desired to ascertain the condition of the | What steps he has taken, if any, with evicted tenants at Tulla, to accompany reference to the conduct of the magisher to that place, as she did not know trates and police during the rioting at anyone there; whether the "meeting" Camborne ? charged against Mr. Abraham by Mr. Clifford Lloyd was simply a visit paid by Mrs. Burke, accompanied by Mr. Abraham, to two of the parish clergy in the sacristy of the Church; and, whether the Government will order the release of Mr. Abraham, or permit the sentence inflicted to run its course? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, Mr. Abraham was ordered to enter into security for his good behaviour, and refused to do so. The Government would not interfere with the discretion exercised by magistrates. He had no reason to think that the facts were as stated in the second and third paragraphs of the Question. The object of the meeting was, he believed, to carry out the "no rent" organization. MR. SEXTON asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware that Mr. Lloyd was now holding Star Chamber Courts, sitting in private, and even refusing all applications for adjournment? MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am not aware of it. Perhaps the hon. Member will ask a definite Question in regard to a particular case. MR. O'SHEA asked whether it was not the fact that the district of Tulla was now in a better condition than it was when Mr. Clifford Lloyd went there? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that was the case; and he believed it was mainly owing to the action of Mr. Lloyd. MR. HEALY gave Notice that he would on Monday ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether several murders had not been committed in Mr. Lloyd's district since he had taken charge of it, while there was no murder in the corresponding period before he went there; also, whether outrages generally had not increased in that district since his appointment? MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope the hon. Member will put that Question in detail, and I hope the House will not form any judgment in the meantime on this Question. LAW AND POLICE-THE RIOTS AT CAMBORNE, CORNWALL. MR. O'DONNELL asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he must say, what he had often said in the House, that he was not responsible for, nor had he any authority over, the magistrates or the police. When magistrates asked his advice he gave it as well as he could. By the Constitution of this country, those who were in the Commission of the Peace had control over the police, and they were not under the orders or direction of the Executive Government. He thought that ought to be clearly understood, because he saw Questions founded on the notion that the magistrates and the police throughout the country were subordinate to, and under the direction of, the Secretary of State. That was not so. The Secretary of State was ever willing, when an occasion arose, to give them such advice as he could; but they acted upon their own responsibility, and upon their own responsibility only. MR. O'DONNELL said, advice did. not seem to have been given. [“Oh!"] He would conclude with a Motion MR. SPEAKER said, the hon. Member for Dungarvan must be aware that he could not enter upon a debate on this matter. MR. O'DONNELL then gave Notice that he would ask a further Question on the subject on Monday, and especially he would ask the Home Secretary, whether it had not been brought to his notice that the Irish population in Camborne were left entirely without the protection of the law through the misconduct of the magistrates and the police of that district? SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT said, he thought he could answer that at once. He did not believe, from such information as he had, that that was the case. There had been disgraceful riots, which there was considerable difficulty in quelling; but the information he had was that the magistrates and police had made every effort to put down these riots; that at present they had succeeded, and that the population of all nationalities was now protected. MR. O'DONNELL said, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not sufficiently answered the Question, and he would repeat it on Monday. -EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE. LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND) | question had been discussed in the House before taking steps to deal with it? MR. GLADSTONE: I am not prepared to enter upon the question at the present moment. MR. MACFARLANE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the state of feeling existing amongst the Crofters in the Island of Skye; and, if he proposes to ascertain, by the appointment of a Commission, or by any other means, the condition and grievances of the Crofters in that Island, the other Western Islands, and the Orkney and Shetland groups? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this is a Question of a serious nature, and I do not feel that I could answer it advantageously in the form of a reply to a Question. I think that a Notice has been given upon the subject, in which it will be raised in more convenient form; and the Government will, before that Notice comes on, carefully consider the whole matter, and give Parliament the view we take. MR. MACFARLANE asked whether there was a Notice on the Paper on the subject? MR. GLADSTONE: Yes. Subsequently MR. DICK-PEDDIE asked the Prime Minister, Whether, considering the importance of the question, and the state of matters in Skye, and considering the very great difficulty which private Members had for bringing matters under debate, the Government would afford any facilities for bringing on that question? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, if it were in my power to add to the manufactures of this country, I would, in the first place, add the manufacture of time. Unfortunately, it is not in my power. While I fully admit, and much regret, the difficulty of private Members, yet I do not think any impartial man will say the difficulties of the Government are less with respect to time than those of private Members. I heartily wish I could give any such assistance; but it is not in my power. MR. MACFARLANE said, with reference to the Prime Minister's answer, that the Motion on the subject which stood on the Paper had no day fixed for its discussion. As the Government professed to attach so much importance to the question, might he ask if it were necessary for them to wait until the WAYS AND MEANS THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT-THE CARRIAGE DUTIES. SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he can give some particulars as to Establishment Charges for Post Office Department stated in Budget speech at £200,000, and whether that is for new works and buildings, or for repairs and maintenance; if he can state generally in what form the relief for roads, estimated at £250,000, would be proposed to be paid; whether it would be collected and dispensed locally or generally; and, whether the new Tax would affect the carts and carriages of brewers, bakers, and builders beyond the six shillings increase on two-wheeled vehicles? MR. SCHREIBER asked, From what source the auxiliary letter carriers of the United Kingdom were to derive their long-expected increase of pay? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): The Question put by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Schreiber) ought to be addressed to the Postmaster General. In answer to the first Question, I have to say that, in stating the increase in the Postal Service for the present year, I was comparing the Estimates for the present year with the Exchequer issues of last year; and that is, in point of fact, the only mode in which, at the time the Financial Statement is made, a comparison can be instituted. The Exchequer issues are not identical with the private accounts; but the comparison with the private account cannot be given for some little time to come. With regard to the other questions associated with this, I could not enter at present upon a discussion of the mode in which it is proposed to grant relief for high roads. Indeed, I am not yet in prospective possession of the funds absolutely necessary for the purpose; but that will be done on the present occasion by the President of the Local Government Board. With regard to the carts and carriages of brewers, bakers, and builders, there is to be no charge with respect to them. There is no change intended, I may say, in the law of exemption. We do not think that a measure of this kind, which is necessarily impartial, and in some respects judicial, affords an appropriate opportunity for raising the various and rather difficult questions that are connected with the exemption of particular vehicles from taxes. SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTON asked in what form it was proposed to levy the tax? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE) said, that would connect itself with the Vote, which he could not possibly propose until he had Ways and Means in prospect by which the charge could be made. MR. PENNINGTON asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, by the proposal to increase the Duties on private carriages, it is intended to include carriages let on hire to private persons for short times or special purposes, or at funerals or weddings? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, he thought he had already answered the Question. He did not propose, nor did he think it possible, to make a general law of exemption on this occasion. MR. BIRKBECK asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into consideration that tenant farmers are the largest contributors towards the cost of maintaining roads, he will exempt them, under his Budget proposals, from increased taxation for vehicles? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, he had no intention of proposing any new exemption on behalf of tenant farmers. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ARREARS. tion of the Executive Government. It is our public duty to assist the execution of the law, not always taking into view our own opinion of the reasonableness of what may be intended, and we have no title to adopt the measure which the hon. Member suggests. NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH. MR. FIRTH asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the important constitutional issues involved, he will afford facilities for the discussion of a Motion on behalf of the electors of Northampton, that they be heard at the Bar of the House in accordance with the prayer of their Petition recently presented to the House? MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he could not say that he thought the present state of the Business of the House left it in the power of the Government, with a due regard to the calls of other subjects which were immediately coming before the House, to facilitate the discussion of a Motion with regard to the representation of Northampton. COUNTY GOVERNMENT BILL-LOCAL OPTION. SIR WILFRID LAWSON asked the First Lord of the Treasury, with reference to the announcement in his Budget speech that the County Government Bill will not be proceeded with at present, the introduction of any other legislation Whether the Government contemplate during the present Session for giving effect to the Resolution which this House has already twice passed in favour of giving localities control over the Liquor Traffic "by some efficient measure of Local Option?" MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it MR. BIGGAR asked the First Lord contemplated action on the subject of was certainly quite true that they had of the Treasury, Whether the Govern- County Boards, which would indirectly, ment are prepared, pending the intro- but materially, bear upon the question in duction of their measure regarding which his hon. Friend was greatly inarrears, to discourage evictions in Ire-terested—namely, Local Option; but, land by withdrawing all support to assist landlords in executing eviction decrees? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, without entering into the very important subject of evictions in Ireland, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, I must frankly own that I think that the measure which he suggests and indicates, that the Government shall discourage evictions by withdrawing support to assist landlords in them, is a matter beyond the discre being compelled reluctantly to abandon the County Boards Bill for the present year, he did not believe the Government had any means of making any proposal during the present Session on the subject of Local Option. GENERAL PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT— CONVEYANCE OF PRISONERS. MR. O'CONNOR POWER asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his of our intentions with regard to a matter of so much importance, and a matter so intimately connected with other circumstances in Ireland, perhaps still more important, in reply to an inquiry. We can only do it, I think, upon an occasion when there should be a perfect liberty of free statement and argument upon what we might say, or what we might not say attention has been called to the fact that, under the Prisons Act, 1877, English counties are relieved from the charge for the conveyance of certain prisoners, whereas, under the General Prisons (Ireland) Act, Irish counties are still liable for a similar charge; and, if so, whether the Government will introduce a Bill to establish equality in the Law, in respect of this charge, be--that is to say, in a regular debate. We tween England and Ireland? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I thought that I had stated, in the Financial Statement of the year, that the heavy charge which has now come upon the Treasury for the conveyance of prisoners had come upon the Treasury in consequence of a sheer error, and contrary to the intention, not only of the late Government, but contrary to the intention of Parliament. I cannot, therefore, look upon that charge, with which we are now dealing for the most part retrospectively, as establishing a principle from which arguments can be drawn for the extension of the area to other parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have not yet had an opportunity of considering the course which it will be their duty to take in relation to the state of things which exists under the English Prisons Act in that particular. In reply to a further Question by the hon. Member, MR. GLADSTONE said: I am quite prepared to say that I have done nothing, and said nothing, and arrived at no conclusion in my own mind, favourable to the creation of any new inequality between England and Ireland in regard to Public Expenditure. have an opportunity of that kind in immediate prospect. I cannot at present enter upon the subject; but on Tuesday next my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. W. E. Forster) will be prepared to enter upon it fully. PARLIAMENT — BUSINESS OF THE MR. MACFARLANE asked the Prime MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, that he hoped the second reading would be taken early next week. It would not, however, be taken on Monday or Tuesday. MR. R. N. FOWLER asked, whether there would be a Morning Sitting on Tuesday next? MR. GLADSTONE said, that he thought the announcement that was made by his noble Friend (the Marquess of ciently explicit-namely, that it was the Hartington) in his absence had been suffiintention of the Government to ask for consecutive Morning Sittings on Tuesdays. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I think it would be convenient if the House were better informed as to what PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO-hon. Gentleman has, in rather a remarkis to happen on Tuesdays. The right PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 MEMBERS OF THIS HOUSE DE TAINED UNDER THE ACT. MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to ask the Prime Minister, in view of recent circumstances and recent declarations of the Government, Whether he does not think the time has come when he will release the three honourable Members of this House who have been in jail in Ireland for several months? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think the House will feel, and I believe the hon. Member himself will feel, that it will be hardly possible for me to enter upon any statement, either of our opinions or able manner, abstained from entering into a subject of high importance, the policy of the Government in regard to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, and abstained even from answering a Question connected with it, because, as I understand, there will be an opportunity afforded on Tuesday for a full debate on that subject. I am not quite sure that I am aware of what opportunity the right hon. Gentleman refers to, unless it be the Notice of Motion given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigton Burghs (Sir John Hay). If there is to be an important statement made on the part of the Government-and its impor- | half, the present Session; and, although tance can hardly be exaggerated-on this may be an important matter, it the occasion of such a Motion, I wish to must be remembered that every matter know whether we are to understand that of importance does not necessarily reit is to be put off till 9 o'clock, and, if quire a long and detailed discussion. In so, what Business it is proposed to take the view of the Government, there will at the Morning Sitting? be ample time for the discussion on Tuesday evening; and the other pressing subjects before us make it our duty, unless we wish the country to believe that we are paltering with them, to ask the House to give us Morning Sittings. MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we propose to take the question of Procedure continuously next week. As to the debate which may arise on Tuesday evening, if the House should be pleased to allow us to go on, I am not aware that it is likely to require to be a debate of great length and detail, although it may be difficult to say now what debate does not require to be pursued at great length and detail. But, so far as I can judge, I think there will be no inconvenience to the House in taking the discussion which has been referred to at the Evening Sitting. What I said, however, was that it was desirable that an answer to the Question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) should be given in a regular debate, when hon. Members would have an opportunity, if they wished, of commenting upon it. MR. CHAPLIN asked whether they were to understand that the Procedure debate would be taken continuously every Government night next week? Would the second reading of the Customs and Inland Revenue Bill be taken if the Procedure debate was not concluded? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we propose to take it on Monday, and at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday. The Customs and Inland Revenue Bill will not be taken on Monday or Tuesday next. We hope to be able to state by Tuesday whether that Bill will be taken on Thursday or not. MR. JOSEPH COWEN said, that, in view of the important announcement which they were led to expect on Tuesday, he hoped the Prime Minister would reconsider his decision with respect to the Morning Sitting for Tuesday; and, in order to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of doing so, he would ask him on Monday, Whether it would not be desirable to allow the Morning Sitting for Tuesday to lapse, so that they might have a full discussion on so important a question as the condition of Ireland? MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have had debates on the condition of Ireland to the extent of nearly half, or more than ENGLAND AND FRANCE -THE CHAN NEL TUNNEL SCHEME. MR. O'SHEA asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has seen a statement in the "St. James's Gazette" of this evening, to the effect that, notwithstanding the order of the Board of Trade, the "promoters of the Channel Tunnel scheme are pressing forward the work;" and, whether the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to enforce compliance with his own order? MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to say that I have not seen the newspaper this evening to which he refers, and I think that the statement which he says is contained in it must be incorrect. At all events, I gave the most explicit directions to the South Eastern Railway Company that the works were not to be allowed to proceed below the level of low water; and if that instruction has been disregarded I shall certainly take steps to see that it is properly observed. ORDERS OF THE DAY. 19:0:com SUPPLY.-COMMITTEE. Order for Committee read. Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair." £1 BANK NOTES.-RESOLUTION. MR. W. FOWLER, in rising to move "That, in the opinion of this House, the pro hibition of the issue of bank notes of £1 each in England and Wales is unreasonable and ought to be removed, and that all needful steps should be forthwith taken to authorise the issue of such notes," said, that it was a long time since they had had a discussion on the currency of |