asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Secretary of State is aware that, in a letter addressed to the Viceroy, and which the officiating Agent refused to forward, the Begum of Bhopal wrote—

"The Agent of the British Government accredited to a friendly Court did not think it unbecoming the dignity of such a position to use such language as the following in his public communications with my vakeel;—

"'My orders are not being carried out. Does not the Begum Sahiba know me yet? If there were a thousand creatures like that disturber, Siddick Hussun, nay, a thousand obstinate devils, I shall not rest until my orders are obeyed;'"

The reply to the first Question is in the negative; and with regard to the second, the Secretary of State has no Correspondence relating to the matter which could, in his judgment, be usefully laid before Parliament.

Does the officiating Agent report to the Secretary of State when he refuses to forward Correspondence?

I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of that Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What proportion of the advances under Lord Ashbourne's Act of 1885 was for the purchase of holdings annually rented, first, between £30 and £50; second between £10 and £30; and, third, under £10?

The Land Purchase Commissioners inform me that the proportion of holdings in respect of which advances have been made under the Statute referred to is as follows:—Annual rent exceeding £30 and not exceeding £50, 884 holdings; annual rent £10 and not exceeding £30, 3,234 holdings; annual rent under £10, 3,599 holdings.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to supplement that answer by laying a Return, in a form which I have privately suggested, classifying the size of the holdings purchased, and specifying the average number of years' purchase under each class, the amount of advances upon each class, and the amount advanced in each county?

On receiving the right hon. Gentleman's letter last night I telegraphed over to the Commissioners to ask if that could be done. I have not received their answer; but I should hope and believe that it can be done. I would, however, suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should substitute the amount of the valuation for the acreage, because acreage indicates nothing. Thirty acres of mountain land, for instance, are very different to rich arable land.

said: I wish to ask the Chief Secretary, whether it will be possible by Monday, or on an early day next week, to have the important Return of which I gave him Notice at the beginning of Questions?

said, he would do his best to have the Return furnished as soon as possible.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can inform the House whether the Committee of Admirals appointed to consider the lessons taught by the late Naval Manœuvres will report before the Shipbuilding Vote (No. 8) is discussed in the House; whether, considering the importance of the question, he will lay the Report of these Admirals upon the Table of the House; and, whether he will lay upon the Table a Paper showing any extra expenditure that may have been incurred by these Manœuvres?

I doubt if the Report on the Naval Manœuvres will be completed before the discussion on the Navy Estimates; but I intend, when completed, to publish such parts of it as relate to the behaviour and qualities of the ships engaged, and to any defects which they may have shown. The cost of the expenditure associated with the Manœuvres is estimated at £60,000; but a large proportion of this would have had to be incurred independently of the Manœuvres.

asked the Lord Advocate, How many cases were determined by the Crofters' Commission during the second year of its existence; how many cases considered, but not yet decided; and, how many applications still await the consideration of the Commission?

There are not materials in London enabling me at present to answer this Question. But the Crofters' Commissioners have been requested to supply the particulars asked for if this can be done without interruption of the urgent duties in which they are at present engaged. If this is the case, as I hope it may be, I shall be happy to give the hon. Gentleman the information which he desires as soon as we obtain it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who are responsible for summoning Coroners' Juries in Ireland; and, who summoned the jury for the inquest on Mr. Mandeville?

, in reply, said, that upon the Coroner issuing his precept it was the duty of the police to summon persons to act as jurors. In the case of the inquest alluded to the jury was summoned, as usual, by the local Constabulary.

inquired why the Papers relating to the Mandeville inquest had not been distributed?

said, he was not aware of the cause of the delay. He would hurry them on as quickly as he could.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the practice to in trust prosecutions, in the case of assaults on, or interference with, the police when in the exercise of their duty, to the counsel for the Treasury; and, if not, whether he can state for what reason?

When a constable has been assaulted or interfered with, so as to render a prosecution necessary, a prosecution is instituted on behalf of the Commissioners. Ordinary cases are placed in the hands of a firm usually representing the police; cases of importance only are sent to the Treasury Solicitor. It is unadvisable that the Treasury Solicitor should intervene on behalf of the Government in trifling cases.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a meeting assembled in the town of Longford, to welcome the hon. Member for East Clare (Mr. Cox), on the evening of Saturday the 3rd instant, was forcibly dispersed without any notice or warning by the police, under the command of County Inspector Milling; whether Mr. Milling threatened the people that if they did not leave the streets within two minutes he would disperse them with a vengeance; and, whether this is the Mr. Milling who was returned for trial by the magistrates of the City of Cork some time ago for an assault upon the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner); and, if so, whether he was brought to trial?

It is the case that a meeting which was attempted to be held in the streets of Longford at about 11.30 o'clock on the night of Saturday, November 3, was required to disperse by the police, commanded by the County Inspector, who acted under orders from the Divisional Magistrate. This meeting was attempted in the face of a Proclamation prohibiting the holding of a meeting at an adjacent place on the following day (Sunday), an information having been sworn that it would lead to intimidation and to interference with the administration of the law. Mr. Milling was the County Inspector in charge of the police; but he did not threaten the people. My reply to the first inquiry in the third paragraph is in the affirmative; but no trial took place, for the Attorney General of the day was of opinion that there was no evidence to support the case, and ordered a nolle prosequi.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the County Inspector asked the people to disperse before he ordered the police to attack them?

I gather that there was no attack made by them.

Well, I was present a that meeting; and I may inform the right hon. Gentleman that there was most deliberate and wanton attack mada by the police.

I also was one of the victims on that occasion.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was not a fact that Mr. Milling, who was a District Inspector at the time he assaulted Dr. Tanner, has since been promoted to be a County Inspector?

I am not aware of that.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, When Part 3 of the Return as to Wages, &c., for the past 50 years will be laid upon the Table; whether any, and what, steps are being taken to publish Returns of Wages and Cost of Living in this country; what steps are being taken to give effect to the Memorandum of August, 1886, as to the Department of Labour Statistics; and whether he will state the precise number of persons employed in the Labour Statistical Department, and their respective salaries and duties; and whether the Labour Correspondent is otherwise occupied than in the collection of Labour Statistics and of information relating to the condition of the labouring classes?

, in reply, said, that the further Returns asked for in the Question, involved most laborious work, and he understood that they would not be ready for at least another 12 months. As to the other parts of the Question, perhaps he had better present a Memorandum to the House showing what had been done. The number of persons employed in the Labour Statistical Department was 10, including the Labour Correspondent. These, with the exception of the Labour Correspondent, were Lower Division Clerks.

asked the Lord Advocate, What is the present position of the Maxwelton (East Kilbride) Endowed School Scheme; and, when the said scheme is likely to be finally approved?

The scheme for the Maxwelton School Endowment (East Kilbride) has been approved by their Lordships, and now awaits the approbation of Her Majesty. This approbation cannot be obtained until the next Council, which, I understand, is shortly to be held.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Board of Trade has sanctioned any existing overhead wires for the purpose of electric lighting; and, whether the Board intends to authorize, under Provisional Order or Licences, the transmission of electricity at high tension by such wires within the Metropolis?

, in reply, said, that no overhead electric wires had been sanctioned, so far, by the Board of Trade. He could not make any definite promise with regard to future applications on the subject with reference to the Metropolis; but certainly he should not be disposed to sanction such applications.

Has the right hon. Gentleman power to prohibit the erection of such overhead wires in the Metropolis?

That is a Question I would rather not answer at present.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether an order for 30,000 forage caps was recently given to a Mrs. Featherstone; whether this Mrs. Featherstone was formerly forewoman of the machinists in the firm of Ross and Co.; and, is it a fact that some of the forage caps are now being made at the firm of Ross and Co., who were struck off the list of contractors in March last?

, in reply, said, an order for 30,000 forage caps had been given to Mrs. Featherstone, formerly in the employment of Ross and Co., and now in business for herself. He understood that her business had no connection with the firm of Ross and Co., which had been struck off the list of contractors. If the hon. Member had specific information that the caps were being made by Ross and Co., it would be to the advantage of the Service if he would communicate with the War Department.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the attention of the Government has been called to an Official Minute, recently published by the Government of Bengal, in which it is admitted that the working of the out still system in Bengal of late has been such as to stimulate the consumption of intoxicating liquors; and, what steps, if any, will be taken to give effect to this decision of the Government of Bengal?

The Minute referred to is published in The Calcutta Gazette of the 17th of October, 1888. The Government of Bengal find that, owing to the neglect of the Rules prescribed by the Bengal Excise Commission, certain outstills licensed early in 1887 in the Hooghly and Howrah districts have become a nuisance, and have caused the price of liquor to be cheapened. The Lieutenant Governor has ordered that the existing arrangements shall be thoroughly revised; and it is intended that the Rules shall be so enforced as to prevent undue cheapening of liquor. Steps will be taken in concert with the Revenue Board for ascertaining whether similar laxities in the outstill system have been permitted in other districts.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether it is true that the Government have decided to build a number of additional war ships; whether he will state to the House the number and class of such ships and their estimated cost per ship, and in the aggregate; and, whether the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposed addition to our Naval Fleet before any portion of the expenditure is incurred?

If the hon. Gentleman would refer to my past statements, both in the House and outside, he would find that I have always pointed out that the desire of the Government was to complete as rapidly as they could the programme of shipbuilding adopted in 1885, and that when they had reduced it to manageable proportions they would commence a fresh programme of their own. This we propose to do next year. So far from wishing to take a surreptitious advantage of the House by incurring liabilities or expenditure without its knowledge, we desire to lay before it our programme in its entirety, and with the fullest information relating to each stage, both as regards cost and rate of progress, in the hope that the continuity of a shipbuilding programme, sanctioned under such conditions, would not be affected either by a change of Government or the election of a fresh House of Commons.

May I ask the noble Lord whether, in the preparation of the designs of the new ships, care will be taken to insure that the ships will be battleworthy, as well as seaworthy?

I shall be quite ready to answer that Question when the hon. Gentleman tells me what he means by the word "battleworthy."

I took the expression used from the Report of the Committee itself. All the witnesses before the Committee, and the Committee itself which passed the Report, drew a distinction between seaworthiness and battleworthiness.

I was not aware that the word occurred in the Report. I can only say that, although the Committee pressed several witnesses to give an accurate definition of what was meant by "battleworthiness," not one of them was able to do so.

Is it not a fact that the noble Lord's own Constructor of the Navy, Mr. White, was the first man to use the word?

No; my hon. Friend is in error. I think the word was invented by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward J. Reed).

asked, whether, in the Amendment to the Report, which was negatived on the Motion of the noble Lord, the same terms of "seaworthiness" and "battleworthiness" were not used by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury)?

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he has received any Report from Sir Sidney Shippard regarding his investigation into the alleged murder of Captain Grobbelar; and, if not, when he expects to receive the Report?

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to state that the Report was received on Tuesday last, and, being very voluminous, has not yet been considered by Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Lord Advocate, Is it a fact that at Stornoway, on Wednesday October 17, Sheriff Brand alone, out of the three Commissioners, sat to hear the evidence of the crofters, in contravention of the terms of Section 23 of the Crofters' Act, which provides that not less than two Commissioners can deal with applications under the Act; and, if it is a fact that on that date the valuator, Mr. Ferguson, sat in the Court, while the other Commissioner, Mr. Hossack, was at Barvas doing the valuator's work?

I am informed by Sheriff Brand that, on October 17, he sat with Mr. Fergus Ferguson, an assessor appointed, and acting under Sections 17 and 20 of the Crofters Act. The hearing referred to would not have proceeded had not Mr. John Murdoch, as representing the crofters who were then present, and Mr. William Mackay, as representing the estate, signed a Minute which had been written upon the application, and was in the following terms, namely:—

"Stornoway, 17th October, 1888.—We, John Murdoch, Uddingston, Glasgow, as representing the crofters, and William Mackay, chamberlain of the Lews, for Lady Matheson, considering that Mr. P. B. MacIntyre, Commissioner, is unable, on account of illness, to attend the sittings of the Crofters' Commission in this district, do hereby agree to one of the two remaining Commissioners, with the aid of Fergus Ferguson, farmer, Monkstadt, Skye, as assessor, proceeding with the hearing, in order to the due disposal and determination of the application, and that such determination shall be as effectual, to all intents and purposes, as if the said P. B. MacIntyre had been present and taken part therein.—J. MURDOCH, WM. MACKAY."

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government are arranging for the trial of Undabuko, and the other Zulu Chiefs, under native law or civilized law; and if under native law, whether steps are being taken to prevent the miscarriage of justice which took place in the case of Langalibalele?

A special tribunal has been constituted for the trial of the leaders in the late disturbances. It is to consist of three gentlemen of judicial experience, unconnected with Zululand—namely, Mr. Justice Wragg, Senior Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Natal, and Messrs. Fannin and Rudolph, both experienced magistrates, well versed in the native language. The accused will be tried on definite charges for offences against the civilized criminal law. They may, if they see fit, be defended by counsel. The Court is to keep a full record of the evidence; and in the event of the accused being found guilty their sentences are not to be carried out until Her Majesty's Government have had an opportunity of considering the evidence and the Queen's pleasure is known.

Will they be tried for treason?

I have said they will be tried for offences against civilized criminal law.

asked, when the trial would take place, and whether there would be a jury?

replied, that he was not able to say.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether lie can state to the House what is the proportion of the whole number of County Council Districts in which, during the January elections, 1889, effect will not be given to the principle of single member representation; whether to prevent the disappointment, confusion, and misrepresentation which must arise from divided votes in oases of two, three, or more members sitting for one district, he will use the ample powers conferred by section 108, sub-section 4, of "The Local Government Act, 1888;" and, whether, if the powers of section 108, sub-section 4, cannot satisfactorily be applied in time for the County Council elections of January, 1889, he will consider the expediency of postponing them for one year, that is to January, 1890, having regard to the entire dependence of the general functions of County Councils upon the decisions yet to be obtained when deliberation upon the scheme, as a whole, is resumed by Parliament?

The total number of Electoral Divisions for the election of County Councillors in boroughs and districts other than boroughs is 3,400. Of this number 265 divisions will, by orders which have already been issued, or are in course of preparation, be combined for the purpose of returning more than one member. I am advised that section 108 (4) does not confer on the Board any such powers as suggested. The Electoral Divisions in the cases referred to have been duly made, and the combination has been rendered necessary by the fact that there are not separate lists of voters for those divisions. I must take exception to the suggestion that disappointment, confusion, and misrepresentation must arise in connection with the combination of districts, and also to that as to the general functions of County Councils being dependent entirely upon decisions yet to be obtained. I see no reason whatever for the postponement of the elections for another year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is true that it has been arranged that British vessels are to undertake the blockade of a part of the German Coast of Zanzibar, said to be from Mainea Island south to the Rovuma River; if so, whether, in addition to stopping the Slave Trade, the ships are to stop the import of arms; and whether the blockade is to extend to any other merchandize; whether there is now a British Consul in the Nyassa region west of the blockaded coast, or whether he is withdrawn; and, whether the African Lakes Company, who are now carrying on a war in those regions, and missionaries accompanying them, have been withdrawn or warned that they continue at their own risk, and must not expect to be supported by a British Expedition to the interior of Africa?

As to paragraph I, the details of the blockade have been left to the discretion of the Admirals, and we have not heard that they have been finally settled. The objects have been clearly stated in the Papers before Parliament. There is a Consul at the south end of Lake Nyassa. His district lies to the south of the Zanzibar Coast, and to the westward of the Portuguese Colony of Mozambique. The Consul is at present absent on leave. The African Lakes Company are perfectly aware that they can expect no material support from Her Majesty's Government in conflicts with the Arabs or Native Tribes. It is not known that any missionaries have accompanied the Company's forces.

asked whether it was the case that arms had been stopped by the Portuguese on their way up the river?

said, he was aware of that; but permission had now been given for the passage of certain arms.

also asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the exact nature of the participation of the French Government in the proposed blockade of the Zanzibar Coast, and the meaning of the following sentence in the Marquess of Salisbury's despatch to Sir Edward Malet of November 8:—

"The French Government, though unwilling to grant the right of search on all occasions and in all cases, has consented that it should be looked upon as one of the incidents of a blockade;"

The French Government are not participating in the blockade of the Zanzibar Coast, but have sent a man-of-war specially to observe and check any abuses of the French flag by slavers. The right of search has been recognized by the French as a necessary incident of a blockade; but the terms and limits of that recognition are still a matter of discussion between the English, French, and German Governments. Slaves discovered on dhows, whatever flag may be flying, will, of course, be liberated. It is not desirable to lay any Correspondence at present.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Mr. de Souza, a coloured barrister, practising in British Guiana, was, on July 9, 1888, sentenced by Chief Justice Chalmers, Mr. Justice Atkinson, and Mr. Justice Sheriff, to be imprisoned for six months, and to pay a fine of $500, for contempt of Court, in writing a letter in The Royal Gazette, dated June 27, 1888, reflecting on a decision of the Judges; whether, after Mr. de Souza had been sent to prison—namely, on July 11, 1888, the Acting Attorney General, at the direct request of the Chief Justice, moved before the Chief Justice for a rule nisi, calling upon Mr. de Souza to show cause why he should not be further punished for contempt of Court, in having written a letter to The Daily Chronicle on June 20, 1887, 13 months previously; whether for that offence the Court sentenced him to the further punishment of having to come up for judgment within 12 months if called upon; whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the Judg- ment of Chief Justice Chalmers, in which he is reported to have said of Mr. de Souza that he

"Posed as the victim of the intolerance and injustice of the Judges before an ignorant and partly educated population;"

"an unprincipled demagogue,"

"a fluency of speech which, unless coupled with high principle, was, as regards the interest of the community, one of the most dangerous gifts any man could have, because it enabled him so easily to make the worse appear the better reason in the eyes of the unthinking multitude;"

In answer to the nine Questions put to me by the hon. Member, I have to say that the Secretary of State has no official information on the subject; but from the reports in the Colonial newspapers it appears that the first and second Questions should be answered in the affirmative; and that, for the contempt of Court mentioned in the second Question, the Court ordered Mr. de Souza to come up for judgment within 12 months if called upon. The Secretary of State does not know whether Mr. de Souza is a coloured barrister. The Secretary of State has observed in the newspaper reports of the Judgment the third passage quoted in the fourth Question, but not the other two. The Secretary of State is not aware that the order to come up for judgment within 12 months if called upon prevents Mr. de Souza from being able to practise as a barrister during that time. The Secretary of State has no information as to the matters alluded to in the sixth Question. Neither of the letters referred to in the seventh Question appears to have had reference to a matter pending before the Court at the time it was written. It has been held that there is no appeal to the Privy Council in such a case. As at present advised, Her Majesty's Government do not propose to take any steps in the matter.

asked whether there was any precedent for punishment for contempt in respect of a matter not pending before the Court?

That is a legal Question, which had better be addressed to the Law Officers of the Crown.

May I ask the Law Officers of the Crown?

The hon. Member should give me Notice of such a Question.

May I ask the Under Secretary whether he will obtain official information?

said, he had known Mr. de Souza when he was a Bar student in this country, and was, therefore, interested in the case. He asked whether one of the Judges had not been guilty of conduct that had been seriously reflected upon by the Privy Council; and whether Mr. de Souza was prevented from attending his wife's funeral?

I have already stated that Her Majesty's Government have no official information on the subject. [Several hon. MEMBERS: Will you get it?]

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is a fact that the claims of 18 police constables at the Caledonian Road Station were disallowed by the Revising Barrister, on the ground that the beds were not separated by some kind of partition; and whether, if this be the case, the Home Secretary will cause such modifications to be made in the bed chambers as will prevent members of the Police Force from being in this way disqualified for the future?

, in reply, said, the fact was as stated. Since 1882 it had been the practice in building new police stations to give each police officer a separate bunk. He would consider whether arrangements could not be made to prevent the disqualification referred to.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. P. A. M'Hugh, Mayor of Sligo, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on the 10th instant for publishing two articles in The Sligo Champion, of which he is proprietor?

Yes, Sir. The sentence of the Resident Magistrates was confirmed by the County Court Judge.

asked, how the right hon. Gentleman reconciled this action on the part of the Government with his oft-repeated assertion that the Government did not interfere with the liberty of the Press in Ireland?

In the first place, these are not the proceedings of the Government, but of the County Court Judge. In the second place, I have never made the assertion which the hon. Gentleman attributes to me. What I have constantly asserted—and what I now repeat—is, that the Government had never interfered, either directly or indirectly, with any legitimate expression of opinion on any political subject whatever; but when a newspaper becomes an organ of intimidation to an individual, it legitimately comes under the operation of the law.

asked, whether it was not the fact that the article for which Mr. M'Hugh was convicted was not a quotation from another newspaper; and, also, on what grounds he was not treated as a first-class misdemeanant?

said, that the County Court Judge thought the case so palpable that he declined to make the order for Mr. M'Hugh to become a first-class misdemeanant. He must ask for Notice with regard to the first part of the Question.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When the Report of the Land Commission for the current year will be distributed?

The Land Commission informs me that their Report is now ready, and will be forwarded forthwith for presentation.

asked the Lord Advocate, When there will be issued a further Report of the Proceedings of the Crofters' Commission, in continuation of the Report to December 10, 1887?

, in reply, said, a further Report would be prepared at the close of the year, and issued as soon as it could be completed.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is aware that there is still great difficulty in procuring silver of the new coinage from the Bank of England, that Body saying they cannot tell when they shall be able to supply it; and, if he knows the cause of this difficulty?

The Bank of England report that they have satisfied all reasonable demands for the new silver coinage, and are preparing to meet the usual extra Christmas demand. If applied to by a banker for a very large sum all in coins of the new designs, the Bank might decline, not considering themselves authorized to meet a demand which, if granted, would involve a large increase of coinage beyond the necessities of the country. There is no lack of silver coin to meet all ordinary demands.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that difficulty had existed ever since the new coinage was issued all through the present year?

I am most anxious that every reasonable demand for silver should be satisfied; but if every demand for new coins were acceded to, it would mean the withdrawal from circulation of all old coins, and that would, involve an expenditure that I do not think ought to be incurred so long as the old silver is doing its duty.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention had been called to the following verdict, found by the Coroner's Jury at Ardee last Friday, at the close of the inquest on the body of the evicted tenant James Dunne:—

"We find that James Dunne, on Tuesday, the 12th day of October, 1853, at Belpatrick, in the County Louth, died from the effects of shock and exposure; and we find Henry Robert Emerson and Athol Johnson Dudgeon did feloniously and unlawfully kill and slay the said James Dunne by subjecting him to this shock and exposure on the 11th day of October, 1888, at Belpatrick, in said county; and the Jury cannot separate without censuring the Sub-Sheriff for not using more precautions on the occasion;"

asked, Whether the Jury did not consist of 17 Nationalists, including the Secretary of the local branch of the National League?

I have not made any inquiry as to the constitution of the Jury; but I am informed that those concerned have given the necessary bail, and have served notice on the Chief Crown Solicitor of an immediate application to quash the verdict. Pending those proceedings no determination can be arrived at by the Attorney General.

said, he was a personal witness of the case, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would satisfy himself as to the circumstances of it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can give any information as to the dispersing of the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on the night of Tuesday, November 13? He also wished to know whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to some observations of Mr. Lushington, the magistrate, to the effect that the police, in dispersing the crowd, were doing no more than their duty; and how the right hon. Gentleman reconciled that statement with the one he made yesterday, to the effect that no force had been used in dispersing the meeting?

asked whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman had been called to the statement that the mounted police rode in among the people who were leaving, in order to break them up into small knots; and whether the police had special orders from the Home Office to attempt to disperse the people in that way?

I have made further inquiries since my statement of yesterday, and I have again been assured by the Superintendent of the district that the meeting was in no way dispersed or disturbed, nor was any effort made to break up any procession. In his further Question the hon. Member alludes to some expressions used by Mr. Lushington. I have only seen them in the newspaper this morning; I do not find them in such other reports as I have been able to refer to. From the evidence before me I gather that what was before the magistrate was not any attack or assault by the police upon the meeting or those leaving, but their moving on a knot of persons who obstructed the passing of a Post Office van, this being quite an isolated incident. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Finsbury, I have no information on the point. Such information as I have is opposed to the suggestion that the mounted police rode among the people leaving the meeting. Certainly, there were no orders, special or otherwise, from the Home Office directing the mounted police to break up the meeting.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into Mr. Lushington's remarks, as I am personally responsible for having called the meeting together?

Certainly, Sir; I should have done so if time had allowed.

asked, whether the mounted men were under the command of the Superintendent of the district, or someone else?

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would make inquiries as to whether it was not a distinct procession that was leaving the meeting into which the police rode; and whether the obstruction of the Post Office van did not occur on Clerkenwell Green itself?

I have given the hon. Member the whole of the information in my possession.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Pioneer of Allahabad, July 22, 1888, in which serious charges are made regarding his connection with a Mr. Palmer; and whether it is his intention to take any action with regard to these statements?

My attention has been called to the article in question. The charge which I understand to be insinuated in The Pioneer, that I have employed Mr. Palmer as an intermediary, either in the affairs of Hyderabad generally, or in reference to the Hyderabad Committee of this Session in particular, is wholly false. It is not my intention to take any action in regard to such statements. Perhaps the House will allow me to add that in the winter of 1883–4, before I had ever held Office, I acted as legal adviser to the Prime Minister and Senior Regent of Hyderabad. Since that time I have had nothing to do with the affairs of Hyderabad, except recently as Under Secretary of State for India. In that capacity I have acted under the direction of my noble Friend the Secretary of State, and through the regular officials of the India Office.

asked the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire, Whether the Metropolitan Board of Works purpose to hold an inquiry into the cause of the lamentable accident in Great Titchfield Street, through which six workmen lost their lives, and 15 others were injured; and, if so, whether the Board are likely to take any action against the parties who are responsible for the accident?

, in reply, said, the matter would come specially before the Board to-morrow. The officers of the Board had attended the inquest and had been in communication with the District Surveyor. The Board would, undoubtedly, follow in the present case the precedent of previous cases.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Special Rules under "The Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, 1887," have been established for the collieries in East and West Glamorgan; and, if not, why not?

Special Rules have been established, and are in force in those parts of East Glamorganshire which are in the district of Inspector Martin. With regard to the rest of Glamorganshire, Rules have not yet been established, because arbitration on matters in difference between the Secretary of State and the colliery owners is still pending.

, who had the following Question on the Paper:—To ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether Mr. Wolfe Barry has yet made his Report on the condi- tion of the Ballycotton Pier; whether it is a fact that in consequence of the recent gales a portion of the pier head was blown away; that the old fissures have been widened; and that 11 new cracks have appeared in wharf pavement after the storm of the 6th instant; whether it is true that on the 20th ultimo a large fishing boat was driven ashore upon the remains of the old pier, not 100 yards from the harbour's entrance, and was with difficulty saved by the prompt and energetic action of Mr. Steel and the coastguards; and, whether any immediate repairs will be carried out to prevent further damage and collapse, and, if so, who is to carry out and be responsible for the necessary repairs? said: I see that the Question is marked on the Notice Paper as being set down for Thursday next, the 22nd of November, although no intimation of the postponing of the Question was given to me. I wish to call attention to the irregular way in which this has been set down.

I am not responsible for that. I understood it to be an error of the printer that it appeared in to-day's paper, that the Question was originally put down for the 22nd.

I put it down in consequence of the pier being in such a terrible state, and I meant to ask the Question as soon as possible, hoping that the pier would not be washed away altogether.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is aware that the Governor of the Colony of British Guiana, on or about the 14th of May last, received a Petition from the principal merchants and leading inhabitants of the Colony, praying for the construction of a railway to the North Western Frontier; and, whether the Governor of the Colony has forwarded such Petition to Her Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to state what action, if any, the Government propose to take so as to comply with the wishes of the Colonists?

, in reply, said, that such a Petition had been presented to the Governor, but the Governor had not forwarded it to Her Majesty's Government; and the Secretary of State was, therefore, not prepared to state what action the Government proposed to take in the matter.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is true, as stated in the public Press, that he has cancelled the appointment of Sir Henry Blake as Governor of Queensland; and, if not, whether he has received a reply to the message telegraphed to the Acting Governor of Queensland on Monday last?

The answer to both of these Questions of the hon. Member is in the negative. I may add that, as the House is aware, the Colonial Ministers have been desired to state the reasons of their opposition to Sir Henry Blake's appointment, and no communication in reply has yet been received.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he would give him an opportunity of discussing the appointment of the Governor of Queensland at an early day?

That Question must be addressed to the Leader of the House.

Is there any similar case of a Colony acting as Queensland has done in regard to the appointment of a Governor?

Is it true that the Colony votes the salary of the Governor?

Yes; of course, the salary is paid by the Colony.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that in the case of two out of the six pensioners still returned in the Finance Accounts as "Persons formerly on the Civil List of His Majesty George III.," the pensions have been continued after their death, one pensioner having died on April 16, 1885, and the other on March 6, 1887; and, what is the system of control in regard to pensions at the Treasury which makes such over-payments possible?

No such over-payments have been made; and I am satisfied that the Regulations in force make it impossible that they should occur. The hon. Member has confused an issue from the Exchequer to meet a charge on the Consolidated Fund with a payment by the Paymaster General from the money so issued. I would refer him to the explanation which I gave him on this subject on the 28th of February last; and to the note in the Finance Accounts that the amount over-issued from the Exchequer, in respect to the two pensions referred to, will be repaid.

asked, how it happened, if the Paymaster General had repaid the amount into the Exchequer in 1885, that the Exchequer had continued to issue it for three years afterwards?

It is somewhat difficult to make this matter clear to the hon. Gentleman. The Comptroller of Audits has satisfied himself that no such payment has been made. It is quite possible that the issue might he made, and necessarily made, because the death of the pensioner was not known; and until his death became known, the amount, of course, would be paid to the Paymaster.

Is not that exactly my point? What evidence is there that the pensioners are alive?

In every case where a pension is applied for, a life certificate must be produced.

asked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been directed to the heavy losses sustained by many retail traders in consequence of married women declining to pay accounts they have contracted, on the plea that they had been forbidden to pledge their husbands' credit; and, whether, having regard to the fact that such a prohibition can be given in an entirely private manner, he will consider the possibility of making some amendment to the existing law so as to increase the trader's means of ascertaining the responsibility of this class of his customers?

I am aware that, from time to time in past years, attention has been called to the fact that losses have been inflicted upon retail traders by reason of their having given credit to married women whose husbands had forbidden them to pledge their credit; but, at the same time, it has been pointed out in many Judgments that greater evils would be occasioned by allowing a married woman to pledge the husband's credit where he has forbidden her to do so; and, inasmuch as it is entirely in the hands of retail traders themselves whether they will or will not give credit, there is not, in my opinion, any necessity for an amendment in the law.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in the event of the Committee of the House of Lords on the Sweating System being unable to complete their inquiries, owing to doubts as to subject-matter of the investigation, the Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, assisted by working men experts, to continue the inquiry into the Sweating System, and also into the case of the dock labourers, chain makers, &c. of Cradley Heath?

I am informed that there is no reason whatever to doubt that the Committee on the Sweating System will be able to conclude their work in a satisfactory manner. On August 3 they obtained an extension of the scope of the original Reference, so as to cover the whole of the United Kingdom; and I understand that it is the intention of the Committee to inquire into every trade in which sweating is alleged to exist. At their next sitting they are to receive evidence from dock labourers, one of the classes specially named by the hon. Member.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in their contemplated salmon legislation, it is the intention of the Government to remove the Tweed from its present anomalous position of being regulated by separate and private Acts of Parliament by including it in the general laws applying to the salmon fisheries of the country; and, whether, for legislative and administrative purposes, it will be considered as a purely Scotch river?

It is proposed to include the Tweed in the general laws applying to salmon fisheries in Scotland; and, so far as is practicable, the Tweed will, for legal and administrative purposes, be treated as a Scotch river.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can inform the House when the first instalment of the new edition of the Revised Statutes will be ready for issue, and at what price per volume they will be published?

The editor hopes to be able to return the last proofs of the first volume to the printers to-day; and, if this is done, the volume ought to be published in a fortnight at latest. The price will be 7s. 6d.

asked, whether it would not be possible to make the price of the volume 5s.?

I do not know, but I will inquire.

said, that the 21st instant was the last day for receiving tenders for the Ruby Mines, and that the advertisement as to the conditions of tender had been published in The Times and some other London dailies, The Scotsman, The Glasgow Herald, and the Irish Times.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which I have given him private Notice. It is, whether he can state to the House what answer has been given by the Secretary of State to the Agent General for South Australia with reference to the request of the Government of that Colony that it may be consulted, or confidentially communicated with, before the appointment of a Governor. Perhaps I may say, in putting this Question, that I never for an instant contemplated moving the Adjournment of the House to-day on the subject of the answer about the Government of Queensland, given to me on Monday last, which was perfectly clear and precise. I am sorry that anyone should have been inconvenienced by that supposed Motion.

In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I will read to the House the following letter addressed by the Colonial Office to Sir A. Blyth:—