re all in has since her he can rrest?

NERAL FOR JOHNSON): Sir, in the Question hat a number of instant applied at ise for relief, stating ed from their farms on state; and their spokesnamed Fury, who had sted under the Protection i been committed for trial into a dwelling-house. He at his father was 80 years old great distress. The relieving visited these persons, and found of them not destitute, and those om he considered destitute refused lief in the poor-house. I am informed that these tenants owed from three to four years' rent, and that an offer was made to stop the ejectments on payment of one year's rent and costs. Fury had two holdings; on one, I am informed, four years', and on the other five and ahalf years' rent was due. On the 17th of this month James Fury was arrested under the Protection Act on suspicion of posting threatening notices.

rate in suggesting that there is any prohibition to be withdrawn; there is no prohibition; these are the ordinary rules for the government of the prison, and these must be observed. The hon. Member will see that, on grounds which have been stated formerly to the House, I cannot give the reason which influenced the Government in removing Mr. Quinn to Enniskillen.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT -MR. P. ARNOLD.

MR. EDWARD SHEIL asked the

Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the case of Mr. Patrick Arnold, of Gormanston, in the county of Meath, who has been confined in Armagh since January 2nd last; whether Mr. F. Tullam, his neighbour, who was arrested in December 1881, has not been released; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will direct that Mr. Arnold be released from prison?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR

IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, Mr. Tullam has been released, and Mr. Arnold's case is at present under His Excellency's consideration.

PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-ENNISKILLEN GAOL-MR. J. P. QUINN. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. J. P. Quinn, suspect, confined in Enniskillen Gaol, who has been allowed the use of a well-lighted room in the hospital, in order that he may carry on certain work in which he is engaged, has been refused permission to receive his visitors in his room, although such permission is given under similar circumstances in Kilmainham; whether he will order the prohibition to be withdrawn; or, if not, whether he will state the reason for his refusal; and, whether he will state the reason for Mr. Quinn's removal from Kilmainham to Enniskillen Prison?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, Mr. Quinn was allowed to use a room for writing in; but there is no reason why an exception should be made in his case as to visits. The inquiry is inaccu

VOL, CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

1881-ARMS LICENCES.

MR. EDWARD SHEIL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. William Gogarty, of Clondalkin, has been refused a licence to carry arms; whether the licence was refused on the ground that he had been a member of the Land League; whether Mr. Gogarty did produce a certificate signed by two justices of the peace, as required by the Arms Act; and, whether under the circumstances Captain Keogh, R.M. was justified in refusing a licence?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the facts are not quite accurately stated in the Question of the hon. Member. Mr. Gogarty brought an informal certificate to the licensing officer, who requested him to bring a proper one, which he never did. Under these circumstances, the Resident Magistrate, who was the licensing officer, was justified in not granting him an arms licence.

3 E

n;

VESSELS.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the Chief Secretary for Ireland has seen the letter referred to in this Question. The statement in that letter about Mr. Devine's illness in Armagh Prison is quite incorrect. He never suffered from inflammation of the lungs while in detention under the Protection Act. The remaining portions of this Question were, I am informed, fully answered on the 20th of March in reply to the hon. Member, and I have only to add that there is ample hospital accommodation in Armagh Prison.

MR. REDMOND said, that portion of his Question which had not been answered before he would like to have answered now, with reference to Mr. Devine being confined for this time in a cell of these dimensions.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he would inquire.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO. PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-AR

RESTS IN CO. TIPPERARY. MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that about six months ago five men were arrested under the Coercion Act in the neighbourhood of Cashel, county Tipperary, all charged with the same offence; whether four of these men have been released, the only one remaining in custody being Mr. Michael Ryan Wall, at present in Naas Gaol; and, whether he will now order his release ?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Four of these men have been released. Mr. Ryan, his sobriquet being, I believe,

MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Reports have been made of violation by French fishing vessels of the three-mile limit on the coasts of Clare and Kerry and in the estuary of the Shannon; whether any and what steps are to be taken to secure the observance of the Law; and, whether the Irish Government will consult with the Admiralty, with a view of obtaining the presence of a gunboat, as suggested by Reports of the Irish Fisheries Commission, to protect the rights of Irish and British fishermen on the Irish coast?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): This Question relates to the action of French fishing vessels on the Irish coast. The Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have drawn the attention of the Government to alleged violations by these French fishing vessels of the provisions of the Fisheries Convention, and the Irish Law Officers will be consulted in the matter.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked, whether it was not the fact that during two successive years, when the Estimates were discussed, the attention of the Government was called to this very question?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he did not know. He understood it turned upon the construction of an Article of the Convention.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—LONGFORD

WORKHOUSE.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that on Wednesday the 12th instant a large number of persons applied for relief at the Longford Workhouse, stating that they had been evicted from the estate of Lord Granard; whether the spokesman of the applicants was a young man named Fury, who had been imprisoned as a suspect, and was but lately released; whether Fury stated that his father, one of the evicted, was eighty years of age,

and complained that they were all in great distress; whether Fury has since been re-arrested; and, whether he can state the reasons for his re-arrest?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, it is the fact, as stated in the Question of the hon. Member, that a number of persons on the 12th instant applied at Longford Poor House for relief, stating they had been evicted from their farms on Lord Granard's estate; and their spokesman was a man named Fury, who had not been arrested under the Protection Act, but had been committed for trial for firing into a dwelling-house. He stated that his father was 80 years old and in great distress. The relieving officer visited these persons, and found half of them not destitute, and those whom he considered destitute refused relief in the poor-house. I am informed that these tenants owed from three to four years' rent, and that an offer was made to stop the ejectments on payment of one year's rent and costs. Fury had two holdings; on one, I am informed, four years', and on the other five and ahalf years' rent was due. On the 17th of this month James Fury was arrested under the Protection Act on suspicion of posting threatening notices.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ENNISKILLEN GAOL-MR. J. P. QUINN.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. J. P. Quinn, suspect, confined in Enniskillen Gaol, who has been allowed the use of a well-lighted room in the hospital, in order that he may carry on certain work in which he is engaged, has been refused permission to receive his visitors in his room, although such permission is given under similar circumstances in Kilmainham; whether he will order the prohibition to be withdrawn; or, if not, whether he will state the reason for his refusal; and, whether he will state the reason for Mr. Quinn's removal from Kilmainham to Enniskillen Prison?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, Mr. Quinn was allowed to use a room for writing in; but there is no reason why an exception should be made in his case as to visits. The inquiry is inaccu

VOL, CCLXVIII. [THIRD SERIES.]

rate in suggesting that there is any prohibition to be withdrawn; there is no prohibition; these are the ordinary rules for the government of the prison, and these must be observed. The hon. Member will see that, on grounds which have been stated formerly to the House, I cannot give the reason which influenced the Government in removing Mr. Quinn to Enniskillen.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT -MR. P. ARNOLD.

MR. EDWARD SHEIL asked the

Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will consider the manston, in the county of Meath, who case of Mr. Patrick Arnold, of Gorhas been confined in Armagh since January 2nd last; whether Mr. F. Tullam, his neighbour, who was arrested in December 1881, has not been released; and, whether, under the circumstances, he will direct that Mr. Arnold be released from prison?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, Mr. Tullam has been released, and Mr. Arnold's case is at present under His Excellency's consideration.

3 E

MR. EDWARD SHEIL: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman state where the informality was?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he was not able to tell exactly; but the Arms Act required certain specified requirements to be complied with, and in case any of them were omitted the licence should be refused.

PARLIAMENT-PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS

PREVENTION BILL.

SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy and Prevention of Floods Bill on Friday; and, if not, whether it could be arranged that it should not be again put on the Paper without some serious intention of proceeding with it, seeing the inconvenience caused to the large number of Members interested in it by such a course?

MR. HIBBERT, in reply, said, that the Rivers Conservancy Bill had been put down, not for Friday next, but for Friday, the 5th of May; but, in consequence of a Motion which stood for that day, he thought it very improbable that the Bill would be brought forward on that occasion. He entirely sympathized with the view of the hon. Baronet as to the inconvenience caused to Members by putting down a Bill for a day on which it could not possibly be brought on; and he trusted that his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board would put down the Bill for a future day when it could be considered.

EJECTMENTS (IRELAND)-THE RETURNS-THE CIVIL BILL COURTS.

MR. GIBSON desired to ask the Attorney General for Ireland a Question of which he had given him Private Notice. In a Return of Ejectments in Ireland issued that morning, it had been shown in the case of the Superior Courts how many Orders of Ejectment had been issued, and how many had been carried out. But in the case of the other Courts only the Orders issued had been shown; but not whether they had been carried out. He would like to know whether his right hon. and learned Friend could see his way to amend the Return, or to issue

a Supplementary Return, showing in how many cases these Orders of the Civil Bill Courts had been carried into effect?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON) said, he understood that the form in which the Orders of the Civil Bill Courts were carried out was introduced by the late Government, and had been persisted in up to the present time. But if it were practicable he would endeavour to supply what his right hon. and learned Friend asked for, as the request was exceedingly reasonable. It was desirable, of course, to show what proceedings in the Inferior Courts had ripened into eviction, as well as those in the Superior Courts.

SOUTH AFRICA-ZULULAND. MR. R. N. FOWLER asked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies could give the House any information as to the statement in The Daily News as to the serious condition of affairs in Zululand?

MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have seen the statement in The Daily News, dated the 25th, and to-day I have received a telegram from Sir Henry Bulwer, dated the 26th-one day later-in which he merely refers incidentally to a demonstration at Natal by the ex-King's brother. Evidently he does not attribute to it the importance which one would attach to The Daily News telegram.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-PRISONERS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT -MR. T. RYAN.

MR. HEALY asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. Thomas Ryan, of Two Mile Borris, County Tipperary, is still detained in Clonmel Gaol, while Mr. Fanning, in the same locality, arrested at the same time and on the same charge, has been released; and, what reason there is for Mr. Ryan's continued detention?

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir. Mr. Fanning was released on the ground of ill-health. He was attacked by fever and removed to the hospital. As soon as the doctor certified that he was fit to travel, His Excellency ordered his release. His Excellency has reconsidered Mr. Ryan's case, but cannot see his way to order his release at present.