I beg to move that the Lords' Amendments to this Bill be considered forthwith.

I have no desire to prevent an agreement with the Lords in these Amendments; but I wish to point out that they are taken without notice, and that hon. Members know nothing of them.

I felt that objection myself, and it is only in consequence of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill having given public notice that the Amendments would be considered to-day at this time that I have allowed them to be brought on.

My difficulty is this, that I do not know what the Amendments are.

The object of the Bill is to transfer investigations into explosions of boilers connected with mines from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. The Amendments are of a most formal and technical character.

I will not stop the Bill as I have really no knowledge of the subject; but I think it ought to be on record that the taking of Amendments without notice did not pass unchallenged.

I only allowed the Bill to be brought forward without notice when I found that the Amendments were not such as to call for the attention of the House.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that a bye-law has been just passed by the Calcutta Municipality, at the instigation of its Chairman, Sir Henry Harrison, prohibiting preaching in the open squares of Calcutta; whether he is aware that a similar attempt was made nine years ago and failed, being then declared a violation of Common Law; that Hindoos, Brahmists, as well as Christians, have long been in the habit of preaching in the open air, without let or hindrance; and that perfect quiet and order has prevailed at their assemblies; whether this prohibition, if not repealed, may be extended all over India, and would virtually prohibit the preaching of Christianity over a great part of the country, as much of the work is done in the open air; and whether he will call the attention of the Government of India to the subject?

The Secretary of State has no official information on this subject, which is one of Local Government, but he understands that the bye-law in question is now under the consideration of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, with whom the allowance or disallowance in the first instance rests.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Government of India accepts, and will enforce in respect to the employment of labour in mines and in factories, the humane decisions to which Her Majesty's Government agreed at the International Conference recently held in Berlin?

The Report and proceedings of the Berlin International Conference have been sent to the Government of India for consideration with the Factory Bill now before the Indian Legislature. The Secretary of State cannot say how far the detailed recommendations will be applied to India, until the Government of India report their views.

Does the right hon. Gentleman expect an answer soon?

No, Sir; from my experience of the Government of India some time will elapse before an answer is received.

As we are now arriving at the close of the Session, may I ask the First Lord of the Treasury when we are to have the Indian Budget?

I am unable to say. I wish it was in my power to say when the close of the Session would arrive.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Government has been called to a statement recently made by the Reverend John G. Paton, Missionary, regarding slavery in the South Seas, wherein he states that the Presbyterian Mission Synod at Kwamera, Tanna, New Hebrides, unanimously resolved that the Kanaka labour traffic has

"To a large extent depopulated the New Hebrides and adjoining islands, upset family relations among the natives, and has been, and is the cause of much sorrow, suffering, and bloodshed among them on the islands;"

I have been furnished by the hon. Member with a copy of the newspaper containing Mr. Paton's statement, but it is not possible to take action upon it unless Her Majesty's Government can be furnished with the names of the vessels, and the colony from which they came (if they were British ships), together with the dates of these occurrences. If these particulars can be supplied, the fullest inquiry shall be made, with the view of bringing the perpetrators to justice if possible. I am not aware that the traffic had been suspended, but by a law of 1885 it is provided that Polynesian labourers shall not be introduced into Queensland after the end of this year. As regards Fiji, which is understood to be the only other colony where this kind of labour is employed, no complaints of ill-treatment have reached the Colonial Office, and I do not see that Her Majesty's Government are called upon to interfere.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the finding of the Coroner's Court in an inquest on the body of Mr. John Dutton, of Davenham, Cheshire, to the effect that the cause of death was "blood-poisoning, the result of severe injuries to his arm caused by being dragged against a barbed wire fencing by a pony," and to the observations of the Medical Officer of Health at the meeting of the Rural Sanitary Authority of the district on the danger of wounds caused by barbed wire fencing; and whether he will take steps to amend the law so as to render illegal this description of fencing at the side of a footpath or a public highway?

My attention has been called to a newspaper report of the proceedings at the Coroner's Inquest in the case of Mr. Dutton, of Davenham, and I also to the proceedings at the meeting of the Rural Sanitary Authority with regard to the case. As I understand, the injury which led to the blood-poisoning, which was the cause of the death, was the result of an accident. Mr. Dutton was leading a pony and the animal made a spring and knocked him into the hedge, and, in consequence of his finger being fixed in the halter, he was dragged along the wire of the fence. It appears from the evidence that the barbed wire was not immediately adjoining the foot-path, but there was a sort of gutter between the footpath and the hedge. I cannot give any promise to propose legislation with regard to fencing of the character referred to.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether houses which were not originally erected for letting as tenement dwellings, but which are now arranged and let as such, are held to be within the definition given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as being—

"Constructed for the sole purpose of providing separate dwellings at Tents not exceeding 7s. 6d. a week and approved by the Medical Officer of Health;"

The answer to the first question of the noble Lord is, Yes. The proper definition of a lodging house is a house used for the main purpose of letting furnished lodgings as a means of livelihood, and the actual name employed to describe such houses is immaterial. In order to secure the benefits of the recent concession notice should be given to the clerk to the Income Tax Commissioners for the division in which the house is situated, and in case the application is disallowed there lies an appeal to the District Commissioners.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate what are the intentions of the Government in regard to the Report and Recommendations of the Committee appointed to inquire into the Crown rights in salmon fishings in Scotland?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether parcels reaching the Central Foreign Parcels Post Depot at Clerkenwell, for transmission to foreign countries and the colonies, are acknowledged by a sorter held responsible for their future safe custody, although his duty is fulfilled by placing the parcels in an open rack or basket, accessible to every person entering the department; whether such parcels, though in many instances of a valuable character, nevertheless remain for hours, and in some cases days, in such rack or basket, until actually required by the despatching officer when making up the foreign mails; and whether this officer has any check upon the number of parcels which should be in such rack or basket when making up his despatch?

Foreign and colonial parcels are transferred from one part of the office at Mount Pleasant to another in sealed baskets, and whilst awaiting despatch are packed in sealed boxes or baskets, or locked cupboards. Only such persons as are employed in the foreign and colonial branch have access to them. Unless a system of registration were introduced it would be contrary to practice to keep a numerical check on foreign or colonial parcels.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Lieutenant Governor of Jersey claims a right to interfere with the freedom of debate in the "States," or Parliament, of that island; and, if so, whether the Lieutenant Governor has any such right?

I have referred this question to the Governor, and he informs me that he has had no intention to claim, and does not consider himself entitled to claim, the right to interfere with the freedom of debate in the States of Jersey. The Governor has a negative voice or veto in the making of ordinances, but he has no right to interfere with the freedom of debate.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as skilled workmen are unable to ascertain on what principle they are paid, he would permit the posting of a scale of pay per week in Government dockyards?

The rates of pay per week are generally known to the workmen in the dockyards, and if there is anything with regard to his pay which a workman does not understand, he has only to ask his foreman or leading man. In the case of job and task or tonnage work the schemes of prices are not open to the inspection of the workmen, but any of the leading men or workmen, with the sanction of the principal officer of the department to which they belong, and in the presence of the measurer, are permitted to examine the measurer's account of their work, in order to satisfy themselves that such work has been accurately brought to account.

said: The difficulty of laying down a stereotyped schedule as regards piecework in the dockyards is that it cannot be applicable unless all the ships are also stereotyped as regards classification and internal arrangement. Therefore, as the introduction of piecework is not on a great scale, it has not been possible in advance to publish a schedule of the price. I will do all in my power to meet the views of the men.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will re-consider the facts and arguments repeatedly laid before him by influentially-supported. Memorials from upwards of 200 Public Bodies under seal or resolution, in favour of contributing towards the establishment of additional night mail trains between London and Plymouth; whether the proposed trains would very materially improve the postal inter-communication between almost every town west of Basingstoke as far as Penzance and the Scilly Isles, as well as to and from London, and especially between the Naval Establishments of Portsmouth and Devonport; whether he will consider the advisability of improving the existing postal arrangements between many of the towns in the five south-western counties by utilising the railways now traversing them, the mails now being conveyed by mail carts during the night for many miles; whether the proposed improved service has been approved by Her Majesty's Postmaster General; and whether the expenditure asked is small for the services to be rendered?

In the absence of my right hon. Friend, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to postpone the question until to-morrow or next day.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War whether his attention has been called to a letter of Mr. Clarke, late of the Medical Staff Corps, in the Daily News, of 25th July, as to the military stations in Bermuda, stating,

"Last year we had a very bad epidemic of enteric (typhoid) fever, there being 139 cases and 22 deaths amongst the young soldiers of the Leicestershire Regiment, I sincerely hope the Guards will be more fortunate;"

It is true that there was an epidemic of fever in Bermuda from October, 1888, to February, 1889. Since then the health of the troops has been very good, the annual ratios of admissions to hospital and of deaths comparing very favourably with those of other stations. But I regret to say that a telegram has been received this morning stating that six men have been admitted into hospital suffering from enteric fever. The sanitary condition of the barracks is stated to be satisfactory, and every precaution will be taken as to the health of the troops.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, having regard to the fact that police burghs do not fall under the administration of County Councils, it is intended to give them a share of the residue grant provided by the Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Duties Bill; and, if so, in what manner it is proposed to allocate the grant?

My hon. Friend was good enough to direct my attention to the position of police burghs in regard to this grant, and he will see from the Notice Paper that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend is altered in such a manner as to give effect to his representation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Naval Ordnance Administration which he recently referred to?

The Report has not been received by the Admiralty, and when received will require careful investigation as to the ultimate effect of its proposals. I cannot at present state when the Report will be made public.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what are the two British Mission Stations within the German sphere of influence in Africa; and whether, in the final delimitation of the boundary between the British and German spheres between Lakes Nyassa and Tanganyika, he will endeavour by friendly arrangement with the German Government to have included within the British boundary the Nyassa Mission Sanatorium at Kararamuka?

The two stations referred to are the Free Church Station of Ukukwe, to the west of the Song we River, and the sanatorium mentioned, which is in the Livingstone Mountains, on the north-east of Lake Nyassa. The final delimination is nothing more than a rectification in accordance with local requirements, and could not be made to include a transfer of the sanatorium to the British sphere; but its position in the German sphere will not in any way interfere with its usefulness. Some of us hope to visit German sanatoria shortly, and I do not think that we shall benefit by them the less on account of their not being under the British flag.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can announce the intention of the Government to give effect to the recommendation of the Royal Commission on Horse Breeding in their Third Report, advising that the amount disposable for Queen's Premiums should be raised from £5,000 to £10,000?

No, Sir; it is not our intention to give effect to this recommendation.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in the interests of the Public Service, the Government will consent to heads of Departments granting the writers a half-holiday on every Saturday in those Departments where such privilege is allowed to the Upper and Lower Division clerks; and whether in those Departments where the half-holiday is allowed on every Saturday to Upper and Lower Division clerks, it is the wish of the Government that the writers engaged in such Department shall have the half-holiday granted to them only on alternate Saturdays, although in most cases the writers have rendered longer service than the Lower Division clerks, and were for 14 or 15 years in some Departments allowed such half-holiday on every Saturday?

The Order in Council of March 21, 1890, only authorises heads of Departments to, allow Second Division clerks of half-holidays on alternate Saturdays provided that public business will permit; and heads of Departments have, as far as I know, no authority to go out outside the Order in Council. In these circumstances, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is unable to make any further concession to copyists in respect of Saturday half-holidays.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury the name of the person with whom negotiations are pending for a lease of the Gwylwyr Sett Quarry, Pistyll, Carnarvonshire, when those negotiations commenced, and why they have not been brought to a termination; what are the terms demanded by the Commissioners of Wood and Forests as to dead rent and royalties, and what is the minimum with regard to time and number of men which they insist upon including in the proviso for re-entry; whether the Commissioners have received applications from more than one person or party for a lease; and, if so, in what order of date they received such applications; and when the last lease expired?

I am not able to answer the question, because the negotiations are not complete; and it would be unusual to make a statement until they are complete.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can yet state the purport of Major Macdonald's Report regarding the Niger territories, and whether it has or has not justified what has been done; and whether the Report, or the substance of it, will be communicated to the House before they are asked to pass the Votes in Supply for the offices dealing with this subject?

Major Macdonald's Report was intended to be confidential. It is of a very detailed character, and cannot be communicated. Indeed, it will receive further and more particular consideration. A principal object of his work was to furnish Her Majesty's Government with materials for considering the question of extending the charter over adjacent districts. He was further to inquire into certain points under discussion with Germany, with the result that satisfactory explanations have been exchanged during the recent negotiations at Berlin. In addition, he was to examine the administration of the Royal Niger Company, with regard to which, while pointing out certain imperfections, he describes it as in the main highly satisfactory as to progress, system, and observance of the charter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will endeavour, before the Vote for the Stationery Office is taken, to procure from the Hansard contractors particulars of the cost of furnishing reports of the proceedings of the Standing Committees, similar to the report contained in the experimental number of Hansard of the 8th instant?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I wish to ask whether he will ascertain at the same time what would be the cost of extending the reports of the proceedings of this House and of supplying a copy of Hansard to each Member of the House?

The question asked by the hon. Member opposite was carefully considered by the Committee before the recent arrangement was made, and the Committee were practically unanimous upon the subject. There was one Member who took a different view; but with that exception, the Committee were unanimously against the proposal. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Maclean), it relates to a subject which has not been brought under my notice; but I need not say that it is a matter that would require very careful consideration.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, now that Abinger Glebe has been sold, he will lay upon the Table the Correspon- dence with the Land Commission on the subject, and especially the letters of Sir T. H. Farrer?

I am not aware of any grounds on which it would be desirable, in the public interest, that the Correspondence with the Board of Agriculture on this subject should be laid upon the Table. I am afraid it would tend to destroy that free communication with the Board which it is desirable to maintain-in these cases.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the letters in question?

I am not sure what letters the right hon. Gentleman refers to. Some of Sir T. Farrer's letters are marked private I know, but there is nothing in the correspondence which I should desire to withhold, and, subject to his consent, I shall be very glad to show the letters to the right hon. Gentleman if he desires it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Return of the revenues of the Church of England,, which was expected in June, will be laid upon the Table of the House before the end of the Session?

The hon. Member is aware that this Return was formally presented to Parliament at the end of last month. The proofs are still with the printers, and the Ecclesiastical Com-missioners inform me that it will take a week at least to check the proofs, owing to the great mass of figures that have to be corrected. I hope, however, that it will be found possible to place the Return in the bands of Members before the end of the Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now state under what Law of the Imperial Parliament, or the Newfoundland Legislature, or in virtue of what prerogative of the Crown, the instructions to Naval Officers on the Newfoundland Coast have been framed; and whether a copy of these instructions will be laid upon the Table of the House?

As it is believed that the legality of the action taken under instructions will be brought before a Court of Law it is undesirable to reply to this question. The tenor of the instructions to the Naval Officers will be found at page 384 of the correspondence respecting the Newfoundland Fisheries lately issued.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether he will inquire if it is the fact that towns in Scotland which are counties in themselves do by special Acts compound with landlords for rates on rentals of £4 and under?

None of the Scotch towns are counties in themselves, except in so far as Edinburgh is styled the County of the City of Edinburgh. In several of the burghs there are special Acts having clauses to the effect stated.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the effect of the recent Act of Sederunt in reducing the arrears of cases in the Court of Session; and whether counsel and agents have given the assistance that might be expected in attending when cases have been called?

I am glad to be in a position to inform the hon. Member that the business of the Court of Session as regards the amount of arrears is in a satisfactory state, due no doubt to the effect of the recent Act of Sederunt and general assistance given by counsel and agents.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury on what date he will, in fulfilment of the undertaking given on 16th May last, afford the House the opportunity of passing its opinion upon the Motion, of which notice has been placed on the Paper, disapproving the Treasury Minute of 15th July relating to perpetual pansions?

I hold to the undertaking given on this subject

We are getting on close to the end of the Session, and no date has yet been fixed for the Indian Budget.

I am aware of that; I wish we were closer.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the renewal of1 organised resistance to the payment of tithe rent-charge in Montgomeryshire, and to the riot which occurred on the 12th of July at Llanfihangel, in that county, in which Major Godfrey, the Chief Constable, was struck, and Mr. Craft, the auctioneer, repeatedly kicked by the mob; and whether the Government will take steps to ensure the punishment of those who enter into illegal combinations to defeat the law?

The Secretary of State has received a Report from the Chief Constable, who states that there was no organised resistance to the payment of tithe on the occasion in question, nor has there been in that county for the last three years. It is not the fact that the Chief Constable was struck. The auctioneer was once kicked, but not seriously. In each case the amount distrained for was recovered, and the Chief Constable attributes what slight disturbance there was to the fact that insufficient notice was given to him of the levying of distraint, and time did not allow of the adoption of those conciliatory measures which have hitherto been successful in securing the due enforcement of the law without disturbance. The Chief Constable states that there is no evidence whatever of any illegal combinations to defeat the law. Were such evidence forthcoming in this or in any other county, the Government are prepared to take steps to bring to punishment any such offenders against the law.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury upon whose recommendation the senior Member for Devonport (Sir J. Puleston) has been appointed to the constableship of Carnarvon Castle, as successor to the late Lord Canarvon; and whether he is in a position to state the grounds which led to a disregard of the expressed wish of the Carnarvon Town Council in the matter? I would also ask whether it is the fact that the hon. Member (Sir J. Puleston) has appointed the Conservative agent as Deputy Constable?

The appointment of the senior Member for Devon-port as Constable of Carnarvon Castle was made by the Crown on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, to whom questions of this nature should be addressed in another place.

There is no foundation for the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, who has made me the subject of a question without precedent in this House.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Treasury have decided that the late Treasurer of the County of Middlesex, who had held that appointment for 18 years until the office became abolished on the London County Council coming' into existence, is not entitled to any compensation, notwithstanding that he was, in the words of the Local Government Act, Section 120—

"An existing officer who by virtue of this Act, or anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of this Act, suffers direct pecuniary loss by abolition of office or by diminution or loss of fees or salary;"

The office of Treasurer of the County of Middlesex has not been abolished, but Mr. Allen has been removed from it. He held the office under the provisions of the Act 12 George II., cap. 29, and the 11th section of that Act gives power to the Court of Quarter Sessions to remove the Treasurer at pleasure. This power is, by the Local Government Act, transferred to the County Council, whose officer the Treasurer had become. The exercise of the power of removal given by the earlier Statute was not anything done in pursuance of the Local Government Act, and that Act, therefore, did not give the Treasury any power to award compensation to Mr. Allen. The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted in the matter, but their opinions are confidential documents, and I cannot undertake to present them. Nor am I prepared to introduce a Bill to extend the power of compensation given to the Treasury by the 120th section of the Local Government Act.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that an Ordinance was passed by the Council of Government in Malta in 1867, "to amend the laws relative to the rights and duties emanating from marriage and the separation of married persons;" whether his attention has been called to the fact that this Ordinance refers to the "Codice de Rohan," certain provisions of which it repeals and amends; whether the said Ordinance provides that a separation pronounced by any other Court than the Civil Court, produces no civil effect, and likewise "repeals and abrocates any other law or custom contrary to or incompatible with the provisions of this Ordinance;" and whether he will cause a copy of this Ordinance to be laid upon the Table of the House?

The answer is in the affirmative to the first three parts of the hon. Member's question. A copy of the Ordinance will be laid on the Table, if desired, but the Ordinance does not affect the law regulating the celebration of marriage.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that the "Codice de Rohan," which was the main body of law in force in Malta at the time of the British occupation of the island, treats of the subject of marriage (Dritto Municipale di Malta, Libro Terzo); and whether he will cause a copy of this Code to be placed in the Library of the House.

The "Codice de Rohan" treats of the subject of marriage as regards the effect upon property, but not as regards the mode of celebration. I do not know whether a copy of the Code can be procured for the library of the House, but I will inquire.

I beg to ask whether the two officials of the Mint who acknowledged holding shares in the Birmingham Mint Company are still holding appointments in the Company?

The two officials in the Royal Mint who held shares in "The Mint, Birmingham (Limited)," never held appointments under that company, and parted with their shares as soon as they were called upon to do so.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if Mr. Bernard Dunn has been discharged from Woolwich Arsenal; whether he can state the reason for Mr. Dunn's dismissal; whether Mr. Dunn supplied a great deal of the information which enabled the Government to hold the inquiry in 1887 with regard to the "inspection and reception of leather, &c.;" and how many of the Inspectors and Viewers who were proved before the Judge Advocate General to have passed in bad material are still in Government employment, and how many of them have since been promoted?

Mr. Bernard Dunn was dismissed from the collarmakers' shop, Royal Dockyard, Woolwich, on March 29 last. The reasons for his dismissal were insubordination, he having published a pamphlet containing false statements about superior officers, and about the department in which he served. Dunn did give evidence before the Judge Advocate General as to the inspection and reception of leather, and his evidence was stated to have "more or less" corroborated that given by Mr. Moody, the principal complainant, who has since been promoted. No particular case was sustained against the Inspector or Viewer, and no man known to have passed in bad material has been promoted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether his attention has been called to an agreement alleged to have been made between Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon, solicitors and emergency agents, and Lord Massereene, by which Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon agreed to charge only costs out of pocket in the case of proceeding against tenants which were unsuccessful, and, in the case of proceedings which were successful, to look only to the tenants for payment, being equivalent to an agreement to indemnify a party to an action against the greater part of the ordinary costs of the action, not from charity, but with a view to profit, and a stipulation for payment of the full costs only in the event of success in the action and out of the sum to be recovered therein; whether Messrs. Emerson & Dudgeon, in making such an agreement and acting in accordance therewith, were guilty of champerty and maintenance; how many of Lord Massereene's tenants were proceeded against in the High Court at dates subsequent to the making of the agreement; whether, having regard to the large number of persons who have suffered, or who, owing to their poverty, are unable to avail themselves of their civil remedy, he will consider the advisability of resorting to the old Common Law process of indictment for champerty and maintenance; and whether he will call the attention of the Law Society to the matter?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how much of the £2,484 5s. due by Arthur Hutchins, barony constable in Kerry, when he ceased to hold that office, was collected, how much was collected in the baronies of Glanerought and South Dunkerron respectively, and for how much were the landlords, as occupiers or otherwise, and the tenants liable respectively; whether the amount of defalcations was reapplotted, and thus paid twice by the cesspayers; whether Stokes, one of Hutchins' sureties, was in receipt of retiring pension from Grand Jury, and for what amount; whether Grand Jury appropriated part of said pension to meet Hutchins' defalcations; whether he can state what was the nature of the proceedings instituted by the Grand Jury, on the advice of counsel, against Hutchins' securities for recovery of his defalcations; whether it is the intention of the Grand Jury to proceed to recover interest as well as principal from the sureties; and who was responsible for the fact that Hutchins was allowed to retain so much money in his possession in contravention of the Act of Parliament, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 32?

As already stated, I have no official knowledge in regard to the subject-matter of this question, which is not a matter under the control of the Government. The secretary to the Grand Jury, however, reports to the effect that—1. There are no means of ascertaining the information sought in the first paragraph; 2. The amount of defalcation has not been reapplotted, as it is hoped that it will be recovered from the sureties; 3. Mr. Stokes was in receipt of £400 a year retiring allowance; 4. 5. 6. The Solicitor to the Grand Jury reports that, acting on counsel's advice, they did not proceed for an attachment against Mr. Stokes' pension. The defalcation was at July Assizes, 1884. Judgment was entered up against Mr. Hutchins and each of his sureties on the 10th December following, and legal mortgages got in 1885. It is stated not to be practicable at present to realise the amount, mainly owing to the fact that the interest of one of the mortgagors is one expectant on the termination of a life now at 77 years. These mortgages, as a matter of course, bear interest. 7. I am not in a position to state whether or not responsibility attaches to any person for allowing the money collected to be retained in contravention of the Statute quoted.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the charge against Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., of having obtained money by false representations, made publicly nine months ago, and to the promise of Mr. Magan to the Land Commissioners immediately to forward an explanation, has Magan taken any steps towards its fulfilment; with reference to the statement that Magan's solicitor has died, would he ascertain the name of the solicitor, in what case in connection with the tenants named has he acted at Quarter Sessions or otherwise, and when he died; what length of additional time will the Land Commission give to Magan to make out his explanation, having regard to the fact that, with the lapse of time, proof of guilt may get more difficult; and whether, in the event of the Land Commission being of opinion that there is a primâ facie case on which Magan may be proceeded against for the recovery of the money alleged to have been fraudulently obtained, steps will be taken to bring the matter before the Lord Chancellor?

The matter is at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can now state when the £40,000 to be allotted to Ireland for the erection of labourers' cottages will be apportioned among the different Poor Law Unions; and can he state the rule by which the contribution to each Union will be fixed; and, if so, what are the amounts to which the Mullingar and Delvin Unions will be entitled?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to defer the question until the matter comes before the House in the ordinary course.

When will the Supplementary Estimate be brought in?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put that question to the Secretary to the Treasury at the end of the questions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to pay the expense of defending the constables against whom Mr. Fahy and Morrissey obtained decrees for £5 and £2 at last Quarter Sessions held at Gort for false arrest; also the cost of appeal which was heard before Judge O'Brien at Galway Assizes, he confirming the County Court Judge's decree, with costs; and whether he will state what course he will adopt in reference to the conduct of the constables?

The facts of the case are as follow:—Morrissey is a bad character who has been convicted of assaults on the police, of drunkenness, and of boycotting. Both he and Fahy are, on their own evidence, energetic agents of the Plan of Campaign in a district where that illegal conspiracy has been specially prolific in outrage. They were found together about 10 p.m., and it appears that Fahy was going home with Morrissey, whom the Chief Justice truly described as a bad character. They were arrested by the police under the Peace Preservation Act of 1881 of being illegally possessed of arms. Fahy, it appears, had a licence to carry arms; but he thought fit not to produce it, and the Chief Justice stated that he brought all the trouble that afterwards befel him upon himself. There can be no doubt that the police acted in bonâ fide discharge of their duty, and, therefore, their expenses will be paid.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that an appeal was taken to the Galway Assizes, and that Mr. Justice O'Brien confirmed the decree of the County Court Judge, with costs against the police? Yet the right hon. Gentleman now states that the police acted strictly according to their duty.

I did not say the police acted rightly, but that they acted bonâ fide, and that the mistake was not of such a kind as would justify the Government placing the costs upon them.

Are we to understand that the police against whom decrees have been given for false arrest and imprisonment are not to be punished, but are to be defended in their action by the whole support of the Executive Government?

The hon. Gentleman is not to deduce any general rule. It must depend on the circumstances of the case. The Chief Justice positively refused the request of the solicitor for the plaintiffs to increase the amount of damages.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men were arrested and detained in custody all night, and that no charge was made against them?

The charge upon which they were arrested was that of the illegal possession of arms.

These men were arrested on a charge of illegal carrying of arms, and were kept in gaol all night. Why did not the police search the men?

The police, under the Act in question, had no power of search.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the prosecutions at Bantry, on Tuesday, 22nd instant, in which nine men were sentenced by Captain Welch and Mr. Cecil Roche, Resident Magistrates, to one month's imprisonment each, at hard labour, and at the expiration of the month's imprisonment to find sureties for good behaviour for a further period of six months; is he aware that defendants' counsel applied the sentences should be increased, to enable the defendants to appeal, but the Magistrates refused the application, and that counsel thereupon asked the Magistrates to state a case for the Superior Courts, on the ground that the facts proved did not amount to an unlawful assembly, bat this application was also refused; and, if the facts be as above stated, whether he will explain why the defendants' right of appeal was thus denied to them?

I believe that eight men were sentenced on the occasion referred to. The Magistrates proposed to deal leniently with the cases if the men would promise not to offend again, bat this they refused to do.

Is it not the invariable practice in the English Courts to grant an appeal in the event of a prisoner desiring to have the case considered by a Superior Court?

I am under the impression that an appeal would not be granted as a matter of course.

Every prisoner in England is entitled to an appeal under the Summary Jurisdiction Act. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Magistrates to increase the sentence, so as to afford an appeal?

I should not like to answer that question offhand, without notice.

I had intended to ask the President of the Board of Trade what period of leave is annually allowed to light keepers in Great Britain; whether the practice in Ireland is not to allow any leave; and if there is any sufficient reason why the Irish and British light keepers should not be treated alike in this respect. But I will postpone the question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, although in 1866 the Solicitors of Ireland were entirely separated from the Benchers, a sum of £14 in respect of each indenture of a Solicitor's apprentice has since been, and still is, appropriated by the Benchers; whether the sums so appropriated by the Benchers, from 1866 to the present time, amounts to £22,876; whether the body of Solicitors have derived any sort of advantage from this money; whether the Benchers have now accumulated to their credit a fund of over £50,000; whether a copy of the correspondence on this subject between the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland, the Benchers, and the Treasury, will be laid upon the Table; and whether the Government will take any steps to institute a reform of the system?

A sum of £14 in respect of each indenture of a Solicitor's apprentice has been assigned since 1791, and still is assigned by Act of Parliament, to the Benchers. I am not aware what sum has been received by the Benchers since 1866, or how they have applied it. The case presented by the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland to the Treasury has been submitted to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and is now under his Lordship's consideration, and it does not appear necessary to lay the correspondence on the Table.

When will a decision be announced?

It does not rest with the Treasury, but I shall be happy to make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, at the meeting of the Dublin Port and Docks Board on the 19th ultimo, Alderman Kiernan, who attended as the duly constituted locum tenens for the Lord Mayor of Dublin, a Member of the Board, was obliged by the majority of the members to retire without taking part in the business of the meeting, although he produced his letter of appointment?

I have no information. The proceedings of the Dublin Port and Docks Board do not come under the cognisance of the Government.

Is not the Docks Board nominated by the Corporation of Dublin?

I do not know that that is so. I believe it is constituted under a local Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Mrs. Mullally, who was evicted from her holding on the Modeshill property, Mullinahone, County Tipperary, about three years ago, was re-instated about four months since at a rent fixed by arbitration; whether her house has been and is occupied by policemen since her eviction, who have refused to leave though often asked by Mr. Hartford, the agent; whether he is aware that Mrs. Mullally's farm is about three miles from her present residence, to which she is obliged to bring the milk of her dairy cattle twice a day; and whether, as the object of the Government in sending policemen to the Modeshill Estate was to protect the emergency men who were herding 30 evicted farms, to which all the former tenants have been restored, the policemen will now be ordered to leave immediately?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the evicted tenant referred to was re-instated about 10 weeks ago. The house has been occupied as a temporary police barrack, under agreement, since 13th December, 1889. Possession does not appear to have been ever demanded by Mr. Hartford. The tenant's present residence is three miles from the farm, but it is not the case that she has cattle on the farm, nor does she carry milk to and from it daily. The caretakers were caring not 30 but 20 evicted farms. Consequent upon the former tenants being re-instated necessity no longer exists for affording personal protection to the caretakers, and steps are accordingly being taken to abolish the temporary police station in question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether on 23rd July two emergency caretakers, named respectively Johnston and Thompson, were fined five shillings at New Pallas Petty Sessions, County Limerick, by Major Roleston, R.M., for firing four revolver shots in the village of Pallas on 5th July; and whether these men had a licence to have and carry arms; and, if so, will their licences be revoked?

It is the case that the two men referred to were fined as stated in the question. The matter of revoking their licences is at present under consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government intend to supply Mr. Marmion with a gunboat or with the boats of the Coastguard to aid him in evicting tenants on the Middle Calf or West Calf Islands, off the West Coast of Cork?

No such application has been made so far to the Government. A gun might be given to enable the Sheriff to carry out a decree, but it would not be lent to a landlord for eviction purposes.

Will the Government employ gunboats in protecting the Irish fisheries?

I am not able to answer that question.

Are the Government bound to provide gunboats for the Sheriffs in order to enable the Sheriff's officers to visit remote islands, and in that case would it not be right to make the landlord pay the expenses?

I should be sorry to lay down any general principle without having time to inquire into the matter.

In reference to the notice of Motion which has been given by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), I wish to read the following letter which I have received from Mr. Justice Harrison: —

I think the opportunity is favourable for asking the leader of the House when I shall be able to bring forward my Motion on this important subject. I may mention that the construction which I put on the learned Judge's charge has been put upon it by several newspapers in Ireland which advise that it should be carried out by the people of Eastern Galway.

While thinking that the question should come most appropriately from my hon. Friend, in the absence of any one else, I shall be glad to put the question to the right hon. Gentleman.

I am exceedingly sorry to be compelled to refuse anything in the shape of a request from the right hon. Gentleman, who has had such great experience in the practice of this House. I do not think I should be doing justice to the House or to the learned Judge if I were to afford the opportunity which the hon. Member now desires after the full and complete explanation which has been given. I have referred to precedents, and I find that a Motion was made in 1834 impugning the conduct of Mr. Baron Smith, and a Committee was granted; but immediately after it was granted Sir R. Peel rose in his place in the House, and moved to rescind the Motion on the ground that—

"To appoint a Committee was evading the law, which required an Address from both Houses of Parliament to authorise the removal of a Judge; because if that Judge were a man of honour, and if the House implied the slightest censure against him, his own sense of propriety would tell him that he could no longer remain effective as a Judge."—(Mansard, Third Series, vol. xxi., p. 745.)

I am astonished at the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, who has made a reply of a very argumentative character. In my opinion, and in that of many others, the learned Judge has given no explanation whatever. On the contrary, the learned Judge has accepted the language imputed to him, and has simply said that the interpretation put upon it is not that which I have put upon it in this House, and which is put upon it also by the great mass of the Irish people. I think I have an indefeasible claim to bring this question to a discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted the opinion of Sir R. Peel, but he forgot to quote the opinion of Lord Althorp, of Lord J. Russell, of Lord Palmerston, and of the Irish Secretary, Mr. Littleton, on the other side. Under these circumstances, and with these precedents, I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is impossible for us to bring this question to an issue without the cooperation of the Government, and that a refusal to grant me the permission, without which I cannot bring the subject to a discussion, amounts to an inducement to Irish Judges of that character to use what language they choose.

Allow me to point out, in supporting this appeal for re-consideration, that there is this additional reason for it: that since the question was addressed to the right hon. Gentleman he has not merely refused the application, but he has made a speech in which he has given, as he thinks, conclusive reasons against it. That is a position in which any fair-minded person would not leave the question.

I did not make any speech, but I thought it only courteous to the hon. Gentleman and to the right hon. Gentleman to give some explanation. The House is in possession of the whole of the facts which by any possibility could be elicited.

who was received with loud and repeated cries of "Order," asked to be allowed to point out that the learned Judge had himself admitted that he had used the language, and courted an inquiry.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question of which I have given him private notice—whether he can give the House any information as to the revolution at Buenos Ayres?

I do not know that I can add anything to what has previously appeared in the public papers, but this telegram was received to-day. It is dated Buenos Ayres, 6.45 p.m., July 27:—

"Revolution still proceeding. Heavy firing this morning. Four men-of-war declared for insurgents, and bombarded position belonging to Government troops. President left Buenos Ayres yesterday. Vice President remains Hostilities have temporarily ceased, armistice until 10 to-morrow morning having been agreed to. Her Majesty's ships Beagle and Bramble here. Town tolerably quiet for the moment."

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) what he intends to do with respect to the Motion which stands on the Paper in his name under the head "Charges against Ministers"? [The Motion was as follows:—

"That this House deems it necessary to declare that when a Member of this House prefers a charge against a Minister of the Crown, which charge is denied on behalf of the Minister, such Member ought not to be restrained from refusing to accept such denial and persisting in his charge by reason that the Minister is a Member of the House of Lords."]

With respect to this notice, which has remained on the Paper longer than I intended, I have to say that the notice was given under the impression that there was some difference of opinion on the subject, which it would be desirable to clear up. A subsequent communication left upon my mind very distinctly the conviction that there is no difference on the subject, and that being so I desire to withdraw the Motion.

In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I will move—

"That, in the opinion of this House, the Rules of Debate ought not to discriminate (except so far as is now the practice with regard to proceedings in the House of Lords) between Peers and other persons not being Members of this House."

When will the Supplementary Estimates be brought on?

In the course of a day or two.

Can the First Lord of the Treasury name a day for taking the Foreign Office Vote?

I am sorry to say that I am unable to do so at present.

Will the Irish Census Bill be taken to-night, and will the right hon. Gentleman indicate an hour after which it will not be taken?

Is it intended to take the Committee on the Scotch Police Bill before the Report stage on the; English measure?

Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope as to when the Navy Estimates will be taken. And will an opportunity be then afforded for the discussion of the Report of the Royal Commission from a Naval point of view?

And when will the Committee on the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Children (Scotland) Bill be taken?

The Irish Census Bill will not be taken this evening, unless we get through the Local Taxation Bill before 11 o'clock. The Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Children Bill will not be taken to-day, and I am unable to say when it will. In regard to the Scotch Police Bill, I am afraid we must adhere to the Order of Business as it is now laid down. We propose to proceed with the English Bill first, and then to take the Scotch measure. As to the Navy Estimates, I hope it will be in our power to reach them early. The Post Office Estimates and the Foreign Office Vote will be taken first, and then we propose to proceed with the Navy Estimates.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary for India as to statements which appear in the newspapers this morning, that a certain dacoit taken in Burma had been promised that if he surrendered he would not be executed, but, notwithstanding that promise, he is now to be executed by the authorities. Is there any truth in the statement?

I must ask for notice of the question.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will promptly inquire into it.

I ask permission of the House to make a short personal explanation as to an incident which appears to have occurred in the Debate on the Heligoland Bill on Thursday, when I was not in the House, and which affects me personally. I am glad to see that the Attorney General has just entered the House, because, although I have no reflection to make upon him, he is concerned in the statement I have to make. I, having contended very strongly in that Debate that the question of cession lay entirely with the Crown, the hon. and learned Gentleman is reported to have made a citation from an answer made by me to a question in 1870, put to me by Sir John Hay, as to the cession of Gambia. I replied that, according to my belief and impression, the Crown had no power to make that cession. I was not surprised to see in the report that the statement drew forth loud cheers. It would have been most disrespectful to the House if I, having made such a contention, had passed over the fact that I had declared a contrary opinion. The fact is, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely mistaken. He cited a portion of the question put to me by Sir John Hay, not the whole of it.

I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; I read the whole of it.

; I think that the hon. and learned Member was not reported as having read the whole of it, but I am glad to hear that he did. He supposed that my statement about the power of the Crown related to the cession of Gambia. But Sir John Hay's question referred to two matters, and not one. It did include the question of cession, but it likewise included an arrangement with France, giving to France the great arterial communication with Africa—that is to say, making an arrangement with France which would have been compulsory, as I understood, on the subjects of Her Majesty with regard to territory which was no part of the territory of the Queen. As to the right of cession, I may observe that in 1843 and 1854 and 1863 I had, as a Cabinet Minister, been a party in two cases to direct cession by the Crown, and in the third case to the cession of a Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, which included many of the same elements, but had no reference at all to the question of cession. The answer I made, and the declaration of my belief and impression, that the Queen did not possess the power had reference exclusively to that portion of Sir John Hay's question which referred to territory not within the dominions of Her Majesty. I quite understand that the hon. and learned Member may have felt that that part of the question was immaterial, but whether it was, or not, it was to that question I replied—Sir John Hay's question embraced both points—that I did not believe such an arrangement could be made without the assent of Parliament, because it contained one portion to which the Crown could not give effect without the assent of Parliament. It was, perhaps, bold of me to give that opinion, but the reason was that I had been studying an important qutstion of the same kind with regard to the Hudson's Bay Company's charter, which was a charter granting' rights to British subjects outside the British dominions; and I had arrived at a very strong conviction that such a right was not in the power of the Crown. It was to that I referred in the answer I gave.

I claim, permission to explain to the House how the matter stands. The House is aware that Her Majesty's Government had not the slightest notice, direct or indirect, that the question was going to be raised. I obtained by accident, by communication with the Foreign Office, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, information which led me to suppose that the question had been raised in connection with Gambia; and without going further than I am entitled to do—I will show the right hon. Gentleman the Papers, if he desires to see them—I was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the question had been raised and discussed distinctly with reference to Gambia. After the right hon. Gentleman had left the House I had no means of communicating with him, and having to reply to the right hon. Member for Derby I, with the assistance of the Solicitor General, found out this reference in Hansard. I will read the question and the answer as I read them the other night; and although I accept, as I am bound to do, the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, as to what he had in his mind, there is not a single word in that Report which could possibly lead any one to the conclusion which he now asks the House to come to. Let the House be the judge. Neither am I aware of any Report that puts upon the question and the answer the construction, which I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes it to bear. The first question was put by Mr. Robert Fowler (now Sir R. Fowler) to Mr. Monsell, who was then the Under Secretary for the Colonies—

Of course, I make no charge against the hon. and learned Gentleman. I by no means undertake to say, for I do not recollect, what exactly may have taken place in the Colonial Office or the Foreign Office; but the hon. and learned Gentleman argues very illegitimately that my answer must be taken as referring to everything that Sir John Hay's question contained. No; Sir John Hay asked whether Her Majesty's Government intended to do two things, one within the power, and the other entirely beyond the power, of the Crown. I answered that no such step could betaken without the consent of Parliament, having reference to that which was beyond the power of the Crown.