voked; and, whether there is any truth in the paragraph?

MR. TREVELYAN: No, Sir. The permission has not been revoked.

MR. PARNELL: Then there is no foundation for the rumour that the erection of the huts has been interfered with?

MR. TREVELYAN: There is no foundation for the rumour.

Subsequently,

MR. TREVELYAN said: I do not know whether I should be in Order if I took this opportunity to amplify the answer which I have given to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I wish to add that one of the most able special magistrates in Ireland-one who has succeeded as well as any special magistrate in the management of his district -gave the Lord Lieutenant the advice that in the case of these huts for sheltering evicted tenants he himself acted on the principle that, wherever there was any reason to apprehend they would be used for purposes of intimidation, a police hut should be erected with them. The Lord Lieutenant, after consultation with the special magistrates, had directed that that system should be adopted.

MR. GIBSON asked if these huts would be erected on the same spot as those erected for the purpose of intimidation would have been had that been allowed?

MR. TREVELYAN said, that was an was an important Question, to which he could not then give a reply. He would answer on Monday, and he hoped that would be sufficient for the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

MR. J. LOWTHER asked whether, since the Lord Lieutenant had come to the decision referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, huts might now be erected under all conditions for evicted tenants, provided that protection was afforded against intimidation?

MR. TREVELYAN: It is difficult to explain without raising a debate; but I may say that the reports of the special Resident Magistrates prove very clearly that there has been a divergence of One set of opinion on the subject. magistrates stated that all huts were intended for purposes of intimidation, and others stated that that was not so. The Lord Lieutenant has decided that, where the special Resident Magistrate

Mr. Parnell

of the district held out any apprehension of intimidation, the best way would be to have police huts also erected. In the present state of Ireland, I feel myself justified in saying that that decision was received with satisfaction by eminent officials whose names, were I to give them, would carry conviction.

MR. O'DONNELL asked whether these magistrates, among whom there was such a divergence of opinion, would be chosen to exercise summary powers under the Coercion Act? [No reply was given.]

NEWSPAPERS-INCITING LANGUAGE

-THE "GLASGOW HERALD."

MR. HEALY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the editor of the "Freiheit" was prosecuted and convicted for general incitement to assassination; if his attention has been called to the following from the "Glasgow Herald":

"To govern an Irishman you must get him down, then you must kick him till he can't get up, then you must sit on him in case he comes to;" and, whether the Government will consider the advisability of prosecuting that journal for recommending the murder and ill-treatment of Irishmen ?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no knowledge of the paragraph except what I have in this Question. If the hon. Member wishes for my opinion upon it, I will say I object very much to strong language being employed to any class of Her Majesty's subjects, including Irishmen as well as others; but then the hon. Member must take it that I include in that statement all classes of Irishmen, including even magistrates and constables. No strong language should be employed; but when the hon. Member asks me to compare it with the language of The Freiheit, all I can say is that the two things do not seem to be at all parallel.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 — RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.

MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as there are still in prison in Ireland ninety-one "suspects" who are not suspected of association with crime,

the condition of his district?

MR. TREVELYAN: This Question only appeared this morning, and I have consequently been unable to consult the Lord Lieutenant in reference to it. I can, however, state that the cases of all the persons in the category mentioned in the Question are being considered by His Excellency; and from time to time he orders the release of those in respect of whom he is satisfied that such order may be made without danger to the peace of the district.

MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Patrick Kelly, of Geevagh, County Sligo, was arrested on Sunday last, conveyed to Galway Gaol, and imprisoned there under a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant dated thirteen months ago; whether this arrest was made with the concurrence of the heads of the Irish Executive; and, whether, in view of the adoption and development of the policy of release, it is the intention of the Irish Executive to hold Mr. Kelly in custody?

MR. TREVELYAN: Patrick Kelly has been arrested as stated in the Question. The arrest was made without communicating with the Government, and His Excellency is now making inquiry as to the necessity for Kelly's detention.

MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. J. P. Quinn, imprisoned under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, was removed some time ago from the prison of Kilmainham to the prison at Enniskillen, and has now been again removed from Enniskillen to Kilmainham, or that an order for such second removal has been made; and, if so, what is the reason?

MR. TREVELYAN: Mr. Quinn was removed last March from Kilmainham to Enniskillen for certain reasons which no longer exist, and His Excellency has thought it right now to remove him back to Kilmainham.

MR. MOLLOY asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that Mr. Gowing, coroner, attended at Rhode, King's County, on Wednesday last, to open an inquest upon. the body of a child, aged twelve months, who died from exposure after an eviction; that if, at the time of the eviction, the infant was suffering from measles, and in a dangerous state; whether the Sub-Inspector, Mr. Caulfield, wrote to the coroner stating he had not time to summon a jury, although he had received the coroner's warrant at 8 a m. on the previous Tuesday; if the coroner had ordered the exhumation of the infant's body, and had stated that he must now

leave the matter in the hands of the Government; whether, at the time of the eviction above alluded to, the resident magistrate prevented the erection of temporary buildings to shelter the evicted; and, what steps the Government will take as against the neglect of the SubInspector, and as to the prevention to erect some shelter for these evicted per

sons?

MR. SEXTON had a Question on the Paper to the same effect.

MR. TREVELYAN: This Question and that of the hon. Member for Sligo following relate to the same subject, and both appeared for the first time this morning. I have called for immediate Reports, but cannot possibly reply to the Questions to-day.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS). MR. BOURKE asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether His Majesty the Sultan has shown any indisposition to take those measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested to him for the restoration of order in Egypt, and the maintenance of the authority of the present Khedive; whether he will state the reasons which have induced Her Majesty's Government to press upon the Sultan his assent to a Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will join in any demand which the Powers may make upon the Suitan to act as their mandatory instead of as Sovereign of Egypt?

LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Before the Question is answered, I should like to

ask when it is likely that the measures which the Governments of England and France have suggested for the restoration of law and order in Egypt will be before the House?

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, with respect to the last Question, I do not know quite what is the meaning of it. The measures that have been taken by the Governments of England and France, or by England or France, will appear, of course, in the Papers that are in preparation. If the noble Lord means to ask whether the measures which the Government will recommend to the Conference will be in possession of the House, it would be premature for me at the present time, when the date for the Conference has not even been fixed, to make a statement on the matter. With respect to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bourke), I thank him for calling my attention to the subject last evening. With respect to the first part of the Question, the Government has never at any time made a complaint of the indisposition of the Porte to take the measures which have been suggested to it by the Governments of England and France. I stated on Tuesday very emphatically, that at the present moment our relations with Turkey were very satisfactory, and that there was a strong spirit of co-operation between the Government and the Sultan. With respect to the second portion of the Question, I am sorry to say, Sir, that I cannot state the reasons which have influenced the Government in pressing upon the Sultan his assent to the Conference, because to do that at the present moment, although it would be a proper subject for future investigation, would be decidedly impolitic, beyond saying that they are reasons in which there has been, according to the latest advices in my possession, a general concurrence among the whole of the Powers of Europe. With regard to the third part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government had stated explicitly that, in their opinion, the Sultan has not parted with the Sovereignty of Egypt, and they believe that opinion to be shared by the rest of the Powers.

specify the measures, because I do not know what they are.

MR. GLADSTONE: I do not think it would be possible for us—and it would not be wise if possible-to undertake to predict or speculate upon what the Conference may determine. When you enter into joint council, either among individuals or Powers, you reserve to a certain extent your final decision, whilst you may lay your first opinions before those with whom you are going to take counsel. Evidently that is the nature of the Conference; and nothing could more tend to defeat the purposes of the Conference than for the separate Powers, each of them individually, to make known the views with which they would commence the Conference.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I should like to ask who is the de facto Governor of Egypt at the present moment? Considering the grave state of Egypt, not only at Alexandria, but at Cairo and elsewhere, and the danger in which the European subjects are placed, can the Government state whether Turkish troops are now on their way to Egypt; and, if so, what is their number? Yesterday the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs hardly gave us an answer to that question. I should also like to ask the Prime Minister if he will state whether a sufficient force is now ready to land, so as to ensure that protection, which is naturally looked for, considering our paramount interests in Egypt?

MR. O'KELLY: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can also state whether there is any truth in the statement that the French Government are preparing to send 20,000 men to Egypt?

Lord Eustace Cecil

pedient-considering the risks that are run, and that we know are run, by the prevalence of unauthorized rumours with respect to the landing of a foreign

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I wish to ask whether any news has been received as to the present state of affairs in Egypt?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Of course, the hon. Gentleman does not mean political news; but news with regard to the security of the people. The news received since yesterday is, on the whole, of a re-assuring nature. There has been no fresh outbreak or disturbance of any kind, and we have no reason to apprehend any.

MR. BOURKE: I beg to give Notice that on Monday, if it is convenient to the Prime Minister, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, before the proposed Conference takes place, Parliament will be informed what the bases agreed upon are; and, what are the limits within which discussions are to be confined?

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask the Prime Minister, Whether he will give an assurance to Parliament that, in the event of a Conference upon Egyptian Affairs, Her Majesty's Government will assent to the neutralization of the Suez Canal in time of war?

MR. O'DONNELL gave Notice that on Monday he would ask the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he had seen the correspondence in the "Cologne Gazette" giving the views of the German colony in Egypt, and stating that the real and serious danger to peace arose from the anti-Mahomedan attitude of the English and French Governments; whether it was true that the Consuls for Germany, Austria, and Italy, in order to obviate the peril arising from such a policy,

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I quite admit the difficulty of answering Questions not on the Paper; but these Questions arise day by day, so that it is impossible to put them down beforehand. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that Turkish troops are not being sent

MR. GLADSTONE: I never said so. SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: He said that he was not aware that Turkish troops were being sent.

MR. GLADSTONE: Were on their way.

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: Well, the Question I wish to ask isand I ask it because a satisfactory answer will go far to allay public feelingCan the Government give us an assurance that they will not shrink from taking any step which is necessary to protect European lifeand property in Egypt?

MR. GLADSTONE: The Government are aware that they are responsible for using, to the best of their ability, all the means at their command for that purpose.

MR. ONSLOW: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, might I be allowed to ask what are the means at their command which the Government are using at the present time at Cairo ?

[No reply was given to the Question.]

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND)-LORD ROSSMORE'S ESTATE.

MR. DILLON wished to put a Question to the Prime Minister, of which he had sent him private Notice.

MR. GLADSTONE: I have not received it.

MR. DILLON said, he hoped the Prime Minister would be able to answer it without Notice. It was, Whether the right hon. Gentleman had been informed that several writs for arrears of rent had been served on the estates of Lord Rossmore and the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, in county Monaghan; that three of those writs had been executed on the estate of

the Rev. Mr. Aitcheson, the tenants' interests being purchased on behalf of the landlord by his bailiff, so as to debar those tenants from all rights under the Arrears Bill? Also, whether his attention had been called to a letter from the Rev. Mr. Donnelly, of June 12th, in which he stated that writs were being served all over the Rossmore estate for rents which the tenants had no means of paying a proceeding which meant the utter destruction and annihilation of the tenants; and, whether, when that same system was being pursued in many parts of Ireland, he, with a view of putting a stop to such a state of things, would not at once introduce a short Bill to put a stay -say for six months-to all evictions in Ireland?

MR. GLADSTONE: The Question is very voluminous and important; and, as the matters to which it refers have not before come to my notice, I am not in a position at this instant to give any answer, except in regard to the last clause-legislation-in respect to which I can only refer the hon. Member, however disappointing it may be, to the answer I have already given namely, that, in my opinion, it would only make confusion worse confounded if the Government were to attempt to introduce any Bill for the object suggested.

EGYPT AND ITALY-CESSION OF ASSAB

BAY. PERSONAL EXPLANATION. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I wish to ask the leave of the House to make a short personal explanation with reference to a Notice which I quoted yesterday, and which was publicly given last Friday by the hon. Member for Greenwich. The hon. Member for Greenwich yesterday said that the words of his Notice on Friday last were-"Also, in view of the recent cession of Assab Bay to Italy" not "by Her Majesty's Government." I have refreshed my memory of the Notice as he gave it publicly before the objectionable words were struck out by the Clerk at the Table as being argumentative. They spoke of "the further danger caused,' in respect of the security of the Suez Canal, "by the recent cession, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government, of Assab Bay to Italy." It was on these words that I severely com

mented at the time.

Mr. Dillon

BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I am anticipated, to some extent, by the action taken by the hon. Member for Chelsea; but I think, Sir, the explanation which the hon. Member has given fully shows how correct I was in the statement which I made yesterday, and how utterly incorrect were the words which he attri buted to me. I should have thought that with the experience which the hon. Member has had, or ought to have had, of foreign affairs, he would have recognized the vast difference between the words "by Her Majesty's Government" and the words "with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I objected to the whole statement of a cession. There has been no cession of any kind, either with or without the concurrence of Her Majesty's Government.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS: That is a question which does not arise. The hon. Member said yesterday that in my Question occurred the words, "the cession of Assab Bay to Italy by Her Majesty's Government." I ventured then to get up and deny that. The hon. Gentleman did not accept my denial, but repeated his statement, and added these words-"I will place the Question as originally printed before the hon. Member." In order to satisfy myself on a point as to which I was more or less certain-that I could not have put into a Question such an absurdity as the cession of a part of one country to another by a third country to which it did not belong-I went to the Record Office of the House, and there I found the manuscript of my original Question. It stands as follows:

"With respect to the recent cession of Assab Bay, with the full concurrence of Her Majesty's Government."

And here, again, I must ask permission of the House to make a remark. The hon. Member said that these words had been struck out by the Clerk at the Table. I hold in my hand the original manuscript of my Question, and these words are not struck out.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There

is no difference of opinion on the mere point of fact. The words did not appear in the Notice as printed in the Questions on the Paper next morning; and they were not put in the Question which was really asked.