grant of the surplus, and they had not limited themselves to that precise amount, but had given the nearest round sum above it by introducing into the Estimates for the current year a sum of £3,000 for harbour purposes, in addition to the sum ordinarily granted for that object; so that his hon. Friend would see that in putting in this additional sum they were giving rather more than the aggregate gain on that head. He hoped that would be satisfactory to his hon. Friend. A question had been put as to the manner in which it was proposed that that money should be expended. The intention in that matter was, that it should be expended under the direction and at the sight of the Fishery Board, a proposal which, he believed, would also meet with general acceptance. Something had likewise been said with regard to the application of any profit resulting from brand fees to telegrams; and while he quite agreed with what had been said by one of his hon. Friends as to the impossibility of dividing the money applicable to harbours between white and herring fishing, where both kinds of fishing were practised from the same harbour, it would seem just that in the other matter-that was in regard to the telegrams-where there was room for distinction, any money resulting from brand fees should be applied to the part of the coast from which the brand fees were gathered that was to say, to the East and North-East Coasts, because it was there alone, and not on the West Coast, that the branding system prevailed. He was happy to say that even that appropriation, which would probably commend itself to the sense of fairness of the House, would comprehend the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, where there was great need for additional telegraphic facilities as an aid and assistance to the herring fishing. The next point which had been referred to was the re-organization of the Fishery Board. That matter also was under the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but it was not a matter as to which a resolution could be arrived at immediately, because Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present, House adjourned at half after Nine o'clock till Monday next. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-TREATMENT OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT. MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Prisons Board have received and considered complaints made by Messrs. Finn and McGrath, at present in Dundalk Gaol, with reference to breaches of prison regulations; whether punishments inflicted upon them for these punishments were in the one case the stoppage of all correspondence for three days, and in the other a sentence to punishment diet for three days; and, whether the Prisons Board have taken any action in the matter? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, that Messrs. Finn and M'Grath, at present in Dundalk Gaol, were punished because during Divine Service, at the prayer for the Queen, they rose to leave the chapel, and refused to obey the order to keep their places. They were not compelled to attend Service. The Prisons Board approved the infliction of the punishment, and he saw no reason to dissent from the Board. PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-GUN LICENCES. MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. Charles Burke, of Ballinamore, county Galway, has been refused a gun licence by Mr. Paul, R.M., although the local magis- | eviction of three families, lately carried trate and police constable were favour-out on the property of Mr. C. Crotty, in able to his application; whether the the parish of Carnacun, county Mayo; grounds of refusal were that he had whether it is true that the relieving not a letter of recommendation from his officer of the Union of Castlebar, whose landlord or land agent; and, whether it duty it was to be present, was not in is a fact that Mr. Burke, under pre- attendance at the eviction; and, if so, vious Acts, had always been granted a who is responsible for his non-attendlicence? ance; whether it is true that outdoor relief has been refused to these families; whether it is a fact that they have been evicted for the non-payment of an admittedly exorbitant rent, and that Mr. Crotty, on other tenants of his serving notices to have fair rents fixed by the Land Commission, agreed to a reduction of more than one-third of the former rental; and, whether it is not true that the district in which this property is situate is free from outrage and disturbance? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, with regard to this matter, the officer for granting licences to carry arms in this district, in the exercise of discretion vested in him by law, had refused the application made to him by Mr. Burke. He understood that Mr. Burke had a licence under the recent Act; but the local constabulary objected to his having the licence now. POST OFFICE (IRELAND)-BELFAST MR. BIGGAR asked the Postmaster General, If he is aware of the existence of a local rule in the Telegraph Department of Belfast Post Office, that clerks joining that office since 1878 are only granted an annual leave of two weeks although performing night and Sunday duties; clerks appointed before 1878 performing same duties being accorded three weeks' annual leave; is this rule enforced in any other large office, and is it with his sanction; and, if not, will he take steps to compensate those against whom this rule has operated? MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that at Belfast there is no local rule in restriction of the authorized period of annual leave. In 1879 it was discovered that in this matter of leave the Telegraph Department at Belfast was being treated exceptionally—that it was enjoying privileges which were not conceded elsewhere in the United Kingdom at offices similarly circumstanced; and it was then decided that, if only with a view to uniformity, these privileges could not be extended to new entrants. From those who were then enjoying them, however, they were not taken away. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-CARNACUN, MR. O'CONNOR POWER asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the circumstances attending the The MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had inquired into this case. relieving officer was not present at the evictions; relief had been offered either in the workhouse or by outdoor relief. In another case the relieving officer was informed that the tenant had setThe tenants tled with his landlord. had been evicted for non-payment of rents due for two years and a-half and three years. He was informed that the landlord had given a reduction. This place was not free from outrage and disturbance. Attempts had been made upon Mr. Crotty's life, and he was now under police protection. CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)— DEATH OF A WOMAN THROUGH REFUSAL MR. BIGGAR asked the Chief Secre tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to a notice in the "Freeman's Journal" of 28th March, of the death of a woman at Ballinglera, Donegal, whose death was attributed to anxiety about the imprisonment of her two sons, who were imthe sheriff in the work of eviction; and, prisoned on the charge of obstructing whether the Lord Lieutenant refused to mitigate the punishment by a few days, to allow the dying woman to see her sons before her death? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the name of the woman was Julia M'Donogh, and she had sent a memorial asking that she might see her son, who was a prisoner in Sligo Gaol. A telegram | PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, was at once sent to the Sub-Inspector of 1881-ARMS FOR SELF-DEFENCE. police, asking whether her statement MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secrewas correct, and a reply was sent back to the effect that the woman was dead. tary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called M'Donogh was, with 23 others, convicted before Baron Fitzgerald of riot, to the speech of Major Traill, R.M., as and sentenced to four months' imprison-reported in the "Ballenrobe Chronicle," ment with hard labour, at the expiration in which that gentleman is reported to of which sentence he was to give security have said— for his good behaviour. He wished to point out that he was not a prisoner under the Protection Act. "I myself have supplied him with revolver and ammunition, and I have taught him how to use them, as I am prepared to do for any one in my district, under similar circumstances, and I now tell him and them that every honest action of his for his own safety is an action of self-defence, for which 27 and 28 Vic. c. 47, s. 7, says, 'No punishment or forfeiture shall be incurred fortune or in his own defence, or in any other by any person who shall kill another by mismanner without felony;' and, whether he proposes to draw the attention of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the use of such language from the Bench? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I believe Major Traill did take the course mentioned, and I entirely approve of his having done so. I believe that something may be done to stop the outrages which are now so constant and so deplorable if men are encouraged to de STATE OF IRELAND ALLEGED AS- fend themselves and their families. I - SAULT ON MR. BOYLAN. MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the inquiry instituted by the Commissioners of National Education into the alleged assault on Mr. Boylan, National School teacher, by Captain L'Estrange, R.M. has yet concluded; and, if so, with what result? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, that the inquiry in this case had also concluded. The Commissioners thought it necessary to point out that their rules and regulations required the manager of a school to receive visitors courteously. Those who had not done so were admonished severely. The Commissioners, at the same time, were of opinion that Captain L'Estrange had acted hastily. believe so from what has happened in other countries, and also from the conviction that the men who attempt these outrages are as cowardly as they are bloodthirsty. MR. HEALY asked whether, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would consider the advisability of more generally granting licences to carry arms? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, before licences are granted we must have some security that those to whom we grant licences will not use the arms for the purpose of breaking law and order. No refusal has been given to any man who wanted arms when it was reasonable to suppose that he wanted to keep them for his own defence. There are some persons to whom it would be unsafe to MR. REDMOND asked whether they give arms, because they have not the were to understand that the Chief Se- courage to keep them from the men who cretary for Ireland would reprove Cap-go about at night and break into houses tain L'Estrange as the others had been reproved? MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he did not think there was any necessity for doing so; but he thought Captain L'Estrange had acted hastily. in order to get arms. But whenever men have shown courage they have succeeded in keeping their arms. I think Major Traill was perfectly justified in the course he took, and I hope other magistrates will follow his example. whether there is any exceptional reason PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO- for this gentleman's continued detention? PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-MESSRS. MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that John Rea, D. Hayes O'Connor, Edmond Synan, J. R. Murphy, Patrick O'Brien, and John R. O'Gorman, all of Charleville, in county Cork, have been imprisoned, under the Coercion Act, in Naas Gaol, since the 21st October last, and, during this period of over five months, have not received any intimation as to the reconsideration of their cases by the Lord Lieutenant; whether it is true that the Charleville district is, and has been, since and before the imprisonment of the persons named, entirely free from outrage; and, whether, in accordance with the principle adopted by him, he will now consider the propriety of releasing the men arrested in the Charleville district? The I hon. Member said, he understood that since he had given Notice of this Question three of them had been released; but he wished to know whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland would adopt a similar course with reference to the others? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had looked carefully into these cases when he was in Ireland last. As the hon. Member was aware, two of these men had been released, and John Rea had been released on parole for a week. With reference to the other three, it was unusual to release prisoners unless a Petition in favour of doing so was presented. The state of the district showed signs of improvement; but they had still to keep an extra force of police there, and there was no immediate prospect of their withdrawal. MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was a fact that all the clerks in the commercial department of United Ireland had been released with the exception of Mr. Shelley. His case was different from those of the others, and the Government did not consider he could be released with safety at present. He was recently transferred from Armagh to Kilmainham at the request of his relations. STATE OF IRELAND PROHIBITED PUBLIC MEETING AT LIMERICK. MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a proposed public meeting of the citizens of Limerick, to protest against the introduction of the Clôture system into the House of Commons, was prevented by the local magistrates; whether the troops in garrison were kept under arms, in order that they might be ready to disperse the meeting if any attempt should be made to hold it; whether he has seen the Resolutions which were to have been proposed at the meeting, and which have been published in most of the London papers, or is aware that they were Resolutions in condemnation of the Government's Clôture proposal, and of any Irish Member who should support or refrain from opposing it; and, whether, under the circumstances, the action of the magistrates has the approval of Her Majesty's Government? MR. REDMOND asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, within the present week and up to the present date, the Irish Executive have caused the police. to tear down placards calling upon the electors to instruct their representatives to vote in opposition to the Clôture; whether the police have seized and confiscated parcels of such placards in difPROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO-ferent parts of the Country, and have PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-ARREST OF EMPLOYES OF "UNITED IRELAND." MR. HEALY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that all the clerks employed in the commercial department of "United Ireland" have been released with the exception of Mr. Shelley; and, arrested men engaged in distributing or posting them; whether the police and military forces of the Crown in Ireland have been called into requisition for the purpose of preventing electors in different constituencies from assembling constitutionally in public meeting for the purpose of expressing to their representatives in Parliament their view on the question of the Clôture; and, upon what principle of constitutional Government the Irish Executive justify such abolition of the constitutional rights of electors and constituencies in Ireland? MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was a fact that the Mayor and magistrates of Limerick, acting on the responsibility which devolved on them for the maintenance of peace and order in the city, did prevent the meeting referred to, and the Government fully approved of their action, which was attended with good results. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) he denied that the Irish Executive gave any instructions to the police as to these placards. In all cases the local police acted on their own responsibility. The placards, which were of a violent and inflammatory character, were calculated to lead to a breach of the peace-[Mr. REDMOND: No!]were, no doubt, intended to intimidate hon. Members of that House from the performance of their duty. In several parts of the country these placards were taken down by the police, and in some instances bundles of them were seized, and the parties in whose possession they were found taken before the magistrates, who discharged them with a caution. The magistrates did not appear to have acted elsewhere as they did in Limerick; but, undoubtedly, if there was the same probability of a breach of the peace occurring they would be justified in acting as the Limerick magistrates did. ARMY-AUXILIARY FORCES-MILITIA UNIFORMS. COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE asked the Secretary of State for War, in reference to the order to Militia officers to change their lace, facings, and accoutrements, Whether he is aware that a statement made by him has been interpreted by Militia officers generally (not Rifle Regiments) to mean that they have the right for many years to come to appear at a levee, or on parade, with a gold lace sash and a silver lace waistbelt, or with a helmet with silver plate, and gold lace on the tunic, or at mess with gold lace on jacket, and silver lace on waistcoat; and, if the above is not the correct interpretation of the statement, whether he will further consider the great expense that is entailed upon Militia officers (not Rifle Regiments) by these changes, and make a proportionate allowance to meet those expenses similar to that which is proposed for Rifle Regiments? SIR HERVEY BRUCE asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will re-consider the amount proposed to be given to Militia officers obliged to purchase new uniforms owing to a change in their Regiments, as £25 will be wholly inadequate for the purpose? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, perhaps the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine will allow me to answer his Question at the same time as that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. In doing so I must be permitted to remind the House that since 1857 there have been no less than 15 occasions on which Militia regiments have been ordered to alter their uniforms to and from Rifle, Artillery, Highland, red, and Fusilier dress, and that in no case was any allowance made to officers. In the same way the Yeomanry were ordered in 1877 to alter their lace from gold to silver, and no allowance was made to them, time only being given to make the change. I must express my regret that at the present time, when the change from silver to gold has been urgently pressed upon us by the general wish of Militia officers, and when for the first time we are making an allowance of £25 to each officer in every case of compulsory change of the more expensive character, these claims for money should be set up. In June last the clearest instructions were given officers were allowed full time to make as to the change from silver to gold, and it. Of course, nobody anticipated that they would think of wearing a mongrel uniform; and I, therefore, can only reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Essex that the change must be complete, and may be deferred as long as the officer wishes before it becomes necessary to replace the uniform he possesses. To the hon. Baronet I can only say that, compared with the 15 cases I have spoken of, the grant of £25 a-head is liberal, and I have no intention to increase it. CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—THE LATE RIOT AT KILROSS-SENTENCES UPON MR. O'SULLIVAN asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the prisoners convicted of riot at Kilross, at |