I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state by what authority and at whose instigation a locked gate has been recently placed on Government property across the much-frequented east bank of the Caledonian Canal at Fort Augustus, near to Loch Ness, although the canal banks have been accessible to, and used by, the public ever since its opening 70 years ago; and whether he will order its immediate removal?

The gate in question is situated on private, not on Government property, and presumably has been placed there by the proprietor. The Canal Commissioners have a right of free access to the banks and are at present negotiating with the proprietor to secure that this right is fully given effect to, but I have no power to order a removal of the gate.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that great anxiety is caused to those interested in missions in Madagascar by the report that this country may give France a free hand in Madagascar in return for assenting to our Protectorate in Zanzibar; whether he is aware that a large part of Madagascar has been civilised and Christianised by British Protestant missionaries; whether great anxiety was caused to those missionaries by the pretensions of France some years ago, and whether a peaceful settlement was then come to, under which Madagascar is making rapid progress; and whether Her Majesty's Government will refrain from doing anything which may give France a pretext to encroach on the liberty of the Malagasy people or disturb the full rights now enjoyed by the British missionaries and their adherents?

May I ask whether, considering the very harsh treatment of the Rev. Mr. Shaw, the Government will take care that the missionaries are properly protected?

I think my answer will cover both questions. Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the work and claims of British mis- sionaries in Madagascar, and will not fail to consider them in all circumstances.

Will the Government, in any negotiations, regard the claims of the Malagasies?

That question does not arise out of my answer.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why he refuses to sanction the rules and regulations submitted by the Blackburn School Board, for the management of the Mayson Street Day Industrial School, provided by that Board, and which has now been ready for occupation for nearly three months, and the teachers and other officers for which have been appointed for the same time, and more especially as such rules and regulations are based on those prepared for the Day Industrial Schools of Nottingham, Gateshead, Wolverhampton, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Sunderland, Great Yarmouth, and Oxford, which have been sanctioned by previous Home Secretaries?

The Order in Council of March, 1887, which regulates Day Industrial Schools, expressly provides that religious instruction at those schools shall be given to the children by ministers of the religious persuasion, to which they belong with no restriction on the denominational character of that instruction. The rules proposed by the Blackburn School Board do not at all give effect to this provision, nor do they correspond with the rules of the other schools mentioned. They prohibit the teaching of any distinctive religious catechism, or formulary, and for Roman Catholic children provide for religious instruction only by an assistant mistress, and if they are numerous enough to form a class. I have, therefore, declined to sanction these rules, and have advised the adoption of the same rule as that which obtains at the Salford and Manchester Schools. The Inspector of Industrial Schools has strongly urged the adoption in future of such rules as will accord with the intention of the Order in Council, and will, at the same time, remove the causes of that discontent which has arisen, and will necessarily arise in schools where, owing to the imperfect provision being made in the rules, particular denominations have reason to believe that insufficient opportunity is allowed for the religious instruction of the children, belonging to them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that it is reported that the British East African Company purposes introducing the Indian Abkari (Excise) system in Eastern Africa; and whether, in view of the condemnation of that system in India by this House last Session, the Government will interfere to prevent such a course being adopted?

We are not aware of the report referred to by the hon. Member, but the policy of Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of other Powers, is to check and restrain the importation of ardent spirits among the natives of Africa.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he can now give the House any information as to the capture and trial of the Burmese Dacoit Boh Yan Myun?

With the permission of the House, I will read a telegram which has been received by my noble Friend from the Viceroy, dated August 1st.

"Yours, 29th. Regarding Yan Myun Dacoit. Following received from Chief Commissioner of Burma: 'When proclamation recently issued in Myingyan district, offering free pardon to lesser dacoits, Yan Mynu specially excepted by name, and reward 5,000 rupees offered for his apprehension. On the 28th of May last Macdonald, sub-divisional officer, heard Yan Myun meditated surrender, and sent out a pongyi to communicate with him. Macdonald says no promise was made, but we';—

I presume he means"he"—

'told him if he came in Authorities would probably show him mercy and spare his life. Macdonald also told Pongyi if Yan Myun sur- rendered he would plead for his life. Yan Myun surrendered two days later, having received no further promise. He has been tried by Deputy Commissioner of District, and sentenced to death, and he appealed to Judicial Commissioner. Appeal not yet decided, and sentence not carried out. Yan Myun first alleged he surrendered on the understanding that Macdonald would do his utmost to get his life spared; subsequently that he received a promise that his life would be spared, but would have surrendered anyhow, owing to constant terror of being murdered. If Judicial Commissioner confirms sentence, it will not be executed until Chief Commissioner has considered case. Sir Charles Crosthwaite (who is Chief Commissioner of Burma) states that we can rely upon him to prevent ev6n apparent breach of faith.'"

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the difference in the mortality between coolies employed on the tea plantations of Assam, under the Act of 1882, and those not under the Act, and to the fact that the average mortality of the coolies under the Act is double that of those not under it; whether he is aware that the non-Act labourers are free agents, who take service on healthy plantations, while Act labourers are imported from a distance under long contracts, and are often placed on unhealthy plantations, and that Act labourers are often engaged by contractors for unhealthy places, in entire ignorance of the conditions of plantation life; whether he has observed that the death rate on some of those unhealthy plantations ranges from 200 to 270 per 1,000, or eight times the average mortality of Assam; that on two plantations in 1884 more than half the coolies died; that many of the coolies desert and perish in the jungle; and that many others come back from the tea gardens crippled for life, and have to depend on charity; and whether the Government of India, in the investigation they are now making into the subject, will consider the desirability of ceasing to enforce labour contracts entered into for a term of years?

The answer to the first question is, Yes. The attention of the Secretary of State has been frequently called to this matter by questions in Parliament, and it has been pointed out that such questions are suggested by those who desire to substitute a system of free immigration for the safeguards of the Act of 1882. The answer to the second question is also in the affirmative. The Government of India consider that the higher mortality among the labourers under the Act is to a great extent accounted for by the fact that these are chiefly new comers, while the non-Act labourers are generally old hands who are seasoned and acclimatised. As to the second paragraph of the question, it is one which, as I have before pointed out to the House, is based on isolated facts picked out of the official Reports of many years past. It gives a most erroneous impression of the actual state of the tea gardens. The answer to the fourth question is, Yes. This is one of the points which is engaging the attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increasing interest in the subject and its importance, he can arrange for an annual Return of the World's production of gold and silver (based on the most approximate sources of information available to the Government), and the extent of their use in commerce, the arts, and coinage respectively, as is done by the Director of the United States Mint?

Such an annual Return as the hon. Member suggests would, if it were trustworthy, be no doubt extremely instructive. But there are many difficulties in the way, and any Return we could give would practically be based upon the same information which is already used by the Director of the United States Mint. I will, however, make further inquiries on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many coffins of deceased persons remain above ground in Brompton Cemetery, and is their number allowed to be increased every year; Is he aware that such coffins are sometimes found to have become so deteriorated by age as to allow the escape of noxious gases from their contents; and whether, in the interests of the public health of the Metropolis, he will consider the expediency of prohibiting any further interments in open catacombs, or of entirely closing the cemetery as a place of burial, or for any other purpose than an open space?

I am informed by the Inspector that there are 587 leaden coffins deposited above ground, and about 10 fresh ones are placed in the catacombs every year. It is the fact that the lead of some of these coffins occasionally gives way; but as the catacombs are daily visited, anything amiss is immediately discovered and dealt with. With regard to the cemetery generally, the Inspector is satisfied that the regulations now in force will prevent it from becoming dangerous to the public health; but with regard to coffins deposited in the catacombs, I am now in consultation with the Office of Works with a view of adopting more stringent regulations, which will remove all reasonable cause of apprehension.

I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the complaints of the Lanarkshire miners, that they have no place to prepare their cartridges, cartridges being the only form in which they are permitted by the Coal Mines Regulation Act to take gunpowder into the mines; and whether, since the preparation of the cartridges in their own houses is attended with great danger, even when compressed gunpowder is used, which is expensive, and not always made up in suitable quantities, he will consider the expediency of legislation to amend the general rules of the Act, and make it compulsory on colliery owners to provide magazines in which the miners can make their cartridges? At the request of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to postpone the question until Thursday.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the attention of the Colonial Office has been called to the letters by Mr. James Arthur, a merchant of Belize, appearing in the Times of Monday, 21st July, and the South American Journal of 26th July, complaining of the manner in which the colony of British Honduras has been administered by Sir Roper Tuckfield Goldsworthy since his appointment to the Governorship in 1884, and more particularly with reference to a series of arbitrations in which the colony, without being adequately represented, has been mulcted in considerable sums for alleged breach of contract entered into between the Government of the colony and a Mr. C. T. Hunter, a friend of the Governor; whether a serious constitutional crisis has arisen in consequence of the resignation of all the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, such resignation having been caused by the proceedings of the Governor; whether the Secretary of State for the Colonies will cause inquiries to be instituted into the correctness of these statements, either by sending out to the colony a Commissioner at the cost of the taxpayers or otherwise; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the whole of the correspondence which has passed between the 'Colonial Office and the Governor of the colony relating to the Hunter Contract case, both before and after the last arbitration held in London?

The Secretary of State has seen the letters of Mr. Arthur. The arbitrations referred to were held by his instructions, and the colony was, in his opinion, adequately and ably represented at them. The unofficial members of the Council tendered the resignation of their seats in consequence of the vote for the amount awarded in the final arbitration being passed by the official majority in accordance with the direction of the Secretary of State, and in so doing they stated that their action was not intended to express any reflection upon the Governor. The Secretary of State has ample material for judging as to the correctness of Mr. Arthur's statements, and sees no need for sending out a Commissioner. He does not think that any good object would be obtained by laying the Papers on the Table of the House, but he will be glad to let the hon. Member see them, if he desires.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, by a Treasury Minute, dated 14th June, 1859, the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, in pursuance of Section 4 of "The Superannuation Act, 1859,"declared that a period of seven years should be added to the service of Inspectors of Mines for the purpose of computing their superannuation allowance; whether, on the 8th April, 1873, Mr. Thomas Cadman was appointed an Inspector of Mines; whether Mr. Cadman retired in consequence of ill-health in January, 1887, after 14 years' service; whether Mr. Cadman's superannuation allowance was calculated on 17–60ths of his pay instead of 21–60ths, to which he was entitled, on the ground that for four years he had been Assistant Inspector, whereas in fact he had been from the first appointed Inspector, though employed to do assistant's work; whether the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in a letter addressed to the Secretary to the Treasury, dated 11th October, 1887, stated that up to that date it had been the belief of the Secretary of State and the Civil Service Commissioners that persons thus employed were entitled to the status of Inspectors, no intimation to the contrary having been received from the Treasury; and whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will re-consider the matter, and award to Mr. Cadman, and others in a similar position, the full superannuation allowance to which Inspectors of Mines are entitled.

The Estimates show that there are two classes of Inspectors of Mines—Inspectors and Assistant Inspectors. The number of each class is limited, and cannot be altered without the assent of the Treasury. It was, as stated in the question, to perform the duties of the latter class, that Mr. Cadman was appointed in 1873. The number of Inspectors was at that time fixed at 12, and there was no vacancy among them. Mr. Cadman continued to perform the duties and to receive the salary of an Assistant Inspector until his appointment, in 1876, to be an Inspector, when he became entitled to the higher salary and special rate of pension attached to that class. Assistant Inspectors act in subordination to the Inspectors, and can only become Inspectors by promotion on the occurrence of a vacancy. Their salaries are lower, and they do not fulfil the essential condition for a special rate of pension which is required by the 4th section of the Superannuation Act, inasmuch as they may be appointed at an age (23), not exceeding that at which public service ordinarily begins. Until Mr. Cadman's retirement, no inquiry was addressed to the Treasury, either from the Home Office or the Civil Service Commissioners, as to the right of Assistant Inspectors to special terms of pension; but the fact that Mr. Cadman was appointed after obtaining a certificate of qualification from the latter Department was notice to them and to him, under the terms of the section referred to, that he was not entitled to the special terms of pension granted by that section, which provides that persons appointed to offices placed under it may obtain pensions without having obtained Civil Service certificates.

Was Mr. Cadman gazetted into the Service as an Inspector or an Assistant Inspector, and are there any duties an Inspector can perform which an Assistant Inspector cannot?

I have pointed out that the number of Inspectors cannot be increased without the sanction of the Treasury. As there was no vacancy, Mr. Cadman could not be appointed. He entered the Service by open competition, and must, therefore, have had notice that he was not entitled to be pensioned on special terms.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a Convention has been signed with the Transvaal Government, and whether that Convention excludes Her Majesty's Government from the paramount position in Swaziland conceded to it under the Convention of 1884; and whether Her Majesty's Government have acquiesced in the demand of the Transvaal State for extension of their site to the sea?

A Convention has been signed by President Kruger, and will be presented this day to the Volksraad. Papers are in course of preparation, and will be presented as soon as possible, including, of course, Sir Francis de Winton's Report. In the meantime it may be convenient to state the substance of the Convention, the final terms of "which we have not yet received. (1) The independence of the Swazis as recognised by the Convention of 1884 is re-affirmed and maintained, and the control and management by the Swazi Government, of all affairs in which natives only are concerned, remains unaffected. (2) It is provided that there shall be a joint Administration over the white settlers, under a Proclamation to be issued by the Swazi Regent and Council. (3) A Court of Justice will be established to administer Roman Dutch Law, and to decide all cases, criminal and civil, between white settlers, and to inquire into the validity of disputed concessions. (4) All lawfully acquired rights to be recognised by the Joint Government Committee and by all Judicial Tribunals. (5) The Government of the South African Republic undertakes not to interfere to the North or North-West of the Republic, and to support by its influence the establishment of order and government by the British South Africa Company within the jurisdiction and under the powers granted them by Charter. (6) Her Majesty's Government recognises the right granted to the South Africa Republic by concession from the King of Swaziland, to construct a railway through Swaziland towards the sea. They also approve of the South Africa Republic making Treaties to secure a right to continue that railway to the sea at a point at or near Kosi Bay, and to obtain a concession of an area of 10 miles in radius at or near Kosi Bay. (7) Special provision is made to prevent the sovereignty, control, or management of Kosi Bay, or the area above mentioned, falling into the hands of a foreign Power. (8) Provision is also made for the entering of the South Africa Republic into the existing Customs Union Convention with the Cape, Orange Free State, and Bechuanaland, on terms to be agreed upon. (9) Failing such Agreement within six months, the arrange- ment as to Kosi Bay is to lapse; but the Joint Government of Swaziland is to continue for three years certain, and will not be terminated after the expiration of three years, unless six months' previous notice be given by either party. If the South Africa Republic enters the Customs Union, no limit of time is named for the termination of the Convention.

Will the Papers be in the hands of hon. Members before the discussion comes on?

It may hardly be possible to produce them by that time.

Considering the importance of the matter, it is most desirable that at least a Paper containing a summary of the terms should be printed before the discussion comes on.

Papers similar in character will be laid on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when he proposes to issue Mr. Clifford Lloyd's Report on the late outrages in Armenia, especially in Erzeroum?

Reports on the Asiatic provinces of Turkey cannot be ready for presentation this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the vacancy to the post of Engraver to the Board of Inland Revenue has yet been filled up; and, if so, when, and in whose favour?

The late Deputy Engraver to the Board of Inland Revenue, Mr. W. De La Rue, was appointed last year to the post of honorary Engraver to the Board.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reason the German Emperor was styled the "Emperor of Germany" in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session; and par- ticularly whether he was then so described at the request of the German Foreign Office?

There was no request from the German Foreign Office for the description mentioned. It has been already stated that hereafter the style "German Emperor" will be officially employed in this country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that the Cape Colony House of Assembly has, on the Motion of the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, unanimously passed a Resolution regretting that the Cape Government was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territory south of the Zambesi; and whether he is now in a position to state what was the nature of the communications that are alleged to have taken place between the Home Government and the Govern-men at the Cape, with reference to the matters dealt with in the Anglo-German Agreement, before that Agreement was made?

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the House of Assembly of the Cape Colony has unanimously passed the Motion submitted by the Hon. Cecil Rhodes, expressing regret that the Cape Colony was not consulted with regard to the Anglo-German Agreement, as far as it concerned the territority south of the Zambesi River, and, further, that a Motion by Sir Thomas Uppington, to the effect that the colony would deeply resent any interference with the direct control of the Cape Parliament over the Walfisch Bay territory, was also unanimously passed; whether Her Majesty's Government have been made acquainted with the grounds on which the two Motions have been based, by any communications or protests from the Cape Government made prior to the signing of the Anglo-German Agreement, or up to the present time; whether he will state the nature of such communications or protests, if any, to the House; and whether he will now state to the House what provisions of the Anglo-German Agreement were laid before the Cape Government, and what provisions were withheld from the Cape Government, in the communications which ho has stated took place between Her Majesty's Government and the Cape Colony Ministers before the signing of the Agreement.

I will ask to reply at the same time to the question in the name of the hon. Member for East Northampton (Mr. Channing). As regards the first paragraph of both questions we have no official knowledge. As to the second and third paragraphs, we have received no such communications or protests. As to the fourth paragraph the negotiations were conducted in London and Berlin; the High Commissioner's opinion was taken, as is stated in the Despatches published with the Agreements, on the questions of territory contiguous to the British Protectorate of Bechuanaland. The Cape Government was not a party to the negotiations, its territories were not affected by the Agreement, and the general provisions were not laid before it previously to the conclusion of the Agreement. It is not usual to consult a colony with respect to Treaty negotiations unless it is affected by them.

Can the right hon. Gentleman now state what was the nature of the communications which were alleged by the First Lord of the Treasury about a month ago to have taken place between the Home Government and the Government of the Cape Colony?

Certain communications have passed with the High Commissioner; but, as was stated by the First Lord of the Treasury, they were not of a nature to be communicated to the House.

In the White Paper Report there is a reference to a transfer of territory in the Walfisch Bay. What is the territory referred to?

There is no question of the transfer of any territory in the Walfisch Bay district. The fact is that the territory there has never been defined. I stated quite distinctly that the Cape Colony had not been directly consulted.

Are we to understand that, when determining the question of Walfisch Bay, the negotiations will be between Germany and the Cape Colony?

I must ask for notice of the question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the delimitation of the German sphere into Damaraland does not vitally affect the question?

I must also ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what was the nature of the communications which he asserts took place with the Cape Colony?

The hon. Member must be under a misapprehension. I said that communications had passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, the High Commissioner being Governor of the Cape; but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that I did not state—at all events I did not intend to state—that communications had passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government.

My question had reference to two points—the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the High Commissioner, and the communications which have passed between the Home Government and the Cape Government. The right hon. Gentleman distinctly told me that communications had passed not only with the High Commissioner, but also with the Cape Government, and that they were of a confidential character, the effect of which it was not desirable to state because the negotiations were proceeding. Those negotiations have now concluded, and I wish to know whether the right hon. Gentleman can now state what the nature of those communications was?

No, Sir, I cannot.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the statements in the Daily Graphic, of 29th July, have been called to his attention relating to the recent murder of a British soldier by a Spanish Carabinero, on the neutral ground betwixt Gibraltar and Spanish territory:—

"The facts appear to have been as follows:—On the night in question some smugglers (Spaniards) were observed attempting to run a cargo on the neutral ground. The English sentry, having orders to prevent such action, gave the alarm, and a small patrol attempted to seize the offenders, who at once ran back into the English lines. The Spanish Carab-ineroes were quickly on the spot, and one of these, a mounted man, galloping up to the English soldiers, turned deliberately in his saddle, and, firing at one of our men, shot him dead. As the act took place on neutral ground, a short distance beyond our lines, and as the perpetrator at once made off, no action could be taken by the authorities, or by the coroner who presided at the inquiry;"

If these statements are correct; and whether, in such a case, he is in a position to inform the House if any communications have passed between the British and Spanish Governments upon the subject?

The account, as given in the question, appears to be inaccurate in several particulars; but the matter is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, who are in communication with the Spanish Government on the subject.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government have yet received any information regarding what is going on in Newfoundland; whether the measures taken by Captain Baldwin Walker, R.N., under the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, to enforce the modus vivendi by closing Mr. Baird's lobster factory and otherwise, are still being carried out; and whether, under pressure of legal process in the Newfoundland Courts, they have been suspended?

Her Majesty's Government are informed from time to time by the Governor of Newfoundland of what is going on in that colony. The Reports received from him show that most of the rumours which have been published in the newspapers are gross exaggerations, and that the difficulties which have occurred in connection with the fishery this season have not been of a serious nature. The measures taken by Sir Baldwin Walker to enforce the modus vivendi will, where necessary, continue to be carried out; as a matter of fact, only two factories have been closed out of all those in operation on the coast. The instructions under which that officer has acted have not been suspended.

Has the embargo regarding Mr. Baird's factory been removed, and has this been done on pressure of legal process in the Newfoundland Courts?

I will make inquiry.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether his attention has been called to the law as laid down in 38 and 39 Vic, c. 86, which enacts that every person commits a misdemeanour who, with a view to compel any other person to abstain from any act which he has a legal right to do, persistently follows such person from place to place, or persistently watches or besets the house, or other place, where such other person resides, or works, or carries on business; and whether he can say if the Criminal Law and Procedure Act repeals, or the constabulary regulations over-ride, these sections of the Act quoted; and, if not, under what authority or Statute constables act who are engaged in shadowing duty in Ireland, when they shadow farmers, cattle dealers, and others, engaged in business at different fairs and markets in Ireland.

I am aware of the enactment referred to in the question, which has no application whatever to the action of the police. It refers to costs in relation to trade disputes done wrongfully and without legal authority, and for the purpose of intimidation.

Do the instructions to the police warn them not to obstruct persons who are engaged in the transaction of business?

I am not aware of the precise instructions, but if the hon. Member will put a question upon the Paper I will inquire.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that a gentleman, named William Lee, was closely shadowed in Youghal by two policemen last Tuesday evening; whether this action was taken on instructions given by authority; and whether it was done in consequence of Mr. Lee being a local organiser of the labour movement?

As the hon. Member did not specify any district when he originally placed this question on the Paper the Constabulary Authorities were unable to make the necessary inquiries. They are, however, now proceeding.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty how many labourers and artisans are now employed at Haulbowline Docks; what buildings have been completed during the past and present financial years; what total amount has been spent on the works up to the present time; and whether there is any immediate prospect of their completion?

About 50 men are employed daily, on the average. No new buildings were erected during the past financial year, but various works were carried out at a cost of £6,800, and it is proposed to spend on similar works about £6,200 during the present financial year. The total cost of the extension works, which were completed in 1888, exclusive of the annual minor works and repairs, was about £567,000. The extension works have been practically completed, but it may be necessary to make some small addition hereafter.

How soon will the docks' be able to receive a ship?

I am not certain, but I think that a ship could be docked there at the present moment.

Money was obtained for the erection of certain machinery last year or the year before. Has the machinery been erected, and, if so, what is being done with it; if any work has been done, what is its character?

Order, order ! That is a question which requires notice.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland what is the present condition of the Constabulary Force Fund, particularly as to the gross assets, the annual receipts, and the annual expenditure; by whom the account is kept, by whom it is audited, and whether any periodical statements are published or furnished to the contributors; what is the intention of the Irish Government in regard to the fund; and whether they are disposed to wind it up at the desire of the contributors.

The condition of the Constabulary Force Fund has been for some time engaging the careful attention of the Irish Government in communication with the Treasury. The question is now in an advanced stage, and we hope to be in a position at an early day to make a statement on the subject which will be satisfactory to all parties concerned.

I will repeat the question on Monday.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in equalising the position of the Irish Primary Training Colleges, account will be taken, in the case of the non-official colleges, of the special annual charges arising against their credit funds, owing to the disadvantage arising from inequality of treatment up to the present time?

I must ask the hon. Gentleman to postpone the question until to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can state what alterations have been made in the drainage of Derry Prison since Major Beamish issued his Report with regard to the sanitary condition of the prison; and how often the dusthole of the prison is now cleared out?

The General Prisons Board report that since the Report referred to one of the drains in the female prison has been altered, and now discharges into the Bennet Street sewer, and a ventilating pipe has been erected at the head of the Bennet Street sewer. The dusthole referred to is, by order of the Board, cleared out once a month."

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he can explain how it happened that at the sittings of the Chief Land Commissioners in Derry on the 18th of June, in the case of General Tredennick, landlord, James O'Donnell, tenant, the Court made an order to have the tenant's case re-heard at the next sitting of the Chief Commissioners in Donegal, though the case was adjudicated upon three years ago by the Sub-Commissioners and the landlord did not give notice of appeal within the time required by law?

The Land Commissioners report that the facts are as stated in the question. They have adopted the course referred to in order to enable a mistake in the area and denomination of the holding, set forth in the Order made by the Sub-Commission, to be rectified. This mistake was ascertained for the first time at the sitting of the Land Commission in Derry in last June, in the hearing of a case between the tenant's father and the same landlord by the admission of the tenant who was a witness in the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887,"whether his attention has been called to the reports of the proceedings at a meeting of the Provisions Curers' Association of Ulster, held at Belfast on the 25th July, when it was resolved that—

"Special legislation is needed to protect the Irish lard trade, 'which has been practically undermined by the system of shipping 'American lard refined in Belfast,' branded as 'Pure bladdered lard, Belfast,'"

and also that, for the efficient working of the above Act as a protection to the public—

"It is essential to appoint a Public Prosecutor and Inspectors to carry out its provisions;"

and whether, considering the very influential and representative character of the meeting referred to, and the importance to the public in being supplied with lard in its pure state when they ask for it under that name, he will consider what steps can be taken in the direction pointed out by the resolutions adopted at said meeting?

I have been informed that no such resolution has been received as that mentioned in the first paragraph of the question. I will, however, make inquiries into the matter.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. David M'Gaw, of Enniskillen, has been paid the £200 offered to him in settlement of his claim in May last?

No payment has been made to Mr. McGaw. When his application was laid before the Lords of the Treasury, their Lordships felt themselves unable to renew the offer of 1884, having regard to the rent received in the interval by Mr. McGaw in excess of the value of his premises, and to the costs thrown upon the Department by his rejection of that offer. As an act of grace, however, and still denying any legal liability, they have authorised a payment to him of £100 on certain conditions, and the matter is under his consideration.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether it has been brought to the notice of the Local Government Board that the clerk of the Bandon Poor Law Union was absent from his office 12 days in December, 10 in January, 8 in February, 10 in April, and 10 in May; and, if brought under their notice, has the Board demanded any explanation from the clerk of this neglect of duty; and, if so, what explanation has been tendered?

It appears from a letter received from the clerk of the Bandon Union that he was absent from his office on the days mentioned in the question owing to ill-health; but he states that he is now recovered, and hopes to be able to attend at his office regularly in future.

I beg to ask the Attorney Gensral for Ireland whether he is aware that at the last Fermoy Petty Sessions, Mr. Redmond Donegan was charged with and found guilty of assaulting Mr. J. D. Bremner, T.C., and was fined by the Magistrate 2s. 6d. and costs; that at the same Sessions Mr. James Maye, charged with a technical assault on a policeman (which occurred so far back as September, 1889), was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment at hard labour; and if he can explain why the latter case was tried before a Court constituted under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, consisting of two Resident Magistrates, whilst the former was tried before a Bench of ordinary Magistrates, under the ordinary law?

I am informed that the difference in the modes of procedure and in the punishments inflicted was due to the difference in the nature of the assaults. The assault on Mr. Bremner is reported to have been a very trifling one, committed by an old man on a comparatively young man in the course of an angry discussion. The other assault was not a technical one as suggested in the question, but an actual and deliberate one, committed in open Court, where Maye was at the time on trial, and where the constable was on duty.

May I ask whether the difference in the procedure in the two cases was due to the fact that Maye was a Nationalist?

I say distinctly—no, Sir.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the report in the Newry Reporter of 26th June, 1890, of an action for trespass against Captain Irwin, of the East Lancashire Regiment, brought before the County Court Judge of Down at the last sitting of the County Court at Newry, from which it appears that, on the 15th July, 1889, Captain Irwin and about 60 men of his regiment were going through a "night attack," in the course of which a number of his men trespassed on the lands of Mr. James Goodman, of Cloghmore, and did damage to his crops; whether he has observed that it appeared in evidence that, when Mr. Goodman protested against the trespass on his crops, one of the soldiers pointed a revolver at him and threatened to shoot him; whether Mr. Goodman offered to leave to arbitration the amount of loss sustained by him; whether Colonel Griffiths, on 14th August last, in answer to a letter of Mr. T. J. Marron, solicitor for Mr. Goodman, referred Mr. Marron to Captain Irwin as—

"The officer who was in sole command, and who was solely responsible for any occurrence connected with his party on that night"

whether at the trial advantage was taken of the fact that the trespassers were under the immediate command of the colour sergeant, and that the proper defendant was not before the Court; and whether the Judge is correctly reported to have said—

"He believed damage had been done by the military, but he could not hold Captian Irwin liable,"

and he dismissed the case; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and see that fair compensation be given to Mr. Goodman for the damage done to his property by the soldiers on that occasion?

It appears that in July, 1889, a patrol, consisting of a corporal and two privates of the East Lancashire Regiment, trespassed on Mr. Goodman's ground. No revolver was in possession of the party, and they had no blank or ball cartridge with them. One of the men was said to have pointed his rifle at Mr. Goodman. Captain Irwin, who was asked to settle the matter, offered to cover the alleged damage, which was refused, and Captain Irwin was unable to get any answer regarding it. A summons was taken out against Captain Irwin, but was dismissed owing to the non-appearance of the complainant. The case was brought forward again at the Quarter Sessions, and it appeared from the evidence he had before him the amount of compensation offered—namely, £1—was ample.

inquired if the right hon. Gentleman had received the Report, from which it appeared that the County Court Judge thought the damage had been committed, and expressed no opinion as to the £5 claimed being excessive damage, and if the right hon. Gentleman himself would pay the £5, as the case was dismissed, because Captain Irwin was not the proper officer?

I am informed the case did not come on because the complainant did not appear. Under these circumstances, it is not likely I am going to pay the £5.

I have the Report to which I have referred in my possession.

If the hon. Gentleman will let me see the Report I will consider whether there is anything further in it.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he is aware that Francis C. Garvey, of Murrisk Abbey, Mayo, Ireland, who was appointed clerk of Petty Sessions for Louisburgh district by the Justices of said district, and also recently appointed Commissioner for taking affidavits by the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was dismissed his ship and the Service, he being then an officer in the Royal Navy, on a charge of larcency, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment; and whether, in the face of the above-mentioned finding, he will be continued in the position of trust and emolument to which he has been appointed?

The Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks reports that the Petty Session clerk mentioned admits the truth of the allegations, but pleads that the occurrences took place when he was but 16 years of age. Had the matter been brought under the notice of the Lord Lieutenant at the time, I have no doubt that he would have given it careful attention in deciding whether the appointment should be made. But as the Registrar reports that the conduct of the clerk since his appointment seven years ago has been good, and that the inspection and inquiries which have from time to time been made show him to be perfectly trustworthy, His Excellency, having regard to all the circumstances, would not feel justified in dismissing him from the position.

Am I to understand that a person who has been dismissed from Her Majesty's Service for theft is regarded by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland as a fit or proper person to hold this appointment. Is he not retained simply because he is a Protestant and an Orangeman?

After a service of seven years Mr. Garvey has proved to the heads of the Department that he is perfectly trustworthy, and it would not be right to go back upon matters which occurred so long before.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with reference to the ground for the encampment of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles at Newtownards, whether he is aware of the general dissatisfaction among the officers and men of the regiment on account of the unsuitable-ness and inconvenience of the present place of encampment; whether he is aware that the drill ground is small and bad, and the distance from the shooting range is so far that it takes three days to put a company through, each company firing 10 rounds a day; whether his attention has been called to the correspondence on the subject published in the Newtownards Chronicle of 28th June last and of the 5th instant; and whether, considering the statements therein and the complaints made by officers and men, he will make inquiry with the view to let them have the use of the huts at the shooting range when next up for drill, or if he will consider the desirability of securing a place of encampment convenient to the present shooting range?

The ground consists of 27 acres, and is in every way suitable for the purpose.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if he has now read the depositions in the case of "District Inspector Ball v. David Kent;" if he has seen the depositions of Edward Kent, who swears that he had about a score of lambs to sell at the fair, and that his brother, the defendant, came up followed by a constable, and that he told his brother that the lambs would not be taken from him if the constable remained alongside; and if, in view of this sworn statement of deponent, the Constabulary Authorities are entitled by law to order policemen to shadow cattledealers or farmers engaged in buying or selling transactions at fairs or markets in Ireland?

I have seen the depositions in the case referred to. Having regard to the charge on which the adjudication took place, it was not necessary to go into evidence as to the maintenance of the boycotting, which the police were endeavouring to put down; but I may state that no such orders were given as is assumed in the concluding paragraph of the question.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he is now in a position to state when the vacancies for first class sorters and overseers in the Dublin Post Office will be filled; and whether the increase of pay will date from the time the vacancies occurred?

The authorities at Dublin have not yet been able to report favourably upon the qualifications of the members of the classes next below those upon which the vacancies exist. The vacancies cannot be filled until such Report has been received. As regards the latter part of the hon. Member's question, the Postmaster General cannot promise that the promotions, when promotions come to be made, will take effect from the date of the vacancies. It will, I understand, be a question with him whether the earliest period from which the higher pay should take effect should not be the date on which the recipients proved themselves qualified for the duties to which the pay attaches.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether any representations have been made to the Police Authorities or to the Board of Works to take over, as quarters for married members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, the house in Carrickma-cross from which Mr. Thomas Phelan, J.P., was evicted; and, if so, whether there is any intention on the part of the Government of taking the house from Mr. Shirley?

No such representations have been made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the following adver- tisement which appeared in the Belfast Evening Telegraqh—

"Training Ship Grampian.—Wanted, a ship's cook; must be a Protestant. Application, with copies of testimonials, to be sent to the Captain Superintendent on board;"

and whether the Admiralty approve of this exclusion of all but Protestants from the situation of a cook in a training ship?

The Grampian was lent by the Admiralty in 1871 to a committee of gentlemen representing the City of Belfast, for use as a training ship for the Mercantile Marine. The management of the institution rests entirely with the committee, and the Admiralty have no power to interfere in the selection of any of the seamen or domestics employed in the training ship.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Recorder of Cork, in the appeal of Patrick Staunton, convicted of boycotting by the Resident Magistrates and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, told the defendant, in reply to some observations, "I have the power of giving you a little more;" "if you say much more I will give you three months more;" and finally adjudicated in the following terms: "I confirm the sentence; I give him another month—four months;" whether the increase of a sentence on appeal, because of observations made by the defendant, is in accordance with law; and whether the Executive will enforce the additional month's imprisonment?

I am not aware whether the Recorder of Cork made the observations attributed to him; but it appears from the entry in the Order Book that he confirmed the sentence, but varying it by increasing it from three months' hard labour to four months' hard labour. It is not within the province of the Executive Government to review or to discuss sentences pronounced by County Court Judges in appeals which may come before them. As regards the concluding paragraph, the Prisons Board will, of course, act in accordance with the warrant of com- mittal issued in pursuance of the order of the Judge.

Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the report of the trial? Had the Recorder any legal power to increase the original sentences on appeal, not on account of further evidence, but in consequence of some language used by the defendant in Court? Has not the Executive power to release the prisoner when it chooses?

The Prisons Board have no power to do anything of the kind under the committal warrant. I have no right to review or discuss the Judgment of the Judge who made the order. There is no doubt as a general principle of law, and without discussing the facts of the case, that a County Court Judge, on appeal from a sentence—which amounts to a re-hearing of the case—has the right to impose the sentence which he considers should have been imposed by the Court below in the first instance.

Had the Judge a legal right to pronounce an increase of sentence in a case where nothing relevant to the original charge was adduced, but simply because the defendant used language which the Judge considered to be disrespectful, and could the Judge impose a sentence for contempt?

This is asking me not to answer a general question, but to review and discuss the legality of the decision of the Judge in the case. I must decline to express an opinion upon, or discuss in any way, the decision of the Judge.

Was it not the fact that Mr. Hamilton had pronounced sentence upon the prisoner; that he subsequently cautioned him, and then increased the sentence by one month; and was not the second sentence deliberately given for contempt of Court?

It is not for me to say one way or the other.

May I ask whether, in order to put an end to these scandals, the right hon. Gentleman will consider the propriety of such cases as this being tried by a Judge who is not himself a landlord.

Order, order!

What is the remedy of the prisoner at the end of the original term of three months' imprisonment?

The legal remedy for any person who is in illegal custody is habeas corpus.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland, with reference to the treatment of Mr. Jasper Tully, editor of the Roscommon Herald, now a prisoner in Tullamore Gaol, if he can state what was the sentence imposed upon Mr. Jasper Tully; is he aware that he is engaged in the labour of sack-making, and that his hands are full of sores; that he has lost two stone in weight during the two months he has been in prison; and that he is now suffering from an attack of diarrhoea; and, if so, why is he not placed under hospital treatment; and if the sentence did not include hard labour, why is the work of sack-making imposed upon the prisoner?

The General Prisons Board report that Mr. Jasper Tully is in custody under sentences of 14 days and three calendar months' imprisonment, concurrently, without hard labour. During four days after committal to Tullamore Prison this prisoner made sacks, although informed that he could by Statute be exempted from labour by paying for his food. Since that time he has been taking advantage of the exemption; but he asked to be permitted to have a few sacks to pass his time, and the Governor gave them on the clear understanding that it was his own desire. His hands have not suffered in any way as alleged. He lost 81b., not 281b. in weight subsequently to committal, but has since regained] lb. He is not suffering from diarrhoea. He had a slight attack for four days, but it was of such a nature as not to render hospital treatment necessary. The Board are required by Statute to provide employment for prisoners, though not sentenced to hard labour. Sack-making untasked is one of the forms of employment so provided.

May I ask whether, according to a statement publicly made, this treatment is in accordance with the sentence? From the instant Mr. Tully entered gaol he has been subjected to the most insulting and degrading treatment; not content with classing him with the ordinary criminals and setting him to pick oakum, he has been put to sack-making in the prison, in which work his hands and fingers have been torn and lacerated in the most cruel manner; his dietary has been changed, and the class of food kept down in his case, though he has repeatedly asked for a change; he further complains of the constant annoyance and supervision to which he is subjected; that his clothes are taken away from him and rummaged by the warders; and that he is left standing naked on a stone-flagged cell.

Certain of those statements are not met by the information in my possession; but, so far as the statements contained in the question relating to oakum-picking and sack-making are concerned, they are absolutely unfounded. When Mr. Tully was given sacks to make, he was told that he might, under Statute, exempt himself from doing so. Mr. Tully elected to exempt himself by making a payment for food; but subsequently sacks were given to him at his own request, and in order to find him employment.

I will take the earliest, possible opportunity of bringing this case under the notice of the House.

I can only answer the question according to the information which has been placed before me; but if the hon. Member will put a question on the Paper as to the other points, I will try to find out.

I will do so tomorrow.

I am compelled to say that not a single particle of the reply of the right hon. and learned Gentleman is true. [Cries of "Order !"], Sack making is hard labour in Tullamore Prison. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that that is so, I can tell him from my own experience that it is. Why, then, was a person who was not, sentenced to hard labour put to sack-making?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the insanitary condition of a large number of labourers' cottages at Clogherhead, County Louth, and to the difficulty of dealing with them, owing to the absence of other houses of any kind available for the labourers in the neighbourhood; and whether, under the circumstances, he will instruct the Local Government Board to confer with the Local Sanitary Authority, with a view to providing suitable accommodation for these people before they are driven from their present dwellings?

The insanitary condition of the village referred to has, I am informed, been for some months engaging the attention of the Drogheda Board of Guardians. They have already taken steps to deal with the matter, and state that it shall continue to have their attention until the village is improved.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is provided in Article VII. of the Commercial Treaty of 1886, that

"A duty not exceeding five per cent. shall be paid at that port in the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar where the goods are first landed, and on payment thereof such goods shall thereafter be exempt within the Zanzibar dominions from all other Customs Duties or Taxes levied by or on behalf of the Government of His Highness the Sultan";

and whether, in the event of the mainland portion of the Sultanate of Zanzibar being ceded to Germany, goods which have paid the 5 per cent. duty on entering the island, would be liable to pay another 5 per cent. duty on entering the mainland?

It may be assumed that if the mainland and Zanzibar are separated, goods coming from the latter would certainly be treated like goods coming from any other foreign country. The best security against undue burdens upon trade is that they would tend to divert it to another sphere.

Do I understand the Under Secretary to say that, under the Anglo-German Treaty, there will be an end of Free Trade between the Island of Zanzibar and the mainland?

I have answered that question repeatedly. If the mainland of Zanzibar or part of it falls into the hands of the German Government it will be subject either to the conditions of the Commercial Treaty with Zanzibar or to those of the Berlin and Brussels Act.

Are goods from Zanzibar free to enter that portion of the mainland where the Sultan's flag flies without paying additional duty?

Certainly.

May I ask whether the effect of the Anglo-German Agreement will not practically be to abrogate the Zanzibar Treaty of Commerce?

I understand the German Government desire to be held by the terms of the Zanzibar Treaty of Commerce.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the General Order of Customs, No. 67, 1890, and the correspondence between the Treasury and the Commissioners of Customs relating to the case of Messrs. Heath and Smith, two officers of Customs, recently punished for communicating with the private secretary of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of promotion in the Department?

I will lay Papers on the Table; but I may point out at once that the officers were, of course, not punished for communicating with my private secretary. What their offence was will appear from the Papers.

When will the Papers be presented?

In a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has the inquiry promised into the death of Christopher O'Connor, a patient in the Richmond District Lunatic Asylum, been held; and, if so, what is the result; has the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, who found that death was caused by violence, been upheld; has anyone been punished in connection with the case; and, if not, what steps will be taken to bring the guilt home to whoever inflicted the injuries; and what condensation will be given to the widow and orphans?

My answer to the first two paragraphs is in the affirmative. The services of an attendant accused of having inflicted the injuries have been dispensed with by the Board of Governors, and the Papers in the entire case have been submitted by the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums for the consideration of the Executive Government.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the proceedings at Dunfanaghy Petty Sessions on the 28th of June, in the case of Mr. Crawford against Derryheriff peasants for trespass, and wherein the Magistrates made an order that the tenants should pay £2 2s. solicitor's fees; and whether, seeing that it was afterwards proved that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction, they were within their right in making this order?

I am informed that when the cases referred to came before the Court on 28th June they were adjourned on the application of the defendants on the usual terms of their paying the cost of the day. The cases were not gone into at all on that day. On 12th July they again came before the Court. One of the defendants was fined and the remaining cases adjourned, pending the result of a case stated. It does not appear from any information before me that the Magistrates had no jurisdiction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that, while the average town mortality in Bengal in 1889 was 25·03 per 1,000, the gaol death rate in the same Presidency was 45·8 per 1,000, and in other parts of India much higher, attaining in some instances to 120 per 1,000; whether the regulations under which Indian gaols are con-ducted were framed by gaol officials; and whether the Secretary of State will direct the attention of the Government of India to this excessive mortality, with a view to the adoption of means to secure its reduction to at least the average mortality of the district in which each gaol is situated?

The official Returns for 1889 have not yet been received. In 1888 the death-rate in gaols was 44·7 for Bengal, and 33·1 for the whole of India, which was a satisfactory reduction from 35·6, the death-rate of the preceding year. The regulations are framed by the Government of India. The attention of the Secretary of State and Government of India has for some time past been directed to the mortality in gaols; and the Government of India is now engaged, in concert with the Local Governments, in considering suggestions for endeavouring to diminish the amount.

I beg to ask whether ex-Constable Peter Brennan, late of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who was convicted by a Coroner's Jury of wilful murder, has been allowed or encouraged to retire from the police, and granted a pension of £72 per annum; and whether Brennan, having failed in business as a publican in Kinsale, has been recently employed as a bailiff by the Sheriff for the County of Cork?

The Constabulary Authorities report that it is the case that the ex-sergeant named was included with other members of the Force in a verdict of wilful murder, found by a Coroner's Jury, but that that verdict was subsequently quashed as an improper one by the Superior Court. He retired in ordinary course, after 30 years' service, with the pension mentioned. It is the case that he subsequently failed in business. This failure was, I am informed, owing to the system of boycotting instituted against him. He is now employed as stated in the question.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try and impress upon the Executive Government in Ireland the desirability of ceasing to employ murderers and thieves for the purpose of administering the law?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Home Secretary whether he can now state what was the character of the "boxing matches" at the Pelican Club; and whether he has obtained any reports from the police about it, or from any other quarter than "a member of the Committee of the Pelican Club?"

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he has no information to the effect that fights of an illegal character are carried on at the Pelican Club, nor has he reason to believe that such is the case. If the hon. Member is in possession of evidence to the contrary effect, and, will submit it to me, I will take what steps are necessary to provide against! any infraction of the law.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether any princely rank had been accorded to the Moderator of the Free Church of Scotland, such as had been accorded to Cardinal Manning, as head ecclesiastic in England of another unestablished Church?

I am not aware of any question having arisen on this point.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the existing contracts for decorating and painting the House of Commons and public offices will shortly terminate: and whether in the new contracts he will stipulate with the contractors that they shall pay a standard rate of wages to the workmen in the particular trades?

The general contract in which the decorating and painting of the House of Commons is included will terminate next year. A Departmental Committee is now sitting to inquire into the question of the terms' upon which new contracts for such services shall be made.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Mr. Bernard Dunn was the first person who called the attention of the Government to the fact that bad articles and materials were being passed into Woolwich Arsenal; whether Colonel Barrington reported that Mr. Dunn was misinformed; since then the Judge Advocate General has reported that Mr. Dunn's allegations were well founded, and that it was unfortunate that the higher officials did not take more notice of them when they were first made; whether Mr. Dunn frequently complained that he was being unjustly treated by the officials; and has any inquiry been made into his charges against the officials; if so, by whom, and when; if not, considering the services Mr. Dunn has rendered, whether he will cause an impartial inquiry to be made into the charges made by Mr. Dunn against the officials in the Department in which he was employed, and from which he has been discharged?

As I have already stated in this House, Mr. Moody was the principal complainant as to the bad material passed into the Arsenal; but he was supported by Mr. Dunn. The second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question appear to be a correct statement of facts. Mr. Dunn's complaints have been most fully inquired into, as I have more than once informed the House. Mr. Dunn has now been discharged for insubordinate c induct, and I cannot undertake to make further inquiries into his case.

May I ask whether it has not been well understood at Woolwich that Dunn is a marked man?

I am quite sure that is not the case.

I put it to the Secretary of State whether of his own knowledge, months ago, a Member of the Government did not intimate his own opinion that Dunn ought to be "sacked"?

I am not aware who the Member of the Government alluded to is.

Since the Secretary of State has punished Dunn so severely, will he also inquire into the case of those men against whom Dunn brought and proved the charge that they had introduced bad material into Her Majesty's Services.

I have made such inquiry, as I have told the House several times already.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he has done?

I troubled the House with a speech of nearly an hour's length on this subject last Session, and explained what I had done.

I wish to know whether Dunn has not made an allegation, supported by evidence, to the Secretary of State for War since the inquiry presided over by the Judge Advocate, as to whether he wishes for further inquiry?

It is true Dunn did supply me with additional evidence. Upon this I had caused to be made a most careful and independent inquiry, which proved beyond any doubt that the complaint was entirely unfounded.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is true that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to place officers of the Volunteer Force in the same position with regard to presentations at Court as officers of the Auxiliary Forces?

I have very great pleasure in informing my hon. Friend that Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to place Volunteer officers in an exactly similar position to officers of the rest of the Army as regards presentation at Court.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the statement in the Daily News of 2nd August, by telegram from Erivan, that a fortnight ago Kurds attempted to carry off a newly-married Armenian woman from the village of Vartenis, near Moosh, and a struggle ensued, in which two Armenians and six Kurds were killed; whether he will make inquires as to the facts of the case, and generally impress on the Porte the necessity of protecting its Christian Armenian subjects from the attacks of wild Kurds; and of the further statement that, in the district of Alashgerd, the condition of the Armenian peasants is miserable beyond description, as the petty Turkish officials urge the Kurds to attack the villagers and harry them?

Her Majesty's Government have received reports that the country is in a disturbed state, but have no knowledge of the particular outrages referred to. The district of Alashgird is one in which the inhabitants are specially liable to insecurity. It is a frontier district, bounded on the north by the Russian Frontier, which the Kurds are continually crossing and re-crossing. Many of the Kurds are said to-be now Russian subjects.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a telegram received to-day states that Martini-Henry rifles have been distributed amongst the Kurds at several places in America?

I cannot undertake to receive telegrams in newspapers when they arrive as well-founded. No doubt, if they are well-founded, we shall hear of it in due course.

I would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in the Daily News of 2nd August (from Reuter's Agency, Constantinople, dated 31st July), that the mixed council, i.e., civil and religious councils combined, held on Tuesday last, at the Armenian Patriarchate in Constantinople, to discuss the late message or Takrir, from the Secretary to the Sultan, Sureya Pasha to Monsignor Achikian, declared that the recent demonstration was not directed against the Patriarch personally, but was the outcome of the feeling of despair prevailing amongst the Armenian population, and of the failure of the Porte to reply to any of the numerous memorials addressed to it by the Patriarch, respecting the deplorable state of the Armenian population; and whether, in view of there being approximately some 250,000 Armenians in Constantinople, many of them refugees from Armenia, he will make representations to the Porte of the very serious risk it runs by postponing remedial measures of a conciliatory character in Armenia?

We have not received as yet any official information as to this meeting. The Porte is well aware that Her Majesty's Government are in favour of a conciliatory policy towards the Armenians; but without further particulars, I am unable to say whether this would be a favourable opportunity for pressing our views.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the recent grave disturbances among the Armenian subjects of the Sultan at Constantinople, as well as in Erzeroum, and at Moush, arising from the outrages of the Kurds, the oppression of the officials, and the impossibility of obtaining justice upon Mussulman offenders; and whether, having regard to the risk that an insurrection or occupation by some other Power may be provoked by further attempts at repression and denials of justice, Her Majesty's Government are advising, or will advise, the Sultan to adopt a more conciliatory policy, and will inform him that they regard the Anglo-Turkish Convention of 1878 as having lapsed, owing to the neglect of Turkey to introduce the reforms undertaken by that Instrument?

(1) Her Majesty's Representatives lose no opportunity of bringing well-authenticated cases of hardship and ill-treatment to the notice of the Turkish Authorities. (2) It would not be expedient for me to make any statement in regard to communications which Her Majesty's Government may think it their duty to make to the Porte on the subject.

I would ask whether, seeing the extreme urgency of the matter, the Government will make any representations? These disturbances at Erzeroum and Constantinople have been of a most serious character, and portend danger.

I have already-stated what has been done. Her Majesty's Government will make representations if they think they will be attended with good effect. I am not prepared to say whether the Government is making any special representations on this subject at this moment. I wish to remind the House that we are not yet fully informed as to the facts.

I do not desire to press the right hon. Gentleman unduly, but I wish to remind him that in this particular case, if our remonstrances are not attended to, we can give full notice to the Porte that we have power under our Treaty with the Porte and the guarantee given against the intervention of a Foreign Power, to take certain steps in case of the misgovernment of the country being continued.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the events referred to are of a character that undoubtedly requires great consideration, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will see that a premature answer would be most inconvenient.

The right hon. Gentleman informed me that the Report of Mr. Clifford Lloyd would not be laid on the Table before the end of the Session. I would ask him whether, whatever the length of the Session, we are not to be made acquainted at least with the substance of that Report?

I should be happy to give the best information in our possession; but since I last made a statement on this subject, the Government have received no further information.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, with reference to Article 1. of the General Act of the Conference of Berlin (1885) by which the Conference Powers agree to use their good offices with the Governments established on the African shore of the Indian Ocean for the purpose of obtaining their approval to the establishment of complete Free Trade within their respective territories, and in any case of securing the most favourable conditions to the transit (traffic) of all nations, the Conference Powers have used or intend to use their good offices in the direction indicated?

Her Majesty's Government have endeavoured to obtain as far as possible the relief of trade on the African coast from burdens and hindrances; they have not felt it to be their special duty to press upon the Sultan of Zanzibar the abolition of all Import Duties, as their Commercial Treaty afforded sufficient protection. The Powers who were parties to the Berlin Act have now agreed upon certain modifications.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland whether he can state what decision has been come to by the Irish Law Officers regarding the communication received by the Land Commissioners from Mr. Percy Magan, J.P., on the 22nd July, purporting to be an explanation of the charges of fraud brought against him; and whether the Government is still determined to take no steps to have Mr. Magan suspended from the Commission of the Peace pending proceedings for the recovery of the money alleged to have been obtained by false representations under the Arrears Act?

I have this day received the Papers in this case, which I shall deal with in due course.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, having regard to the 125th section of "The Civil Bill (Ireland) Act, 1851," which protects from seizure under Civil Bill Decree "the tools and implements of the trade or business of any debtor" he has made inquiry as to the seizure of the boats of the fishermen of Blasket Islands by the Sheriff, who was brought there on board H.M. Man-of-War the Britomart?

I have made inquiries on the subject of the question of the right hon. Member, and I am informed that the seizure in question was not made under Civil Bill Decree. The section referred to does not, therefore, apply.

Is it not the case that private persons were carried in this vessel on the occasion in question, and that it was used for seizing and carrying away the property of private persons?

A distress was levied; and if its legality is questioned, the matter can be tested in the usual way.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury which of Her Majesty's Ministers advises Her Majesty in matters of Precedence?

It is not the duty of any Minister to advise Her Majesty in matters of Precedence, except when such matters may be connected with the particular Department of which he is the head.

I wish to ask, as to a question of Precedence which has arisen with regard to the Royal Commission on the Housing of the Working Classes, to what Department should a question be addressed?

I think that a question should be addressed to the Minister who was in office at the time, and upon whose advice the Commission was issued.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether arrangements can be made by which Members of this House may be in future supplied with Copies of Private Bills introduced by the London County Council prior to the Second Reading, especially such Bills as contain provisions of a public or general character? I would point out that the present mode by which the County Council have Bills delivered to Members of this House often leads to very long discussions on the Third Reading.

If the hon. Member will turn to Standing Orders 203 and 213, he will find that provision is made that Copies of Private Bills are obtainable by Members at the Vote Office.

I applied for a London County Council Bill at the Vote Office just before it came on, and I could not obtain one.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, with regard to the Companies (Winding-up) Bill, which has been very considerably altered by the House of Lords, and in which important provisions which had been struck out in this House have been restored, he will arrange that the Lords Amendments shall not be considered until this House has had fair notice on the Paper, and an opportunity of discussing them before midnight; and as regards other Bills which are coming down from the Lords with Amendments, what notice he will give before such Amendments are considered?

I am informed that there has only been one alteration of importance made in the Companies (Winding-up) Bill, and that this was due not to the initiative of the Government, but to the unanimous feeling of noble and learned Lords in another place.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what notice will be given?

Notice in the Votes.

But how much notice? A Bill comes down to this House, and is on the Paper on the day on which the consideration is taken.

I sought to draw attention to this matter the other day. An extremely difficult position might be brought about through taking the consideration of the Lords Amendment without any notice whatever.

It is not at all desirable that Lords Amendments should be taken without notice unless they are merely formal or verbal Amendments. Where there is any matter of substance, I will undertake that notice be placed on the Paper.

The Bill referred to in my question is one in which the most important and radical alterations have been made. I wish to know from the right hon. Gentleman how much notice will be given before the Bill is taken.

It is the rule that alterations of that character should be printed and circulated with the Votes. The Bill cannot be taken until that Paper has been circulated. I apprehend that that must be held to be sufficient notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Henry Loughran, Wattle Bridge, Bel-turbet, who was employed as a collector and lock keeper on the Ulster Canal from March 1873 to April 1889, and was entrusted by the Board of Works with the payment of the fortnightly wages to the labourers on the canal from Lough Erne to Charlemont, a distance of 4G miles, bat received no remuneration for the latter service from March 1873 to 1880, when the Treasury granted him an allowance of 7s. 6d. for each fortnightly payment up to the date of his discharge in 1880; and, if so, whether he will endeavour to induce the Treasury to pay Loughran a like sum for his services in connection with the fortnightly payments of the labourers' wages during the years from March 1873 to the end of 1880?