Committee on Army Estimates that—

"The Admiralty are now solely responsible to Parliament for the sufficiency or insufficiency of warlike stores provided for the use of the Navy;"

and, if not, which Department is, in fact, responsible for the sufficiency of Vote 9, now for the first time included in Navy Estimates; whether, when that Vote was transferred to and included in Navy Estimates, a complete statement had been furnished by the War Office to the Admiralty of moneys received and moneys actually expended by the War Office for naval ordnance up to that date, and whether any amount so received by the War Office still remains unaccounted for to the Admiralty, and is not represented by ordnance stores of equal value held for or handed over to the Navy by the War Office; whether a complete statement had then been, or has since been, furnished to the Admiralty of the number and kinds of guns, and also of the amount and description of ammunition in the hands of the War Office and belonging to the Navy; whether a complete statement had then been, or has since been, furnished by the War Office to the Admiralty of liabilities incurred and unpaid amounts chargeable to Naval Votes, and whether fresh liabilities are still being discovered; whether the Director of Naval Ordnance has declined responsibility for the sufficiency of the Vote as it now stands, in the absence of proper information from the War Office as to the stores of naval guns and ammunition in its charge and available for use; and, whether the Admiralty some time since sanctioned a further expenditure on account of this Vote; and, if so, whether the increased charge so sanctioned will be provided for out of savings on other Votes or by a Supplementary Estimate?

The Admiralty have only accepted responsibility in reference to the ordnance stores, concerning the amount of which they have complete information; and their position is made clear both in my Memorandum explanatory of the Estimates, as well as in a letter addressed to the War Office on the 27th of April, 1887, and which, I understand, was laid before the Committee on Army Estimates. The transfer of the Vote to the Navy Estimates was made before complete statements of the nature alluded to—of moneys received and expended—were furnished. The information as to guns in the hands of the War Office is complete; that relating to ammunition and other naval stores is promised in its entirety by September 10. As regards foreign stations the information is complete. The record of liabilities incurred and unpaid amounts chargeable to Naval Votes is complete, but has not yet been furnished in full detail from the ordnance factory. There was a large surrender on last year's Vote, the contractors being unable to earn the sums contained in the Estimates to cover the orders given to them. To prevent this year a recurrence of this surrender, a larger proportion of orders to the money voted have been given. I cannot now say whether a Supplementary Estimate will be necessary, as the sums to be paid within the financial year entirely depend upon the progress made by the contractors with the work given to them.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Who is the contractor to whom the order for Colonel Slade's contract for the new valise equipment has been given, and what portion of it has already been executed by such contractor?

The hon. Member will see by my reply to a Question put by him on the 20th of July that this contract was given to Colonel Slade himself. No complete sets have yet been supplied; but a few sample sets hive come in.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the case that a number of the writers in the Statistical Department of the Customs are engaged upon similar work to that discharged by Lower Division clerks; whether some of these writers have been recommended for promotion; whether the Committee of Inquiry, having in view the reorganization of the Department, have expressed their opinion that a special rate of payment would probably meet the case; and, whether any such special rate of payment has yet been made; and, if not, when it is intended that it shall be made?

It is the case that some of the writers employed in the Statistical Office in the Customs are engaged upon work of a similar character to that which is discharged by some of the Lower Division clerks. None of these writers have been recommended for promotion. The question of a special rate of payment for the persons employed in tabulating the statistics is being held over for permanent settlement until the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments shall have reported; but, meanwhile, the Treasury have agreed to grant a special rate of payment to the writers referred to by the hon. Member, which will shortly take effect on the introduction of the seven hours' system into the Office.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether Her Majesty's Government is taking any steps for the improvement of the Hammersmith Police Court?

I have been in communication with the Home Office; and we have now settled the plans for improving and Increasing the accommodation for prisoners at Hammersmith Police Court.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can now state the result of his inquiry into the accuracy of the statements made by Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in justification of his refusal to recommend James Hughes and Thomas Parker for second-class certificates, under section 80 of "The Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, 1887;" and, if, in the event of James Hughes and Thomas Parker proving their fitness to receive second-class certificates, and that they have been prevented from following their ordinary employmeat for six weeks in consequence of any inaccuracy or carelessness in the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspector of Mines in North Staffordshire, they will be entitled to fair and reasonable compensation for the loss in wages which they have sustained?

The Inspector of Mines had to exercise his judgment to the best of his ability on conflicting statements of fact as to the real nature of the previous employment of Hughes and Parker which made their claim to receive second-class certificates a matter of doubt and difficulty. I have sought for further information; and upon careful consideration of all the circumstances I have come to the conclusion that Hughes and Parker may have certificates granted to them. No claim for compensation can be entertained.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is using, and will continue to use, his influence with his Colleagues in the India Office, Foreign Office, and Colonial Office to secure the adoption of the principle of the Merchandize Marks Act in our Colonies and Dependencies, and in all foreign countries which have become parties to the Convention of Rome; and, whether he can report any satisfactory progress in this direction?

I am doing everything in my power in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. Gentleman. We have no progress to report with regard to foreign countries. With regard to India, I think my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India has already informed the House that the Local Governments and Councils have been communicated with on the subject, and that a Bill, which is now before the Legislative Council in India, will pave the way for further legislation. A further despatch on the matter is going out to-day. With regard to the Colonies, in nine legislation has been already passed; in one it is proceeding; in 16 it is promised; and from seven no replies have been received; while in six of no great importance legislation is considered unnecessary.

remarked, that with respect to India there was abundant evidence that falsely-marked merchandize had been shipped to a considerable extent in foreign bottoms.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether greater facilities of access to Kew Gardens cannot be granted by opening a new gateway entrance?

I am in communication with the owner of the property lying between the Kew Railway Station and the Gardens, and I have reason to hope that he will agree to the making of a new road through his land. In that case I have undertaken to open a gate directly facing and in view of the exit from the station. This will be an improvement and a great convenience to the public.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that, at Barrow-in-Furness last week, the magistrates refused to allow one John Clegg (who stated that he was an Atheist, and objected to take an oath) to make affirmation, but ultimately permitted him to give evidence on oath; and, whether, under the circumstances, the refusal to allow affirmation, and the taking the evidence on oath, were in accordance with the Law?

I have made inquiries, and have ascer- tained that the magistrates were not informed of the Statute enabling persons objecting to make an oath to make a "promise and declaration." The refusal, under the circumstances, was not in accordance with the law; but attention having been called to the matter it is not likely to occur again.

, who had the following Question on the Paper:—"To ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Mr. Buckle, editor of The Times, came to see him in reference to the allegations against Members, along with the proprietor of that journal, or separately; and, what were the date or dates of the interviews," said, he would postpone the Question, but asked whether there was anyone who could propose the Motions of which Notice had been given in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury (for suspending the Midnight Rule and applying the Closure after 1 o'clock)?

Yes, Sir; it is proposed to move the two Motions which stand in the name of my right hon. Friend, and I am prepared to answer the Question of the hon. and learned Member if he wishes it.

stated that he had received a letter from the Private Secretary of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith), desiring that the Question might be postponed, as the right hon. Gentleman had to attend the funeral of Admiral Codrington, and could not be in his place at Question time. After hearing that letter the right hon. Gentleman could take his own course.

I think I can answer the Question. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has had no communication with Mr. Buckle at all on the question. He has not seen him, and has not been called upon by him.

As the right hon. Gentleman takes upon himself to answer for the First Lord of the Treasury without being asked, I will ask him if he can state whether the First Lord of the Treasury saw Mr. Leycester, chief reporter of The Times, in the Gallery of this House, several times on this question?

No, Sir; I cannot answer this Question without information.

With reference to the manuscript read on Thursday, the 12th ultimo, by the First Lord of the Treasury, when the right hon. Gentleman was understood to say that the Government would frame a Bill to institute a Special Commission to report upon the charges and allegations against Members of Parliament only, I wish to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is aware that the manuscript read by the First Lord of the Treasury was sent to members of the Press Gallery, where it was seen by several gentlemen, and whether it is not a fact that the words "and other persons" did not appear in that manuscript?

I have no knowledge whatever of the manuscript having been sent to, or not having been sent to, the Reporters' Gallery. They were the notes of the First Lord of the Treasury, and they were not in the possession of any of his Colleagues.

asked, whether the manuscript was or was not sent to the Reporters' Gallery? Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether it did or did not contain the words in question?

I have never seen it, and I am not aware that any of my Colleagues have ever seen it. Therefore, I cannot say whether it contained the words or not.

asked, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew whether the First Lord of the Treasury would be willing to give the date of his interview or the dates of his interviews with Mr. Walter?

No, Sir.

asked, whether the Government intended to proceed with the Excise Duties (Local Purposes) Bill before the adjournment; and, if so, when?

In the present state of Business it is extremely difficult to fix a day.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to bring in this Bill late in the Session, when many Members are away? Members are already pairing and going away.

I am in a dilemma with regard to this matter, because the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—very naturally as I think—insisted the other day that the Bill ought to be brought in before the Autumn Session, on the ground that the tax ought not to be delayed until so late a period of the year. Of course, there is here this circumstance to be borne in mind, that the tax is not an Imperial tax, but a local one. Personally I should have no objection to a postponement of the Bill until the Autumn Session if we cannot bring it on very early next week. But I can only postpone it on the understanding that such postponement is not to be considered in the light of a withdrawal or change of front on the part of the Government.

asked, whether the Sitting on Saturday would be devoted to Scotch Business?

No; it will be impossible to take Scotch Business on that day. I may state the course of Business during the next two days. It is absolutely indispensable to take a Vote on Account to-morrow for the Civil Service, and on Saturday it will be necessary to take the Report of the Vote on Account of the Army and Navy Estimates. The Army Estimates will be put down for to-morrow, and the Vote on Account may possibly be taken on that night, and in that case the Army and Navy Votes will be proceeded with at a Saturday Sitting.

inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman supposed that a Vote on Account could be got to-morrow night? There were many subjects that would have to be discussed.

Which day will be devoted to Scotch Business?

In the absence of the First Lord of the Treasury I cannot go beyond the next few days, for which the programme has been absolutely settled; but I know the anxiety of the First Lord of the Treasury to secure a day for Scotch Business as soon as possible. In answer to the right hon. Member opposite (Mr. Mundella), I have to say that it is our hope and expectation to complete the Vote on Account to-morrow, it being absolutely necessary to secure the money.

said, the Indian Budget would be taken this Session if it were possible to do so; and, in accordance with the pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury, three clear days' Notice would be given.

asked, Whether the Secretary of State for War would tell the House the result of the trials with the new magazine rifle; and, whether the statement that had appeared in a Povincial newspaper, to the effect that the rifle had been condemned, was true?

There is no truth in the statemant. As far as I am aware, the trials have been very satisfactory.

asked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies had received any recent information about affairs in Zululand?

(who replied) said: Yes, Sir. The following telegram has been received from Sir Arthur Havelock:—

"1st August.—Colonial Secretary sent by east coast road reach Umfolosi River without opposition. Somkeli, Chief of that locality, has involuntarily and unconditionally surrendered to authorities. Other Chiefs expected to surrender. Native followers who had come to Dinizulu from beyond Zululand are said to be dispersing. I am not without hopes that Dinizulu himself will surrender. Situation much improved."

I wish, Sir, to submit to the House a Question of Privilege. It is with regard to an article in The Times newspaper of to-day, portions of which I deem, and I think that other hon. Members when they hear them read will also deem, to constitute a gross breach of the Privileges of this House. In order that I may found a Motion upon it, I believe that I am right in taking the extract of which I complain up to the Table of the House and asking the Clerk to read it.

Bring it up.

I have asked, Sir, the Clerk to read the whole passage, in order that the House may have an opportunity of seeing what it is. It is, however, upon the following three points that I rely in making the Motion with which I propose to end my observations:—First—

"This, and other groundless accusations, have afforded Mr. Parnell, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Sexton, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, and the rest, the opportunity to pour out a flood of blackguardism."

That is an accusation that the Gentlemen named did yesterday pour out in their speeches a flood of blackguardism. The second passage upon which I rely is this—

"We are completely indifferent to abuse, calumny, and mendacious charges from that quarter."

That is a charge by innuendo of mendacity against hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. The third passage on which I rely is this—

"For the honour of public life in England, it is to be deplored that Mr. Gladstone, as well as Sir William Harcourt, entered into a competition with the foul-mouthed oratory of their present allies below the gangway."

That is to say, that Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt, and others, were foul-mouthed in their observations last night. Now, Sir, in 1733, the House of Commons passed, nemine contradicente, the following Resolution:—

"That the assaulting, or insulting, or menacing any Member of this House in his coming to, or going from the House, or upon the account of his behaviour in Parliament, is a high infringement of the Privileges of this House, a most outrageous and dangerous violation of the rights of Parliament, and a high crime and misdemeanour."

Now, I think there is no one here who will contend that the article in The Times is not insulting to certain Members of this House. Sir Erskine May, at page 100 of his book on Parliamentary Practice points out that—

"Libels upon Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of Privilege, they must concern the character or conduct of Members in that capacity."

No one will deny that these charges and allegations in The Times article concern the character and conduct of Members in that capacity. I do not wish, for a moment, to enter into whether these charges and allegations are true or false. This is not the moment for it. These charges are libellous. There can be no question of that, for to constitute a libel, it does not depend upon whether it is true or false. If a libel is true, it may be justified by the assertion that it is true, but it remains a libel, nevertheless. These charges are essentially libellous in their character, and I cannot help thinking that this House ought to take notice of them. The words are strong. I notice sometimes that words used in newspapers are strong. But really there ought to be some limit even in the language which is permitted to that most sacred gospel of the Conservative Party—The Times. I beg to move, Sir, that the newspaper referred to, in its issue of this morning, has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.

I am sorry to say this is not the first time that cases of Breach of Privilege with regard to articles appearing in newspapers have been brought before the House of Commons. There are several precedents to guide us in this matter. I would mention them to the House, and, with the same brevity exercised by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I will point out how the House dealt with these cases without going into details, but making a mere general statement. There can, of course, be no doubt that a Breach of Privilege has been committed by the article in question. There is no reason for denying or mitigating the fact. No doubt, of late, some very strong language has been used with regard to The Times in this House under the protection of Privilege; but that would not, of course, affect the question whether a Breach of Privilege has been committed. But on previous occasions, when a Breach of Privilege has been committed—

As a question of Order, would it not be more proper for the right hon. Gentleman to reserve these observations for the second Motion I shall make when this has been carried?

No; because the precedents which I will mention to the House will show that in these cases the House did not accept the Motion that a Breach of Privilege had been committed, and passed to the next Business of the day. I am sure the right hon. Gentle- man the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) will remember the cases, and I know that he has often advised the House to be extremely careful in this matter of proceeding against newspapers, and has used his influence in having such Motions as this either withdrawn or indirectly negatived by the acceptance of a Motion to proceed to the next Business of the Day. There are two comparatively recent cases which I have been able to look up in the few available moments I have had. On the 15th April, 1878, Mr. O'Donnell moved that an article in The Globe newspaper was a breach of the Privileges of the House. An Amendment was proposed to pass to the next Business on the Paper, and that was carried without a Division. On the 23rd February, 1880, Mr. O'Donnell brought forward a similar Motion in regard to articles in The World, Morning Advertiser, Daily Telegraph, and Pall Mall Gazette. Sir Stafford North-cote moved an Amendment, which was seconded by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), to pass to the Orders of the Day, and that was accepted and carried without a Division. I think the House will feel the extreme delicacy of proceeding in these matters, and I would submit that, while we cannot deny that a Breach of Privilege has been committed, we should follow these two precedents and proceed to the Order of the Day. [Cries of "Move!"] Well, I do not move. It is for the House to decide, and I should like to know the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, who will, I feel sure, deal with this matter with entire impartiality. [Cries of "Move!"]

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not move?

As a matter of fact, I did not move; but I beg now to move, Sir, "That the House do now proceed to the Business of the day."

I rise to second that Motion. I think that we should proceed in these matters with great reluctance, and if my hon. Friend had consulted me, I should have ventured to dissuade him from taking the course he has. The precedents which have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman appear to me to be founded on a rule of prudence. Breach of Privilege is a very wide net, and it would be very undesirable that notice should be taken in this House of all cases in which hon. Members are unfairly criticized. Breach of Privilege is not exactly to be defined. It is rather to be held in the air to be exercised on proper occasions when, in the opinion of the House, a fit case for its exercise occurs. To put this weapon unduly in force is to invite a combat upon unequal terms wheresoever and by whomsoever carried on. Though, in the present case, my opinion of the language in the article now brought under the attention of the House is not very different from that of my hon. Friend, I do not think there is any duty or policy which should induce us to treat it as an exception to the general rule of prudence acted upon in former cases. My hon. Friend referred to the Resolution passed by this House in 1733. I say quite frankly that I am not prepared to be bound by the usage of the House on matters of Privilege in 1733. The right of the nation to know the proceedings of Parliament was not then recognized. Now that right is established, and opinions are therefore naturally formed in regard to these proceedings. Indeed, it is absolutely necessary that there should be freedom of comment. That freedom of comment may, of course, be occasionally abused; but I do not think it is becoming the dignity of the House to notice that abuse of it. It is infinitely better and more dignified in this House to stand on the general reasonableness of its proceedings if we can, and if we have not that basis of reasonableness, we have no basis at all. I would therefore say that in accordance with the precedents that have been mentioned, and not only as a matter of precedent, but upon general grounds, we would do well to take no notice of this subject. I am, it appears, one of the persons honoured by reference to the observations I yesterday submitted to the House; but I am quite ready to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and I would also venture to respectfully request my hon. Friend not to press the Motion which he has made.

I do not think it was quite fair of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian as a Gentleman having a perfectly impartial and independent mind upon this subject; for the right hon. Gentleman is himself accused in this article, and, under those circumstances, he has got up not with an impartial mind, but with a desire to return good for evil. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those who are termed "foul mouthed" by The Times. He has urged me not to press this Motion. I will not press it under the circumstances; but I will just point out that in my researches into antiquity, I find that the punishment for the offence which has been committed is branding, flogging, and being put in pillory one and all. I hope that Mr. Walter and his friends will henceforth abate the coarseness of their language towards the right hon. Gentleman, when they find that it is owing to his intervention that they are not punished as they deserved to be by this House.

Before the Motion is withdrawn I desire to offer a few words to the House. As for the references of The Times to myself, I do not care what it says, and I should not have thought of troubling the House on this occasion, for I regard its utterances with immeasurable contempt. In the second place, I know well, from experience, that the proceedings of Irish Members in this House are regarded by a considerable section of the House as fair matter for scurrilous attacks by any blackguard of the Press. Irish Members, of whom I am one, are accused of blackguardism in the performance of their duties in this House. I only wish to say that whatever they have said and done has been under the notice and control of either Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means. I do not know that I have come much into conflict with the Chair; but I do remember that on one occasion when I was forced to call an hon. Member a liar to his face, you, Mr. Speaker, having regard to the provocation I received, did not consider that I exceeded the limits of my right. The article read at the Table declares that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley) is scandalous, because he said that the conduct of The Times had been infamous. Now, what were the facts of the case? My hon. Friend the Member for North Wexford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), on the day after the Phœnix Park murders, addressed a public meeting at Manchester. He put himself in communication with the police, and learned that the rumour of Lord Spencer's assassination was false, but that, as regarded Lord Frederick Cavendish, it was true. He therefore referred to the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish only, because he knew of no other murder. On the following day, The Times commented upon the fact that my hon. Friend did not refer to the murder of Mr. Burke, and conveyed in the plainest terms that, if he did not actually approve of the murder, he was willing to condone it. My hon. Friend wrote a letter to The Times explaining the matter; but The Times, from that day to this, has refused to print that letter. The hon. Member subsequently repeated his explanation in a speech in this House; but The Times, in reporting his speech, cut out the passages explaining the matter.

I must remind the hon. Member that the House is now considering the subject of Privilege in connection with The Times article of this day.

The Times article of to-day accuses the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne of scandalous conduct in charging it with the deepest infamy on the unsupported testimony, which he had taken no pains to verify, of his reckless Irish allies. I am endeavouring to show that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman was not scandalous, but was justifiable. I maintain that the statements of the right hon. Gentleman did not rest on unsupported testimony, but were proved by notorious facts. The Times refused to insert the letter of my hon. Friend, and, as I have said, cut out of his speech in this House his explanation in reference to the matter. Will it be observed that that speech having been delivered in May, 1882, and my hon. Friend having written a letter to The Times to explain the whole matter, the hon. and learned Attorney General the other day, in the case of "O'Donnell v. Walter," absolutely drew the attention of the jury to the passage contained in The Times in which it attacked my hon. Friend. I hold in my hand the third and revised edition of Parnellism and Crime, and let me turn to one passage there relating to the conduct of my hon. Friend.

That is not the question before the House. The question is whether the words in The Times' issue of this day constitute a Breach of Privilege. The hon. Member is not entitled to go back to former articles, because the question is simply whether the words contained in the article to-day constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House.

Surely, the word scandalous applied to the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne is a Breach of Privilege. I was endeavouring to show that the right hon. Gentleman had not spoken on unsupported testimony.

I rise to Order. I submit, that the words in The Times being admitted to be a Breach of Privilege, it is immaterial whether they are justified by the facts or not, and, therefore, it is out of Order for the hon. Member to discuss them and endeavour to prove that they are not in accordance with the facts.

As you, Sir, were not in the Chair yesterday afternoon, I may perhaps be allowed to say that the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) was referring to what took place in Committee, and to the speech made by my hon. and learnen Friend the Member for North Wexford. I submit that the hon. Member was entitled to show that the remark which he thought it his duty to make was justified.

The truth of this matter has nothing to do with the question whether the language of The Times was proper to be used towards Members of the House, and whether the use of improper language constitutes a Breach of Privilege. The truth and justice of the language used is not the question before the House.

Is not the question before the House the propriety of proceeding to the Business of the day?

The libel upon my hon. and learned Friend was inserted in The Times on the 8th of May, 1882—

"On the 7th," said The Times, "Mr. J. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He condemned the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish; but it is significant that he made no reference to the murder of Mr. Burke."

It is enough for me to say that the hon. and learned Attorney General read the remarks to the jury on the conduct of Mr. Redmond without any explanation. But we despise insinuations proceeding from the paymasters and accomplices of forgers. I will not detain the House further with the infamous suggestion directed against my hon. Friend six years ago, the explanation of which has been suppressed, but I will only ask who were the blackguards?

I wish, Sir, to claim your indulgence and the indulgence of the House while I speak one or two sentences in reference to a matter which affects me personally. I hold now, in my hand, the proof of the statement which I made yesterday. Yesterday I stated the circumstances under which I made the speech to a public meeting at Manchester, and I said that The Times had publicly accused me of sympathizing with the murder of Mr. Burke, because in that speech I did not mention his name. [Cries of "Question!"] If you tell me it is not the Question, I will sit down, and I will ask leave to make a personal explanation. I made that statement yesterday; but I find that the statement I made went further than the fact. What The Times did was this, it made the statement the next day that I had made no reference whatever to the murder of Mr. Burke. A couple of days afterwards the hon. Member for Derry City (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) told me that comment had been made by Members of the House on my silence in presence of that implied charge. In answer to the appeal of the hon. Member for Derry City, I wrote a letter to The Times, stating that I had no more idea than the child unborn, at the time I made the speech, that Mr. Burke had, unfortunately, been murdered. The Times did not publish that letter. On May 18, 1882, I alluded to the subject in the House, as reported in Hansard. I said—

"That it was difficult for the Irish Members to insure the proper representation of their words and actions before the public might be seen from the fact that for his speech at Manchester, immediately after the lamentable outrage in the Phœnix Park, he had been attacked in the London Press for having mentioned Lord Frederick Cavendish and omitted Mr. Burke, notwithstanding the fact that at the time of the delivery of the speech he was unaware that Mr. Burke had been assassinated. A letter which he wrote to The Times newspaper explaining this was not inserted in that journal, although it was one of the London papers that took the matter up."—(3 Hansard, [269] 998.)

The Times omitted the whole of that passage from the report of my speech. The matter had then passed from my memory until the early part of last year, until the articles entitled Parnellism and Crime appeared, when I found the statement in them—

"The same day"—

that is the day after the murder—

"Mr. J. E. Redmond spoke at Manchester. He, too, condemned the Chief Secretary's murder. But it is a point of high significance, noted at the time, that at this meeting no reference whatever was made to the murder of Mr. Burke."

These words are quoted from The Times of May 8, 1882. In a subsequent page of the same pamphlet is this passage—

"Mr. Finarty headed the demonstration at Turner Hall. The latter had recently expressed his sorrow that the London explosions were not more successful. He now threw his side light on the murders in the Phœnix Park. He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) died because he was in bad company—was with Thomas H. Burke, the Fouche of Ireland. The day after the murders, Mr. J. E. Redmond, M.P., deplored as we have seen, the Chief Secretary's end. He, too, said nothing as regarded Burke."

When I read these articles in Parnellism and Crime, I wrote a letter to a London journal, stating the facts and challenging The Times to explain why they had publisned this calumnious statement. That letter duly appeared on the 15th of March, and then The Times replied in a way that was little else than saying that I was telling a lie. They said that—

"Mr. J. E. Redmond's so-called explanation of his silence about the murder of Mr. Burke was merely an assertion that on Sunday afternoon in Manchester, he knew nothing of the double nature of the crime committed on Saturday night with which the whole country was ringing. Such an assertion hardly required comment."

This is the end of my miserable story, miserable for everybody concerned except me. The hon. and learned Attorney General, I am sure, knowing nothing of my explanation, and acting on instructions, insisted after contention with Mr. Ruegg, the counsel for Mr. O'Donnell, in putting before the jury the whole of these scandalous imputations upon me. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, who has been foully assailed because it is said he accepted my statement without sifting it, the right hon. Gentleman did nothing of the kind. What the right hon. Gentleman said yesterday was—that if my statements were true, they covered The Times with infamy; but he went on to say that probably I might have omitted something in my statement. If I did omit anything in that statement, I have tried to supply the omission. I have nothing further to say than that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now be satisfied by the proofs that I have given, and the statements I have made, of the truth of the statements I have made day by day with dates, and chapter, and verse, and I am sure that the public will not be slow to draw the right inference with regard to the repeated accusations which have been made against me by The Times, after the conductors of that paper knew them to be false, nor will they be slow to sympathize with the hon. and learned Attorney General at having found himself, as counsel for The Times, in the position of repeating against me the calumnies which those who instructed him knew to be false.

After hearing what my hon. and learned Friend has said, I am, as he supposed I should be, entirely and fully satisfied, and now I am in a position to alter what I said yesterday. What I said yesterday was—and it is not worth while in this case to notice remarks in editorial articles—with regard to the conduct of The Times strictly conditional. Four times in the course of my remarks I said—"If this is proved, The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy." I have heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and I now withdraw that qualification, and say that The Times has been guilty of the deepest infamy.

While I think that the House is justified in taking no further notice of this matter, and while I fully endorse the action of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, I think that the House has some reason to complain that the reports in Hansard's Debates are largely taken from The Times, which we now know in every case in reporting the speeches of Irish Members acts like a literary Thug.

Do I understand the hon. Member for Northampton to withdraw his Motion?

Yes, Sir; I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion.

On this side of the House, it was expected that the hon. and learned Attorney General would take the opportunity which has been offered him of withdrawing a statement which he must now know was a calumny, and which he could not justify. [Cries of "Answer!"]