asked the Postmaster General, Whether, during the recess, he will take into his serious consideration the great desirability of arranging for the sale of post cards at post offices, if not at the face value of the stamps, as is done on the Continent, at all events at a price per dozen equal to that at which the same articles are now supplied by stationers—namely, 7d. instead of 8d.?

A few days ago I stated, in the answer which I made to the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson), that the sale of post cards at their face value entail a loss of Revenue of upwards of £77,000; and there is, I fear, no prospect of any reduction of the present price so long as the existing contract remains in force.

asked, whether the contract would be renewed?

said, it would not.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he can say whether a pamphlet purporting to contain the speech of Sir Harry Parkes, Premier of New South Wales, in moving the Second Reading of the Chinese Restriction Bill, and a preface by that gentleman, is genuine; whether he has noticed that Sir Harry Parkes used the following words in his speech, and set them forth again in his preface:—

"Neither for Her Majesty's ships of war, nor for Her Majesty's Representative on the spot, nor for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, do we intend to turn aside from our purpose, which is to terminate the landing of Chinese on these shores for ever, except under the restrictions imposed by the Bill, which will amount, and are intended to amount, to practical prohibition;"

also, that Sir Harry Parkes distinctly avowed that—

"The Government had been acting illegally in refusing to allow the Chinese to land;"

whether the Bill so proposed was passed, and contained an indemnity for the illegal acts committed by the New South Wales Government; whether the Act so passed has been assented to by the Governor, acting for Her Majesty, not being reserved for Her Majesty's pleasure; and, whether the Secretary of State satisfied himself that the refusal to allow the Chinese to land in New South Wales and the provisions of the Bill are in accordance with Her Majesty's Treaties with the Emperor of China, and with our amicable relations with that Power, before he allowed the Governor to give the Queen's Assent to the Act?

(who replied) said: The Secretary of State has no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pamphlet referred to by the hon. Member; and he has seen the two statements quoted, which are explained in the preface. The Bill has passed, and is understood to contain a clause preserving to any person who feels aggrieved the right of redress for losses in Courts of Law, but indemnifying the Members of the Ministry personally. The Bill has been assented to, but without prejudice to Her Majesty's power of disallowance should its provisions be found inadmissible. The Act has not yet been received; but its provisions will be carefully considered. I may add that laws imposing restrictions on Chinese immigration have been in force for many years in the Australian Colonies.

gave Notice that he would call attention to the subject on the second reading of the Imperial Defence Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to the Proclamation of the Shah of Persia issued in May last, encouraging the formation of Companies and promising them protection, Whether that promise was put forth in any degree at the suggestion of Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Representative; and, whether the formal communication of the Proclamation to Foreign Powers will give them any claim to interfere on behalf of Companies or capitalists who may choose to embark in speculations in Persia?

Her Majesty's Representative at Teheran was aware beforehand of the intentions of the Shah to issue the Proclamation, and encouraged it. Her Majesty's Government have themselves repeatedly urged the Shah to throw open the Karun River to steam navigation, and to encourage the construction of railways and carriage roads from the Persian Gulf. The formal communication of the Proclamation to the Foreign Representatives constitutes, in effect, an assurance on the part of His Majesty to which a Foreign Government might appeal; but that the right of interference on behalf of British subjects who may embark in commercial or in- dustrial enterprizes in Persia is founded on Article IX. of the Treaty of 1857, insuring most-favoured nation treatment to British subjects and their trade, and, consequently, extended to them the provisions of the Treaty of Commerce between Russia and Persia, signed at Turkmantchai in 1828.

gave Notice that on an early opportunity he should call attention to the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Secretary of State will cause to be prepared and presented to Parliament, after the coming Recess, a précis, showing in brief the information obtained by the Foreign Office as to the extent and character of the Slave Trade now carried on in the interior of Africa; also as to the number of slaves exported, the parts of the coast from which they are exported, the countries to which they are exported, and the way in which they are dealt with in those countries; the persons by whom, and the means by which, the traffic is carried on; and the degree to which repressive measures are effectually used or fail of effect?

The Foreign Office already give all the information possessed by them on the subject in the Annual Report on the Slave Trade, which is presented to Parliament; the further details asked for by the hon. Member are plainly impossible to furnish, and any such statistics could only be founded on speculation.

asked the Postmaster General, If he can now say that the monopoly of a private Telegraph Company across the Channel to the Continent will not be renewed on its expiry?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the monopoly will not be renewed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the case of two Emergency men, named Plumber and Connell, who, being in charge of a farm at Killeenagalline, County Tipperary, whilst returning on Wednesday the 1st instant, from Emly, in a state of drunkenness, fired several shots from revolvers, when two young girls had a narrow escape from the bullets; whether, having been arrested by the police, they were brought before the magistrates at Tipperary Petty Sessions, and fined £1 and 7s. 6d. respectively for being drunk only; whether Constable Falvey swore the revolver found on Plumber had the appearance of being discharged; and, whether the authorities are investigating the case of firing, and intend taking any action against these men for the grave offence?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the caretakers referred to are not connected either with the Emergency Committee or the Property Defence Association. Plumber was fined £1 for being drunk while in possession of a loaded revolver, and Connell 5s. for being drunk only, his revolver not being loaded when he was arrested. It does not appear that the two girls had a narrow escape from being shot. One of them said Connell pointed his revolver at her, but made no attempt to discharge it; nor did he say anything to her. Her companion said she did not see Connell do anything. The constable's evidence related to Connell's (not Plumber's) revolver; and it appears that a man states that he saw him discharge it into a field where there was no person.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether the authorities will inquire how these men are able to fire revolvers in the open air without being prosecuted?

I have not got the exact terms of the charge before me. There will probably be an investigation into the matter of the licence.

That is not what I asked. Will the authorities take any steps to investigate the matter?

I have stated all I know in reply to the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that the beach in the vicinity of Shinglestreet, in Hollesley Bay, Suffolk, is peculiarly well adapted for the landing of a hostile expedition, having deep water alongside and being undefended except by Martello towers; and if he will take the necessary steps to establish a telegraph office in the immediate neighbourhood, the nearest available one at present being Woodbridge, 10 miles distant?

The locality referred to is fully recognized as a possible landing place; and in the scheme for the defence of the country provision is made for its being duly watched. In time of emergency communication will be established with the nearest military centre.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that no meaning attaches to the words "Gwell augau neu chwilydd," the motto given in the official Army List as that of the Welsh Regiment, there being no such word as "augau" in the Welsh language; whether it is correct that the expression "Gwell angeu neu chwilydd" (Better death or shame), appears on the caps of the men in the regiment, and is a source of annoyance to them as well as their friends; and, whether he will cause to be substituted in both cases the old Welsh motto "Gwell angeu na chywilydd" (Better death than disgrace), the one clearly intended?

In April last the officer commanding called attention to an alleged inaccuracy in the motto of the Welsh Regiment, and the matter was referred to a very competent authority for decision. Orders have now been given that the necessary correction shall be made.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence which passed between the late Dr. Ridley and Dr. Barr's mother-in-law bearing upon the subject of the treatment of the late Mr. Mandeville in Tullamore Prison?

If any such correspondence exists (of which I have no knowledge), and if it should be produced at the inquest, it will, of course, be included in the Report of the proceedings which will be presented to the House.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this correspondence has not been alluded to at the inquest?

If so, I presume it is in the power of any of the parties concerned to have it produced. If it is produced in evidence it will be laid before the House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman ask Dr. Barr how his mother-in-law comes into the question?

I have informed the House I have no knowledge of this correspondence at all.

Will the right hon. Gentleman produce the shorthand writer's notes on the inquest on Dr. Ridley and lay them on the Table?

said, he had promised to lay them on the Table, and had alluded to his promise several times in the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a report of a trial at Leeds on Friday last, before Mr. Justice Cave, in which Dr. Eastwood, the proprietor of the Dinsdale Private Lunatic Asylum, an establishment kept for private gain, claimed £2,000 damages from The Northern Echo, which published an extract from another paper reflecting on Dr. Eastwood's treatment of his patients; whether is is the fact that he has already recovered damages from two other papers for the same libel, and when apologized to in the fullest manner by The Northern Echo intimated through his solicitor that he—

"Could not think of being satisfied without a monetary compensation;"

whether he is aware that the charges consisted mainly of the bad quality of the food; that Dr. Eastwood employed the patients to work on his farm of 120 acres on the plea of giving them exercise; that there is in the asylum

"A strong dark room set apart for solitary confinement when patients become refractory and unmanageable;"

that the writer saw "many acts of violence to the patients;" and heard "awful screams" from time to time; whether, considering the very painful nature of the charges, the Lunacy Commissioners have of their own accord inquired into the truth or falsehood of these grave charges; and, if not, will he call upon them to do so; and, whether the Government will next Session re-introduce the Lunacy Amendment Bill, and put a clause into it providing for the total abolition of private lunatic asylums kept for personal profit?

I am informed by the Lunacy Commissioners that they have no knowledge of the actions for libel brought by Dr. Eastwood beyond that contained in the newspapers. The asylum is visited twice a-year by two Commissioners; four times a-year by the Visiting Justices and Medical Visitor appointed by Quarter Sessions, and twice by the Medical Visitor alone. Defects have, from time to time, been detected and pointed out; but no such grave abuses as those specified in the libel. As far as the Commissioners are aware the allegations are unfounded; and having regard to the result of the litigation they do not consider any inquiry on their part to be necessary. It will be observed that no attempt was made to justify the libel. The Government hope to be able to re-introduce the Lunacy Bill next Session; but cannot undertake to insert such a clanse as is suggested.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether his attention has been directed to the case of Charles Smith, an old man, of weak intellect and infirm health, who was turned out of his dwelling-house in the parish of Monimail, in Fife, in May, 1887, and who was then, and still is, refused any parish relief except within the workhouse; whether the said Charles Smith has since lived in a cave in the earth without fire or protection for five months; whether he has been prevented by the Board of Supervision from bringing his case before the ordinary Courts; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to limit the authority of the Board of Supervision to prohibit inquiry in such cases by the ordinary tribunals?

The man in question, though of weak intellect, is not a suitable person for confinement as a lunatic, and is able to take care of himself. He is a nuisance to the neighbourhood, being very abusive with his tongue. The case was fully considered and not thought suitable for ordinary outdoor relief. The Board of Supervision has no power to prohibit inquiry; but it has a responsibility to decide whether the relief offered is adequate, which in this case it undoubtedly is.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that of the 155 pupil teachers examined in July, 1887, only 33 were appointed teachers in National schools in Ireland during the year 1887; and, whether Rule 151 of the Board of National Education excludes pupil teachers from appointment as teachers in National schools; and, if so, whether he will suggest to the Commissioners the advis- ability of altering this Rule in favour of pupil teachers?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that of the 155 pupil teachers examined in July, 1887, a large proportion were only in the first year of their course and the remainder in the second, the whole course lasting two years. They also state that Rule 151 does not exclude from appointment as teachers pupil teachers who have satisfactorily finished their course, because such pupil teachers then come under the category of classified teachers.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that in the case of Mr. George Phillips, summoned for unlawful assembly at Dundalk on the occasion of Mr. Dillon's appeal there on June 20 last, at the hearing of the case on July 27, Police-sergeant M'Barren having proved that defendant made use of the following expressions, "to——with Balfour" and "the police are blackguards," and Mr. Adams, counsel for the defendant, having argued that

"Evidence must be given of some circumstance of actual force or violence, or at least of such apparent tendency thereto as are calculated to strike terror into the public,"

and no such evidence having been given, Captain Preston, the Resident Magistrate, held that the language above quoted brought the meeting within the following definition of an unlawful assembly—namely—

"Persons assembled to sow sedition and to bring into contempt the Constitution;"

and, whether, considering the extreme difficulty of connecting the phrases used by the accused with "sedition" or with "contempt of the Constitution," he will instruct Crown Prosecutors in future not to pursue such cases unless there is evidence of at least some kind of tendency to violence?

The Constabulary authorities report that while the sergeant's evidence incidentally showed that the expressions referred to were made use of by some of the members of the crowd, it was proved by him and several witnesses that the expressions, demeanour, and actions of the mob, of which Phillips was the ringleader, was such as to put law-abiding persons in fear and dread, and to bring the administration of the law into contempt. I do not see any ground for instructions of the nature referred to in the concluding portion of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that summonses have been issued at Dundalk against Michael Joseph Carroll, Henry Cooper, and Joseph Michael Johnston—

"For wrongfully, and without legal authority, using violence and intimidation to and towards Robert Emerson, Esquire, Solicitor, in consequence of his having done an act that he had a legal right to do—namely, having acted as agent and solicitor for and on behalf of the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Massereene;"

whether this violence and intimidation consisted of anything else than "booing" at Mr. Emerson at the Dundalk Railway Station on June 20 last, after the hearing of the appeal of Mr. John Dillon, M.P., unaccompanied by any acts of violence or threatened violence; whether he can explain why these summonses were not issued till more than a month after the event complained of; and, whether be will intimate to the Crown Prosecutor to withdraw the charge?

The Constabulary authorities report that the men named have been summoned for intimidation towards the gentleman referred to. One of them, however, absconded, and has not up to the present been traced. The intimidation consisted not merely of booing, but of inciting a hostile and excited crowd to attack the gentleman, who was a stranger to the place. No unavoidable delay has, I understand, taken place in instituting the proceedings, summonses having been issued in the first instance for June 29, when these cases with others were adjourned. The fresh summonses were issued about July 21.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What provision is being made for the instruction in religion of the Roman Catholic children in the Day Industrial School now being built in Manchester by the school board of that city; has the consent of the Home Office been given for the erection of a separate department, and for the provision of separate teachers for these children; if so, under what provisions of the Education Acts, or of the Industrial Schools Acts, or the Orders of the Privy Council have these arrangements been made; how can such actions be reconciled with the fundamental principle of the Education Acts that no denominational formulary is to be taught in an elementary school under a school board; and, if separate provisions can be made for the instruction of Roman Catholic children in their religion, are other Religious Bodies entitled to similar provision?

The Home Office Regulations will require that due provision be made for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children attending the day industrial school now being built in Manchester. These arrangements will be under the Order in Council made on March 20, 1877, concerning day industrial schools. A separate department will not be required; the question of separate teachers will rest with the school board. No attempt will be made to detach children from the denomination to which they belong. Other Religious Bodies are entitled to similar provisions—that is, at the option of the parents, provision can be made, with the approval of the Board, for children to attend religious instruction or services conducted by ministers of their respective creeds.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the outbreak of small-pox in St. Joseph's Certified Industrial School, Manchester; whether it is a fact that three sisters, five attendants, and 58 children have been attacked by small-pox, and have been removed from the school to the Monsall Hospital for Infectious Diseases; whether the outbreak has been traced to a child named Conley, committed to this school from York on July 6 last, while suffering from small-pox; whether the child Conley is 12 years of age, and is certified to have been vaccinated; and, whether he can inform the House what are the Regulations at St. Joseph's Industrial School as to the vaccination of the sisters, attendants, and children placed in the school; what are the numbers of the vaccinated and unvaccinated respectively among the 66 small-pox patients removed from the school to the hospital; what is the number of the pupils who have not been attacked by small-pox; and whether any of the pupils who have escaped are unvaccinated? In asking this question, I wish also to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state if there have been any fresh cases of small-pox at the school; and also, seeing that the child who is alleged to have brought small-pox to the school was certified by a medical man at York to be at that time free from cutaneous disorder, whether the right hon. Gentleman or the Home Secretary can take steps to make him responsible.

It is quite impossible for me to answer the Question which the hon. Gentleman has just addressed to me without Notice. The Local Government Board are going to inquire into the whole of the circumstances of the case. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's other Question, I have to say that the Mayor of Manchester has furnished me with information as to the outbreak of small-pox in St. Joseph's Certified Industrial School, Manchester. It is the case that three sisters, five attendants, and 58 children have been attacked by small-pox, or by symptoms suspected as being premonitory of small-pox. All the cases, including some who have no eruption, have been removed from the school to the Monsall Hospital. The Lady Superintendent of the school states that the Rule is that every girl is vaccinated before she enters the school, and that a certificate of having had cow-pox or small-pox is sent with her. It is also the Rule that every sister is vaccinated before entering on her duties. No certificates are required with the attendants. Dr. Oldham, of Monsall Hospital, has reported as regards the vaccination of 67 of the number removed to the hospital. Of this number he returns seven as not vaccinated and 60 as vaccinated. On August 5 he informed the Board that seven of the cases were in unvaccinated persons, of whom one had died; that nine cases of various degrees of severity were in vaccinated persons; and that the remaining 51 (vaccinated) cases—that is to say, four-fifths of the entire number—have either not had small-pox, as in some few instances, or else have suffered from nothing more than subjective symptoms followed by the appearance of from one to 12 spots. Two re-vaccinated persons, and only two, were sent to Monsall Hospital; but neither of these had any small-pox eruption. The facts of the outbreak, especially as to its origin, are in many respects obscure. The disease is supposed to have been introduced by a girl admitted on July 6; but this girl was certified on July 3 to be free from cutaneous disorder, and does not appear to have been kept in bed after her admission, or, indeed, to have been regarded as in any way out of health. The number of children who have not been attacked by small-pox is 88. These are certified to have been vaccinated. The Board have directed a fuller inquiry by one of their Medical Inspectors.

asked, whether from the numbers at school it did not appear that very nearly 40 per cent of the pupils at the school referred to have taken small-pox from the introduction of this case?

No doubt the case has had a very serious effect; but I am not quite sure of the proportion of pupils that have been affected.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not stated whether the child that introduced the disease had been vaccinated or not.

I have given the hon. Member all the information I have. As I have already stated, we are going to make a full inquiry.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would inquire how far the Rule requiring vaccination previous to admission had been carried out?

Every circumstance in connection with this outbreak, which is of a very lamentable character, will be inquired into.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if his attention had been called to the Report of the Sanitary Committee of the Manchester Town Council, in which it was stated that—

The child, when admitted on July 6, admits to having had at the time some spots on her arms and legs, and on Friday, July 27, when examined, the scales from recent small-pox were still found to be on arms and legs."

No; I have not seen that statement.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is proposed to let a piece of land on the banks of the Thames at Datchet on terms which will enable the tenant to fix any rate of charges for landing, or to prohibit any persons from landing; whether the piece of land has hitherto been used as the only public landing place at Datchet, the adjoining piece of land being used by the parish for landing ballast; and, whether he will consider the advisability of letting this small piece of land to the Local Authorities at a peppercorn rent, so that it may be in future used by the public as a free landing place?

(who replied) said: The piece of land in question, which is to be let by tender, is not used at present as a public landing-place; and therefore no stipulation has been made in the conditions of tender as to a maximum landing fee. Under the Land Revenue Acts the Commissioner of Woods has no power to let the land an suggested in the last paragraph of the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the course of special instruction and ultimate examination, which is preposed "to be given better and at less expense" in India, will be afforded in each or in a selected Presidency; (2) what existing hospital or hospitals in India will be selected; (3) what will be the estimated cost of providing such selected teaching centre or centres with a teaching staff, teaching plant, hygienic laboratory, and museum, &c., such as has been supplied at Netley; (4) whether, at present, India pays only her share of the cost of the Army Medical School, according to the number of men under tuition, the War Office being charged with the remainder; (5) whether the advice of Sir Joseph Fayrer, physician to the Council of India, has been asked on the proposed change; (6) whether future entrance examinations for the service in question will be conducted by the same staff and in the same place as heretofore; (7) whether the intended hypothetical economy will entail an immediate and continued increase of expenditure, and whether any corresponding advantage will be attained; and, (8) whether such expenditure is proposed to be imposed on the already overburdened taxpayers of India?

The Questions (except 4 and 5) relate to matters upon which, as I informed the House on July 26, no decision has yet been arrived at. The answers to 4 and 5 are in the affirmative.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that clerks employed in the office of the Commissioners of National Education, in Dublin, are fined at the rate of 6d. for every five minutes they are late in attendance in the morning; whether these same clerks are frequently called upon to give considerable attendance, in addition to the ordinary office hours, without additional pay; and, whether such a Regulation exists in any other Government Department, so far as he knows?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the office hours are from 10 A.M. until 4 P.M. No clerk is fined whose attendance is not later than 10.15. Any clerk absent after 10.15 o'clock is fined 6d. for every five minutes up to 11 o'clock, unless he can give the Secretary a satisfactory reason for his absence, in which case he is excused. Absence later than 11 o'clock is specially considered. Whenever the pressure of business renders such a course unavoidable, extra attendance is required without additional pay; but, in consideration of it, a half holiday on Saturday is given to all clerks who are not in arrear with their work, and when much extra attendance is given by an individual his annual leave may be extended. I am not aware whether such a Regulation exists in any other Government Department.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the hours which Sir Patrick Keenan is expected to devote to the work of the National Education Office, Dublin, run from 1 or 2 o'clock in the afternoon to about 6 o'clock in the evening; whether the meetings of the Privy Council usually take place between those hours; and, whether Sir Patrick Keenan's attendance at those meetings consequently interferes with the proper discharge of his duty as Resident Commissioner of National Education?

Sir Patrick Keenan gives whatever time is necessary for the discharge of the duties of Resident Commissioner of National Education; and I have already stated, in answer to another Question, that his being a Privy Councillor has in no way interfered with the discharge of his official duties.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will communicate to the House the tenour of the telegram recently received, showing the payments made by the Government of India to the Irrawaddy Flotilla Company for hire of flats and for demurrage, the cost of such flats if built, and the cause of the demurrage?

The Government of India has telegraphed that—

"No flats are under hire at present. Last trooping season four flats hired at about Rs. 5,000 each per mensem. Flats can be built at Calcutta Rs. 30,000 each. Demurrage paid for half-year ended December 31 last, about Rs. 22,000; for half-year ended June 30 last, Rs. 7,800."

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the present lessee of the tolls of the Menai Bridge levies tolls upon private carriages on each journey, and not once a day as was always the case until the last few weeks; and, whether this practice of the lessee is legal; and, if not, will he enforce its discontinuance?

(who replied) said: We have had one complaint of this kind some six weeks ago, and we then informed the complainant that—

"The Board had granted a lease of the tolls to Mr. James Percy, and had no control over their collection."

We have, however, called the lessee's attention to Section 77 of the Act 4 Geo. IV., c. 74, under which the tolls are collected. That section provides that—

"No more than one toll shall be demanded or taken from any person or persons for passing and re-passing on the same day and with the same horse, beast, cattle, and carriage."

If the lessee collects tolls in violation of this provision, it is open to the person or persons wrongly charged to take proceedings against him. The matter is not one in which this Board can intervene further than they have already done.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is a fact that the necessary fittings, such as tables, stools, racks, and cupboards, required in connection with the extension of the drawing school of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, have not yet been supplied, although orders were sent to the Board of Works for them more than two years ago; and, whether immediate attention will be paid to the demand?

, in reply, said, he would take what steps he could to have the fittings referred to supplied by the Board of Works as soon as possible.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who appointed the Clerk of Works to the additional building, Killarney District Lunatic Asylum, and if said appointment has been sanctioned by the Board of Works or by the Lord Lieutenant; whether the person appointed is already acting in the capacity of engineer to that institution; what training has he received to qualify him for either of those positions, and on whose recommendation have the appointments been made; and, whether these two appointments can be held by the same person so as to faithfully discharge the duties appertaining to the offices?

(who replied) said: The Clerk of Works for new buildings at Killarney Lunatic Asylum was nominated by the Board of Governors, and the appointment was approved by the Board of Control. The sanction of the Lord Lieutenant for such an appointment is not necessary. The person so appointed is the engineer in charge of the steam machinery at the asylum. His appointment was recommended by the architect for the new building, who has full knowledge of the qualifications of this engineer, and the duties to be performed by him as Clerk of Works. There is no reason why both duties should not be satisfactorily performed by the same person, and the arrangement is an economical one.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have at last settled the controversy with the Government of India respecting the construction of the promised dock at Bombay for first-class iron-clads; and, if so, when the proposed dock will be commenced, and the probable date of its completion, and at what cost, as recommended by various Commanders-in-Chief for many years past on the Indian Station?

, in reply, said, the Government were of opinion that the dock should be constructed, and orders had been given for the preparation of the necessary plans.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that Messrs. Greenway, the bankers of Warwick and Leamington, possessed by law the right of issuing notes to the extent of £30,504; and that a large number of persons who held their notes when the bank stopped payment will incur a heavy loss; whether his attention has been called to the Report of the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy, from which it appears that the whole capital of the bank in 1862 was only £898, and that the bankrupts had been carrying on business for many years after they knew that they were insolvent, and using the monies of their depositors for purposes of personal expenditure and speculation; and, whether, having regard to these statements and to the fact that last week another private bank with the right of issuing notes stopped payment, he will consider the desirability of amending the law next Session, with a view of instituting an official and efficient audit of the accounts of all banks having the monopoly of issuing notes, so as to protect the public against similar losses in the future.

My attention has been called to the failures of two banks issuing notes. I am not prepared to deny the desirableness of considering the position of banks sharing in the monopoly of issuing notes; but I doubt whether that consideration will take the direction of instituting an official audit of the accounts of such banks.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the case of Warder Oulahan has, in accordance with the promise of the late Parliamentary Under Secretary, been re-con- sidered by the Prisons Board; and, if so, will he state the decision arrived at?

The general Prisons Board report that the warder referred to has not as yet made any application to be promoted to the position of head warder.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in accordance with their recognition in the autumn of 1886 of the necessity for legislation in the matter, Her Majesty's Government intend to bring in a Bill next Session to consolidate and amend the Law of Copyright?

, in reply, said, he would consider the subject. He would, however, not be so rash as to promise to bring in a Bill.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has favourably considered the application of Richard Wigley, of Aberdare, for a certificate of service under Clause 80 of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act of last year?

Yes, Sir; I have decided to grant a certificate to this applicant.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in a telegram from Amsterdam in Monday's Times, that—

"Owing to the friendly intervention of the Transvaal Government, the British Government had declared that it would never seek to obtain paramount influence over the railway from Delagoa Bay to the Transvaal Frontier in any way,"

and that—

"A like understanding had been given by the Cape and Natal Governments?"

(who replied) said: What took place was this. The High Commissioner has declared to the President of the South African Republic that Her Majesty's Government have no intention to buy or acquire the Portugese Delagoa Bay Railway, nor the controlling power in the Company to which it belongs. The President has stated, on the other hand, that the South African Republic has no intention to impose duties on imports by Colonial routes other than those imposed by the Delagoa route. The Secretary of State has no knowledge of "anything like understanding" said to have been given by the Cape and Natal Governments; but it is believed that those Governments have no intention of taking any action to buy or obtain control over the railway.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether his attention has been called to the pollution of the Regent's Canal by the sewage from the Zoological Gardens; whether the Canal is, by section 20 of "The Rivers Pollution Act, 1876," a "stream" within the purview of that Act; whether complaints have reached him that the sewage so discharged is slowly conducted through a succession of locks into the Thames at Limehouse; whether he is aware that repeated applications have been made in vain to the St. Pancras Vestry to obtain an abatement of the nuisance; and, whether, failing the action of the Local Authorities, he will take means to enforce the law?

No complaint has been made to the Local Government Board that the Regent's Canal is polluted by the sewage from the Zoological Gardens, or that the sewage, as discharged, is conducted through a series of locks into the Thames at Limehouse. The term "stream" in the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, includes canals; and I presume, therefore, that the Regent's Canal would be held to be a stream within the purview of that Act. I understand from the Medical Officer of Health for the parish of St. Pancras that no complaints have been received this year from any source of a nuisance caused by the Canal. The medical offi- cer states that he has repeatedly examined the effluent water from the Zoological Gardens, and has always found it brighter and clearer than the water of the Canal. The Local Government Board are not empowered to take proceedings under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act in respect of pollutions caused by sewage; but such proceedings may be instituted by any person aggrieved by the commission of the offence.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a private inquiry affecting the Rev. J. M'Fadden was recently held in Derry Gaol; whether Father M'Fadden was allowed to be present at it, or made acquainted with the fact that the subject matter was being investigated; whether the reverend gentleman has since been deprived of facilities for writing letters; and, what was the substance of the complaint, what was the nature of the evidence, and what was the substance of the Report made?

The General Prisons Board reports that the inquiry recently held in Derry Gaol was to ascertain whether any officer of the prison was in any way responsible for a letter having been passed out of the prison, and which the Rev. J. M'Fadden had previously admitted was sent out by him surreptitiously. He was not present at the inquiry, inasmuch as he was not personally concerned in the result. The deprivation of the facilities previously accorded him was not the result of this inquiry, but of an independent inquiry by the Visiting Committee, before whom, it was stated, he declined to appear.

Was not Father M'Fadden's offence merely the writing of a letter declaring to be false the charge of the Chief Secretary that he had boasted that tenants able to pay their rents had not paid them; and for this offence was he not prohibited from writing letters, and forced to exercise in the disgusting hole which I described to the House the other evening, and was not the window of the cell blocked up so that not a breath of fresh air should get in?

I am afraid I have no information on these points. The offence was not in the contents of the letter, but in getting it passed out of the prison surreptitiously.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire whether the punishment is not greater than the offence warranted?

I shall be perfectly ready to inquire if the hon. Gentleman will put another Question on the Paper. The information which I have relates only to the Question of which Notice was given, and that I have answered fully.

asked the Postmaster General, If he will grant further postal facilities to the residents in Great Holland, so that its increased population may be able to obtain stamps and money orders in their own parish?

I regret that I am not prepared to sanction further postal facilities to the residents of Great Holland, inasmuch as the cost of maintaining the post as it stands is already in excess of the revenue derived from the correspondence. I will consider the practicability of granting to some suitable person in the village a licence for the sale of stamps.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have passed at any time between Her Majesty's Government and the Dutch Government with reference to the affairs of Borneo, and the different scope assigned in the two countries to the Treaty of 1824?

If the hon. Member will refer to the Papers laid on the occasion of the grant of a Charter to the British North Borneo Company, he will find in "Netherlands, No. 1, 1882," the Correspondence with the Dutch Go- vernment with reference to the affairs of Borneo.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Income Tax is rightly charged on Schedule B, as well as Schedule A, to landowners for land let as allotments to cottagers?

It is not the practice to charge Income Tax under Schedule B on land let in allotments to cottagers; and if in any case the tax has by inadvertence been left in charge on such land, it will at once be discharged upon particulars of the case being given.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether Maurice Boyle, a publican, is an applicant for the Postmastership of Dungloe, County Donegal, which is now vacant; whether he has received a protest against the appointment of the said Maurice Boyle, signed by 400 householders resident in Dungloe Post Office District; and, whether, pending the investigation of the matters alleged in this protest, he will postpone the temporary or final appointment of Maurice Boyle to the Postmastership?

No appointment has yet been made to the vacant Postmastership of Dungloe, nor is it my intention to make one until after the fullest inquiry as to the qualifications of the candidates. I am not aware that any protest against the appointment of Maurice Boyle has been received, unless the hon. Member refers to a Memorial in favour of another person in which the appointment of Boyle is deprecated.

asked, whether certain very grave allegations were made against Boyle in that Memorial?

said, certain allegations had been made against Boyle, and he should inquire into them before making any appointment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the statement is true that Colonel Turner, Mr. Cecil Roche, and another, when about six miles from Ennis, met a car loaded by men returning from the fair of Clonroad, who shouted derisively, and that thereupon Colonel Turner and friends drew their revolvers and followed in pursuit; that Colonel Turner ordered a horseman, who was also returning from the fair, to go back or he would shoot him, frequently using the words, "I'll shoot you," and keeping the revolver presented at his head; that, after an unsuccessful attempt to overtake the car, Colonel Turner, Mr. Roche, &c., kept their revolvers presented at the individuals on another car whilst passing them; and, if he will inquire into this transaction, and, if true, will he take steps to prevent such action on the part of the magistrates in the future?

The account I have received of the incident differs wholly from that given in the Question; but if the hon. Gentleman will supply me with the names of the men to whom he refers, I will endeavour to have the whole transaction sifted to the bottom.

Is not Colonel Turner, as a Divisional Magistrate, authorized to require the attendance of Mr. Roche at evictions?

I am at a loss to understand how that arises out of the Question on the Paper; but I believe the general arrangement of the duties of the Resident Magistrates is left to the Divisional Magistrate.

Could not Colonel Turner say whether he presented a revolver at any man, then, if he did not know his name?

That implies that Colonel Turner may have presented a revolver at a man who threatened him; but I do not gather that that is the allegation in the Question on the Paper.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether arrangements can be made to permit Members to use the free post for Bills up to 7 p.m. instead of 5 p.m., the hour at which that post is now closed?

I am glad that the hon. Member has called my attention to this matter, as I find, upon inquiry, that the time for the free posting of Bills can be extended to 6.45 p.m. on and from to-day.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the action of Mr. Barstow in the summons against the Civil Service Bread Company, Limited, heard at the Clerkenwell Police Court on July 6, when he imposed a fine of 5s. on the Company for selling bread without weighing it, and on July 13 dismissed a summons against the Company for the same offence, and mulcted the complainant in 10s. costs; and, whether he can state which of these decisions of the magistrate was in accordance with the law?

I have obtained a Report from the magistrate, who informs me that in the first case the defendants failed to prove their case, and he accordingly fined them. In the second case the magistrate, in the exercise of his discretion, considered that the defence was proved and that the summons was captious, and he dismissed it, as he had power to do. I am not a Court of Appeal from the decision of magistrates.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have in their possession any Reports as to the measures adopted by the Russian Government in establishing Colonies of soldiers, belonging to the Reserve, in the Asiatic Provinces of Russia, and the economic results of such settlements, and also as to the system of State-aided emigration to the Usuri region; and, whether there is any objection to the procuring and publishing such Reports?

We have no official information except such as is contained in a Report on the Provinces of Semirechinsk and Kars, laid before Parliament in March last, but will ascertain whether any Reports are obtainable which could usefully be published.

asked the Postmaster General, What is the cause of the delay since May, 1887, in opening a suitable post office for the City of Kilkenny; and, whether complaints have reached him that the present temporary post office is in a most inconvenient place on the outskirts of the city?

The delay in altering the premises required in August—not in May—last year for a post office at Kilkenny has been due mainly to pressure of business at the Office of Public Works. The work is now in hand, and is expected to be completed by about the end of the year. No complaints have been received during the past year of the inconvenient situation of the temporary office, which, I am informed, is reasonably central.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the India Office has been drawn to a Memorial addressed to the Government of India, dated Calcutta, April 12, 1888, from the Secretary to the Indian Association of Calcutta, requesting the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the working of the Inland Emigration Act of 1882, and the unrepealed Act XIII. of 1859; and giving grounds, based on the actual treatment of the coolies in the tea-gardens of Assam, for the appointment of that Commission; whether the India Office has received a copy of this Memorial; and, what practical steps are contemplated for granting the prayer of the Memorial and for putting an end to the abuses indicated?

If the hon. Member will refer to an answer given by me on the 6th instant to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith), he will find that it replies to this Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he is aware that the following, among other provisions, exist in "The Inland Emigration Act, 1882;" that persons male and female of 16 years of age are held by this Act to be competent to make a contract, practically selling their liberty for a period of five years; that after a coolie has been registered he has no liberty to change his mind, but is liable to imprisonment if he refuses to proceed to or remain in the tea garden, to which he can be brought back on arrest without warrant; that the coolie, in many instances, may be transferred from one tea garden to another, without his consent; that in case of illness, if his absence from work is longer than 30 days, the time he is absent beyond the 30 days is added to the term of his contract; that a system of fines and imprisonment for absence from work, which may much exceed the amount of his wages, is imposed under the Act; whether the Government of India contemplate the amendment of any of these provisions; and, whether he is aware that, as a fact, the provisions of the Act for the protection of the coolie, whereby he ought to be individually examined as to his willingness to make the contract, before registration, and other protective provisions are often neglected?

The epitome which the hon. Member has made of Sections 11, 121, 142, 150, 162, 170, and 171 of the Act is not in all respects accurate. The Secretary of State is not aware of any Bill amending the Act being at present before the Legislative Council of India. The Secretary of State is not aware of the provi- sions of the Act for the protection of the coolie being often neglected.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he has any further information to communicate to the House with respect to the action of the India Office, or of the Government of India, in consequence of the Resolution of this House of June 5 last; and, whether he can inform the House if the Cantonment Regulations as to Prostitution are still in force or not in the various Military Stations in India?

The Secretary of State has no further information to communicate to the House with reference to the repeal of the Contagious Diseases Act and amendment of the Cantonment Acts. The Secretary of State has given such Executive directions to the Government of India as will prevent the revival of the regimental system, which has already been wholly abolished; and the Cantonment Regulations hitherto in force are to be so revised as to put a stop to the objectionable incidents in their administration.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the two men who, since Mr. Dunn gave evidence before the Judge Advocate General disclosing certain scandals which the superior officials had failed to notice, have been promoted over his head to the post of viewer, were so promoted on the ground of better qualification for the post; whether, on promotion, they were both found to be fitted for it; whether the Judge Advocate General reported that Mr. Dunn lately worked as a viewer (though without viewer's wages)

"for 11 months, and did his work very well. No complaint whatever was made against him. Having seen him examine a variety of articles, and give his opinion upon them, I am convinced he understands his business thoroughly. When I come to deal with the hides, pack saddles, bags, and other articles, it will be found that their opinions (those of Mr. Dunn and two others) are supported by the independent experts more than even those of Mr. Spice himself,"

the Inspector who had refused them the post of permanent viewers; whether the Inspector of Saddlery is Captain Horton, an ex-Riding Master, who reported in August, 1887, that a large number of saddles were serviceable which in September were condemned by the experts called in by the Judge Advocate General in consequence of the objections of Mr. Dunn; and, whether, having already intervened to prevent any undue punishment of another workman, Hawkins, described by the Judge Advocate General as "utterly unreliable," and "not a man fit for a place of responsibility and trust," the Secretary of State will, under the peculiar and exceptional circumstances of Mr. Dunn's case, again intervene to prevent a workman who has rendered at some risk a great public service from being denied that promotion for which the Judge Advocate General himself specially reported his capability and fitness?

In answer to the first two Questions, the men promoted were bettor fitted for the position, and I am informed that they have so far worked satisfactorily. As regards the third Question, I have more than once expressed my acknowledgments to the Judge Advocate General for his very careful inquiry; but the responsibility for promotions in the Department rests with myself alone. The selection will be made by merit. As regards the fourth Question, it is not the fact that in the Judge Advocate General's Report a large number of saddles passed by Captain Horton were condemned. Captain Horton is a most competent officer. As regards the fifth Question, I do not admit the argumentative portion. I have always stated that full justice shall be done to Mr. Dunn; but his promotion will depend upon his application to the work which he has to do.

inquired, whether the right hon. Gentleman still refused to intervene and prevent Mr. Dunn being punished?

said, that he had never refused to intervene. He would take care that full justice was done to this man. More than that he could not say.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has inquired as to the grounds of the decision of the Court of Exchequer as regards Mr. Latchford, J.P.; and, whether he adheres to the statement that the facts and merits of the case were not gone into, but that the decision turned solely on an error in the form of the order?

No information which I have received leads me to doubt in any respect the accuracy of the statements which I have made to the House.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether it is true that not only was Mr. Latchford convicted by the "Removables" of a "riot contrary to the statute in that case made and provided," although there is no statute making riot an offence, but also that Mr. Latchford was convicted alone of creating a riot, the other persons who had been charged having been acquitted, or the prosecution against them withdrawn; and that it appears, both in substance and in fact, from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, that Mr. Latchford was convicted by the "Removables" of an impossible offence—namely, the riot by one man?

No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman appears to be entirely under a mistake. Such a conclusion cannot possibly be drawn from the proceedings in the Court of Exchequer, for the Court never went into the evidence at all.

Is the right hon. Gentleman so ignorant of the proceedings as not to be aware that Mr. Baron Dowse stated—["Order!"]—I am simply giving facts without colour—that Mr. Baron Dowse declared in his Judgment that "it is impossible for one man to commit a riot?"

The ignorance, I think, is not on my side. The Judgment of the Court of Exchequer related only to the form of the order of committal. The Court was of opinion that the order should have contained a more particular account of the riot. They, therefore, objected to it as informal, and on that ground, and that ground alone, the conviction was quashed.

I must refer to the Solicitor General for Ireland on the question of law. I wish to ask him whether it is not a fact that all the other persons who were charged on the same occasion with riot were acquitted, or the charges against them withdrawn, and that Mr. Latchford, therefore, stood alone on the charge of making a riot; and whether it is possible to sustain such a charge against one person only?

Yes, Sir; it is quite possible to sustain such a charge against an individual—a charge of having partaken with other individuals who are not charged in a riot. There is no legal difficulty in the matter at all. The observations of Baron Dowse were not upon the facts of the case, which were not before the Court—the depositions were not before the Court in any shape or form—but upon the form of the order which was made by the magistrates.

Just one other Question. I must ask whether it is possible to convict one man of having partaken with other persons in a riot when it is shown that, in the case of every one of the other persons charged with that riot, the charge was withdrawn, or the accused acquitted?

May I ask whether there was any evidence that there was a riot?

That would be going into evidence which was not before the Court, and I am not bound to express an opinion upon it. It is perfectly possible to convict one man of taking part in a riot with other persons who were not charged with that riot, or against whom the prosecution was withdrawn. However, the only question before the Court of Exchequer was the sufficiency of the order taken by itself as an order, without any reference whatever to evidence which was not before the Court.

asked, whether they were to understand that there was evidence of riot because Mr. Latchford was convicted?

Certainly, Sir. I think the hon. Member misunderstood what I said. I said there was no evidence before the Court of Exchequer. By that I meant that the evidence which was taken below of a riot was not brought up before the Court of Exchequer in the habeas corpus proceedings, which related solely to the order.

I beg to give Notice that on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess I shall again bring up this case, and shall endeavour to convince the House that Mr. Latchford was convicted by "Removables" of an offence which, so far as the circumstances of the case show, it was impossible for him to be legally convicted of.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a case in the Courts at Southampton, when a man, named Robert Woodcock, in the employ of the London and South Western Railway Company for 30 years, and a daily attendant at the docks for a period of 40 years, had been stopped at the dock gates and searched by a Custom House officer, named Nathaniel Johnson, under circumstances so unnecessarily painful and offensive as to cause the Bench to inflict a fine of £5, or one month's imprisonment, upon this Custom House officer; whether he will cause a searching inquiry into the matter; if the Customs have the power to fine persons with smuggled goods a fine equal to double the value the roof without taking the matter before the magistrates; and, if the Customs still retain in their employ this officer who has been found guilty of such misconduct?

The attention of the Board of Customs has already been directed to this case, and they considered that the extra man in question, who is not on the established staff, had shown great want of discretion in the examination of the dock labourer, and gave directions that he be no more employed at the dock gates at Southampton, where the alleged assault took place. The Customs have no legal power to inflict fines for smuggling without the intervention of a Court of Law; but, in practice, it has been found that the persons who have been detected in attempts to avoid payment of duty on goods brought by them to this country prefer to pay a sum equal to the amount of the legal penalties rather than be taken before the magistrates. The Board see no reason for discontinuing the employment of Johnson.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the case of Edward Robinson, of Warder, near Rochdale, dyer and finisher, a bankrupt, the Oldham County Court, on May 15, 1888, issued an order that the bankrupt should be prosecuted under Section 166 of the Bankruptcy Act for the following offences:—First, the offence of forgery, in having forged the signature of his brother to a document addressed to the manager of the Oldham Joint Stock Bank (Limited); and, secondly, the offence of perjury in his public examination, in having sworn that this signature was in his brother's handwriting; whether the Public Prosecutor has disobeyed this order; and, whether the Board of Trade has taken, or will take, any steps to compel the Public Prosecutor to do his duty in this matter?

, in reply, said, an order was made as stated; but the Public Prosecutor considered there was not sufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, which the Board of Trade had no power to undertake. He had, however, intimated his opinion that the Public Prosecutor ought to institute a prosecution under the decision of the County Court.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The St. James's Gazette of July 16 last, entitled Another Hyderabad Scandal, which gives a quota- tion from Stubb's List of June 30, showing that in the bankruptcy of H. Wathen and Son, wholesale tea dealers of Fen-church Street, E.C., Colonel Marshall, Hyderabad, India, is put down as an unsecured creditor for £5,250 in the Schedule of the separate estate of William Hulbert Wathen; whether The St. James's Gazette is correct in stating that Colonel Marshall is private secretary and confidential adviser to the Nizam, and that William Hulbert Wathen is Colonel Marshall's brother-in-law; that, last year, when the Hyderabad Prime Minister was in this country, representing the Nizam at the Jubilee ceremonies, Colonel Marshall became, for the time being, virtually Minister of Hyderabad; that, in that capacity, he took upon himself the responsibility of appointing Mr. Wathen Agent of the Hyderabad State; that with the appointment a new procedure was instituted, Mr. Wathen being supplied with funds in advance; that £6,000 were thereupon remitted to Mr. Wathen from the public and private funds of the Nizam, of which amount Mr. Wathen only expended £750, dealing with the whole £6,000 as an unsecured loan to himself, personally, for the balance of which—namely, £5,250, as above shown, Colonel Marshall is now ranked on his separate estate as a creditor; whether he is aware that the unsecured debts of the firm are put down at £26,121 6s. 4d., and of the separate estate of Mr. Wathen at £6,250 11s. 8d., while the net assets of the firm are quoted at £3,177 0s. 7d., and of the separate estate as £512 10s. only; whether the above allegations and facts were known to the India Office, or to the Government of India, when it was arranged that Colonel Marshall should accompany or precede the Hyderabad Minister on his visit to Simla, to meet the Earl of Dufferin about the 19th of last month; and, whether he will state what steps will be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or the Government of India, in dealing with Colonel Marshall?

The Secretary of State has no means of knowing whether the statements in The St. James's Gazette are correct. The matter is one which it is the function of the Viceroy to deal with in the first instance.

asked, whether he was to understand that when such a charge was made against an officer in the position of Colonel Marshall the Secretary of State did not consider it his duty to call attention to it?

said, that the Secretary of State was not in the habit of calling the attention of the Viceroy to paragraphs in the newspapers.

asked, whether the Government were not sending Colonel Marshall back to Hyderabad?

said, that question was a matter which was entirely within the functions of the Viceroy, and a matter with which the Secretary of State had, in the first instance, no right to interfere.

asked, was he, then, to understand that when a serious charge was made against a public official the fact was not considered by the Secretary of State a sufficient reason for ordering an inquiry or suggesting such an inquiry to the Viceroy?

said, he did not think the hon. Member understood the principle on which India was administered. The person responsible for the administration of India and for the conduct of Indian officials was the Viceroy; it was only the Viceroy who could take such a matter into consideration and pronounce a decision upon it; and it was not in accordance with the practice of the Government of India that the Secretary of State should interfere.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, prior to his accession to Office, the practice had obtained at Courts of Quarter Sessions and other Criminal Courts of supplying the presiding Justices, Recorders, and other Judges with a list of those prisoners who had suffered previous conviction on a document separate and distinct from the calendar which contained the names and other particulars of all prisoners; whether, recently, an order has been issued and acted upon by which, on the calendar so supplied, the list of previous convictions appears, and thus the presiding Judge becomes acquainted with the antecedents of prisoners prior to their trials; with what object has that change been made; and, whether he will cause directions to be given whereby the old practice may be reverted to?

I am informed that the old practice was to print the previous convictions on that copy of the calendar which was delivered to the Judge, except in a few cases in which the particulars of previous convictions were supplied to the Judge on a separate paper, or more frequently written in the Judge's copy of the calendar. The present practice is to write the list of previous convictions on one copy of the calendar, which is supplied to the Judge alone. The Judge has always had the previous convictions in his hand before the trial, and the change makes no difference in that respect. The Judge can now, if he wishes, use the ordinary printed calendars in which no previous convictions appear. I have not received any complaints of the new system; and it does not appear to mo to call for alteration.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Freeman's Journal, of the 8th instant, of the proceedings before Lord Chief Baron Palles, in an action for the recovery of rent brought by the Lord Lieutenant against Mr. Hugh Ferguson, of Newtownards; whether he is aware that the amount sued for by the writ of summons is £93 18s. 3d., being one and a-half year's old rent due on May 1 last; whether Mr. Ferguson, having served his originating notice to fix fair rent before November 1 last, was entitled to the benefit of his fair rent from May 1, 1887; whether the Lord Chief Baron decided to put a stay on the action if the tenant lodged within a week £56 7s., which was considered to be an interim fair rent; and, whether it is now his intention to appoint a number of additional Sub-Commissions, in order to enable the tenants to avail themselves of the benefit of the fair rent without exposing themselves to the cost and inconvenience of defending actions for the recovery of the old rents?

A report of the proceedings does appear in the newspaper named. The answers to the second and third paragraphs are in the affirmative. With regard to the fourth paragraph, I have to say that the substance of the paragraph is true. The Chief Baron, however, is reported to have said that the reduction offered by the agent was nearly equivalent to what a reduction of 20 per cent on the old rent would give. The agent was willing to accept, and, in fact, only pressed for one year's rent, and would have reduced it to £1 per acre—£53, while the Court has now ordered payment within a week of £56 7s., but whether as the equivalent of a year's rent or not is not reported.

inquired, whether Ferguson did not offer to the Lord Lieutenant's agent to leave the amount of the rent to arbitration pending the fixing of a fair rent, and whether the offer was not refused; whether, with reference to the last paragraph, the right hon. Gentleman was aware from the recent Return of the Land Commissioners that there were 60,000 cases still remaining undisposed of; and that according to the rate at which cases were heard from November to June last it would take upwards of four years before they could all be disposed of; and whether, in the meantime, the tenants were to go on paying the old rent?

said, the example the hon. Member had given him of tenants being called upon to pay impossible rents was not a happy one. The agent offered, as far as he could judge, extremely fair terms to the tenant. He was aware that the number of arrears before the Sub-Commissioners was large; but it was somewhat smaller than it was a short time back. He hoped the arrears would be greatly reduced if the Treasury would consent to the arrangement he proposed.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is yet prepared to make his promised announcement as regards the further appoint- ment of Sub-Commissioners by the Irish Land Commission?

Power was taken during the period ending with the 23rd of August to appoint 13 Commission Courts. As a matter of fact, 10 only have been at work; and for the part of the year succeeding August 22 it was originally contemplated only to continue the same number. In view, however, of the fact that the Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill has not been as yet passed by the House, I have requested the Treasury to allow the Lord Lieutenant to appoint 10 additional lay Sub-Commissioners. It is proposed to distribute these in pairs among the existing Sub-Commissions. If the course of events in the Autumn Session suggest the necessity of different arrangements, there will be no difficult in carrying them into effect at that time.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, as "Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth," took any steps to defend the port of Leith against the recent attack by a hostile fleet on the occasion of its visit to the waters of the Forth; and, whether it is true that the Fort on the Island of Inchkeith was silenced, the Forth Bridge destroyed, and the City of Edinburgh bombarded; and, if so, whether the office of "Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth" may be forthwith abolished, as implying responsibility without power?

Before the Lord Advocate answers the Question, I wish to ask him whether, as Colonel of the Volunteer Brigade at Edinburgh, he did not consider it his duty——

Order! If the hon. Gentleman likes to ask the Question of a Minister of the Crown, it would be in Order for him to do so.

I am not aware what steps were taken by the Lord High Admiral of the Firth of Forth on the occasion in question; but I may inform my hon. and gallant Friend that, as far as I am aware, that distinguished naval officer has only a phantom fleet under his command, and probably acted wisely in keeping it out of sight. I cannot say that the Fort of Inch keith was silenced, as I believe it never spoke. I am glad to say that my native city was not bombarded, as I, being here, was unable to do anything in its defence. If the only reason for abolishing the office of Lord High Admiral is that it involves responsibility, I am unable to approve of its abolition on that ground, as I have no reason to believe that it has responsibility. I must, however, admit that it has no power.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it was the duty of the Lord Advocate, as Colonel of the Volunteers at Edinburgh, to be in command of his regiment in view of any attack that might be made on the city?

I am quite sure my right hon. and learned Friend discharges his duties as Colonel of the Edinburgh Brigade with such distinguished value to the public service that he will always be there at the call of duty. But I think the hon. Member must be aware that in the course of the naval manœuvres now going on, the land defences, including submarine mining, are not taking any part whatever in the operations.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that a man, named Patrick Murray, engaged in driving a Home Rule van about the country, is described in placards and advertisements as having "left the Royal Irish Constabulary rather than take part in evictions;" and, whether he can state the date and circumstances attending the resignation of Patrick Murray, and the character he bore while in that Force?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask you whether it is in Order to put a Question containing an aspersion of this kind on the private character of an individual, and thus to attempt to deprive a poor man of his employment?

I am afraid if I were to rule that the Question is out of Order, I should have to rule a great many Questions out of Order.

The Inspector General of Constabulary reports that no man of the name of Patrick Murray appears to have resigned from the Royal Irish Constabulary for many years, nor does it appear that any man of that name left it rather than take part in eviction; but that three men of that name appeared to have ceased to belong to the Force in recent years—one in June, 1885, who deserted, taking with him a comrade's watch; he was arrested and sentenced to six months' imprisonment; another in June, 1886, who was discharged for drunkenness and absence; and another in August, 1887, who was discharged from ill-health on gratuity. These are the only men of the name who appear to have left the Force in recent years.

Is not the man referred to in the Question the third man referred to by the Chief Secretary—namely, the Patrick Murray who was discharged in consequence of ill-health; and ought not the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Colomb) to be ashamed of himself for putting such a Question?

Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether it is in Order, when one hon. Member puts a Question, for another hon. Member to ask whether he is not ashamed of himself for doing so?

It is clearly out of Order. The expression did not reach me, or I should have taken notice of it; but it is an improper and un-Parliamentary expression.

wished to ask the hon. and gallant Member whether, before putting a Question calling for an answer which involved the statement of a serious charge against a man named Murray, he had had the means of ascertaining the identity of the Patrick Murray mentioned in the Question; and whether the right hon. Gentleman thought it fair to bundle together two Patrick Murrays, with the result that a slur must be cast upon an innocent man?

I do not know what the hon. Member means by casting a slur upon an innocent man. I have been asked a Question, and I have answered to the best of my ability. I do not know any other way that I could have answered it but by giving the facts. So far as I can see, the man to whom the Question referred cannot be a very estimable character, as he is going about the country under false pretences.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake not to raise the defence of Parliamentary privilege if legal steps were taken against him by the man whose interests were involved with a view to clear his character?

Order! order!

asked Mr. Attorney General, If it is a fact that, under Jervis's Act (11 & 12 Vict. c. 43, s. 11), summonses against a defaulter in the case of Friendly Societies must be taken out within six months, and that, in cases where the audit does not take place within six months, such a defaulter may escape; and, if so, if he will consider how an amendment of the law may, in this respect, be effected without unnecessary delay?

In answer to the hon. Member, I beg to say that it is the fact that under Jervis's Act a summons must in the case of proceedings under the Friendly Societies Acts be taken out within six months of the misconduct complained of. It is possible that, in consequence, defaulters may in some cases thereby be enabled to escape punishment; but the remedy by indictment would, I conceive, in most instances be still open to a prosecutor. It is worthy of consideration whether the law in respect to offences of this description does not require amendment, and I will give my most careful consideration to the matter.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention, and that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have been called to the fact that the Colony of Natal has accepted the principle of the mode of State colonization suggested in this House last Session, communicated to the Colonies by Government despatch in September last—namely, of the funds necessary to be raised for the purpose being guaranteed as to the interest by the co-operation of the Colonial and Imperial Governments, the former undertaking and guaranteeing the administration of the capital and the collection of the interest from the settlers, and the Imperial Government lending its guarantee by way of endorsement of the Colonial security, to enable the money to be raised at the lowest possible cost; and to the fact that the said Colony has made a definite proposal based thereon, offering 200 acres of land (already surveyed, and recommended by the Immigration Board of Natal), and £200 in money advances, for each of 72 families or groups of five persons each; whether they are aware that this offer involves a liability on the part of the two Governments of £432 per annum only, and this secured by 14,400 acres of land with 71 homesteads and the industry of 360 persons upon it working with a capital of over £10,000; whether the Government will accede to the request of the Natal Immigration Board, that steps be taken forthwith to ascertain the number of immigrants of the classes desired which the Colony could obtain on a basis of the above proposal, having regard to the fact that the Board express their opinion that such immigration "would prove a success and benefit to the Colony;" whether the Government will, on the occasion of the discussion of the Supplemental Estimate for Crofter Emigration, or on some other convenient occasion during this or the adjourned Session, afford an opportunity to the House for considering the relative advantages of eleemosynary emigration, and self-paying State colonization, and the importance of the latter from commercial and strategic points of view, especially in South Africa, and whether they will give effect without delay to at least a tentative experiment, such as that now offered by Natal; and, whether the Government will consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the question of State colonization, as a matter of general Imperial interest and concern, on a scale commensurate with the demand which the increase of population makes for increased development of the great natural resources of the Empire?

My right hon. Friend and I have seen the replies from the Colony of Natal. These replies were to a Circular sending over the hon. Member's scheme for colonization, and were the only favourable replies from the Colonies that have answered. It cannot be said that the Colony of Natal has as yet given its approval to the proposals of the hon. Member, though the Resolutions of the Land and Immigration Board are favourable, and Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to pronounce an opinion in favour of giving the necessary guarantee. Her Majesty's Government do not propose at present to take such steps as are indicated in the third paragraph of the Question, and for this reason—that a further scheme containing the proposals of the Colonization Committee of both Houses of Parliament has been forwarded to Natal, as well as to the other Colonies, and that the replies from Natal or the other Colonies will be awaited before anything further is done. It is thought desirable to learn how the further scheme is received before dealing with an isolated case, like Natal, under the scheme of the hon. Member. It is the intention of the Government to move for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question of State colonization, and opportunity will then be afforded to my hon. Friend for discussing the whole subject.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that on June 26, 1861, a Return was ordered by the House of Commons—

"Of all pensions granted and charged upon the Civil List, in accordance with the Act, 1 Vict. c. 2, with the grounds upon which such pensions have been granted (as in Returns annually presented to this House), distinguishing the pensions which have lapsed, and showing the total sum now payable on account of existing pensions;"

and, whether any sufficient reason can be advanced why another Return should not be granted which would bring down to date in a single Parliamentary Paper the information contained in the aforesaid Return?

I am aware that a Return in the terms mentioned by the hon. Member was presented in 1861. Since that date considerable progress has been made in reducing the number of unnecessary Returns presented to this House; and seeing that all the particulars required by the hon. Member are already available through Annual Returns and the Finance Accounts, I see no reason for altering the decision already conveyed to the hon. Member that the Return would be refused.

said, that he should move for the Return in the Autumn Session.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments will be laid upon the Table before the House adjourns?

I am informed that the Chairman of the Commission fears it will be impossible to lay the Report on the Table before the House adjourns; but he hopes to submit the Report to the Queen very shortly, and to lay it on the Table on the first day of the Autumn Session.

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to you on a point of Order. Yesterday, at the commencement of Business, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury moved the suspension of the Standing Orders which apply to Wednesday Sittings with regard to all Bills on the Order Book. After you, Sir, had put the Question, I rose to make a few remarks on the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, when I was met by ejaculations of "No debate." I am sorry to say that some of them came from this side of the House as well as the other. In response to those ejaculations I sat down, thus showing that I was rather wanting in confidence in my own argument. What I wish to ask you now, Sir, is whether the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was one which could be decided without debate, under the New Rules, or whether I was not entitled to continue my remarks if I had persisted in doing so?

Under the circumstances specified by the right hon. Gentleman he would have been perfectly entitled to make any remarks, or to move an Amendment. The Rule which applies to the suspension of the Standing Orders has reference to the Business which stands on the Paper at 12 o'clock, and not to an ordinary Wednesday Sitting.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government will postpone the further stages of the Liability of Trustees Bill [Lords], Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill [Lords], Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Bill [Lords], and Solicitors Bill [Lords], until the Autumn Sittings?

The Liability of Trustees Bill is, no doubt, a very important Bill, as it will make a very serious alteration in the law; but, on that very ground, it would not be right to take it in the course of the present Sitting. I hope, however, that there may be an opportunity afforded for considering it in the course of the Autumn Session. As regards the Mortmain and Charitable Uses Bill and the County Court Consolidation Bill, the Government are of opinion that those two measures ought to be passed before the Recess, and they will be set down for consideration to-morrow. It is important that those two Bills should be passed without any further delay, seeing that the Revised Edition of the Statutes has been kept back for some months, in order that they may be included in that edition. We hope to read the Patents and Trade Marks Bill a second time to-morrow; but we shall not press the Solicitors Bill in the course of the present Sitting if there is any objection to it.

asked, whether it was proposed to pro- ceed with the Court of Session and Bill Chamber (Scotland) (Clerks) Bill?

said, the Government could only undertake to afford facilities for Bills which had passed a Grand Committee, or the corresponding stage in that House. It was not in their power to make arrangements for the progress of private Members' Bills, even although they might have come down from the Standing Committees. The Court of Session, &c. Bill would not be produced with in the course of those Sittings, because there was objection to it.

said, that the Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments would be in the possession of the House at the beginning of the Autumn Sittings.

asked, whether the Government intended to proceed with the National Defence Bill, the Irish Drainage Bills, and the East India Officers Bill after 12 o'clock?

said, it might be convenient if he stated what Bills the Government proposed to go on with that night. They would first proceed with the Oaths Bill, the Indian Budget, the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill, the Public Works (Loans) Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, the Imperial Defence Bill, and the National Defence Bill. With regard to the latter, he hoped that after the Secretary of State for War had made a statement to the House the Bill would not be further opposed. The Land Law (Ireland) (Land Commission) Bill, the Bann Drainage Bill, the Barrow Drainage Bill, and the Shannon Drainage Bill would be postponed until November 15th. The Patents, Designs, and Trade Marks Bill would be taken to-morrow, and he hoped the House would agree to the second reading of the Hawkers Bill and the Committee stage of the Municipal Funds (Ireland) Bill to-night. The School Board for London Election Bill, not being a Government measure, would not be proceeded with in view of the opposition to it. There was a Bill down which, though not marked as such, was in reality a Government measure, and which proposed to validate certain marriages which had been performed by unqualified persons who were not clergymen. The individuals affected by the Bill were at present in a peculiar position, from which the House should lose no time in relieving them. He, therefore, proposed to proceed with that Bill also.

asked, with regard to the National Defence Bill, whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was in a position to say that the Government would not proceed with Clause 2 of that measure, in so far as it varied the present status of Volunteers with respect to being called out? If the Government abandoned the clause, all opposition to the measure would probably be removed.

said, he proposed to amend the National Defence Bill so as not to interfere with the present status of Volunteers in respect to being called out; but he would bring that provision forward again at a subsequent period.

asked, whether the First Lord of the Treasury would not consent to postpone the Marriages Validation Bill until November?

Certainly not, Sir. The Bill is intended to validate marriages which have been invalidated in consequence of being performed by a clergyman who was not properly qualified. It is quite impossible to allow the persons affected to remain any longer in the very serious circumstances I have indicated.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman had enumerated all the Bills which he proposed to deal with before the Recess, and if he could now inform the House of the day on which it was expected to adjourn?

I suppose we may assume that no Scotch Government Bill will be taken during the present Sitting?

None.

asked as to the intentions of the Government with regard to the High Courts in India Bill and the East India Officers Bill?

said, he was not able to give absolutely the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman asked for. There might, however, be some other Bills of a purely formal character, such as Lloyd's (Signal Stations) Bill, that it would be necessary to proceed with. The High Courts in India Bill and the East India Officers Bill would not be proceeded with now. It was hoped to take the Suffragans Nomination Bill. He had, he thought, stated all the important measures which the Government proposed to proceed with. It was impossible to say absolutely when the Adjournment would take place. That must depend on the proceedings in the House of Lords. He hoped, however, they might be able to conclude the serious Business of the present Session on Saturday; but he must reserve to himself the power to take further Sittings if it were necessary.

asked, whether the Government would move the Adjournment of the House after all the Government Orders had been disposed of, for there were several very mischievous Bills on the Paper?

said, he would move the Adjournment after the 24 Government Orders had been disposed of, and the 43rd Order—namely, the Marriages Validation Bill, which, though not marked as such, was in reality a Government Bill.

said, as it appeared to have been a slip not to have put the Marriages Validation Bill down as a Government Order, it might be now set down as such after Order 24.

said, he must ask the Government not to move the Adjournment until he had been able to bring forward the School Board for London Election Bill, which was the next Order. He was prepared to abandon the whole Bill, save Clause 6, and that would, he felt sure, disarm all opposition, even that of the hon. Member for West Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who, he knew, objected to the measure.

said, he trusted the Government would not consent to so unusual a course with regard to this Bill.

also urged that the Bill should be taken at the present Sittings.

said, if they interfered with the present arrangement to allow of one private Member's Bill being taken, they would have to do so in favour of a great many.

said, he quite felt the force of the observation of the right hon. Gentleman, and although he believed that it would be to the public advantage that the Bill should be passed it was not a Government measure, and did not come within the category of Bills for which he had asked for facilities. It was impossible for him to pick out one Bill and deal with it as a Government measure, or give preference to it over other private Members' Bills. He regretted, therefore, that he could not reply favourably to his hon. Friend.