1066 interests of the Exchequer, I should, of | he can recommend the discharge from course, desire that all unnecessary ex- prison of James William Thompson, pense should be avoided; but I do not sentenced at Ripon to three months' imthink that it is for me to say what papers prisonment for alleged burglary; and are or are not required for the conve- for whose release a memorial has been nience of Members. I have, however, signed by nearly 300 respectable peryour permission, Sir, to state that in sons, supported by many affidavits of your opinion the question whether Pro- persons in a position to form an opinion, visional Order Bills should not be treated and who believe Thompson to be enas regards circulation in the same man- tirely innocent? ner as Private Bills is one deserving of consideration. VACCINATION ACT-THE MAGIS- MR. H. LEE asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Lord Chancellor, after submitting to the Town Council of the Borough of Southampton the name of James Seward Pearce, the Sheriff of the town and county of Southampton, now declines to add his name to the Roll of Borough Magistrates; and whether the ground of objection is the opinion Mr. Pearce holds in relation to compulsory vaccination, and the fact of his having been fined for non-compliance with an order under the Act; and, whether the Government purpose to make this a disqualification in the case of all justices of the peace who hold similar views? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had communicated with the Lord Chancellor on this subject, and the Lord Chancellor stated that the grounds of his objection to Mr. Pearce did not relate to any opinion entertained by that gentleman, but to the fact that he had been twice convicted and fined by the borough magistrates for offences against the Vaccination Act. Of these facts the Lord Chancellor was unaware when he signified to the Town Council of Southampton that Mr. Pearce was a fit and proper person to be appointed a borough magistrate. The offences of which Mr. Pearce had been guilty were subsequently brought to the notice of the noble and learned Lord, who naturally came to the conclusion that a gentleman who had not himself recognized the duty of obeying the law was hardly a suitable person to add to the roll of borough magistrates. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had investigated this case very carefully, and the result of his deliberations was that an order for the discharge of the person referred to in the Question had been sent three days ago. INDIA-GRANT TO GENERAL SIR MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is contemplated to make a present of £12,000 to Sir Frederick Roberts for his services in Afghanistan; whether, if so, such moneys are to be furnished by the inhabitants of India, or those of the United Kingdom; and, whether this House will have an opportunity to express an opinion upon this present before any decision being finally taken by Her Majesty's Government in the matter? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock has a Question upon the Paper on the same subject as that to which this Question refers. Considering the exceptional character of the noble Lord's Question, perhaps he would be good enough to read it out at full length. LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL said, he would wait until his Question, which was the 48th on the Paper, should be reached. Perhaps the noble Marquess would read it himself. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON : Then do I understand the noble Lord declines to read it? LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), I have to say that I stated some time ago, in moving a Vote of Thanks to the Army MR. JACKSON asked the Secretary in Afghanistan, that Her Majesty had of State for the Home Department, If, been graciously pleased to confer a CRIMINAL LAW-CASE OF JAMES THOMPSON. Baronetcy upon General Stewart and General Roberts, and that, in accordance with precedents, the Council of India had voted a sum of £1,000 a-year to each of them, or, as an alternative, the sum of £12,500 in commutation of a pension. These sums will be charged on the revenues of India, and have been voted by the authority of the Council of India. The sanction of Parliament to this grant is not necessary, and the matter will not be brought before this House unless my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton or some other Member thinks it necessary to call attention specifically to the subject. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) puts a Question on the same subject, and as he declines to read it, I shall myself have to put the House to the trouble of listening to it. I am asked by the noble Lord Whether it is a fact that Sir Garnet Wolseley received for his eminent services in Ashantee a grant of £25,000; whether General Sir Frederick Roberts on his return from India was definitely informed by him that, in return for his equally eminent services in Afghanistan, he would receive a grant of £20,000; and whe ther Sir Frederick Roberts, on his return home from South Africa, was informed that the grant of £20,000 had been reduced by him to £12,000; and, if so, why the grant originally promised has not been made? In reply to these Questions I have to state that I believe that Sir Garnet Wolseley did receive £25,000. But that was a grant made by Parliament; while the sums which have been voted to Sir The general effect of it, however, was that he felt some natural hesitation about accepting an hereditary honour when the pension by which it was to be accompanied was limited to his own life and not continued to his son. In consequence of that conversation I wrote him a letter on March 1, from which I must read a short extract. I said "The precedents are so clearly in favour of limiting any grant from the revenues of Inia to one life that I should have considerable difficulty in inducing the Council to depart in a the usual course in this instance, but there have been cases in which, where the original recipient has enjoyed a grant for only a short time, has been renewed in favour of his successor. I cannot doubt in your case, if you should unfr tunately not obtain the benefit of a pension t be favourably considered by the Secretary of State a considerable period, the circumstances would and the Council at the time, but I cannot give you any formal assurance which would bind successors and the Council on this point. I to consider favourably any request you mizt think, however, the Council would be prepared make to commute the grant for a capital sum A short time after the receipt of that letter Sir Frederick Roberts left England for Natal, having first signified to me his grateful acceptance of the honour proposed to be conferred by Her Majesty, and his wish that the pension should be commuted for a capital sur ment of the matter, in consequence of Some delay took place in the final settleits being ascertained what had not been previously brought to my know ledge that owing to the provisions of an Act of Parliament it would not be Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick possible for either Sir Donald Stewart Roberts were voted by the Council of or Sir Frederick Roberts to draw a India on my recommendation, strict In-pension of £1,000 a-year while they dian precedents being followed. In reply to the second Question, I have to state that Sir Frederick Roberts returned home from India in November, that I never had any communication whatever with him on the subject of a pension or grant of any kind until February 26, 1881, and that in informing him of the honour which Her Majesty's Government proposed to confer upon him I used these words "I propose to submit to the Council of India that a grant of £1,000 a-year for life be made to you." A day or two afterwards I saw Sir Frederick Roberts, and I had some conversation with him, the exact terms of which I cannot, of course, vouch for. The Marquess of Hartington held the offices of Commander-in-Chief in India or Madras. They finally answered, accepting a pension of £1,000 it, or, as an alternative, the sum of a-year when they could legally receive £12,500, which was in both cases in excess of the actuarial value of a pension of £1,000 a-year. I think this statement will show that there is no foundation whatever for the statement that I ever assured Sir Frederick Roberts that he would receive a sum of £20,000, or any sum other than that which I have men tioned. And now, having made this statement, I think I am entitled to ask the noble Lord upon what grounds, other than those which are contained in the calumnious and lying gossip which ap pears in certain newspapers published in this Metropolis, he has founded the Question put to me containing imputations of soinjurious a character? I will also ask whether, before putting his Question on the Paper, he had taken the trouble of satisfying himself by those means which were open to him-[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What means?] by communication with Sir Frederick Roberts or otherwise, to ascertain whether there was the slightest foundation for the statements which he has brought under the notice of the House? LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I have put this Question on information which came to my knowledge. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] I did not consult Sir Frederick Roberts, because I regret to say that I have not yet had the honour of making the acquaintance of that illustrious General. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON May I ask the noble Lord whether he had any foundation whatever for putting the Question, except a paragraph in a newspaper called Vanity Fair? LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am not in the habit, nor shall I hope ever to be in the habit, of putting Questions to Ministers founded on statements which may appear in Vanity Fair. calculations; and I would ask you, Sir, whether, having referred to those calculations, he is not bound, by the Order of the House, to lay them on the Table? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON : What I believe I said was that the sum of £12,000 was larger than the actuarial value. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: There must be some Report, Sir, on which the noble Marquess acted, and I ask whether the noble Marquess is not bound to lay it on the Table? MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that the noble Marquess has quoted from any specific document. MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask the noble Marquess, whether he is aware that his private secretary said anything to General Roberts on the subject? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is absolutely impossible that anything of the sort can have taken place. The letter I read was copied by my private secretary, who was perfectly aware of the intentions of the Government, and he could have made no such statement as the Question of the hon. Gentleman implies. CHURCH OF ENGLAND-LOWER HOUSE OF CONVOCATION. MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Se SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask the noble Marquess whether, having referred to certain actuarial cal-cretary of State for the Home Departculations, he is prepared, in accordance ment, Whether he has observed that with the Rules of the House, to lay them the following gravamen was adopted on the Table? MR. R. N. FOWLER: I would also ask, whether it was not in accordance with the general rule, in giving a pension of £1,000 for distinguished services, to grant it for two lives? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON : No, Sir. The precedents have been carefully examined, and there is no instance of the original grant having been made for more than one life, although in several cases the grant had subsequently been continued to the successors. In answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), I have to state that I have no actuarial calculations to lay on the Table. The statement I made was founded on the information given me by the financial authorities at the India Office, and I have no doubt whatever as to its accuracy. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The noble Marquess said there were actuarial in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last, as an articulus cleri :— "That it is understood that a relaxation of the rules governing the admission of Representatives in the Lower House of Parliament is proposed, and that for certain reasons this House has the deepest interest in deprecating any such relaxation at the present time;" whether he has further observed that, during the discussion upon the said gravamen, Archdeacon Palmer asked if the Lower House of Convocation would not be acting impertinently to deal with anything connected with the action of the Houses of Parliament, and if it was not coming near a violation of privileges; whether the Lower House of Convocation did not only come near a violation of privileges, but was actually guilty of a violation of privileges in dealing with anything connected with the action of this House of Parliament; and, if so, whether he intends to take any steps to convey to the clerical dignitaries and | accommodation for smallpox patients; deacons forming the Lower House of and, if he will state what course he proConvocation the serious danger to that poses to take in the matter? House of such conduct; and, whether he will relieve the anxieties of Members of this House and of electors of the United Kingdom by explaining what are the effects (if any), spiritual or temporal, of the adoption of the gravamen already referred to as an articulus cleri by the Lower House of Convocation? MR. DODSON: Sir, I have received a representation from the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District as to the alleged necessity for legislation to define and enlarge the powers of the managers and the local authorities. Independently of and prior to this the subject had much engaged theat tention of the Board. We are now in communication with the managers for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the amendments of the law which appear to them to be required. When we have received the reply of the managers, we shall be in a better position to determine what steps it may be expedient to take; but at the present moment it would be premature to express an opinion on the subject. SOUTH AFRICA - THE TRANSVAAL- LORD EUSTACE CECIL asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the murderers of Captain Elliott have as yet been apprehended; military, in or out of Her Majesty's doand, if so, before what tribunal, civil or minions, they will be tried? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, my hon. Friend asks me whether I will relieve the anxiety of the Members of this House by explaining what is likely to be the effect, spiritual or temporal, of a gravamen adopted in the Lower House of Convocation on Thursday last as an articulus cleri. My hon. Friend has, I am afraid, been a little more alarmed than he need be by these ecclesiastical terms, due probably to the fact that he has not a very intimate acquaintance with Convocation or the individuals who compose it, for I observe in the last paragraph but one he requests me to convey to the clerical dignitaries and deacons "-[Mr. LABOUCHERE: That is a mistake. "Deacons "" should be "divines."]-I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that he need have no anxiety in the matter, and that the gravamen is not likely to prejudice him or any other Member of the House. I observe that the Lower House of Convocation express an opinion somewhat adverse to the admission of clergymen into the House of Commons, and as that opinion agrees with that which has been pronounced by the House itself, I do not think we can complain of Convocation confirming our decision. Under these circumstances, having relieved my hon. Friend's anxieties, I hope that he will not expect that I should proceed any I mentioned on Friday that the persons further in this matter. accused of murdering Captain Elliott would be tried by the High Court of the METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ASYLUMS Transvaal under the existing law. BOARD. MR. W. H. SMITH asked the President of the Local Government Board, If he has received a representation from the Metropolitan District Asylums Board as to the great necessity for immediate legislation to define, and, if requisite, enlarge the powers of the Board and the local authorities of the Metropolis to enable them to discharge the duties imposed upon them under the Act of 1867, in making provision of adequate hospital Mr. Labouchere MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, we telegraphed on Saturday, and have received the following reply from Sir Hercules Robinson: "Yours 21st. Persons accused of murdering Elliott have not been apprehended. Case is in hands of Attorney General, Transvaal, who wi act with all expedition possible. Boer leaders promise co-operation. President Brand has taken steps to bring to trial persons accused of murder of Barber, which was committed within Free State." LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Considering that this murder took place four months ago, under circumstances of peculiar treachery and cowardice, I should like to know whether any communication has passed between the Government and the leading Boers asking for an explanation why greater despatch has not been used in the arrest of these malefactors; and whether the Government are prepared to remove this trial from the Transvaal to the Cape or Natal in have not taken this step until after the fullest inquiry, and the most careful investigation on the spot, not only by our own Consuls, but by an experienced English veterinary surgeon. Having satisfied ourselves of the prevalence of disease in Spain, that country ceased to come within the conditions of the Act of 1878, under which alone foreign_animals can be exempted from slaughter. The absence of any regulations in Portugal which would prevent the transit of Spanish animals, made it necessary to take the same course with regard to Portugal. FRANCE - THE NEW COMMERCIAL TUTION OF COMMISSION. not procure needful sleep; and, whether, in view of the delicacy of Mr. Dillon's constitution and the precarious state of his health, the Government will give him for his sole occupation a room in a suitable portion of the prison? He also wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, owing to the fact that there is but one cell provided in Kilmainham Prison for interviews between persons detained there and visitors, and that only one visitor is admitted to the prison at one time, it is impossible for more than twenty-four of the prisoners to receive visits on any day within the specified hours; and, whether, as the number of persons now detained in Kilmainham is much larger than the number capable of receiving visits under the present system, and as visitors are put to the inconvenience of long delays, and persons detained are deprived of the exercise of the right to receive a daily visit, a right ostensibly secured to them by the rules, the Government will take steps by increasing the number of visiting cells or otherwise, to secure that each SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the person entitled to a daily visit shall be Commissioners appointed to negotiate actually in a position to receive it? the Commercial Treaty with France will informed that the reason why Mr. Dillon MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am probably consist of myself, Sir Charles Rivers Wilson, K.C.M.G., C.B., Secre- wished to be taken back to his cell is tary and Controller-General of the Na- not that stated by the hon. Member. tional Debt Office, Mr. C. M. Kennedy, mainham, and it is not the fact that one There are three visiting cells at KilC.B., Head of the Commercial Depart-visitor only is admitted at a time. Fifty ment of the Foreign Office, and Mr. Crowe, Her Majesty's Consul-General at Düsseldorf, and Commercial Attaché at Berlin and Vienna. Every opportunity MR. MONK asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he can state the names of the Commissioners appointed to negotiate the Commercial Treaty with France; and, whether it is intended to take the evidence of experts from various parts of the Country during the sittings of the Commission? will be afforded to manufacturers and PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that the honourable Member for Tipperary has returned from the infirmary in Kilmainham Prison to an ordinary cell, in consequence of the fact that the authorities of the prison put other persons to occupy and sleep in the room at first allotted to Mr. Dillon solely, and that under these circumstances he could or 60 visits may take place daily. MR. SEXTON: Will a room be set apart for Mr. Dillon's use? MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the hon. Gentleman will give me sufficient Notice I will inform him of the position of affairs in that respect. MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Would the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how many hours on an average the hon. Member for Tipperary is compelled to remain in his cell alone? MR. PARNELL: I wish to point out to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) has already given Notice of the Question of which the right hon. Gentleman now requires further Notice. MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can give no answer to that Question until I know what representations Mr. Dillon himself has made to the directors of the prison, and what their reply has been upon the |