their uniform, necessitated by the intended re-arrangement of brigades? LAW AND POLICE-ALLEGED SALE MR. T D. SULLIVAN asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that about two months ago, we were in consultation with the India Office as to the scale of pay and allow-called to a case tried before the Sheffield ances for the additional field officers proposed to be appointed as from the 1st of July. We have no official letter on the subject, but arrangements are being made. With respect to the second Question, I am not aware of any claim for such an allowance as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests which might not have been put forward by officers transferred from one to another linked regiment under the present organization, and I see, therefore, no reason to extend the rule. LIEUTENANT-COLONEL MILNE HOME asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would take into consideration the cases brought before him? County Court on May 25th, and reported in the "Daily News" of May 26th, in the course of which it transpired that a man, whose name is not given in the report, sold his wife to a married man named Moore for the consideration of a quart of beer; and, whether, having regard to the fact that such sales are not uncommon in England, the Right honourable Gentleman will take such steps as may be in his power to remove the impression which appears to exist in some parts of England that the sale of wives is a legitimate transaction? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I do not know whether the hon. Member expects a serious answer to this Ques MR. CHILDERS: I am most anxious tion. I find nothing in this affair, exto do so. CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT-EXTRA OFFICERS. SIR TREVOR LAWRENCE asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the extra officers of Her Majesty's Customs are not deprived of their pay on Her Majesty's birthday and other public holidays, which is not the case with temporary employés in other branches of the Civil Service; and, whether, if this is the case, he will not reconsider this treatment of a poorly paid class of public servants? LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHI: I understand the hon. Member to allude to the class called extra men employed by the Board of Customs. These men are employed in such numbers and on such days as is found necessary. They are paid strictly by the day, and only for the day on which they are actually employed. I see no reason for altering this system in the manner suggested, the effect of which would be to give them pay for days on which they are not employed. There is no analogy between their position and that of other temporary employés of Government. I may say, however, that, as a matter of fact, a certain number of extra men are employed on all holidays, and are paid accordingly. cept the casual utterance of a drunken ruffian in search of an excuse for his own immorality. There was nothing like a sale that deserves the name at all; and I confess when I see such suggestions as are down in the latter part of this Question, I have only to say that to treat a brutal incident of this character as representing a practice not uncommon in England, and to say that an impression is prevailing that incidents of this kind are legitimate transactions is, in my opinion, at once a waste of time and an insult to the common sense of the House. Everyone knows that no such practice exists. ["Oh!"] Well, Sir, if hon. Gentlemen from Ireland know the case to be different with reference to that country, I have nothing to say; and, for my part, I entirely repudiate the slur that would be cast on the people of this country by seriously dwelling on the gross language of a degraded wretch as if it were representing a national practice and belief as to the law deserving the attention of Parliament. MR. CALLAN asked, Whether, in making allusion to Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman meant anything serious? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I did not mean anything serious at all. I did not think it could be a serious subject. I make no more imputation upon Ireland than upon England and Scotland. I believe the practice to be equally unknown in every part of the United Kingdom. instruction of militiamen during preliminary drill and training; whether the instruction therein given has not proved of great advantage to men availTHE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY-ing themselves of it; and, whether, if COLONEL HILLIER, THE INSPECTOR that is the case, he would reconsider the Clause in Army Circulars of February 1881, by which these schools have been abolished? GENERAL. MR. GILL (for Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN) asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the If the Colonel Hillier, who is the nomi- hon. Baronet, I have to state that so far nal author of the Circular recently issued from schools for Militiamen during their to the Irish police, is the same Colonel training proving of great advantage, I Hillier who a few years ago was tried am satisfied that they are entirely useat Dublin before the late Chief Justice less now that the Education Act is in Whiteside for a gross assault on a Bel-full operation. It is difficult to estimate fast solicitor, and was sentenced to pay a penalty of £100 for the offence; and, whether, if he be the same person, the Irish Executive consider it proper to retain that officer in command of the Irish constabulary at so critical a juncture in Irish affairs as the present? MR. TOTTENHAM, before the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered this Question, wished to ask, Whether in the case referred to the conduct of Colonel Hillier had not been approved by the Government, and the fine paid by the Crown? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): I presume the hon. Member alludes to the action brought by the late Mr. John Rea nearly 10 years ago against Colonel Hillier for illegal arrest. Mr. Rea was addressing a large and excited mob in inflammatory language, and, after being repeatedly cautioned by Colonel Hillier and requested to desist, continued his harangue, defying the officer to order his arrest. Colonel Hillier at last, fearing that a riot would be the result, thought it his duty to direct Mr. Rea's arrest, and for this the action was brought. I do not think the circumstances of that case afford any ground for supposing that Colonel Hillier-who is an excellent public officer-is in any way unfitted to continue Inspector-General of the Royal Irish Constabulary. Colonel Hillier's conduct was approved; and, I believe, his expenses were paid by the Govern mment. ARMY-SCHOOLS FOR MILITIAMEN ARMY CIRCULARS, FEBRUARY, 1881. SIR JOSEPH BAILEY asked the Secretary of State for War, What has been the annual cost of the schools for the Sir William Harcourt exactly their expense, perhaps a few hundred pounds; but they were not discontinued for financial reasons. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO. PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. HODNETT. MR. O'SULLIVAN asked Mr. Attor ney General for Ireland, If it is true that the Governor of the County Limerick Prison refused to allow Mr. Hodnett (a prisoner confined therein) to see some friends on Thursday last; and if the said Governor refused to inform those friends of Mr. Hodnett why it was that he did not in this instance comply with the rules of the prison? MR. HEALY also asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that on Ascension Thursday (a Catholic holiday) Mr. Hodnett, a political prisoner in Limerick Gaol, was deprived of the privilege of associating with other prisoners as a punishment for hurrying from his cell into chapel, a distance of twenty yards? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): I am informed by the General Prisons Board that Mr. Joyce, their district Inspector, has been directed to inquire into this matter, and the Prisons Board expect to have his Report on the entire case this morning. If the hon. Members will repeat their Questions in a day or two, I hope to be in a position to answer them. CENSUS (IRELAND)-MISAPPLICATION OF ENUMERATION PAPERS. MR. HEALY asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the misapplication of the Census papers, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of 26th May; whether the facts are as stated, viz. that | which, in my opinion, requires the dison Wednesday a farmer named J. Moore missal of the constable. I have no inwas summoned at Termonfeckin for formation as to the man's unpopularity. writing an alleged threatening letter; MR HEALY: Although the prosecuwhether Constable Marmion stated on tion is withdrawn, is the man safe from oath, that to procure evidence as to the the Coercion Act? handwriting of this letter, he examined 126 of the Census papers which he had collected in the townland; that, suspecting the handwriting of one of the forms to be the same as that of the alleged threatening letter, he went to J. Moore and said to him "You have not properly filled your Census paper," and, on Moore protesting that he had, used an artifice to induce him to fill up another; whether, on this second Census form being filled in the constable's presence, Moore was taken into custody; whether these forms are not regarded as secret documents to be applied to no use but that which Parliament has sanctioned; whether every Census paper does not contain the following pledge as to the confidential nature of its contents, &c. : "Strict care will be taken that the returns are not used for the gratification of curiosity or for any other object than that of rendering the Census as complete as possible;" whether Constable Marmion admitted that it was against his positive instructions to put a Census form to an illegitimate use; whether, nevertheless, Moore was returned for trial on the single piece of evidence against him; whether the Government approve of the constable's ruse to obtain the filling up of the second Census paper; whether they approve of the breach of faith with Parliament and the public in its misapplication as criminal evidence; and, if not, whether they will at once give orders for Constable Marmion's dismissal and for the withdrawal of the charge against Moore? MR. CALLAN asked, whether the constable referred to was not unpopular, and ought not for this conduct to be dismissed the force? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): My attention has been called to the report of this case in The Freeman's Journal, and I believe the facts are substantially as stated. A serious mistake has, no doubt, been committed in making use of the Census paper; and I have therefore directed the withdrawal of the prosecution. The mistake, however is not one WESTERN ISLANDS OF THE PACIFIC— THE SOLOMON ISLANDS-MURDERS AND OUTRAGES BY THE NATIVESOPERATIONS OF H.M.S." EMERALD.” MR. ALEXANDER M'ARTHUR asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of the Captain of H.M.S. "Emerald," relative to the operations the Solomon Islands in retaliation for which that officer lately undertook at the murder of Lieutenant Biron and other outrages; and, whether he will also publish any further Correspondence on the same subject which the Lords of the Admiralty may have received? MR. TREVELYAN: I shall be very glad to lay on the Table the Report of Captain Maxwell, as well as a Copy of the Instructions from Commodore Wilson under which he sailed. Those are the only Papers on the subject which would give any valuable information to the House of Commons. IRELAND-ANTRIM LICENSING SESSIONS. MR. BIGGAR asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is the fact that two Annual Licensing Sessions are held in each year for the county Antrim portion of the borough of Belfastnamely, the Recorder's Annual Licensing Sessions in September, and the County Court Judges' Annual Licensing Sessions in November; is he aware that such last-mentioned Sessions, at which county justices attend, is availed of by applicants who have been refused their certificates by the Recorder, very much as a court of appeal, although fresh notices are served, and that, in most cases, such second application is directed and encouraged by the said Recorder; is it desirable that the Recorder's adverse decisions should be reviewed and reversed by a bench of justices having almost no interest in the Borough; and, is it according to Law that there should be more than one Annual Licensing Sessions for a district in the year; or that the Board of Inland Revenue should accept certificates from two clerks of the peace for licences for the county Antrim portion of the borough of Belfast? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): It is a fact, as stated, that two Licensing Sessions are held in the borough of Belfast-one being held by the Recorder as the sole Judge of the Borough Sessions, and the other by the County Justices in that portion of the county which lies within the borough of Belfast. I am not aware of any appeal; but it is no doubt the fact that persons refused licences by the Recorder have applied again to the County Justices sitting in the town of Belfast. INDIA-GRANT TO GENERAL SIR SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any actuarial calculation was made of the value of the annuity of £1,000 given to Sir Donald Stewart at the same time as the calculation was made with respect to Sir Frederick Roberts; and, if not, why this formality was omitted; whether it is not the case that, if Sir Donald Stewart had been treated on the same footing as Sir Frederick Roberts, the sum granted for the surrender of his annuity would have been about £9,868, instead of £12,500, or that, if Sir Frederick Roberts had been treated on the same footing as Sir Donald Stewart, the sum granted to him would have been about £15,827, instead of £12,500; and, if he can state the reasons for which an advantage was given to Sir Donald Stewart over Sir Frederick Roberts in the sum granted to him, as in both cases the recipients had been equally adjudged, as a reward for their services, an annuity of £1,000 a-year for one life, a grant the value of which depends on the age of the annuitant? The actuarial calculation, he added, was based on 58 as the age of Sir Donald Stewart and 49 as the age of Sir Frederick Roberts. THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The exact sum which Sir Donald Stewart would receive on his pension of £1,000 a-year, if commuted at the present time, would be £9,478 if calculated at 5 per cent, or £10,286 if calculated at 4 per cent. But, as I have already stated, the grants made by the Indian Council to Sir Donald Stewart and Sir Frederick Roberts were not precisely Mr. Biggar the actuarial value of the cumulation of the £1,000 a-year at the present time. When it was found that difficulties existed in the way of carrying out the original intention of the Indian Council of making a grant to each of these officers, it was considered desirable to substitute for that proposal a grant of a lump sum. SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Has the noble Lord any objection to giving a Return of all special military grants made by the Indian Government to Indian officers for the last 40 years? THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: If the hon. Member will give Notice of that Question I shall answer it. STATE OF IRELAND-DISTURBANCES AT QUINLAN'S CASTLE, NEW PALLAS, CO. LIMERICK. MR. TOTTENHAM asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, on Saturday 21st May, the sheriff of the county of Limerick took a force of two hundred soldiers and one hundred police to protect him in the execution of certain ejectments and legal decrees in the neighbourhood of New Pallas, county of Limerick; whether he neglected to provide a sufficient (or any) staff of civil assistants, and had, in consequence, to return without executing the ejectments; and, whether it is the duty of the sheriff to provide himself with such assistance; and, in the event of his neglecting to do so, whether he can be held liable for the cost incurred by the State in the collecting and sending out of so large a force, which failed in its object owing to such neglect of duty? THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): The facts appear to be correctly stated in the Question of the hon. Member. The attention of the Government has already been called to the matter; and on the 26th instant a communication was addressed to the subsheriff asking for an explanation; but as yet no answer has been received. TUNIS-THE ENFIDA CASE. MR. MURRAY asked the Under Se cretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has any reason to suppose that the French Government has now retreated from its position in regard to the Enfida affair, viz. : "That it was impossible under the circum- | Constitutionalists as well as that of the stances that the French Government could Potentate in regard to recent occurrences; consent to leave the Entida affair to the decision of the Tunisian local tribunals" [Tunis, and, whether Her Majesty's Government No. 4, 1881, No. 40]; has any objection to express its sym and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Go-pathy with the Constitutionalists of vernment consider that they are fulfill- Bulgaria, and its earnest hope that the ing their duty to Mr. Levy in declin- country will not condone the violation of his Constitutional oath by the Prince? ing "To interfere in the difference which has arisen between the contending purchasers of the Entida estate;" and, also how circumstances have thus altered to Mr. Levy's detriment since last February, when Her Majesty's Government checked the special action of the French Government in the Enfida affair by the movement of H.M.S. "Thunderer," which were admittedly made to depend upon those of a French ironclad sent to "weigh in favour of the French Company?" SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As regards the first part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government are unable to say whether the French Government have retreated from the position referred to, since no reply has been returned to the communication addressed to them by Lord Lyons on the 4th instant, under instructions from the Foreign Office. As regards the second part of the Question, the Papers before the House show that while the Enfida Question was under discussion the French iron-clad Friedland was sent to Tunis, as Her Majesty's Government had reason to believe, in connection with this affair; whereupon they thought it desirable to despatch the Thunderer to the coast of Tunis. In the course of subsequent explanations between the two Governments, it was stated that the mission of the Friedland had no connection with the Enfida Question, and both vessels were withdrawn. BULGARIA - SUPPRESSION OF THE CONSTITUTION BY PRINCE ALEXANDER. MR. LABOUCHERE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will instruct Mr. Lascelles, Her Majesty's Representative in Bulgaria, to obtain from M. Zancoff and the friends of the late Bulgarian Constitution their case in regard to the arbitrary suppression of that Constitution by Prince Alexander, in order that this House may have the case of the SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have received despatches from Mr. Lascelles containing the views expressed at Sofia with regard to the action recently taken by the Prince of Bulgaria; but they are unable to lay any of the Correspondence upon the Table without consultation with Mr. Lascelles. Her Majesty's Government are not prepared at present to express any opinion as to the course pursued by the Prince of Bulgaria. ARMY ORGANIZATION - THE FIVE YEARS' COMMAND-LIEUTENANT COLONELS. CAPTAIN AYLMER asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the fixed period of five years allowed to lieutenant colonels will under the new rules refer to all lieutenant colonels from date of promotion to that rank; or, whether the five years' tenure of office will be counted only from date of attaining to command of a battalion ? MR. CHILDERS: The point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been fully provided for, and the new Warrant will specify what term "in command of a battalion," and what term "in the two offices of lieutenant colonel commanding and lieutenant colonel second in command," will qualify. SOUTH AFRICA-THE TRANSVAAL PROTECTION OF THE NATIVE INHABITANTS. MR. GORST asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to protect the native inhabitants of the Transvaal against wanton aggression on the part of the Boers during the sitting of the Commission? MR. R. N. FOWLER asked the right hon. Gentleman, Whether his attention. had been called to a telegram from Durban in The Standard of that day, stating that the entire Transvaal was to be given up to the Boers on their own terms; and, whether he could give any information on the subject? |