Commons Sitting of 20 November 1884

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Stuart, esquire, for Hackney Borough.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [November 13] reported.
PUBLIC BILL—Third Heading—Tramways and Public Companies (Ireland) Act Amendment * [37], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF TRADE AND COMMERCE—DISTRESS IN SUNDERLAND.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the distress in Sunderland is considerably intensified by the existence of a character note system in use among employers, which renders it difficult, if not impossible, for unemployed Sunderland workmen to obtain employment in other localities by reason of there having been a strike in Sunderland; and, if the Government will propose any legislation to deal with the matter?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): At the request of the Secretary of State, the Local Government Board directed one of their Inspectors to inquire into this matter; and his Report is to the effect that the Believing Officers in the Sunderland Union know of no instance in which relief has been applied for, and the character note system alleged as the cause of destitution. The Inspector further states that he was informed there was nothing of the character note system in use among employers in any other branch of the industries connected with shipbuilding,
  40
  except the engine fitters, and that no application has come from those men for relief. But the result of his inquiries appears to indicate that there may have been, in some instances, an indisposition on the part of employers to employ men on strike, though he concludes, on the whole, that the character note system has not affected the distress. Under the circumstances, the Government do not intend to propose any legislation.

  ARMY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT—EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SHEILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Return of the marks made by candidates at the last two examinations of the Army Medical Department; whether the vacancies have, in all cases, been filled by those candidates who obtained the highest marks in the competitive examination; why information as to the number of marks gained by unsuccessful candidates in the examination for the Army Medical Department is refused; and, whether he is aware that this information is supplied to candidates for the Navy Medical Department?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I cannot give the Return beyond what has already been published. For obvious reasons it is not the practice in any examination to give the marks of unsuccessful candidates unless they can be designated by numbers. In the examinations for the Medical Staff, the candidates are examined by name, and no numbers are assigned to them. The vacancies have in all cases been filled by those candidates who obtained the highest aggregate of marks in the compulsory subjects without failing to reach the standard in any of them. This is in accordance with the published terms of the competition. Marks in the voluntary subjects have only a value in determining the place of the candidate on the list of those successful in virtue of their marks in the compulsory subjects. I understand that information as to the number of marks gained by unsuccessful candidates was refused, in consequence of the wish of the Examiners; but I see no sufficient reason why a candidate should not, on his application, be informed of the marks he gained, and I will give directions accordingly. I understand that similar information is

  41
  afforded in the case of the Naval Medical Department.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—MOVILLE PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that, at a Petty Sessions held at Moville, in the county of Donegal, on Tuesday the 7th day of October 1884, a case was tried, a game prosecution, at the suit of Mrs. Haslett, of Portsmouth, England, against James Kelly, junior, and others; that, during the trial, Mr. J. G. Harney, land agent, and Mr. Crawford McKay, of Derry, solicitor, both representing complainant, occupied places in Court beside the magistrate, Colonel Lyle, J.P., and Rudoulphus Harney, P.M. and the other justices present on the day in question; is it a fact that when the evidence closed, and the magistrates retired with closed doors to consult as to the decision to be awarded in the case, the above-named agent and solicitor were allowed to remain closeted with the said magistrates during their deliberations, whilst the defendants had to remain outside; and, if true, as stated, what action will the Chancellor take?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The accommodation in Moville Court House—consisting of only two small rooms—is so bad that it is the practice to allow professional men and others to remain at the back of the Bench. This was permitted on the day in question, the Court being inconveniently crowded. If a solicitor for the defence had been employed, he would have had the same facilities as the solicitor on the other side. The magistrates did not retire with closed doors. A screen is drawn across the Bench during their deliberations, and that was done in the present instance for a few minutes. The agent and solicitor were not closeted with the magistrates. It would be very desirable to have such accommodation, provided that no appearance could exist of magistrates and professional men being accommodated together.

  NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS' (IRELAND) RESIDENCE ACT—THE SALARIES.
  COLONEL NOLAN (for Mr. HEALY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is he aware of
  42
  the inconvenience, and even hardship, which the present system for repayment of the Board of Works' advances, made under the National School Teachers' Residence Act, entails on managers and teachers who have been induced to adopt the provisions of the Act; and, is it the case that the half-yearly repayments required are about equal to two-thirds the quarterly salary of these teachers; whether the proper authorities can arrange that the Commissioners of National Education, who now recoup at convenience one-half the amount of each instalment paid the Board of Works, may in future, on receiving the usual half-yearly certificate that the residence is in bonâ fide occupation of the teacher, and kept in due repair, transmit to the manager within the month allowed for the payment of instalment a money order payable to the Board of Works for amount of the Commissioners' contribution; or, whether the Government will provide some other means whereby the teachers may be relieved from the obligation of parting with, almost as soon as received, so large a portion of their scanty salary in every alternate quarter, in order to discharge a liability amounting to double the sum legally claimable as rent for the occupancy of dwellings under the National School Teachers' Residence Act; and, whether it could be provided for that the cost of residences under the National School Teachers' Residence Act might not so largely fall upon the present generation of teachers by an amendment of the Act extending the period of repayment from thirty-five to fifty years?
  MR. COURTNEYreplied: This Question discloses the fact that some managers, contrary to both the letter and spirit of the Rules of the Education Commissioners, have stopped the whole of the rent-charge for the residences from the teachers' salaries. They have no right in any case to provide more than one-half the charge in this way, and they ought not to charge any part on the teachers. The Government is not responsible for such misconduct on the part of managers; but, in order to diminish their temptation to it, we will arrange that in future the half of the rent-charge which is repaid from the Education Vote should not pass through their hands at all, but, subject to the regulations being complied with, should

  43
  be paid over by the Education Commissioners direct to the Board of Works. Thirty-five years seems a fully sufficient period for the repayment of loans for such a purpose as a teacher's house.

  BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND)—REPAYMENT OF LOANS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is the practice of the Irish Board of Works, in the case of any occupier of land who had obtained a loan of money from the Board, to proceed against him or his sureties if he allowed the prescribed repayments to fall more than six months into arrear; and why, in the case of the owners of land who are sureties for the repayment of the loan of £100,000 by the Irish Board of Works to the Sligo, Leitrim, and Northern Counties Railway Company, the Board have allowed arrears, now standing at a total of £25,000, to go on accumulating for years without taking any step to recover?
  MR. COURTNEY: I think we have carried leniency to the utmost extreme in the case of these gentlemen. But it must be recollected that, unlike borrowers under the Land Acts, they have received no value for their money; that there were unavoidable delays in the completion of the railway; and that the guarantee was given, partly at least, in the public interest. The debt for which these gentlemen are responsible now amounts to £15,000; ever since it began to accrue we have been pressing them for payment; but our patience has now reached a limit, and unless a substantial payment is made before the 1st of January next stringent measures will be taken against them.

  LAW AND POLICE (METROPOLIS)—DISTURBANCE AT VICTORIA PARK TABERNACLE, HACKNEY—THE "EX-MONK WIDDOWS."
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General, If his attention has been called to the fact that a person described as the "Ex-Monk Widdows," has, at the Victoria Park Tabernacle, Hackney (as reported in The East London Press of the 18th ultimo), and at different other places, before public audiences, gone through a parody of the religious service venerated by members of the Catholic Church as the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; and, whether a public per-
  44
  formance of a travesty of a solemn religious Christian rite is an indictable offence, and punishable by law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, that he had no official knowledge as to the occurrence, nor was it his business to inquire into it. Without full information as to the facts he could not express an opinion on the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman whether the public performance of a solemn religious Christian rite is an indictable offence, and punishable by law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he could not give an answer to the Question as put without a knowledge of all the circumstances.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would ask a further Question on the subject.

  BUILDING SOCIETIES—FAILURES—A GOVERNMENT AUDIT, &c.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consequence of the recent failures of Building Societies, he has considered the desirability of a revision of the Act of 1874, by which the Registrar General may have extended powers, including an official audit, and reliable tables for safety to investors; and, whether Government is prepared to amend the said Act?
  MR. HIBBERT (for Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT),in reply, said, the Secretary of State had consulted the Registrar of Friendly Societies upon this question; and he had pointed out that what determined the safety of Building Societies was mainly the value of their securities. More importance was attached to that than the tables determining the rates at which instalments and interest were repaid. There were about 2,000 Building Societies, and if a compulsory official audit were established there would be greatly increased expenditure. He was of opinion that amendment might be made in the law to give extended powers to members of Building Societies; but the Home Secretary was not prepared to bring in a Bill for that purpose. If the hon. Member would communicate with the Registrar of Friendly Societies, and himself bring in a Bill, it would probably receive the support of the Home Office.

  THEATRES AND PLAGES OF PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT—SECURITY FROM FIRE.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, Whether it is a fact that, in September 1883, the Board called on the occupier of the Myddelton Hall, Islington, to make certain structural alterations in those premises,
  "With a view to lessen risk to human life n case of panic or fire;"
  whether it is true that such structural alterations are still unmade, whilst licences have been since twice granted; and, whether, if this is correct, he intends to take any steps to have its proper exits provided, and, if the power of his Board is not sufficient for the purpose, whether he intends to at once bring in a short Bill to carry out the suggestion of the Home Secretary—
  "That it should he compulsory that the managers of each place of public entertainment applying for a renewal of their annual licences should produce a certificate from the Metropolitan Board of their safety to the public, making that a condition precedent to the renewal of their licences?"
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg to inform my hon. Friend that it is not a fact that the Board, in September, 1888, called on the occupier of this Hall to make certain structural alterations. Plans of the Hall have been taken by the Board's Architect, which will be considered in due course; but no requisitions as to structural alterations have been served upon the owner. The Hall is only used occasionally, and there are other places of more importance which require to be dealt with before it. Having answered my hon. Friend's first Question in the negative, I have only to add that it is doubtful whether such a Bill as that referred to by him could be brought in without Notice; but the matter has not escaped the attention of the Board.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—BECHUANALAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked, with reference to the instructions to the Special Commissioner in Bechuanaland, just presented to Parliament, Whether, since that Country is only to be held "until its further destination is known," and it is the avowed design to annex it to the Cape Colony if practi-
  46
  cable, the Chiefs to whom Mr. Mackenzie accorded British protection in May last have been, or will be, immediately informed that this protection is not promised as a permanent arrangement, and that if they come under the Sovereignty of the Queen they are liable to be handed over to a self-governing Colony, over which the British Government and Parliament exercise no control?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: I would draw the hon. Member's attention to page 94 of the Blue Book of last year (C. 3,686), in which he will find a Petition signed by Mankoroane and his Councillors praying for annexation to the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope; also, on page 98, a communication from Montsioa's Agent, in June of last year, in which he states that he would agree to a Colonial Protectorate if the Boers were expelled. There is no reason to suppose that the Chiefs are under any misapprehension as to the proposed destination of the country. By giving this answer it is not intended to acquiesce in any view that annexation to the Cape would be a hardship to the Chiefs, as the conduct of the Cape Government and Parliament towards the Natives within the Cape Colony is marked by justice and wisdom.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he did not mean to imply that annexation would be a hardship to the Chiefs.

  FISHERY PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)—PROPOSED PIER AT MOVILLE, CO. DONEGAL.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If an application for a grant for a fishery pier at Moville, county Donegal, has been made, and inquiry has been held; and, if. Mr. T. F. Brady has stated that in no part of his district is there greater necessity for a pier than at Moville?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Fisheries, Piers, and Harbours Commission, having expressed themselves in favour of the construction of a pier at Moville, a design and an estimate were sent to them on August 28, since which date they have made no further communication to the Board of Works. The hon. and gallant Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) may, perhaps, be able to supply later information.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, in reference to the answer, he wished to

  47
  ask the hon. Gentleman, was it a fact that the application was approved of by the Harbour Commissioners, and that since then several grants had been given in the case of subsequent applications? This was embodied in his Question originally, and he could not conceive why it was struck out.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he knew nothing of any portion of the Question being left out; but the query just put by the hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with the question.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, his Question was, whether it was a fact that, since the application was made for a grant for a fishery pier at Moville, several grants were made to subsequent applications? He could not understand why that was struck out.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that there was anything in the Question struck out, and the Clerk at the Table is not cognizant of such a thing.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, it was possible that grants had been made in other cases, because different steps had been taken.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—RIOTING AT COAL ISLAND, TYRONE.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, on Saturday the 15th instant, a riotous mob took advantage of the absence of all the constables except one, stationed at Coal Island, county of Tyrone, to attack the houses of the Protestants in that place, and to create such disorder as to detain the mail car until a force of police was despatched from Dungannon to quell the riot, and to enable the driver of the mail car to proceed on his way; and, whether he can state the reason why the usual force of Constabulary was on that occasion absent from Coal Island?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, before the Question was answered he desired to ask, whether on the occasion referred to the police were absent from the town because the force was drafted off to protect an Orange band which was occupied playing provocative Orange tunes; and, whether the disturbance resulted from an assault committed by a body of Protestants on a few Catholics; whether one of the Protestant party made a bet
  48
  that he would go into the Catholic quarter and curse the Pope; whether he did so, and thus created a disturbance; whether the Orange party used firearms; whether the Orange party was the only party that used firearms; and, whether, in the event of any prosecution being undertaken arising out of this occurrence, the Government would take care not to submit the hearing of cases to the local Protestant and Orange Bench, but would send down special magistrates under the Prevention of Crime Act to hear the cases?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The hon. Member for Sligo cannot expect me to answer all the details of his Question. I will state what I have been able to learn. I regret to say that the occurrences mentioned in this Question of the hon. Member for Tyrone did take place. The Coal Island Constabulary, with the exception of one man, had been withdrawn to Stewartstown, where disturbance was immediately apprehended, in consequence of the Conservative flute band from Dungannon going through Stewartstown to Cookstown, where there was a hiring market going on. A number of the rioters have been identified and will be prosecuted.
  MR. MACARTNEYwished to know whether, in consequence of the statements and allegations of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), an investigation would be made?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, an investigation would not be held as the result of anything that the hon. Member said; but he wished to repeat that a number of rioters had been identified and would be prosecuted.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PROMOTION.
  MR. DEASYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, How many promotions from the rank of Head Constable of Police to that of District Inspector have been made in Ireland since 1st November 1882; whether it is a rule in the force that one-fourth of the vacancies in the rank of District Inspector should be given to deserving and qualified Head Constables; and, whether this rule has been strictly observed, and, if not, on what grounds?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no such rule as the hon. Member suggests; but the Inspector General

  49
  has usually, with the sanction of the Government, given a fourth of the places to deserving Head. Constables. No such promotions have taken place since the 1st of November, 1882; but, on the other hand, 10 out of 17 vacancies which had occurred in the previous month were given to Head Constables, and this unusually large proportion leaves them now only two short of the ordinary proportion. It is not at present practicable to fill up these two; but it will be done when opportunity offers.

  IRELAND—SEED LOANS TO IRISH TENANTS—COLLECTION OF THE SEED RATE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, having regard to the fact that the advances of money by the State, in Ireland, for the purchase of seed, were made at a time of extreme destitution, to tenants of small holdings, the Irish Government, in view of the resolutions of the Ballina and other Boards of Guardians, declaring that the general poverty of the Country renders the collection of the Seed Hate "extremely difficult, and almost impossible," will sustain the appeal made in those resolutions by recommending the remission of the amount of Seed Rate now outstanding; and, whether a Return will be laid upon the Table, showing the amount advanced for seed to each Board of Guardians, and the amount for which each remains now liable?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is a Question in which the Treasury is involved, and I cannot hold out any hope of a different view being taken from that which has been on several occasions expressed. There will be no objection to the presentation of such a Return as the hon. Member suggests, if he wishes to move for it; but it will take some time to prepare.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (SUB-COMMISSIONERS)—JUDICIAL RENTS, CO. CLARE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Lord Lieutenant has been drawn to the resolution of the Corofin Board of Guardians, unanimously adopted on the 15th
  50
  ultimo, desiring the earnest notice of His Excellency to the numerous complaints respecting the excessive judicial rents fixed by the Clare Sub-Commission; declaring the payment of the rents so fixed to be utterly beyond the power of the tenants; and desiring a thorough and searching investigation into the merits of the several cases of appeal by the tenants to the Land Commission Court of Appeal; whether an identical resolution was adopted by every Poor Law Board in county Clare, except that of Ennis, in which case the chairman, Lord Inchiquin, refused to put the motion from the chair; whether, in the case of James Griffey, of Poulnalour, Walter Russell, landlord, rent £40, although it was proved that till 1858, when Mr. Russell bought the property, the rent of the holding had been £ 17, the Sub-Commission fixed the rent at £36, the Poor Law valuation being £20; whether, in the case of three tenants in Garrynacallagha, the valuation had been £43 10s. and the rent £40, when Mr. O'Gorman bought the estate in 1853, but, by repeated notices to quit and increases on each occasion, he has raised the rent to £60, and though bog and waste lands have been taken away from the tenants since 1853, the rent of £60 has been confirmed by the Sub-Commission; whether the Lord Lieutenant has communicated with the Land Commission; and, whether care will |be taken to secure a thorough and searching inquiry into the appeals referred to in the resolution?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The resolution mentioned was adopted by the Corofin Board of Guardians. I cannot at present speak with certainty as to the other Boards. The Lord Lieutenant forwarded a copy of the resolution to the Land Commissioners. The Government could not properly interfere further in the matter, nor can I now enter into the merits of the particular cases mentioned. They are all the subject of pending appeals which will be heard by the Land. Commissioners as soon as possible, but cannot be taken out of their turn.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—EDENDERRY DISTRICT, KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,

  51
  If it be a fact that there is not a single Catholic magistrate for the district of Edenderry; whether there are not many Catholic gentlemen of large landed property in the neighbourhood well qualified to share in the administration of justice in this Catholic district; whether, amongst many others, there is not Mr. Robinson, residing in the district, with about one housand acres in fee; whether, upon his application, an official answer was sent from Dublin Castle in the name of the Lord Lieutenant containing a refusal in these words:—"Without considering your qualification, I see no necessity for the appointment;" whether he can state why only Orange magistrates preside in this Catholic district; and, why the Commission of the Peace is refused to Catholic gentlemen of large independent property?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I informed the hon. Member on the 10th instant what the facts are as to the constitution of the magistracy of the Edenderry district; and I stated that the Lord Chancellor and the Lieutenant of the county, whilst most anxious to redress any existing inequality, have not had before them the name of any Roman Catholic gentleman whom they considered qualified. I cannot enter into discussion of the merits of any particular case. I think there must be some misapprehension as to such a letter as the hon. Member quotes from having been sent to Mr. Robinson from Dublin Castle. I have not been able to trace any such letter; but if the hon. Member will mention the date I will have further inquiry made.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE CLERK TO THE MAGISTRATES, EDENDERRY DISTRICT, KING'S CO.
  MR. MOLLOYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that in some recent cases tried before Messrs. Tyrrell and Ridgeway, Justices of the Peace for the Edenderry district, in the King's County, certain convictions being considered illegal, the parties convicted were intimidated from appealing by the said magistrates' clerk, upon the threat that in case of their appeal being successful that should they chance to come before the said magistrates again, they would not deal leniently with them;
  52
  two of the cases here referred to are Constable Patrick Gibeony, Complainant, William Murphy, Defendant, and Constable John Brown, Complainant, William Murphy, Defendant, both cases tried at Edenderry Petty Sessions on the 8th October last, the Defendant having to pay a fine and costs; whether in another case, Constable McAlroy v. W. Murphy, in the same Court, about fifteen months since, the clerk of the court, the Defendant, wishing to appeal, paid the said clerk the necessary fees, who nevertheless failed to serve the notices; whether one of the said magistrates is practically the only one who ever presides; whether both are Orangemen; and, what course the Chief Secretary proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Clerk of Petty Sessions states that he gave no advice and made no suggestion to the defendant in these cases, either on the ground alleged in the Question or on any other ground, but that the defendant, after taking out the necessary certificates to prosecute an appeal in the two cases, decided on the 8th of October last, and, paying the required sum of 2s. for stamp duty on the certificate of conviction, paid the amount of the fines and costs, thus allowing the appeals to drop. With regard to the earlier case mentioned, the County Court Judge dismissed the appeal, because of the non-service on the Petty Sessions Clerk of the notice to Justices required by Section 24 of the Petty Sessions Act. The Clerk of Petty Sessions could not be held responsible for this. He had, in the ordinary course of his duty, prepared an appeal under the direction of the defendant, who paid him 3s. to cover stamp duty for the appeal, recognizance, and notice to the respondent; but he did not undertake the service of any document. Both of the magistrates named in the Question attend the Edenderry Petty Sessions with great regularity. I am not aware whether they are Orangemen. I see nothing in the case calling for my interference.

  CURRENCY—THE IMPORTATION AND CIRCULATION OF FRENCH BRONZE COIN.
  MR. FIRTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What steps he proposes to take to arrest the importation and cir-

  53
  culation of the French dix-centimes piece in England?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS),in reply, said, that this subject had been for some time past occupying some attention. As to what steps the Government would take to arrest the importation, he could only reply in the negative, for he was afraid that such an interference with persons bringing coin from France would be useless, vexatious, and unwarrantable. There was no reason to believe that French coin was imported commercially. If it were, the profit would only be 4 per cent, against which would have to be set the freight and insurance, to say nothing of the difficulty of putting any large amount in circulation. As to the circulation in this country, all that the Government could do was to refuse to accept these coins if tendered; and this was done at the Post Office, the Custom House, and the Inland Revenue Office. The English penny piece was largely circulated in Paris, just as the French dix-centimes piece was brought over here in the pockets of travellers.

  LAW AND POLICE (SCOTLAND)—"BROTHER" ALPHONSE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is true, as reported in the public Press, that one John James Moore, described as "an anti-Popery lecturer," and also known as "Brother Alphonse, an ex-Monk," has been arrested at Dundee, on a warrant issued by Sheriff Cheyne, and has been judicially examined before the Sheriff on charges of having, at various times, attempted to commit a grossly immoral offence; and, if the facts be as stated, what is the present stage of the case?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The case has been reported to the Procurator Fiscal, and I expect that papers will be sent from him in a few days for consideration and disposal.

  THE CIVIL SERVICE (PARLIAMENTARY CANDIDATURE)—MR. MACDONALD, SHERIFF OF PERTHSHIRE.
  DR. FARQUHARSONasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, considering the answer given by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reference to the candidature of Sir William Brampton Gur-
  54
  don, he is aware that Mr. Macdonald, Sheriff of Perthshire, is a candidate for the Universities of Edinburgh and Saint Andrews; whether a Sheriff, being a Judge of the Crown, does not hold a place of profit as a salaried officer, in the terms of 6 Anne, c. 7, s. 35; and, whether it does not come within the enactment of 21 Geo. II., c. 19, s. 11, that a Sheriff cannot be elected to sit in Parliament; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Government will make to Mr. Macdonald an official communication of a similar character to that made to Sir William Gurdon, to the effect that a salaried Judge cannot be a candidate while he remains in office?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I understand that Mr. Macdonald, who is Sheriff of Perthshire, has accepted a requisition to contest the representation in Parliament of the Universities of Edinburgh and Saint Andrews on the first opportunity, and that an address which he delivered on the occasion of his acceptance has been printed and circulated to all the electors, accompanied by a printed form, which they are invited to sign, requesting their names to be added to the list of his supporters. If this was done with Mr. Macdonald's knowledge and consent, it is a method of soliciting the suffrages of the electors; and, in my opinion, it constitutes him a candidate for the seat. A Sheriff in Scotland is not, in my judgment, a member of the permanent Civil Service under the control of the Treasury; and it appears to me that the Treasury Minute recently laid upon the Table of the House is not applicable to Sheriffs or other Judges. Further, it may be doubted whether the Act of Anne, which refers to new offices of profit under the Crown, extends to the office of Sheriff as now constituted in Scotland. It is, however, provided by the Act of 21 Geo. II., c. 19, s. 2, that no Sheriff shall be capable of being elected or of sitting or of voting as a Member of the House of Commons. This prohibition is expressed in the same terms as that contained in an earlier Statute of the same reign—7 Geo. II., c. 16, s. 4—with reference to the Judges of the Supreme Courts in Scotland, and it is to precisely the same effect as the provisions of more modern statutes with respect to the Judges of

  55
  the High Court of Justice and of the County Courts in England. It being thus clear that Mr. Macdonald is incapable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons while he holds his Sheriffship, the only remaining question is, whether a Judge so disqualified from being elected or sitting is disabled from pursuing a declared candidature for election while he continues to hold his office. I am not aware of any decision upon this question; but, having regard to the considerations of policy upon which the disability is founded, I think it would be held to extend to the preliminary steps towards election generally known as pursuing a candidature, especially in a case like the present, where, as I understand, many of the electors are resident within the jurisdiction of the Judge on whose behalf their suffrages are solicited.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Sir William Gurdon had yet arrived at any decision as to whether he would pursue his candidature for Norfolk, or resign his position in the Civil Service?
  MR. ONSLOWalso asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether Sir Richard Wyatt, an official in the Private Bill Office of the House of Commons, was not candidate for a certain county; and, whether, if so, he did not come under the category of a permanent Civil Servant?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): I know nothing about the gentleman referred to, and cannot answer the Question. As to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have not received any conclusive statement from Sir William Gurdon. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask the Question again in a day or two.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would do so on Monday.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE SHERIFF OF ABERDEENSHIRE AND PROCURATOR FISCAL OF BERWICKSHIRE.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked the Lord Advocate, Whether, in filling up the vacant offices of Sheriff and Commissary Clerk of Aberdeenshire and Procurator Fiscal of Berwickshire (the respective salaries, according to the
  56
  Estimates, being £850 and £590, with allowances, per annum) care will be taken to provide that the future holders shall be prohibited, directly or indirectly, from engaging in other business, and strictly limited to the sole and personal discharge of the duties appertaining to these offices?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): The Sheriff Clerkship of Aberdeenshire is in the gift of the Home Secretary, and the gentleman to be appointed will be restricted from engaging in other business. This principle has been acted upon in recent appointments where the amount of the salary has made it practicable. The same principle has been applied in the appointments of Procurator Fiscal, where the amount of salary and of business has made its application possible. I am glad to learn from the Sheriff, with whom the appointment rests, subject to the approval of the Home Secretary, that he concurs in the propriety of such a restriction. The last appointment in Berwickshire was made under this condition, and in the present case the same course will be adopted.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—THE PROCURATOR FISCAL AT PORTREE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask, Whether it is to be understood, as is stated in the papers, that the Procurator Fiscal at Portree has gone with the Sheriff Substitute to inquire into the alleged outrages in Uig; if it is the case that the Procurator Fiscal of Portree is a solicitor in practice in that town; and, if it would not be possible, in the public interest, to obtain some outside person, uninfluenced by local excitement, to make an independent inquiry into alleged outrages in Uig?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): It is the duty of the Procurator Fiscal, in pursuance of his ordinary business, to investigate this particular case of alleged outrage as well as any other. I understand that, although the gentleman referred to is a solicitor in Portree, he has little or no private practice, and I understand he does not act for any proprietor in the Island. I may further say that I know this gentleman has, with great propriety, declined to act for proprietors where there was any possibility of discontent on their estates.

  THE WEST AFRICAN CONFERENCE—ACTION OF THE ENGLISH REPRESENTATIVE.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he has seen the following statement from the London Correspondent of The Manchester Guardian, and if there is any truth in it:—
  "It is, I understand, finally decided that our representative at the forthcoming Conference on the Affairs of the Congo at Berlin shall he instructed to support with firmness the claims of Portugal, which had been practically conceded before the Conference was proposed?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government must decline at present to give any information in regard to the instructions given to their Representatives; but I have already stated that the decision of territorial claims is not among the bases of the Conference.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT: What I wish to ask is this—Whether the noble Lord is not aware that the proposition for conceding the Sovereignty of the Congo to Portugal has been all but universally condemned in this House and in the country?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I am aware that considerable hostility was manifested, both in this House and "elsewhere," towards the Treaty of last year.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked whether, if the Conference at Berlin should arrive at any conclusion on this subject, it would be laid before this House before it was accepted?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No, Sir; I am not aware that it would.
  SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: May I ask whether it is true, as reported in The Times this morning, that a Committee of Experts has been appointed to arrange the details of the agreement; and, if that is the case, can the noble Lord say to whom the interests of Great Britain are to be entrusted?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot undertake from day to day to give information of the proceedings of the Conference, and for this reason—that a pledge of secrecy has been given by all the Powers in regard to those proceedings; and if I were to depart from the rule of this House in one particular I should be obliged to depart from it
  58
  from day to day, until I had departed from it altogether.

  METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS—DISTRICT AND METROPOLITAN RAILWAYS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he is aware the District and Metropolitan Railways do not now work on the block system, and that the trains are exceedingly unpunctual; if so, whether he will use his influence to remedy the above complaint?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I have communicated with both the Metropolitan and the District Railway Companies, and am informed that the lines of both Companies are worked on the "absolute block system," no change in this respect having been made since the opening of the Inner Circle completion line. On the question of unpunctuality, the Companies inform me that the opening of the Circle rendered the service of trains very complicated, that at first there was a good deal of delay; but that there had already been a great improvement, and that the train services were now fast resuming their normal puncality.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST OUTBREAKS.
  MR. HENEAGEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether the Privy Council will consider the whole question of the internal regulations with regard to cattle diseases, with a view to establish uniformity of action in the event of a recurrence of foot-and-mouth disease, and to prevent vexatious and conflicting orders in adjoining counties or in different petty sessional divisions of the same county entailing unnecessary expenditure as well as great inconvenience to the public?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Privy Council is always anxious to hear the views of those who have taken a practical part in working the machinery for checking and extinguishing cattle disease, and to act, as far as possible, in conformity with those views. For instance, there was, not long ago, an important conference of representatives of the Local Authorities in the North of England, at which a

  59
  Resolution pointing to uniform action was passed, and suggestions of a practical nature indicated. Those suggestions, which are in accordance with the experience which we have gained during the recent outbreak, are, I think, completely carried out in an Order of the Privy Council, dated the 13th of this month., which makes obligatory on all Local Authorities measures dealing with infected places which had hitherto been left to their initiative. To go further, and lay down general regulations with regard to the movement of animals into the districts of Local Authorities, would be much more difficult, because it would involve considerable interference with their discretion. We hope this Order may be sufficient; but, if not, I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall be very glad to consider any further suggestions that may be made for carrying out the excellent objects which he has in view.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPLAINS—DONEGAL WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it a fact that there has been no Divine Service on Sundays or holidays in the Donegal Workhouse for the Catholic paupers for nearly two years; whether, during this time, the Catholic inmates have been deprived of the ministrations of their religion at Easter as at other times of the year; whether, practically, the exercise of their religion is altogether denied to the Catholic inmates, and will the Local Government Board allow this to continue; is he aware of the conduct of the majority of the Guardians in refusing the appointment of even one Catholic official to the House, although nine-tenths of the inmates are Catholics; is he aware of their refusal several times to appoint a Catholic assistant teacher, as suggested by the late Chief Secretary, and has it come to his notice that, although nearly all the pauper children are Catholics, the Local Government Board tolerates the continuance of a Protestant teacher in the Workhouse, who has failed at the examination for qualification two years successively; and, will the Local Government Board, independently of the Guardians, appoint by sealed order a Catholic teacher for the Workhouse, or insist on
  60
  due respect being shown for the religious convictions of Catholics?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that this matter has already been frequently referred to in this House, and has been the subject of much correspondence. The Local Government Board have endeavoured by every means in their power to have it arranged, but without success. It is true that for about a year and a half there has been no Roman Catholic chaplain for Donegal Workhouse, the chaplain having refused to continue in office unless he was given the assistance of a catechist. But the Roman Catholic inmates who are able to do so attend Mass at the parish chapel, and the sick have been visited by the parish priest. It is true that the majority of the Guardians have refused to appoint a Roman Catholic assistant teacher, although pressed to do so. With regard to the action on the part of the Local Government Board suggested by the hon. Member, it does not appear practicable. They cannot remove a teacher because she is not of the same religion as the majority of her pupils. The present teacher is not, so far as they can ascertain, unfit for the task of teaching the children in the workhouse, although she is not a classified teacher under the Board of National Education. The Local Government Board recently offered to increase the Roman Catholic chaplain's salary if he would resume duty; but he declined to do so. They regret the existing state of things, and would be glad if an assistant Roman Catholic teacher were appointed; but they have no legal authority to make the appointment themselves.

  FISHERIES PROTECTION (IRELAND)—THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If policemen are authorised to use rowing boats in pursuit of fishermen whom they may suspect of poaching; and, by whose authority Constable O'Leary boarded the Cork Harbour Commissioners' Dredge Boat some weeks ago in search of poachers?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The police are not authorized to use boats in pursuit of poachers, nor am I aware that they do so. When protecting water bailiffs, they first proceed in the Conservators' steam launch where it

  61
  is available; but if poachers, in endeavouring to escape, take to shallow water, the water bailiffs, accompanied by the police, follow them in small boats. In the particular case mentioned in the Question, Sergeant O'Leary merely accompanied the Secretary to the Conservators for his protection.

  CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND)—ASSAULT ON REV. PATRICK FARRELLY AND CONGREGATION DURING DIVINE SERVICE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What redress has been given to the Rev. Patrick Farrelly, Roman Catholic Administrator, Ballymacarrett, Belfast, in reference to outrages against the Catholics of that district, and as detailed in his communication dated 7th May 1884, the receipt of which was duly acknowledged by the then Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary; is it a fact that, on Monday night the 10th of November instant, pistol shots were fired into the windows of the church of which the said Rev. Patrick Farrelly is pastor, and into the presbytery, whilst the congregation were assembled at the solemn ceremonies of Benediction; and, what provision has been made for the prevention of such occurrences?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I understand that the redress given to the Rev. Mr. Farrelly was full compensation for the damage done to the chapel windows, and the infliction of a fine of 20s. and costs on the boy who was convicted of the offence. It is not a fact that pistol shots were fired into the windows of the chapel on the night of the 10th of November; but it is the case that a few small panes of glass were broken or cracked by swan-shot, supposed to have been fired from a catapult. The Rev. Mr. Farrelly has claimed compensation for this injury, and his claim will be dealt with by the Town Council. Arrangements have since been made for placing extra men on duty in the neighbourhood of the chapel.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—ACCELERATION OF THE MAIL SERVICE TO THE WEST.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Postmaster General, What objection, if any, is en-
  62
  tertained by the Postal Department to the offer of the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland—namely, that they provide a Mail Service of forty miles an hour between Dublin and the West, and that the price of the Service be fixed by arbitration?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The difficulty lies in the fact that the Railway Company have informed the Post Office that the proposed acceleration of the Mail Service would entail a cost on them which is found to be altogether out of proportion to the revenue which the correspondence produces. The subject of the acceleration of these Mails is one of great importance, and I will give it my earliest attention.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON—THE VESTRY OF ST. MARY-AT-HILL.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Charity Commissioners declined to allow certain payments of considerable amount, partly made and partly contemplated to be made, by the Vestry of Saint Mary-at-Hill, in the City of London, out of the Parochial Charity Funds of that parish (having a population of less than 300), and at the instance of a majority of the parishioners, including several of the Trustees of the Charity, certified a case to the Attorney General pursuant to the 20th section of "The Charitable Trusts Act, 1853;" whether he thereupon instituted an action in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice with the object of making the defendants liable for the payments made, and of restraining them from making others not already made, such sums amounting in the aggregate to about £2,000; whether the report is correct that he has, upon the defendants undertaking not to make any similar payments in the future, now decided to withdraw the questions at issue from the consideration of the Court, and intends to allow the major part of the payments made and to sanction those not yet made, and to direct the payment of all the costs of the action out of the Charity Funds; in exercise of what statutory or other powers he is enabled to allow the payments in question, or to direct the payment of the costs of the action out of the Charity Funds; and, upon what grounds he is prepared to sanction payments which the Charity

  63
  Commissioners have concurred with him in thinking ought not to be borne by the Charities, and with regard to which he considered it was his duty to obtain the judgment of the Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, the main circumstances were pretty much as stated. He found that the Trustees had been actuated by a perfectly bonâ fide motive, and they were willing to undertake never to make such a payment again without the consent of the Charity Commissioners. He had then to consider whether he should take any steps. He heard fully the statement of the gentleman who had suggested the Question on the Paper, and he had come to the decision stated in the Question.

  FRANCE AND CHINA—THE HOSTILITIES—MEDIATION OF ENGLAND.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any steps are being taken by Her Majesty's Ministers to bring about a suspension of the War between the French Republic and China in "the interests of British Commerce, which is seriously affected?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Government have been in confidential communication with the Governments of both France and China, but as yet without any practical result. I am not able at present to make any further statement on the subject.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL—REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME—SURREPTITIOUS PUBLICATION.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, consistently with the interests of justice, he is now in a position to state to the House what steps have been taken with regard to the abstracted scheme of redistribution published in The Standard; and, whether, should it be found impossible to prosecute any person or persons on account of the abstraction, he contemplates presenting to the House a statement containing all the information which Her Majesty's Government has upon the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): If the hon. Member will permit me I will answer this Question. The result of the in-
  64
  quiries which have been made is that no criminal prosecution can be successfully instituted. But there has been a breach of contract on the part of the printer. In regard to this breach, action is now being taken; and, under these circumstances, my hon. Friend will see that it is inexpedient for me to say more.

  PUBLIC MEETINGS—THE RIOT AT ASTON HALL, BIRMINGHAM.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask a Question of the Attorney General with respect to a statement made by him the other day about two parties who are wanted by the police in Birmingham. He stated that these two parties had been already served with processes. I wish to know on what authority he made that statement; and whether he is aware that it is altogether unfounded?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I received the statement on a written paper, which was handed to me by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. I do not say that my right hon. Friend wished me to make the statement. The facts were that my right hon. Friend received a telegram from a firm of solicitors, whose names I will furnish to the noble Lord; and it seems that in that telegram the word "executed" was inserted by some mistake for the word "issued." My right hon. Friend was informed by letter this morning of the mistake, and I should certainly have corrected it as soon as I got the opportunity.

  ARMY (ORDNANCE DEPARTMENT)—THE 43-TON GUN.
  MR. CARBUTTasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, If the 43-ton gun, when being tested, did perforate a 21-inch wrought-iron armour plate; would he state when and where this trial took place, and also state the length, character, weight, and material of shot; also weight and quality of powder; can he place in the Library a drawing or photograph of the armour plate after being tired at by the 43-ton gun, showing the damage done to it; and, how many 43-ton guns are finished, how many are placed in position ready for action, and how many have steel jackets, that is to say, made wholly of steel?
  MR. BRAND: If the hon. Member will be so good as to refer to The Times report of the answer I gave on this subject the other day, he will find that I did not state that the 43-ton gun had perforated a 21-inch wrought-iron plate, but that the gun could perforate an armour plate of this thickness, and this statement is based upon the usual calculations. Ten of these guns have been issued. None of them have steel jackets.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE—THE REDISTRIBUTION SCHEME.
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the House will be put in possession of the scheme of Redistribution as settled by Her Majesty's Government, and the alterations in the said scheme agreed to, in order to meet the views of the Conservative Leader in the House of Lords; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will regard as a vital question the passing of the Redistribution Bill in the House of Lords, as well as in this House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: It must be obvious to those who look at it that this Question is really two Questions. The first of them I understand to be, whether the House would be put in possession substantially of any confidential communications that may be carried on between the Members of the Government and any other Gentlemen representing a large Party in this House. Well, there are great objections, I think, to such a proceeding. The first of them is that undoubtedly it would involve a complete breach of engagement, because I do not see how such communications can be carried out except in the strictest confidence, and I hold myself bound in the most absolute manner to that confidence. Therefore, I could not promise that any production of such proceedings should take place. But I may assure my hon. Friend that any proceedings of that kind, whatever they may be, cannot in the slightest degree diminish the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government in this matter. Their responsibility is the same as it would be in any other case. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am much obliged to my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of stating more accurately and more carefully what
  66
  I stated rather too hurriedly and without sufficient precision on Monday evening. The declaration I then made contemplated as possible two modes of action—one of them being what may be called, more or less, previous concert upon the main provisions of the Seats or Redistribution Bill. Well, in that case previous concert itself, if it arrived at a result, would constitute the "adequate assurance" which I said it would be our duty to look for; and if it arrived at no result, all parties would stand as they would have stood if it had not taken place. So much for previous concert. If there were no previous concert, then, of course, we should have to look for adequate assurances by other means, or go without, and take our own course. Then, with regard to the question of how far the Seats Bill which we may have to introduce would be considered a vital question. I think I can answer that in the most precise terms; and I believe I can say that an understanding prevails as to what is just and equitable, and as to what can be fairly required from us in that matter, and what cannot. In the House of Commons we are, at the present time, honoured by the confidence of the majority of the House. In an Assembly so constituted we are in a condition to say absolutely, and in conformity with all Parliamentary usage, that we should regard the passing of our measure as a vital question. About that I think there can be no doubt; and so much was clearly understood from the declaration I made on Monday. In the House of Lords our case is different in one point—namely, that it is impossible for us to answer absolutely, and with the same degree of confidence as we might do here, for the action of the majority of that House. But what I think is justly to be expected of us in the House of Lords is this—that we should use every effort that depends upon us to pass the Redistribution Bill in the year 1885. But we could not be answerable for what the majority of the House of Lords might do independently of us. Everything that depends on us ought to be done in the House of Lords just as much as in the House of Commons. Unless I were prepared to give that pledge to Parliament and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it is obvious that any engagement we might come under to the House of Commons would leave

  67
  them totally unprotected, and would not be of the least value in their eyes. I hope, Sir, that answer will be considered satisfactory. I may say, in regard to the declaration stated to have been made "elsewhere" by the Marquess of Salisbury, it appears to me that that declaration is evidently intended to express the same thing that I have expressed, although, in speaking of the House of Lords, it does not contain the exact words that I have used—namely, that we are to be bound to use our own efforts; but, of course, that we could not be bound by anything beyond our own efforts. I hope there is no want of clearness in what I have now stated; but if there is, I should be happy to make any further explanation that might be desired.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In order that there may be no ambiguity, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not only regard it as vital that the Bill should pass this House, but also vital, that, on those points as to which any agreement has been come to, it should be passed in this House in the form agreed to, provided that either of the concurring parties desired to insist upon it?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think it will be wise for me—I do not say to decline to answer the Question—but to postpone answering it, in order that I might answer it with more distinct and substantive reference to the respective transactions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will give Notice of the Question.
  MR. CAUSTON: I wish to ask whether it is true, as stated in one of the public journals, that a Joint Committee of 12 Members of the two Houses of Parliament is to be appointed to consider the question of redistribution; and, if so, whether the deliberations of that Committee, and the information which will be laid before it, will be confidential?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I wish to ask, in regard to the friendly communications on the subject of the Redistribution Bill, which the Prime Minister has stated it is the intention of the Government to prepare with certain leading politicians, whether he proposes to consult the Representatives of all sections of the House; and, if so, whether ho will consider the desirability of the light hon. Gentleman the senior Mem-
  68
  ber for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) being taken into consultation in the matter?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask, also, whether the right hon. Gentleman will nominate a Gentleman representing the views of the Irish Party?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reference to the Question of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Causton), the report to which he refers is, as far as I am aware, without foundation. I will answer the Question of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in conjunction with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). It is not possible for us, from the nature of the case, to hold such communications, of the nature indicated in my declaration of Monday, with the several sections of the House combined. I should say to the hon. Member for Galway that if he, or anyone in concurrence with him, is pleased to favour me or the Government with an intimation of his views, they will have my best attention; but it is absolutely necessary, from the nature of the case, that any communication of that kind should be in a separate form. Having said that with respect to Gentlemen who do not usually act in concurrence with Her Majesty's Government, I may refer to those Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, who are generally pleased to honour us with their confidence in the matter of principles, and, certainly, not the least among those my right hon. and valued Friend the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright). With regard to the whole of these Gentlemen, we are in possession at all times of perfectly unrestrained and easy means of taking the measures which may appear to us desirable and available to ascertain what are their views. Of course, we do that on our own responsibility. It can hardly be supposed that the Government would have proceeded to this time of day without ever holding any communication with Gentlemen like my right hon. Friend the senior Member for Birmingham. With regard to what I may term our political Friends, it is obvious, I think, that the communications which we may hold are not of the kind to be attended with any special formalities; but are, in fact, of the nature of that every-day intercourse which, in a country like this, and in an Assembly like

  69
  this, must go on between the Government and those who may be disposed to support it. That is the state of the case, and the answer which I would give to my hon. Friend. Every such communication brings with it a very heavy responsibility to the Government. We are sensible of the nature and extent of that responsibility, and of the gravity of the interests of which we take charge. We have to bear that carefully in mind in every step we take.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)—LORD NORTHBROOK'S REPORT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am under an engagement to give some day this week an intimation to the House with respect to the financial condition of Egypt, and to the Report and recommendations of the Earl of Northbrook, and I may as well do it now. The House must be aware that we have had to meet for the last week or 10 days rather unusual demands of domestic affairs. But we have not failed to give our best attention to the statements and recommendations of our Colleague the Earl of Northbrook. We are now engaged in framing a proposal which we intend to bring under the consideration of the Powers. That is a matter of necessity in almost any such proposals. When this communication has been brought to an issue the results will be made public, as they have been before; and I may add that the engagements we have given to Parliament with respect to reserving its jurisdiction and control in respect to finance still hold good in all their force. In these circumstances, Sir, of course, there can be no publication at present of any Papers in connection with the Mission of the Earl of Northbrook.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: With reference to the important statement which the Prime Minister has just made with regard to the Earl of North-brook's proposals, I wish to understand what position we are in with regard to communication with the Powers? There was in the summer a communication made to the Powers, and a Conference invited. But before that Conference could be held some separate negotiations had to take place with Prance in respect to several important points. These fell through, in consequence of
  70
  the Conference not succeeding. But, now that this question is raised again, will the communications that were so made between this Government and the Government of France in the summer be held to be in force; or will there be any necessity for a special correspondence with France on the subject?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. The House remembers in what manner and degree what I think we agreed to call the "Anglo-French Agreement" was associated with the proceedings of the Conference in the summer. There will be no such association in the case of the present contemplated correspondence.
  MR. BOURKE: The House will recollect that at the end of last Session the right hon. Gentleman said that this country had regained its liberty of action, owing to the disagreement of the Powers. Now, I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government are going to abandon their liberty of action again?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly, Sir; the right hon. Gentleman is endowed with greater gifts than we are if he can perceive a method of action in regard to Egyptian finance which shall be totally independent of the consent of the Powers, as Egypt is a country whose finances are mainly governed by International engagements. But I may say that we are in full possession of our liberty of action; and we shall be very cautious, indeed, with regard to any restraint which we may think expedient for the public interest to place upon it.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether it was not the fact that the communication with the Powers of the result of the Anglo-French Agreement was made simultaneously with their announcement to this House; and I want to know why the present proposals cannot be announced in this House simultaneously with their communication to the Powers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The communication made to this House with regard to the Anglo-French Agreement was made on very special grounds, and apart from its separate nature. But to communicate to the House what we are going to lay before the Powers would be doing in International affairs precisely that which everybody feels would be impossible in private business, and would be contrary to all precedent in such matters, and, as

  71
  we think, to all hope of arriving at a practical issue.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects to be in a position to make any statement, and whether that will be before we adjourn?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, the time and period are too early for me to venture upon a statement of that kind. I am not at all in a position to say at this moment how long these Autumn Sittings are likely to endure; consequently, I have not the elements before me necessary to enable me to give an answer to the Question.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: The Prime Minister accentuated the word "financial" arrangements between the Powers, which, he said, would be communicated to the House. Are we to understand that no other arrangements will be communicated to the House?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, dear, no, Sir. I used the word "financial" merely because that is the centre of the whole question, and not in the least degree to draw a distinction between that and any other part of the question which may be termed otherwise than financial.

NAVY—STATE OF THE NAVY.
  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  MR. GLADSTONE: In connection with the Business of the House, I am obliged to state, on the part of the Government, that it would be extremely difficult for them to fulfil, as to time, the engagement under which I am aware we lie to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith), and the House, to make a statement on naval affairs on Monday next. It has really not been possible for us, with what we have had on hand, to give the requisite attention to the subject. We might be ready on a later day in the same week; but I am advised that, on the whole, it will be more agreeable to the convenience of Members if the question did not come on next Monday, but were put off for a week rather than two or three days. I, therefore, hope the House will allow us under the circumstances in which we stand—it has not really been owing to any indifference or neglect of ours—to postpone that statement for a week.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I cannot, of course, object to the postponement which the right hon. Gentleman proposes with regard to the discussion of the naval affairs of the country. But I think it would be convenient if some indicatio could be made as to whether any additional Vote will be required before the Ways and Means Bill passes through this House, or a further stage is taken. It would also be convenient if the House could be informed what the course of Business will be during the present week.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): In answer to the first Question of the right hon. Gentleman, we shall not propose during the present Sittings—that is, before Christmas—to take any further Votes in Supply; while, with regard to the second Question, we shall propose to take the second reading of the Income Tax Bill, and also the second reading of the Appropriation Bill, assuming that leave is given to-day to introduce that Bill, after the Report of the Committee of Supply. We propose on Saturday to take the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill, and we propose to ask the House to meet on that day for that purpose only, and on Monday we propose to take the third reading.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: What will be taken on Tuesday with special reference to the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Woodall)?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am reluctant to give a positive answer to that Question at the present time, because circumstances may arise in the course of a day or two which may have an important bearing on the Business of the House. I would, therefore, rather postpone my answer; but I will say that we do not entirely abandon the idea that the House might be disposed to adjourn for a time on Monday, if the state of Business will allow.

  EGYPT—THE EXPEDITION UP THE NILE—THE RETURN.
  SIR EDMUND LACON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he can give any information to the House, with reference to the statement which has appeared in the London papers to-

  73
  day, that the military authorities have under consideration the eventuality of deferring the return of the Nile Expedition until the next rising of the river?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I can give no explanation whatever of this statement. I have heard nothing about it; and I do not know to what it refers.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS-DELIVERY TO MEMBERS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the Government will take steps to expedite the printing and delivery of Parliamentary Papers to Members?
  MR. COURTNEY: Delays in the circulation of Parliamentary Papers after they have been presented are, to a certain extent, inevitable, especially at certain times, such as the beginning of the Session, when all the Estimates and Appropriation Accounts are being printed at once, and by the same printer. But no doubt the right hon. Gentleman refers to delays which are, apparently, not inevitable, and are often undesirable and inconvenient. With regard to these, I may say that the Government are anxious to reduce such delays to a minimum. We have been for some time attacking the problem from several sides; firstly, by discouraging Motions in this House for unnecessary or unimportant Returns, and by trying to avoid the printing of Returns which, though proper to be given to the House, are not of sufficient general interest to justify printing; secondly, by trying to reduce the bulk of the matter contained in the numerous periodical Papers and Returns presented under Act or otherwise, and to prevent repetition of the same matter in two places; thirdly, by trying to arrange for a sort of order in the distribution, whereby the less urgent work may be postponed to the more urgent. As regards the South African Papers which recently led to some severe remarks upon the printers, I have received a remonstrance from those gentlemen, and special inquiry is being made. I may add, with reference to a paragraph sent to The Pall Mall Gazette, that there has been no change which could lead to any delay since the present Controller has been appointed.

  ARMY-SERVICE IN BECHUANALAND.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Notice inviting candidates for service in Bechuanaland to call at 8, New Coventry Street, Leicester Square, was authentic; for what period, and on what terms, young gentlemen were being enlisted for this service; and, whether any expectation of land grants was held out to them?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The state of the case is this:—Sir Charles Warren has been commissioned by Her Majesty's Government to raise an irregular force in South Africa for service in Bechuanaland, should circumstances compel a resort to force. Finding that many young men in England wish to join this force, he, I understand, appointed an agent in this country to give information to intending recruits, and to facilitate their going to the Cape, where, if approved and they still desired to enlist, they would be enrolled in the force. The period for which men of this force are to be engaged is left open for the present till Sir Charles Warren tests the feeling of the class from which he hopes to recruit; but it will not exceed six months. The pay for a private is 2s. a-day, with 1s. a-day deferred pay and free rations. No expectation of land grants has, so far as I am aware, been held out to them.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: Has any pecuniary assistance been promised to these young men?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: An arrangement has been made by which a passage will be furnished to them, and which will be restored if they do not enlist.

  EGYPT (FINANCE, &c.)
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,in view of the statement which had been made on this subject by the Prime Minister, asked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Great Powers of Europe had withdrawn their solemn protest against the act of repudiation by the Khedive's Government?
  LORD EDMOND EITZMAURICEsuggested that if the hon. Member wished to ask a Question in regard to Egyptian affairs he should take the usual course of giving Notice.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTgave Notice accordingly.

  PARLIAMENT—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, it would be convenient to the House if the Prime Minister would state that no other Business would be taken on Monday except the formal Business which he had intimated.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that in speaking of no other Business he supposed that the hon. and gallant Member spoke of no other Business on the Books of the House. Now, he did not wish to override the privileges of private Members; but certainly it was not the desire of the Government to encourage the proceeding unnecessarily with other Business. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman would see that they had before them the introduction of a Bill of the greatest importance; and it might not be well to say that, under no circumstances, should they take such a step on Monday should they happily be in a position to do so.
  MR. J. LOWTHERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman would undertake to move the adjournment of the House after the Government Business had been disposed of?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he should wish to consult the general feeling of the House.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—CASTLEBAR GAOL.
  MR. BIGGAR (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he, with reference to the statement made by Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland last Session, in reply to a Question by the honourable Member for Galway City, as to the reasons for the removal of Captain Dunne, late Governor of the Castlebar Gaol, to the Nenagh Gaol,
  "That the immediate cause of Captain Dunne's removal from Castlebar was the opening by him of a long disused well, without the knowledge of the medical officer, which led to an outbreak of fever,"
  the letter of the Prisons Board, dated 19th May 1883, to Captain Dunne, in which they state, after having received a Report on the subject, that,
  "The Board are glad, in the present instance, to be able to assure themselves, from the combined testimony of Dr. Burke and the prison
  76
  surgeon, that, with the first three cases of the disease that occurred, the water in question could have had no connection, as the use of it had not then been resorted to,"
  can state which of these statements is in accordance with the exact facts; whether Captain Dunne had made frequent representations as to the imminence of a scarcity of water, and the probable necessity of his having to have recourse to the water of the well in question; whether Captain Dunne had requested of the Board to have the water of the well in use, and that of the disused well, analysed, so that he might be guided in such an emergency; whether his request was attended to; and whether, if so, he was informed of the result; whether, during his tenure of office, the health of the prison was generally satisfactory; whether he had been obliged, on his own responsibility, to close five old cesspools in the immediate proximity of the prison, and whether he had made frequent representations as to the existence of a manure heap of long standing placed immediately against the wall of the male prison; whether Captain Dunne had more than once reported to the Board the conduct of the police; and, whether any reports with regard to Captain Dunne were made to which he has not been afforded an opportunity of replying?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The letter of the Prisons Board of the 19th May, 1883, contains the paragraph referred to in the Question; but it also refers to cases of fever which occurred subsequently to the opening of the well, and while assuming that such cases might had occurred if the well had not been opened, censures Captain Dunne for having directed the opening of this well without the knowledge or authority of the medical officer; also pointing out that the use of the water, as appeared from analysis, was sufficient to cause fever. The occasional scarcity of water had on several occasions been the subject of correspondence; but Captain Dunne did not apprise the Board of any intention to resort to the water of the well in question. It was some weeks after the outbreak of fever that Captain Dunne forwarded two samples for analysis. The water was analyzed with the result already mentioned. The health of the prison was satisfactory, with the exception of the fever cases.

  77
  Captain Dunne reported to the Board in 1882 the closing of two cesspools. No trace can be found of representations as to a heap of manure. It cannot he ascertained that Captain Dunne made complaints to the Board of the conduct of the police. Alter the outbreak of fever an inquiry was held at Castlebar by a Military Inspector of the Board; and the Board, on consideration of the Report, decided and informed Captain Dunne that in the interests of the Publio Service it was desirable he should be removed to Nenagh Prison. The Board state that no Reports were addressed to them; but in the exercise of their discretion the Board considered that it would be for the interest of the Public Service to remove Captain Dunne from Castlebar to Nenagh.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  SUPPLY.—REPORT.
  Resolutions [13th November] reported.
  AFRICA (SOUTH)—BECHUANALAND.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he wished, before the Report was agreed to, to put a Question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies in regard to the instructions to Sir Charles Warren, which had been recently delivered to the House. He was sorry to appear persistent in that matter; but the truth was that in all those Colonial questions they heard two voices from the Government—namely, the voice of the President of the Board of Trade in that House, who spoke with great firmness, energy, and decision, and the voice of the Earl of Derby, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, which was characterized by considerable hesitation and a very different spirit. When that subject was under the discussion of the House, and when they were much re-assured by the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, there was in the minds of hon. Members considerable anxiety on two points. The first was as to what was to be the nature of the intervention of the Cape Government. The Papers which had been delivered to them showed most distinctly a difference of opinion between the High Commissioner and the Cape Government in regard to that intervention. The Cape Government apparently only desired to
    78
    make their way into Goshen Land for the purpose of coming to some arrangement with the freebooters. The other point was that the military operation, which Her Majesty's Government undertook not a day too soon for the vindication of the national honour, might be delayed, and delayed indefinitely, by reason of that intervention of the Cape Government. Now, on both of the points which were the justification for any intervention the replies in that House of the President of the Board of Trade were so satisfactory and so clear that he (Mr. Gorst) immediately removed from the Paper the Amendment of which he had given Notice. The President of the Board of Trade said that Her Majesty's Government had only given their approval to the proposals made by the Cape Government on the distinct understanding that the arrangement made by the Cape Government should be such as would practically restore Montsioa to the position which he occupied when the British Protectorate was announced. The right hon. Gentleman further said he did not think much of Cape intervention, and he shared the fears of the right hon. Baronet that not much would come of that peaceful intervention. He added that the Government had accepted the proposal of the Cape Government, subject to the condition that the military operations should not be delayed by the action of the Cape Government. These statements were made on the 4th of November; but on the 10th of November the official instructions to Sir Charles Warren were issued, and in those instructions there was a paragraph which spoke in a very different voice. That paragraph ran as follows:—
    "You will, of course, clearly understand that Her Majesty's Government have agreed that the Cape Ministers shall, in the first instance, endeavour to effect a peaceful settlement of the difficulties about Montsioa's territory."
    This was scarcely an agreement on the part of the Government; it was a proposal made by the Cape Government to which Her Majesty's Government had reluctantly assented. It was added that—
    "Active military operations shall not he commenced until a reasonable time has elapsed."
    He (Mr. Gorst) would like to ask what was the interpretation placed by the Government upon these phrases; because it seemed to him that this was tanta-

    79
    mount to saying that the intervention of the Cape Government was to delay the military operations. The House would be very glad to have an assurance from the President of the Board of Trade that no jot of the statement which he had made the other night had been abated because of the instructions which had been given to Sir Charles Warren. He was quite certain that nothing but the firmest declaration on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that these freebooters must be removed, at whatever cost, would prevent that bloodshed which they were all desirous to avoid. In the absence of such a declaration, if he were a freebooter he would be inclined to hold on; and he, therefore, appealed to the Government to make their determination clear.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot have the slightest difficulty in giving the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance he requires. Undoubtedly, the declarations I made the other night on behalf of the Government will not be abated one jot, either by myself or by my Colleagues; and I do not see anything in the slightest degree inconsistent in those declarations and in the instructions to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has called attention. Those instructions contained a statement that active military operations will not be commenced till a reasonable time has elapsed. That is little more than a statement of fact, for it is almost impossible that Sir Charles Warren should get to Kimberley till nearly the end of next month; and the time that must of necessity be occupied by him in journeying and preparation may be very well, and I hope usefully, occupied by the Ministry at the Cape in the negotiations to which we had agreed at their instance. These are to be conducted under the strictest limitations; and under no circumstances will the Cape Ministers have our authority to make arrangements that will not practically restore Montsioa to the territory from which he has been so unjustly ousted. If the hon. and learned Gentleman were a freebooter, and were to act as he says he should act, he would, I think, be a very imprudent freebooter indeed. Nothing is more clear than our declarations that the freebooters must go from the land they have unjustly taken. We hope that object may be accomplished without force; but, if
    80
    necessary, force has been provided, and force will be used.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he could not understand the statement as to the time at which Sir Charles Warren would arrive at Kimberley. He did not know why he should not be there within a week of his arrival at the Cape. The answer of the President of the Board of Trade was very satisfactory. He hoped the Government would show firmness in this matter, and would make the freebooters understand that Her Majesty's Government were determined that justice should be done to this unfortunate Chief.
    SIR DONALD CURRIEsaid, that, allowing Sir Charles Warren two or three days for consultation, and reckoning the time it would take him to go up the country, it would be the end of the month before he could reach his destination.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that Sir Charles Warren's original calculation, when he proposed to leave on the 7th of November, was that he would arrive at Cape Town on the 27th of November, and at Kimberley on the 15th of December, and leave that place on the 20th of December. He did not, however, leave England till the 13th of November, or about a week later than he at first intended.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he did not object to the handing over of this territory to the Cape Colony, though he greatly doubted whether it would be an advantage to the Native Chiefs; but what he was greatly opposed to was the undertaking of responsibility by Her Majesty's Government for that territory in the heart of South Africa, which could not be got at except through the Cape Colony. He hoped the Cape Ministers would be able to adjust matters. Otherwise, we might be involved in a great expenditure for the benefit of others.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was glad the question had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), and he thought that the reply that had been given by the President of the Board of Trade was quite satisfactory. Sir Charles Warren went out mainly in consequence of what had happened in Goshen; but there were other parts of Bechuanaland that were in great disorder, and in which serious outrages were being committed. There

    81
    was a possibility that the whole of the district, under proper security for the protection' of the Native Chiefs, might be added to and taken under the guidance of the Cape Colony. They had no reason to suppose that the Chiefs themselves objected to that course; but before that time had arrived the Imperial Government were bound to take care that order was preserved in the district, and that incursions were not made over the Border. All he wanted to say was, even if the Cape Government did succeed in their peaceful efforts with regard to Goshen and the attack upon Montsioa, yet the obligations upon the Home Government to secure order in Bechuanaland did not thereby cease. By the terms of the Convention of last year it was stated that Her Majesty's Government would, if necessary, appoint Commissioners to maintain order; and he had not the slightest doubt that if the Government were merely satisfied with the arrangement that the freebooters, through the persuasion of the Cape Government or the fear of Sir Charles Warren's action, should go over the Border—if they were contented, in short, to leave the territory to take care of itself, without any police force to keep order, they would have precisely the same things occurring again as they had now. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would see that Sir Charles Warren or someone else would proceed up to this district under any circumstances in order to secure order and freedom from attack.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he joined in the hope that Her Majesty's Government and Sir Charles Warren would have due regard to the fact that there had been quite as serious evils in Stellaland as in the territory of Montsioa; and, unfortunately, the position of the freebooters had become more secured. The instructions of Sir Charles Warren, coupled with the statements of the President of the Board of Trade, were, he thought, quite satisfactory; but he should have been glad if Sir Charles Warren's special attention had been called to the crimes committed in Goshen, and to the necessity of exacting the due punishment of the persons who had committed them. It might be that the criminals had taken refuge in the Transvaal; and if so Sir Hercules Robinson could enter into direct communication with the Transvaal Govern-
    82
    ment. He hoped Sir Charles Warren would be instructed to adopt means for the purpose of bringing the criminals to justice.
    MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, that, as he had already stated, there were great legal difficulties, and the Colonial Office were consulting the Law Officers as to the course they should pursue. It was rather difficult to enter into the matter piecemeal. There was no Extradition Treaty with the Transvaal; but there were means by which the Government would do their best to bring the criminals to justice. At present the better plan was to defer the matter for a short time, as the subject was still under the consideration of the Colonial Office in connection with the Law Officers of the Crown.
    Resolutions agreed to.
    House adjourned at Six o'clock.