asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, on November 22, at the Hammersmith Police Court, on the hearing of a summons against one Meyer, for an alleged offence under the Vaccination Law, Mr. Paget, the sitting magistrate, refused to allow J. W. Proudman to appear for the defendant, on the ground that Mr. Proudman was not a solicitor, though Mr. Proudman was stated to be a person authorized by Meyer to appear for him on such hearing?

I am informed by the magistrate that the defendant appeared in person to answer the summons, and the magistrate heard all that he had to urge in his own behalf. The defendant did not desire to call the other person, who was present as a witness, and the magistrate refused to allow him to interfere in the case. The magistrate seems to me to have acted rightly under the circumstances.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that John Hickey, residing at Kilcrohane, County Cork, was arrested without a warrant by Constable Timmins, when returning to his home on October 16, was detained in custody until the afternoon of the next day, and was then conveyed to the Durrus Petty Sessions; whether Mr. Bird, a local landlord and J.P., stated, without any application from the Crown, that the charge against Hickey should be dealt with under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and further remanded Hickey, and required sureties for his appearance; whether, when Hickey appeared to answer the charge at the Durrus Petty Sessions Court, District Inspector Crane, at whose suit he was charged, failed to put in an appearance; whether he will state by what statute Hickey was arrested and detained in custody under the circumstances; and, whether the Government will recoup Hickey to the amount he has paid counsel for appearance at the Durrus Petty Sessions?

, in reply, said, the case referred to was still sub judice, having been adjourned to the 12th of December. It would, therefore, not be proper to enter into details. He might, however, say that Mr. Bird did not make any suggestions as to the statute under which the accused was dealt with. The case is to be tried under the ordinary law. The adjournment took place through the non-attendance of the local magistrates. The police, in making the arrest, acted under the Common Law.

May I ask whether an ordinary Justice, not a Resident Magistrate, has the power to declare that a prosecution which has begun under the ordinary law shall be continued and proceeded with under the Coercion Act?

No, Sir.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that an extra police force is employed in the Queen's County; and, whether, in view of the fact that the Judges of Assizes have frequently congratulated the county on its freedom from exceptional crime, and that, at the county at large Sessions, held at Maryborough on November 17, the magistrates and cesspayers unanimously rejected the application for a presentment for extra police, he will direct the removal of the extra police force from Queen's County?

It is the case that there is an extra police force of 13 men employed in the Queen's County. This force is not there on account of any prevalence of crime; but is necessary over and above the free quota of police assigned to the county for the ordinary discharge of police duties. In 1882, the extra force in this county numbered 40 men. It has since been reduced, from time to time, to its existing number. No further reduction is at present practicable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Inspector of Factories for the Dublin District has had brought to his notice deductions from the wages of employés of Messrs. Smyth and Co. (Limited), Balbriggan, resulting in a strike which has now lasted six weeks; and, whether any proceedings have been taken against the employers under the Truck Acts; and, if not, what course the Government intend to take in the matter?

No proceedings have been taken. The question of the legality of such deductions as the firm in question gave notice of is now under the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, during the past 12 months, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue have punished, by removal, an officer of Inland Revenue, although he had not neglected his official duties, nor broken any Departmental Regulation; whether such officer was granted any inquiry or explanation as to the grounds upon which he was removed; and, whether this is in accordance with the practice of the Commissioners?

It is the fact that an officer of the Inland Revenue Service has been removed from one locality to another; but the removal was not a punishment, inasmuch as the officer was sent to a post quite as good as that from which he was taken. No explanation of the reasons for his removal was given. I must uphold the right of the Government to move officers of the Revenue Service from one place to another without reason assigned, provided such removal does not entail any loss either of present pay or future prospects. No such loss was involved in the present case.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the conduct of Mr. Longbourne, R.M., in a case of trespass at the suit of Edward Cuffe against P. J. Gordon, Martin Prendergast, and Patrick Donnellan, heard at Petty Sessions, Claremorris, County Mayo, on the 22nd instant, at the commencement of which Mr. Longbourne refused to allow the case to be proceeded with, and called Head Constable Murray to the Bench; whether it is correctly reported that Mr. Longbourne declared from the Bench that the lands were "the scene of an intended eviction," and that there should be a prosecution under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act against the defendants, and that when Mr. Gordon protested in open Court against this treatment, orders were given to the police to have him removed from the Court; whether he is aware that Mr. Longbourne is prevented by illness from attending regularly at the Petty Sessions; and, whether Mr. Longbourne had any authority for preventing the complainant from proceeding with the case of trespass, and for developing it into a Crimes Act prosecution?

From a full Report which I have received it appears that this Question does not accurately represent the facts; but the case being still sub judice, I am unable to enter into the details of the charges to be tried. I may, however, observe that Gordon was ordered to leave the Court for deliberately insulting the Bench after the case had been adjourned; but it was not necessary for the police to remove him. The Resident Magistrate has never been prevented by illness from attending Petty Sessions, which he attends regularly, except when prevented through more important duties. In the course of the case the evidence showed that the charge before the Court did not represent the true character of the case; and the magistrates adjourned it, with the view of having the real offence properly brought forward.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether he can give any further information as to the manner in which the Viceroy has dealt with certain actions of Colonel Marshall in connection with the Hyderabad scandal; whether it is the case, as stated by The Deccan Times of October 4, that—

"The Viceroy, though condemning the connection brought about by the private secretary (Colonel Marshall) between the Hyderabad Government and his relative, Mr. Watten, has accepted Colonel Marshall's explanation of the financial position to which public attention was recently drawn;"

whether he will inform the House what Colonel Marshall's explanation was; and, whether he will state what steps have been taken to re-imburse the Nizam's Treasury of the large sum of money which has been lost to it?

The matters referred to in the Question are, as I stated in August last, such as it is the function of the Viceroy and Government of India to deal with. No Report of any such circumstances as are alluded to in the Question has been made by the Government of India to the Secretary of State.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the conviction of George Taylor, a bricklayer, for poaching in Her Majesty's preserves and killing two pheasants, for which offence he was awarded by the Windsor magistrates three months' imprisonment with hard labour, and at the expiration of the time ordered to find sureties not to repeat the offence for 12 months; whether the Government will direct this extreme punishment to be partially remitted; and, if not, will the Government state what were the circumstances, beyond one previous conviction for trespass in pursuit of game, which called for so severe a punishment?

I have received a Report from the Clerk to the Justices on this case. The magistrates considered it a serious case of poaching armed at night. They also observed that the prisoner had committed three other offences—namely, killing game on Sunday, killing game without a certificate, and having a gun without a licence. The requirement as to finding sureties seems to be imperative under the Statute. Should the prisoner be unable to find sureties at the expiration of his sentence, I will then consider whether the circumstances of the case justify me in advising any remission.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that summonses, so numerous as to attract general attention in the Parliament House, have recently been taken out in the Court of Session, at the instance of Lady Gordon Cathcart, against crofters in the Islands of Benbecula, South Uist, and Barra; whether, in many cases, the amounts sued for in name of rents and arrears are under £50; and, whether, having regard to the institution of local Sheriff Courts within counties in Scotland, intended to protect poor persons summoned thereto who might appear in person, or employ a procurator for a few shillings to answer for them, in place of being called hundreds of miles from their homes, and put to the expense of employing counsel and agents, he will, before next Session, consider as to the advisability of introducing a Bill excluding prosecutions for ordinary debts in the Supreme Courts of Scotland for sums under £100 sterling?

Thirty-four such summonses have been taken out. Of these 13 are for sums above, and 21 for sums below, £50, the average amount being a little under £50. The power of the Court of Session to withhold costs, or to give costs only on the scale of the inferior Courts, is generally found to prevent litigants resorting to its jurisdiction with cases which ought properly to go to local tribunals. The proposal to exclude from the Court of Session actions for ordinary debts under £100 seems to me to be uncalled for and inexpedient.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has seen the Reports in The Cork Examiner and Herald of the 22nd instant, to the effect that four farmers named John and Daniel Scannell, John Cahill, and Humphrey Moynihan were arrested on the 21st instant, taken before Mr. M'Dermott, R.M., at Rathmore, County Kerry, and remanded for eight days to Tralee Gaol, bail being refused, and that the District Inspector R.I.C. stated that they would be brought up this day week in Tralee, and a further remand would be then applied for, and the trial would probably take place on December 13; whether, in view of the fact that these men are of respectable character, he can state why they were not proceeded against by way of summonses instead of being summarily arrested; and, why bail was refused in all these cases, they being able to give bail to a substantial amount?

I regret that I cannot go into the details of the charges against these men, the matter being still sub judice. The District Inspector, however, did not say that he would oppose bail on the second remand. As a matter of fact, the accused are being admitted to bail to come up for trial.

What charge has been made against these men? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the practice is growing up in this district of arresting men without any warrant or specific charge, and confining them in gaol without mentioning the charge against them?

I am not aware that an illegal practice is growing up in this or any other district.

said, that was no answer to his Question.

We want to know what the charge is. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can inform us what it is?

The hon. Member must give Notice of any further Question.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he will state the number of men actually employed in the bayonet department at Enfield during the last fortnight, distinguishing the nationalities of the men, and showing the amount actually earned and paid to such workmen; and, if such amount varies, stating the lowest amount paid to any workman?

The number of men employed at Enfield exclusively on bayonet work during each of the last two weeks was 136, and they were all either British or Irish. Their earnings for last week averaged £1 6s. 6d., and the lowest amount received by any man was 2s. 11d. for piecework. Besides the men referred to above, others are employed in polishing the bayonets; but they have other duties, and their wages cannot be properly discriminated.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen in the papers that great excitement prevailed at Enfield, where a meeting was held on the previous night? Fears were expressed that English workmen were being superseded by men of other nationalities. Could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there was no ground for this apprehension?

said, that there never had been the smallest idea of having men of foreign nationality, unless it was absolutely necessary for the Public Service; the subject had never been even suggested. The excitement, he thought, was fostered by the local Liberal Association, and had arisen out of the knowledge that certain German workmen had been employed by Messrs. Wilkinson, contractors for sword bayonets. It was absolutely untrue that English labour was being displaced to make room for foreign labour. It was true, however, that certain German workmen were brought over by Messrs. Wilkinson for the purpose of teaching English workmen how to carry out a certain particular class of work; but these men had been employed only because they were unable to get the necessary skilled workmen in England. When the English workmen had been taught the Germans would go back to Germany. In a recent case a small contract was given to an English firm; and it was found, in practice, that they were not able to complete the contract in England, and that the swords were manufactured at Solingen.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Walter Thompson, who on June 4 last was charged in custody before the Gravesend magistrates with being drunk and disorderly, and who, after evidence given by the police which raised grave doubt as to Thompson's sanity, was remanded in custody as an ordinary prisoner; whether he was raving and violent, and received severe injury whilst in the cells, and, after having been visited on June 5 by a magistrate, was removed to Banning Heath Lunatic Asylum, where death ensued on June 18; whether, under 48 & 49 Vict. c. 52, ss. 2 and 3, Thompson might on June 4 have been placed in the care of the master of the Gravesend Workhouse, who has accommodation for lunatics; and, whether, to avoid the risk of lunatics being again confined in police cells without proper care, the Government will issue a Circular to magistrates' clerks drawing attention to the statute?

My attention has been called to the case of Walter Thompson, who died in Banning Heath Lunatic Asylum on June 18 last. The Report of the Justices on the case shows that, from the statements of the police sergeant made when the case came before the Justices as to Thompson's conduct since he had been in custody, it was thought by the Bench that he had been suffering from delirium tremens; but inasmuch as he answered questions that were put to him with the object of ascertaining his state of mind quite rationally, and gave the correct address of a man from whom he was expecting employment, he was remanded, with directions that his statements should be investigated, and that he should be visited by the police surgeon. He fell down accidentally in the cell and cut his head; but I do not gather that he was raving and violent. He was visited regularly by the police surgeon, who was not able to pronounce him insane till June 7, when he was removed to the asylum. The Justices had no power, under the statute quoted, to send him to the workhouse on June 4, as they then considered him sane. I have no reason to believe that magistrates act in ignorance of the law in these cases; and I do not think there is sufficient ground for issuing a Circular to magistrates' clerks calling attention to the statute referred to.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the accounts of the Receiver General of the Metropolitan Police are independently audited; and, if so, by whom?

, in reply, said, that the accounts were audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of the Exchequer.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would lay the Report on the Table?

said, he would make inquiry.

believed that it would be found that the accounts were audited technically by the gentleman mentioned, but not literally. They were not laid before the Public Accounts Committee.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Sir Charles Warren was in conflict with the Receiver General—

Order, order!

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether it is the duty of every police officer to take every step in his power to discover the guilty party when a case of murder or homicide occurs in his district; whether it is the duty of the representatives of the Crown at a Coroner's inquest to produce any available evidence as to the cause of the death of the deceased; and, whether there are any exceptions to the General Rules for the guidance of such officers that would justify their refusing to perform such duties; and, if so, what are the exceptions?

, in reply, said, the answer to the first and second paragraphs of the Question was in the affirmative, and to the third in the negative.

May I ask whether, considering the reply to the first two paragraphs of my Question, he will order an investigation into the conduct of Inspector Creagh, of Midleton, and of Inspector Seymour, who have both declined to perform their duties at the inquest recently held into the murder of Patrick Ahern; and whether he will order these two officers, who have neglected to perform their duties, to be suspended until after the investigation?

said, no evidence had come before them that these officers had neglected their duty.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman had seen the Cork papers containing full reports of this inquest, and copies of which he (Mr. Lane) now held in his hand, that these officers stated positively that they declined to perform these duties? If the right hon. Gentleman did not believe what he (Mr. Lane) said, perhaps he would believe what he read in the papers.

I believe what the hon. Gentleman says; but what I do not believe is what the Cork papers say.

Does the right hon. Gentleman not believe the shorthand Report of the inquest which appeared from day to day for 13 days, and which could have been contradicted by the police officers themselves if untrue?

said, he understood the evidence was not in accordance with what, as he gathered from the hon. Gentleman, appeared in the Cork papers. The papers did not always report accurately.

The evidence in this case was taken by deposition. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the deposition before him; and will he endeavour to obtain the depositions of these Inspectors, in order to see whether or not they have declined to do their duty in the manner stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Lane)?

said, he must ask for Notice of any further Questions. He did not think, from the information which had been laid before him, that even a primâ facie case had been made out.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table of the House a copy of the Report made by the Government reporter who was present at the inquest? If he does not believe the report in the Cork papers, surely he will believe his own reporter.

I was not aware that there was a Government reporter present.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a recent speech of the Governor of the Straits Settlements to his Council, when he used these words—

"The defences of Singapore yet remain, I am concerned to have to report, in an incomplete state. The War Office has, I learn, been unable to furnish the remaining portion of the armament, owing to the heavy guns supplied by the manufacturers for the forts not having stood the severe tests now required. Some months will, therefore, elapse before those guns are received in the Colony;"

whether this is an accurate statement of facts; and, whether Papers will be furnished to the House explaining the circumstances?

I am sorry to say that it is quite true that the heavier armament for Singapore has not yet been furnished. All the remainder has gone out except some quick-firing guns, which go next month. The 9·2-inch breech-loading guns for Singapore were among those whose liners were condemned this year after the failure in the liners that then occurred. They are now being re-lined as rapidly as possible, and are expected to be ready in February. The two 10-inch guns will be rather later.

Were the guns made at Woolwich?

I am almost certain, speaking without Notice of the Question, that they were.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the recent report of the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade on the condition of the nail makers and small chainmakers in South Staffordshire and East Worcestershire, the Government intend to introduce legislation next Session dealing with the subject; whether his attention has been called to the statement in the Report, that—

"The result of the small domestic workshop system is, undoubtedly, the root of many if not all the evils from which the nail workers suffer;"

if so, what course the Government intend to take in reference to those workshops; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to deal with the question of female labour in those districts?

, in reply, said, this was a matter that came within the scope of the Home Secretary's Department rather than his own, and he had directed a copy of the Report to be sent to his right hon. Friend, calling his special attention to the suggestions contained in the Report, and asking him to consider them. The subject was one which was full of difficulty, and he hoped that any persons with local knowledge of these industries would communicate their views as to the suggestions made in the Report.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would institute an inquiry?

said, this question had already been the subject of more than one inquiry.

asked, whether the House was to understand that there was to be no legislation on this subject?

Certainly not.

said, he would move the Adjournment of the House to-morrow in order to discuss the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any confirmation of the announcement in The Times of November 17, to the following effect:—

"The Belgian steamer Brabo, taking 100 slaves intended for the Congo, was boarded off the Zanzibar coast to-day (November 16) by a party from H.M.S. Griffon, and two slaves were taken from her who swore that they had been forcibly kidnapped. She was then allowed to proceed. Had she been arrested, the primâ facie evidence against her was very strong. There is a great scandal about this incident, especially as all the arrangements were made through a former Belgian Consul;"

if so, whether the labourers who were not taken off the vessel were slaves, who had been transferred from their masters to the persons who hired them for transport to the Congo; whether it was the duty of the commander of H.M.S. Griffon to arrest the vessel, in order that she might be adjudicated upon in Belgium, according to the terms of Slave Trade Treaties with that country; and, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any steps in the matter?

Information has been received by telegraph that Her Majesty's ship Griffon boarded the Belgian steamer Brabo, carrying a cargo of contract labourers engaged on behalf of the Congo Free States, and took out of her two men who declared that they had been embarked against their will. The ship then proceeded on her voyage. No further details are known; but the ship was not liable to capture under the Treaty as being engaged in the traffic of slaves, or being fitted out for purposes of slave-trading. The Belgian Minister has communicated copies of the labour contracts, which contain every requisite provision against compulsion. Accordingly, instructions have been sent that the two men shall be handed over to the Belgian Consul.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could inform the House how many slaves a vessel might have on board in order to come under the designation of being a ship carrying slaves?

replied that no limit had been, or could be, stated. A vessel engaged in slave trading within the terms of the Treaty would be condemned; but there was no ground for supposing the Brabo so engaged in any sense.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Constable Edward Swindell, against whom a verdict of wilful murder has been found by a Coroner's Jury in Midleton, has been placed under arrest; whether it is correctly reported that, at the inquest, District Inspector Creagh, of Midleton, swore that he did not consider it any part of his duty as a police officer to take any steps to discover who killed Patrick Ahern, and that District Inspector Seymour, representing the Crown, stated that he would not produce any evidence as to how Ahern came by his death; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will give the Crown Prosecutor for the district special instructions to take the necessary steps to have Swindell brought to trial at the next Cork Assizes?

The constable has been placed under arrest upon the Coroner's warrant. The District Inspector did not swear that he did not consider it part of his duty to take steps to discover who killed Ahern. When these officers made inquiries from persons in Midleton they were met with a flat refusal to give information. The whole case will be laid before the Attorney General, who will give such directions as the case warrants.

inquired whether the Inspector did not refuse to parade the men the next morning for the purpose of identification?

asked the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.

asked whether or not every one of the persons examined against the police at the inquest had not since been served with summonses under the Crimes Act?

asked, if it was usual to consult the Attorney General before proceeding in such cases?

said, he must press the right hon. Gentleman for an answer to the important Question he had put—namely, whether every one of the witnesses who gave damaging evidence at the inquest against the police, and convicted one of them of murder, had not since been served with summonses under the Crimes Act?

said, the hon. Gentleman must be aware he knew nothing about the matter. If the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of the Question he would, of course, make the requisite inquiries.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, if he would undertake that the Law Officers of the Crown would not enter a nolle prosequi, as was done in the case of the boy O'Hanlon, who was murdered by the police at Youghal?

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Commins) was under a misapprehension. He did not say he was going to consult the Attorney General. This was a matter in which the Attorney General had absolute discretion, and, of course, he would not interfere.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether preliminaries for the erection of a Coastguard Station on Bere Island commenced some years ago; and, if so, what is the cause of the delay in its erection?

said, he had nothing to add to the answer given by the First Lord of the Admiralty to the hon. Member in September, 1887. The present Coastguard Station on Bere Island was held on lease, and its transfer to another locality had not yet been definitely settled, no agreement having been come to with regard to a new site.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is correctly reported in The Times of Tuesday last to have stated, in reply to a deputation with regard to Clause 3 of the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill, that he proposed to abide by the clause, and use what influence he had "in the House of Commons to carry it into effect?" The hon. Gentleman also asked whether it was true, as stated in The Daily News of that day, that the Home Secretary was determined to stand by Clause 3 of the Bill; and whether he intended to make certain alterations in Committee?

asked if representations had been made to the Home Secretary by hon. Members on both sides expressive of their readiness to support him in carrying the Bill through the House in the form in which it was now presented?

I stated, in reply to the deputation referred to, that I proposed to abide by Clause 3 of the Bill, and would ask the House of Commons to adopt it. I have placed upon the Paper Amendments to that clause to carry out a pledge which I gave to the Standing Committee. I have received representations from both sides of the House to persevere with the Bill; and I hope that thus the passage of the Bill may be made easier.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will grant a Return showing the particulars of the prices of the stock and articles of produce on which the temporary adjustment of the judicial rents for 1888 is based?

, in reply, said, he had consulted with the Land Commissioners; and, in their opinion, the giving of such a Return would not be advisable.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that there was no magistrate in attendance at Dalston Police Court on Tuesday last for several hours after the time appointed for the commencement of business; to what cause was this due; whether a similar irregularity occurred only a fortnight ago; and, whether, in order to avoid great public inconvenience and loss, he will take such measures as will secure the punctual attendance of the magistrate at this Court?

I am informed by the Chief Magistrate that Mr. Horace Smith, the magistrate at Dalston Police Court, was suddenly taken ill and confined to his bed for several hours. He telegraphed to a magistrate to take his place, and the required assistance was supplied after some unavoidable delay. A similar irregularity occurred on the 15th instant. This arose from an unfortunate misunderstanding among the magistrates responsible for the service of the Court. The non-attendance of a magistrate was thus in each case due to an accident. I hope it may be found possible, under existing arrangements, to make provision for the proper service of this Court. If it is not possible, I must consider what new arrangements can be made.

asked the Vice Chamberlain, Whether the attention of the Privy Council has been called to five outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia in the County of Norfolk during the present month; whether four of these outbreaks originated in store cattle recently imported from Ireland; and, whether he will at once order further precautionary measures to be taken with regard to the removal of cattle landed from Ireland?

Six outbreaks of pleuro-pneumonia have been reported during this month in the County of Norfolk, and in four the Inspector states the animals were bought on Norwich Hill, and that they were Irish. The Chief Travelling Inspector has been engaged since Monday in making inquiries in Norfolk; but has not yet been able to ascertain when the cattle were exported from Ireland, or what markets they had been in previously to their arrival at Norwich. Owing to the very stringent measures which have been adopted by the Irish Government for extirpating the disease, Ireland is more free from pleuro-pneumonia than Great Britain.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What is the number of children under the age of 14 years now undergoing sentences of imprisonment in Great Britain?

I could only obtain the exact figures asked for by means of a Circular to all the prisons, and by an examination of every commitment; but perhaps the Return given in Appendix 8 of the last Report of the Prison Commissioners will be sufficient for the purposes of the right hon. Gentleman. It shows that on the 31st of March, 1888, there were in prison 223 prisoners between 12 and 16. Of these a small proportion would be awaiting trial, and the number under 14 would probably be less than 100.

asked, if in case of imprisonment of young children the Home Secretary personally investigated the causes for which they had been incarcerated?

Yes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the Glamorganshire, Carmarthenshire, and Brecon shire Collieries included in Mr. Inspector Robson's District of South Wales, the old Special Rules for collieries under the Mines Regulation Act, 1872, are still in force; if so, why; and, if not, what are the Special Rules now applicable to those collieries since the passing of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act, 1887; and, how soon may it be expected that the New Rules will be finally settled and established; and, when established, will he order that they should be translated into the Welsh language and posted up at the collieries with the English Rules?

The old Special Rules under the Act of 1872 are no longer by law in force in the collieries referred to; because, after the passing of the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Act of 1887, new Special Rules were submitted by the owners under Section 52 of that Act, and, by the lapse of 40 days without objection, they were, under the Statute, established as the Special Rules for those collieries. Since then I have proposed to the owners certain Amendments of those new Special Rules, The proposed Amendments were objected to by the owners, and, consequently, two arbitrations have taken place. The award in one case is now ready, and in the other nearly so. As soon as the necessary arrangements for payment of the costs are completed with the Treasury Solicitor, the award now ready—that is, for East Glamoganshire—will be published. The Government have met the cost of a Welsh abstract of the Coal Mines Act, including the General Rules; and it appears to me that the cost of translating the Special Rules should be met by the owners, by whom they are proposed.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to recent occurrences in Samoa; and, if it is the intention of the Three Guaranteeing Powers to take measures for the restoration of order in those Islands?

Her Majesty's Government have been informed of the occurrence of civil war in Samoa. They have observed an attitude of neutrality in regard to it; and Her Majesty's Consul would, according to his instructions, abstain from intervention except for the protection of British life and property. I am not able to state at present what means the Treaty Powers may be disposed to adopt for the restoration of order in those Islands, which Her Majesty's Government are most anxious to promote.

asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been drawn to the report in The North British Daily Mail of Monday last, that an infant 10 months old, which was taken to Duke Street Prison, in Glasgow, on Wednesday the 21st instant, with its mother, Mrs. M'Kenzie, who was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, had been stripped, bathed in cold water, and put into prison clothes; and, if true, under what Rule was this infant so treated?

The child was not bathed in cold water, but in warm water, the temperature being about 100 degrees. The child was supplied with the clothing provided under Instruction 541, Scale 5, of the Rules for prisons in Scotland. These clothes are prison clothes only in the sense of being the property of the Prison Commissioners, and are such as are ordinarily worn by children of the working class.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that, on the hearing of a process of ejectment for non-payment of rent, at the suit of the Drapers' Company, against John Bradley, at Magherafelt, before Mr. Neligan, Q.C., in January last, it was held by the Judge that he had no power to extend the payment of instalments beyond one year, and that this decision was afterwards reversed on appeal, whereupon Mr. Neligan, Q.C., extended the instalments over four years, making the first instalment payable in November, 1888; whether over 100 processes of ejectment entered by the same landlords at the same Sessions were adjourned pending the result of the appeal in Bradley's case; whether decrees were, notwithstanding, obtained against these tenants, and notices of eviction served on 73 of them in May last; whether decrees for possession were granted against 41 of them at Draperstown Petty Sessions on the 20th instant; whether, at the last Sessions held before Mr. Noligan, at Magherafelt, the Judge declined to follow the ruling of the Supreme Court, when applied to on behalf of about 100 tenants on the same estate, and ejectment decrees without extension of time for payment of arrears were accordingly granted against them; whether he is aware the Drapers' Company have refused to settle with these tenants unless they sign agreements to hold subject to or purchase on the basis of the old rents, notwithstanding that in cases where fair rents were fixed on the estate there was an average reduction of 20 per cent; and, whether he will consider the propriety of introducing a Bill to make it compulsory that such extension of time for payment of arrears of rent shall be granted as the tenant shall reasonably require to enable him to pay the same?

replied to the first paragraph in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative. In 33 cases further time was given to pay by instalments within a period of 12 months. Decrees were taken in the usual course by the plaintiff's solicitor. The Recorder did not refuse to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. On the contrary, he followed it the last Session. He (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had no information as to the matter of the sixth paragraph. The existing law provided for all cases coming under the last paragraph.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that County Court Judge Waters had declared that the clause dealing with arrears in the Act of last year was a perfect farce, and useless to the tenants of Ireland?

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the case that the provisions of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 117, and 10 & 11 Vict. c. 33, in reference to the removal of Scotch and Irish paupers to their place of settlement in their own country, do not apply to pauper lunatics; and, if so, whether he will consider the propriety of amending the law in this respect, either by a clause in the Lunacy Bill, to be re-introduced next Session, or in some other way?

The view which I believe is generally held is that the statutory provisions relating to the removal of paupers to Scotland and Ireland do not extend to authorize the removal of pauper lunatics whose condition is such as to require that they should be sent to a lunatic asylum. In the case of pauper lunatics who have no settlement in England, the cost of maintenance in an asylum is a charge on the county, and not upon the particular union. I cannot undertake to propose any alteration of the law which would extend the powers as to the removal of paupers.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If an opportunity will be given to the House of expressing an opinion on the matter before the Government commits itself to the renewal of large grants to the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures, contrary to the arrangement that the grant for the Blenheim pictures should first be made good?

inquired, whether the arrangement referred to by his hon. Friend was communicated to the National Gallery authorities before the purchase of the Blenheim pictures under the deliberate authority of the House of Commons?

I gather that that was not done, and that it was not communicated to the authorities of the National Gallery before the purchase was made. In reply to the former Question, there is no proposal for the renewal of large grants to the National Gallery for the purchase of pictures. It was a part of the understanding, at the time when the usual annual grant of £10,000 was suspended until the sum spent upon the Blenheim pictures had been made good, that during the suspension of the grant the Treasury would consider any proposals which the Trustees of the Gallery might make for the acquisition, under exceptionally advantageous circumstances, of works important to complete the representative character of the collection. Several proposals for such purchases have been made by the Trustees; but in no instance—though admitting the case of the Trustees to be strong—have the Treasury regarded it as so overwhelmingly strong as to justify a special grant and a Supplemental Estimate. But the controversies which have arisen between the Trustees and the Treasury have convinced me that the present arrangement is unsatisfactory; and therefore, regarding the Treasury as pledged to some relaxation of the suspension of the Vote, I have agreed to £5,000 being put down in next year's Estimates for the purchase of pictures. Of course, this concession will be subject to the approval of Parliament when the Estimate comes on. I must remind the House that, of the £87,000 given for the Blenheim pictures, £40,000 have been made good by the suspension of the annual grant for four years.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can state the total amount of outstanding loans raised for the purchase and construction of railways in Jamaica; whether the Colonial Government of Jamaica has entered into negotiation for the sale of the Government Railways in Jamaica to an American Syndicate; and, if so, what are the terms offered by such Syndicate; and, whether the Secretary of State has yet come to any decision in the matter?

The total amount raised for purchase and re-construction of railways in Jamaica is £800,300. The amount provided for by Sinking Fund and otherwise is £140,327, leaving a net liability of £659,973 at the end of 1887. An offer has been made by an American Syndicate, as reported by the Governor in a despatch received on the 27th instant. This offer has not yet been considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they are not at present prepared to give the particulars.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Who is responsible for the carrying out of the provisions of the Workshops Regulation Act in Dublin; whether complaints have reached him that in many houses the Rules of the Act are not complied with; that the workshops are overcrowded, and the employés forced to work overtime; and whether he will take steps to ensure a more searching inspection of the Dublin workshops and factories in future?

I am informed by the Chief Inspector of Factories, whose duty it is to see that the provisions of the Factory Act are carried out in Dublin, that very few complaints have been made to the resident inspector in Dublin, and in each case they have been most fully investigated. Prosecutions have followed when young persons or females were employed beyond the legal hours. Careful regulations have been made and insisted upon as to the proper cubic space for each person employed. If the hon. Baronet will bring to my notice any violation of the law, full inquiry will be made.

asked the right hon. Gentleman to call the Inspector's attention to the fact that numerous complaints had been made in the public Press, especially in regard to girls employed in workshops?

promised that due attention would be given to the hon. Gentleman's statement.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has seen in The Newcastle Daily Leader, of November 19, a copy of the following letter, addressed to George Felton, by the Rev. R. W. Snape, Vicar of Lamesley, Gateshead, in reply to a notice of a burial under the Burial Act of 1880:—

"Lamesley Vicarage, Gateshead-on-Tyne, "October 30, 1888.

"George Felton.—As, by 'The Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880,' the funeral which you propose to hold in Lamesley Churchyard on Thursday, November 1, is required to take place between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., I hereby give you notice that your burial party must be at the entrance gate of the churchyard not later than a quarter before 3. If you come after that time the interment could not be completed by 3. Not upon any consideration whatever will I allow you, or any person belonging to you, to enter my churchyard for the purpose of burial, either at 3 or after 3 o'clock. The sexton has instructions to receive from you the usual fee of eight shillings (8s.) before beginning to make the grave.

"R. W. SNAPE, Vicar of Lamesley.

"George Felton, Allerdean;"

whether the vicar was required by law to give, or was justified in giving, such a notice; and, whether he acted legally in insisting on the payment of a fee before the opening of a grave for the burial of a parishioner?

Yes, Sir; I have seen the letter in question. The law does not require such notice to be given as was sent by the vicar; but I am not aware that such notice is illegal. There is nothing in the Statute as to the manner in which the fee is to be collected. It is a question of Ecclesiastical Law, whether the vicar acted legally in insisting on the payment of the fee before the opening of the grave; and I must decline to give an opinion on that point. It is one over which I have no jurisdiction. The Statute says that he shall be entitled to the same fee as if the burial had taken place with the service of the Church of England.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that a Select Committee in 1882 inquired into the subject of burial fees, and reported that clergymen were not entitled by law to exact them beforehand?

I am quite aware that a Report was made to that effect.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is a fact that, at the Slea- ford Street Polling Station, in the West Lambeth Division, during the School Board Election on Monday, several hundred persons who presented themselves between the hours of 6 and 8 o'clock in the evening were prevented from recording their votes owing to the insufficient accommodation provided; whether some of the electors who were unable to record their votes arrived at the polling station before 7 o'clock; and, whether this practical disfranchisement of a large number of duly qualified electors will render the election invalid?

, in reply, said, he was not aware of the facts alleged; but the Education Department was not responsible for the conduct of the School Board Elections. The only way to test the validity of an election was by legal proceedings taken in order to test the right of those elected to serve on the Board.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Government will take any steps to facilitate the release of Thomas Moroney, now imprisoned for contempt of court, having in view the fact that Thomas Moroney has now been imprisoned for more than one year and ten months, and that the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England has on more than one occasion strongly pronounced against indefinite imprisonment for contempt?

The hon. Gentleman will probably agree with me that it would be in the highest degree inexpedient, even if it were possible, for the Executive to interfere with the action of a Court of Law. I cannot admit the propriety of the epithet "indefinite" in the last line. Moroney can bring his imprisonment to a termination whenever he pleases.

In consequence of that answer I beg to give Notice that I shall, at the conclusions of the Questions, ask leave to move the adjournment of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government will, before another appointment of Governor of Queensland is made, make inquiries, or otherwise ascertain from the Cabinet of Queensland or the Agent General for the Colony, whether the appointment would be acceptable?

As I have explained on previous occasions, Her Majesty's Government do not feel able to take the course suggested, involving, as it would, a serious Constitutional change, in the expediency of which they do not concur.

asked the Postmaster General, If any estimate has been formed whether, under existing circumstances, the amount of extra duty to be performed in the Post Office Savings Bank during the next five or six months will be largely in excess of that performed in past years; whether his attention has been drawn to the remarks of the Royal Commission on the subject—namely, that—

"The average amount of extra hours of 360 of the staff of the Savings Bank Department since the 31st of December last are five hours per day per man;"

and, whether he is making any arrangement by which a large proportion of the work can be performed other than by means of extra duty; and, if so, whether he is in a position to state the nature of the arrangements, and the date on which they will come into operation?

Judging from the Returns which I have had before me of the rapid increase in the work of the Post Office Savings Bank, there is no doubt that there will be alarge augmentation of business in the period referred to by the hon. Member, and it is estimated that there will be a proportionate increase of extra duty unless it is otherwise provided for. My attention has been given to the remarks of the Royal Commission on the subject. The matter is receiving my earnest attention and that of the Treasury, and I am in hopes that a decision may be arrived at soon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, By whom the announcement of the appointment of the new Commissioner of Police was communicated to some of the newspapers; and, whether it was forwarded to all the newspapers and News Agencies through the usual channel; and, if not, why an exception was made in this instance?

The appointment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was formally completed at a late hour on Tuesday evening, and was, I believe, generally known in the Lobby that night. I have no reason to suppose that any exception was made to the usual course in making the matter known to the Press.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the prosecution of the men who have now been convicted of the Edlingham burglary was conducted or watched by himself, or by the Director of Criminal Prosecutions; whether the law of England admits of evidence being led and a case tried out when the prisoners plead guilty; and, if so, whether, having regard to the peculiar circumstances of this case and its great public interest, the prosecution pressed that the trial should go on or acquiesced in stopping at the plea of guilty, and so avoiding any judicial inquiry; whether the prosecution, in fact, compromised the case by accepting the plea of guilty of burglary only, and did not lead evidence to show that the persons who committed the burglary committed still graver offences, as shown at the former trial, when Branaghan and Murphy were convicted of the more heinous offences; and, whether any steps can be taken to prevent a similar avoidance of a judicial inquiry in such cases?

The prosecution of the men in question was conducted by the Director of Criminal Prosecutions and by counsel nominated by me. The law of England does not permit of a case being tried out when a plea of guilty is persisted in. I believe that Branaghan and Murphy were convicted of burglary and of shooting with intent to murder. There was no sufficient evidence, either from the confession or otherwise, to justify the charge of shooting with intent to murder being pressed. The punishment inflicted would have been the same in both cases.

asked, whether the Attorney General was aware that evidence was given before the magistrate as to shooting with intent to murder?

Of course, I cannot tell what information was communicated to the hon. Gentleman; but neither in the confession, nor from the evidence submitted to the Public Prosecutor, was there sufficient evidence of shooting with intent to murder.

asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman had any objection to lay on the Table the information which was in the hands of the Public Prosecutor as to this case? because he would have observed that these men were allowed to plead guilty of a minor offence.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely misinformed. In the first place, he suggested—I am sure quite unintentionally—that the plea of guilty to the minor offence was put in by arrangement with the Public Prosecutor. That is entirely without foundation. Until the trial, the Public Prosecutor did not know what plea the prisoners would plead. A special plea was put in by Mr. Digby Seymour, who defended. With regard to the other matter, the previous prisoners were tried and convicted of both offences.

asked, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman could state whether the police who gave evidence in the former case, as to shooting with intent to murder, were produced in this case?

The evidence as to shooting with intent to murder depended, not so much upon the police evidence, as upon the evidence of persons in the house, and also upon circumstantial evidence which was not forthcoming. The learned Judge expressed the opinion that the conduct of counsel for the prosecution in not pressing the charge of shooting with intent to murder was perfectly right.

asked the First Lord of the Treassury, Whether he will re-consider the statement which he made on Tuesday relating to the Business of the House, by which the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill is not likely to be taken till the end of the Session; and, whether he will, having regard to the importance of the measure, and the definite pledge he gave to the House on the 22nd instant, take the Bill immediately after the conclusion of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill?

The arrangement I desire to make is that this Bill should be taken on Friday next week. I hope the Irish Estimates will not last more than four days.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of his statement that all Railway and Harbour Bills for Ireland connected with the late Royal Commission must be postponed until the House has decided on the Drainage Bills, Whether he would name an early day on which the sense of the House might be taken on these Drainage Bills?

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has failed to notice that these Bills were withdrawn last week. Therefore, they are at an end so far as the present Session is concerned.

Are we to understand, then, that all important works in Ireland are to be indefinitely postponed?

I do not know that that is the question. The Government were most anxious to bring forward these Bills, but they met with opposition; and it was not possible, under the circumstances of the Session, to press them in the course of the present Session, and therefore they have been withdrawn.

Has the right hon. Gentleman ever given a single day for the second reading of any one of these Bills?

It would be exceedingly inconvenient that we should get into a wrangle. These Bills have been discussed at considerable length.

No, no; only on the first reading.

said, he had repeatedly stated that an adequate discussion of these Bills must be in Committee, and that when they came back from the Committee an opportunity would be afforded for their discussion in the House. Hon. Gentlemen did not agree with that view, and therefore there was no option but to withdraw the Bills.

Are we to understand that on no occasion are we to have the opportunity for an adequate discussion of the principle of a Bill on the second reading?

As a matter of fact, have these Bills ever been brought forward before 12 o'clock at night?

Yes, they were.

On what date?

Order! order!

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, From what source it is proposed to defray the cost of sending British troops to Suakin?

So far as the Government are aware, the cost of the moving of the troops from Cairo to Suakin will be extremely small. The Egyptian Government finds the transport, and I am not really aware that any other expense will be incurred.

It is widely rumoured that this operation will lead to a very great expenditure. Am I to understand from the answer of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have not yet decided who is to bear the contingent expenses which may result?

I wish to be perfectly frank with the hon. Gentleman and the House. He appears to think there is something in reserve, and something mysterious which is kept back. There is nothing of the kind. A battalion—a few troops—are being moved from Cairo to Suakin, and will be moved back again from Suakin to Cairo. No serious or important movement on the part of Her Majesty's Government is contemplated.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question. The troops may be moved from Cairo to Suakin and back again; but what if they are beaten and defeated? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the plain question, who is to bear the cost of this expedition; whether it be a small expedition; or whether, as stated in The Times, it is to be practically a re-conquest of the Soudan?

I have stated to the House what the expedition is. It is to move a few troops who are in garrison in Egypt from Cairo to Suakin, and as soon as the operations there are completed to move them back again. [Cries of "What operations?"] The operations are confined exclusively to the defence of Suakin from the attacks to which it is now subject.

Who pays the piper?

Two or three days ago, in answer to a Question of mine, I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that to-day he would make a statement. [Mr. W. H. SMITH: NO.] I asked him whether he would lay Papers on the Table before we had a discussion? He then said he would make a statement; and that statement has now reduced itself to the very simple proposition apparently that the troops are to go from Cairo to Suakin, and then from Suakin to Cairo. Is that the statement which he promised to make?

I am not aware that I did promise to make a statement. The right hon. Gentleman asked me if there would be any objection to produce Papers, and I said there would be no objection if there were any Papers. Certainly, there will be no objection to give the House full information if it is desired as to the removal of the battalion from Cairo to Suakin and from Suakin to Cairo. That is the whole matter.

The Papers which I think the House and the country will be anxious to have are the Papers relating to those communications which passed between the British and Egyptian Governments, of which the right hon. Gentleman has informed us.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have them, and will ask the Question on Monday, I will tell him whether I can produce them.

I wish to ask whether, in view of the statement the right hon. Gentleman has now made, which conflicts with general rumour abroad, he can definitely state on Monday whether the Government will give an undertaking that the troops will not go beyond a certain radius outside the walls of Suakin?

May I ask whether the cost of this operation or movement is to be included in the specific sum per annum which Egypt pays for the English troops that are in Egypt, or whether it is to be an extra?

If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to be exactly precise, and will ask me on Monday, I will give him the precise information; but whether it will cost a few pounds more or less I am not able to say. I have told the House that Egypt bears the whole cost of transport to and fro, and I really do not know what other expense there can be.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is intended to reinforce the Army of Occupation in Egypt in consequence of the dispatch of British troops to Suakin.

No, Sir. It is not in the opinion of the responsible officers in Egypt necessary to reinforce the Army of Occupation there.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the fact that three Bishops in England and Wales are over 80 years of age, and two others are over 77 years of age, and in view also of the increased duties imposed upon Bishops, and the consequent demand for an increase of the Episcopate, the Government propose to introduce a Bill at an early date for the superannuation and retirement of Prelates and other ecclesiastical dignitaries when no longer able to perform their duties?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, may I be permitted to ask whether the age of the right rev. Prelates in question appreciably exceeds that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), concerning whose vigour and vitality there can be no doubt?

Order, order!

I do not think my hon. Friend who asked the last question will expect an answer to it. With regard to the Question on the Paper, I believe that my hon. Friend is within the mark in his statement as to the ages of some of the members of the Episcopal Bench; but I am informed that the most aged of the Bishops is also the most active in the discharge of his duties, and retains the full possession of every mental faculty. An Act was passed some years ago (the 32 & 33 Vict., c. 3) providing for the superannuation and retirement of Prelates and other dignitaries of the Church when no longer able to discharge their duties.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps he intends to recommend the House to take with regard to the communication from one of Her Majesty's Judges affecting the character of one of its Members? My Question has particular reference to the passage in the letter of Mr. Justice North read yesterday to the House, charging the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gent-Davis) with appropriating to his own use, and neglecting to pay into Court, a large sum of money received by him in a fiduciary character.

I have considered the Question which the hon. and learned Member put on the Paper, and I do not see that it would be my duty to ask the House to take any action in the matter. I am not in possession of any information which would justify me in taking that course. I wish to remind the House and the hon. and learned Gentleman that I should take a very serious responsibility upon myself if I were to proceed, even on the statement of the learned Judge, to ask the House to pronounce a judgment upon the financial transactions, or even the fiduciary relations of an hon. Member of this House.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the probable date of the release of the hon. Member; and whether it is true, as reported, that the sum required to be paid by the order of the Court was found by the Tory Party, and paid into Court yesterday?

I have no information whatever on the subject. It appears to me to be no part of my duty to answer questions of that kind.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, before coining to the conclusion he has just announced, he consulted the precedents on the subject, in particular those referred to in Sir Erskine May's book on The Practice of Parliament, in which it is shown that, among the causes for which expulsion of Members has been decreed in this House, are those of having been guilty of forgery, perjury, frauds, and breaches of trust; and, whether this case does not come within, at least, the primâ facie description of frauds or breaches of trust.

With all respect to the hon. and learned Member, I think it is unreasonable that I should be called upon to answer a question of that kind without any Notice whatever. It is most undesirable that the person holding my position in the House should act hastily or rashly in any question affecting the honour and character of any Member of this House.

I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has consulted—["Order!"]

Unless action is taken by the Government in the meantime, I beg to give Notice that on Tuesday I shall move—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a writ for the election of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the Division of Kennington, in room of R. Gent-Davis, esq., who, since his election, has been found guilty by a Judge of Her Majesty's High Court of appropriating to his own use, and neglecting to pay into Court, a large sum of money which was received by him in a fiduciary character."

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the announcement made last evening by the First Lord of the Treasury in relation to the proposed Van and Wheel Tax, Whether, considering the great loss and inconvenience already suffered by those upon whom the tax would have fallen, he could not now state definitely that the proposal was not merely postponed until next Session, but absolutely withdrawn without any intention on the part of the Government to re-introduce a similar measure?

inquired whether the withdrawal of the Bill would involve the abolition of the proposed tax upon race and pleasure horses?

I think I may inform the hon. Member opposite that, through the great pressure of business which there has been, and through the loss during last week of the day which was intended for the field-day to which the hon. Member had looked forward, it has become perfectly impossible for the Government to hope to carry this Bill—which includes, of course, the tax upon race-horses—through its various stages during the present Session. Under the circumstances, the Bill is withdrawn. With regard to the future, I should look upon the best course to be pursued to be this. Before the Government can deal definitely with a subject of this kind next Session, the County Councils will have been established; and it appears to me that the Government may then take the opinion of the County Councils and local representatives as to what means may be taken to reinforce local taxation by £700,000 which the ratepayers lose by the unfortunate fact that it has not been possible for us to pass the Bill.

asked, whether the Government would consider the effect of the abandonment of the Bill upon the London County Council, whose finances would be completely disorganized; and whether they would introduce some measure to relieve the County Council from this embarrassment, as otherwise a fresh tax would have to be imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act?

The hon. Member must know that it is impossible to proceed with any fresh measures of this kind this Session.

, with reference to the Motion in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury for suspending the 12 o'clock rule, asked, Whether it was intended that no new opposed Vote should be taken after that hour, and the power only taken advantage of to conclude debate on the Vote then under consideration?

said, that, undoubtedly, the Government did not intend to tie their hands, for if they were to take no Opposed Business after midnight they should accomplish very little by asking the House to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule. Clearly the Government "could not ask the House to continue the Committee of Supply longer than the general sense of the Committee would warrant. He believed the House was anxious to make progress at that period of the Session with Supply; and it would be a very great misfortune if they were prevented from going on with Votes, practically unopposed, after 12, or even after 1 o'clock. He thought the feeling of the Committee would be that all Parties in the House should co-operate as cordially as they could, with all the differences that must exist between different sides, in affording facilities for the transaction of Public Business.

asked if the Government would guarantee that, in the event of the Motion for suspending the Rule being agreed to, no Votes would be taken after 12 o'clock except such as were practically unopposed?

repeated his answer, pointing out that to undertake that no opposed Vote should be taken after 12 o'clock at night would be equivalent to surrendering all the advantages gained.

gave Notice that, in consequence of the unsatisfactory answer of the right hon. Gentleman he would oppose the Motion.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Why the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, to which six clauses had been added in Committee and on Report, had not been reprinted before the House was asked to read it a third time.

in reply, said, he was really not responsible for the Bill not being printed. There was no expression of opinion on the part of the House that it was desirable to reprint it, and he gave no direction on the subject. The Amendments which had been accepted were very well known; but, nevertheless, had there been an expression of desire that the Bill should be reprinted, undoubtedly the Government would have made every exertion to have it done.

asked the Speaker on whom the authority rested to decide whether a Bill which had been altered on the Report stage should be re-printed.

The House itself would decide when a Bill should be reprinted.

, supposing the case where there was no direction by the House, and as it was clearly the general rule of the House, asked on what official then the authority rested?

It could then be done on Motion.

asked, Whether the Executive Government in Ireland possessed any power or authority whatever to regulate and control the time or manner of service of criminal process either in this country or in Ireland, as recently suggested by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton); and, if so, from what source was so dangerous a dispensing power derived.

I am not very learned in these legal matters; but I believe the Attorney General, who is responsible for the administration of the Criminal Law, has power to regulate the time of service of legal process.

asked, if it was not the case that all persons executing process in Ireland were not under the control and supervision of the Executive?

No, Sir.

asked the Solicitor General for Ireland, with reference to an answer he had given on Tuesday last as to the trial of Mr. Walsh, of Wexford, Whether that gentleman had been tried on Wednesday before the same Resident Magistrate whose previous conviction of Mr. Walsh on another charge had been quashed; and what steps the hon. and learned Gentleman had taken to prevent the second trial taking place before this same gentleman, who had now passed sentence of five months' imprisonment?

, in reply, said, he did not give a promise. He said that there was no reason to assume that the magistrates were not perfectly competent to try this case because the Superior Court had differed from them in the former case on a difficult point of law. Not that, probably, the magistrates themselves would prefer that the Court should be differently constituted; and he would have inquiries made, and endeavour that it should be so arranged, if it were practicable. His answer was sent over to Ireland, and, he presumed, that as a change was not made, it was found impracticable, probably because there was not sufficient time.

Who arranges the constitution of these Courts, and is there any rota?

They are arranged by the Divisional Magistrates. I believe no exact rota exists.

, Member for the Borough of Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the continued indefinite imprisonment of Thomas Moroney for a criminal offence—namely, (the Contempt of Court), to the actual serious injury of his health, and possible peril of his life; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified,

called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—

said, he quite agreed that the Government should not be asked to interfere with criminal proceedings except for very good cause. But he contended that such cause did not exist here, and asked the attention of hon. Members, because their adverse judgment might be a sentence of death to this unfortunate man, and he begged them not to depend on the usual sources of information at the end of a debate, but to hear the matter themselves. On the 14th of January, 1887, Thomas Moroney was summoned to show cause why he should not be adjudicated a bankrupt, and on that account was sworn and examined, and answered the questions put to him to the satisfaction of the presiding judge, and was then made bankrupt on the 28th of January. At the first sitting under that bankruptcy Moroney was put into the box to be sworn; but he refused to be sworn and examined. His advocate then stated the grounds of his refusal as follows:—That he was in no real sense of the word a bankrupt, and that he had been made a bankrupt in his capacity of shopkeeper by reason of a debt due in his capacity of tenant-farmer. He stated that the action brought against him in this Court was a vile and infamous attempt to crush him as a tenant-farmer and shopkeeper, and therefore he refused to be examined and sworn. Now he (Mr. Bradlaugh) was not going to justify Mr. Moroney's refusal to be sworn and examined; he admitted that legally the man was wrong, but Moroney claimed that he was morally right, and on this he should venture to suggest that at least Moroney might honestly think so. Proceedings were taken against Moroney to recover a sum of £85, which represented one year's rent, including the hanging gale, of 20 acres of land. At that time, and also when the petition for adjudication in bankruptcy was presented, Moroney had on his land and in his shop goods and chattels far exceeding the whole amount of the landlord's claim; and he suggested to the House that the object of the proceedings was not to recover the debt due to the petitioning creditor and to secure the proper distribution of Moroney's assets, but to obtain information as to other tenants, neither debtors or creditors of the bankrupt, but who happened to owe rent with which Mr. Moroney was unconnected. The intent, he contended, was to use Moroney as an informer against his co-tenants as to what disposition they might have made of any of their means, which the landlord desired to trace and recover. He contended that the House ought not to make itself a party to an offensive proceeding of this kind. The endeavour to examine Moroney was really an endeavour to examine into the Plan of Campaign. But the taking part in the Plan of Campaign was alleged by the Government to be an offence under the Coercion Act, 1887, and therefore an inquiry might have been held before a magistrate under the special powers given by the first section of that Act; and if Moroney so examined had refused to answer he undoubtedly might have been imprisoned, but for how long? This House had decided by incorporating in the Coercion Act Section 13 of the Petty Sessions Ireland Act, 1851, that the whole imprisonment for refusing to answer should not exceed one month. So that in an inquiry into a murder, the refractory witness could only be imprisoned for one month. If Moroney had been brought up under the Crimes Act and had refused to answer questions, the sentence could not have exceeded one month; but the unfortunate man had already been in prison for 23 months, and might stay there for his whole life, for refusing to answer questions in the bankruptcy proceedings—questions which, he submitted, ought to have been put under the Crimes Act. He was not asking the Executive to interfere between a plaintiff and defendant, but in a criminal ease. The man, for the legal crime of refusing to answer, had been punished in excess already, and the indefiniteness of the punishment had shaken his mind and imperilled his health. If the hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Richard Webster) doubted his statement that contempt of Court was a criminal offence, he could quote authorities to support his contention. In re Pollard (5 Moore's Privy Council Cases, N. S. 111) the judgment was distinct that contempt of court was a criminal offence. He might say that, in a judgment of a recent date, delivered by Mr. Justice Mathew, and reported in 21 Q.B.D., 238, the Judge said—

"It should be borne in mind that a contempt of Court is a criminal offence."

He quite admitted that Moroney was legally wrong, but he claimed that the man was morally right in refusing to turn informer against the poor tenants of the O'Grady estate. He was a tenant on an estate where, in his judgment, the rents were unfair, and he united with tenants poorer and less able than himself to make any defence for the purpose of procuring a reduction of rent. The adjudications of the Land Courts had upheld his view as to the unfair rent. He was made bankrupt to extort from him information as to the combination; he refused to give it. The fact that he did not make away with his goods, and that his business had been ruined by the proceedings taken against him, was evidence of his honesty. He must, of course, take the consequences of bankruptcy, and for not obeying the order of the Court he ought to be punished; but the sentence should have been a definite one, and not disproportionate to the offence committed. Mr. Justice Mathew had laid it down that where an act done was due to a mistaken view of the rights of the offender, the punishment, where punishment was deemed necessary, should be for a definite period, and should not be too severe. Now, in the present case the punishment was for an indefinite period, and was far too severe. The Returns laid on the Table of the House showed that this man's mind had already suffered from the nearly two years' imprisonment and the uncertainty as to when release would come. Thomas Moroney's bodily and mental health had been shaken, as the hon. Member for South Cork (Dr. Kenny) would tell the House on his responsibility as a medical man. His health—his mental health—was giving way, which meant that he was being driven to insanity; and those who were governing in Ireland must very seriously consider their responsibility as to the ultimate effect the imprisonment might have upon him. Mr. Justice Mathew said that a commitment until the offender consented to give evidence would not, in his judgment, be a proper order to make; and, further, that it would not be right for a Judge sitting in a Criminal Court, and compelled to sentence a prisoner, to direct that the imprisonment should continue until some condition, however reasonable that condition might be, should be complied with; the prisoner, when he had undergone his imprisonment, being entitled to an unconditional release. Moreover, an Irish Judge had also said that committal for contempt ought neither to be indefinite nor too severe. A former Member of the House (Mr. Edward Dwyer Gray), in a trial for murder, committed what the Court held to be a gross contempt, and he was fined and sentenced to three months' imprisonment by Mr. Justice Lawson, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court in Ireland. On a gentleman like Mr. Gray three months' imprisonment pressed heavily; his health was soon somewhat affected by confinement. He never apologized, never purged his contempt, never made any submission; but Mr. Justice Lawson—with that real generosity which went with justice in this country, and which it was to be hoped would go with the administration of the law in Ireland also before very long—released Mr. Gray at the end of six weeks. Were the Government more considerate to the strong than to the weak? [Cries of "No."] It looked as if they were. He would appeal to the sense of humanity on behalf of a man whom he alleged to be in a condition in which he required the treatment of an asylum rather than that of a prison, where he was being driven daily more and more into a state of madness. He thought it would be admitted that he had some justification for interrupting the ordinary deliberations of the House with that Motion; and he called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite, who would have to answer to their constituents for their action towards the Irish people, not to refuse the appeal which he now made on behalf of a man who, whatever his legal offence, certainly did not deserve a sentence of death, and still less of slow and lingering death by mental torture.

said, he rose with pleasure—if he could use the word pleasure in such a connection—to second the Motion. He would try to imitate the hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Motion in the moderation of his language, but if he were to follow the inclination of his own breast, his language would not be very moderate. He had occasion to visit his friend—and he was proud to call Moroney his friend—on several occasions. He did not attempt to make a medical examination of him, for he had no authority to do so, but he could not shut his eyes to patent facts which came under his observation. He saw Moroney six months ago, and visited him again a fortnight since, and he was shocked to see the change in his appearance. In the interval he showed unmistakable signs of physical suffering from the confinement. His excitability of temperament and demeanour indicated that he was in the gravest danger, and that he might pass that line—which was not so broad, and which might be easily overstepped—between the full possession of mental faculties and that unfortunate condition worse than death. He would go so far as to say he defied any Board, medical or otherwise, to find Mr. Moroney an insane man in any sense of the word; but he equally defied them to say that he was not in a condition in which that unfortunate mental condition might not supervene. Mr. Moroney was under the impression that he was being subjected to a system of official persecution of an irritating character, which could not fail to produce disastrous results to his mental condition. Moreover, they had two Returns lately presented before the House in which his health was referred to by the medical officer of the prison as "mentally unsatisfactory." He know that the Report had given Mr. Moronoy so much pain that he now refused to receive and accept the ministrations of the medical officer of the prison. He (Dr. Kenny) deeply regretted—as he regretted having to say elsewhere—to have to say in that House he was compelled to find grave fault with Dr. Carte, the medical officer of the prison, that on seeing Mr. Moroney's condition to be unsatisfactory he did not urge upon the Executive, as was his duty as a man and physician, the immediate liberation of this unfortunate man. He more deeply regretted still that the medical officer had not reported to the proper authorities and compelled them to grant such relaxations of the present rule in Moroney's case as would tend to counteract the evil effects of this long imprisonment. It was clear from the prison rules that the Visiting Committee—es-specially if asked by the medical officer—would have the power to grant an extension of the time allowed for exercise to any prisoner who was a first-class misdemeanant, as Moroney was. The medical officer, however, had not thought well to do so. This poor gentleman's (Moroney's) exercise for 22 months had been confined to two hours per diem. To a man who had been used to a constant outdoor existence, as Moroney had, the mere idea of confinement was irksome and irritating in the extreme. Not alone had the medical officer not asked them to extend the time of exercise in this case, but he had allowed this to go on. Under ordinary circumstances, Moroney was allowed two hours' exercise a-day, one in the forenoon and one in the afternoon; but the prison officials had reversed the whole of that condition, and they gave him exercise when they pleased. If he (Dr. Kenny) called in to see him for the quarter of an hour allowed, that was illegally subtracted from Moroney's exercise, and was refused to be made good to him. He did not want to say there was official persecution, but Moroney was under that impression, and he (Dr. Kenny) would mention two circumstances. The medical officer's report made Moroney to be in a mentally unsatisfactory condition—what was the meaning of that? It meant that he was, to a certain extent, irresponsible for his acts. By the law, if offenders were held to be so irresponsible, they were not put in a position where they might do those acts again, but care was taken they should not do injury to others. Acting on that idea, the Governor removed the cord from Moroney's window under the idea, according to Dr. Carte's report, that he might not injure himself. But while the prison officials took that view on one side, they did not hesitate to sentence him to bread and water and deprivation of privileges on the other side. No more grossly inconsistent treatment or course of action could be adopted by any responsible Body. On that day fortnight, when he visited him, he (Dr. Kenny) was rudely assailed by a warder rejoicing in the name of James Carey, who made a statement that he (Dr. Kenny) was medically examining Moroney, which was a thing he had not the slightest intention of doing. After that visit a report was made by the warder that Moroney had used abusive language to him, and he was summoned before the Visiting Justices the next week. He did not know how that meeting came to be held, but three members of the Visiting Committee had informed him they got no notice whatever that such investigation was to be made. Moroney was sentenced to seven days' deprivation of privileges—meaning, exercise, &c.—and condemned to 48 hours' bread and water for addressing the warder as a tyrant. Moroney did not use the expression in his presence, but on the day of his visit the warder was so rude towards him (Dr. Kenny) that Moroney became exceedingly irritated by it, and no one could blame him for it. The Visiting Justices, however, afraid of their own action, suspended that sentence in order to allow them to get an answer from the Prisons Board. When the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour) came to reply to that debate he asked the right hon. Gentleman to give no quibbling answer such as that they had no power to deal with Judge Boyd. Judge Boyd was a creature of the Executive. They made and they could unmake him. Did they mean to say that a hint from the Government would not produce a relaxation of the sentence? Judge Boyd pronounced this sentence to aid them in their course of policy. He prostituted the seat of Justice to carry out the policy of the Government. Why not ask him to undo an act which brought shame upon them?

I rise to a point of Order. Is it in Order for a Member of this House to state regarding one of the Judges of the Superior Courts in Ireland, that he has prostituted the seat of Justice to assist the Government to carry out their policy?

On the Question of Order, Sir, I desire to ask is not the salary of a Judge annually voted by this House; and, cannot, therefore, his conduct properly be brought under our consideration?

said, the term "Prostitute the seat of Justice" was clearly an improper and un-Parliamentary expression, and he asked the hon. Member to withdraw it.

Free speech!

Order, order!

said, if he had used any un-Parliamentary expression he withdrew it. He desired to know why Moroney's assets were not realized and applied to the discharge of any debts which might be justly due from him. In conclusion, he begged to second the Motion.

said, there was one phrase which dropped constantly from both speakers in this debate, but principally from the hon. Member who moved the Adjournment of the House, and it would imply that, in his opinion, the Government were responsible for what had occurred. That was not the view which was taken by the Government. The hon. Member alleged that Mr. Moroney was treated differently from the late Mr. Dwyer Gray, and asked how that difference of treatment was to be accounted for unless the Government were prepared to adopt harsh measures against the weak and not against the strong. He was unable to perceive in what part of the Executive Government the hon. Member had found the slightest colour for a charge of that kind. On the other hand, he had heard the opposite allegation constantly urged against the Government. It had been constantly said that the Government proceeded against Members of Parliament in excessive numbers, and that they did not hesitate to take action against the leaders of a certain section of public opinion in Ireland. That was inconsistent with the charge of meanness and cowardice now brought against the Government. Both hon. Gentlemen had referred to Moroney's treatment in prison. He had all the privileges of a first-class misdemeanant, and if he had been illegally deprived of them he had his remedy at law. In point of fact, Moroney had been treated like all other misdemeanants. In the course of his imprisonment of about 22 months he had been punished by an alteration of diet on three days only, and even the most delicate constitution would not yield to that. He would not deny that he may have suffered from the term of his imprisonment, but not by the severity of his punishment. The hon. Member said the Government were responsible for what had occurred. He had consulted the two legal advisers of the Government on that Bench, and also the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Matthews), and they were of opinion that if this case had occurred in England there would be no power in the Executive, under any circumstances, to interfere in any manner with the imprisonment of a person confined under the circumstances which attended the imprisonment of Mr. Moroney; so that if there were an inequality in this case as between England and Ireland, the inequality, like most inequalities connected with prison treatment, was in favour of Irish prisons. He did not, however, commit himself to any proposition upon that point. If it were in the power of the Lord Lieutenant to deal with this case on adequate medical grounds being shown, of course any medical report would receive exactly the same weight in the case of Thomas Moroney as in the case of any other prisoner in Ireland. With regard to the circumstances in which this imprisonment originally took place, the hon. Member for Northampton dwelt upon the circumstances of the O'Grady estate. He did not propose to go at length into that subject, which was not germane to the present discussion; but it was only fair to state that the allegation that The O'Grady made no concessions to his tenants was totally without foundation. The rental of the estate was £2,142 in 1845, and it was £1,616 at the present time. After the passing of the Act of 1881 an independent valuer was appointed, and under his advice the rent was reduced to £1,616. Moreover, The O'Grady had in bad years made a further reduction of 15 per cent on judicial and of 25 per cent on other rents. The rents thus reduced and doubly reduced were cheerfully paid by the tenants till the Plan of Campaign was started on the estate. Moroney, he was informed, was one of the trustees under the Plan.

said, he had no personal knowledge on the subject, but he was authorized to contradict the statement that Moroney was a trustee.

said, whether Moroney was a trustee or not, or even one of the leaders, was not perhaps very material to the question before the House, The facts which affected the case were that he was adjudged a bankrupt, and was brought before the Bankruptcy Court. When before the Court he refused to take the oath required by law to be taken when a bankrupt was asked to declare his assets. And what was the ground of his refusal to take the oath? Those whose only information came from the hon. Member for Northampton would be led to believe that Moroney refused to take the oath because improper questions were going to be asked him, which, upon his part, it would be a breach of faith if he answered them completely. Nothing of the sort. The ground put forward by his solicitor for the refusal was that the bankruptcy was not a valid nor a proper bankruptcy. But the case was carried before the Court of Appeal, which decided that Moroney had been legally and properly adjudicated a bankrupt. Under what circumstances did Moroney refuse to take the oath? Everybody who read the proceedings would be persuaded that even if Moroney had not been committed for an actual refusal to do that which the law said he should do, he nevertheless ought to have been committed for the specific offence of improper behaviour in Court. The account of the proceedings was very interesting. Judge Boyd requested the bankrupt to take the oath, but he declined to do so.