MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it is quite | ber presses for them; but there must be true that the police have been carefully watching the person referred to; but I must decline in the public interest to say upon what grounds they are doing So. NEW ZEALAND-TE WHITI, THE MR. CROPPER asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any recent information as to the intentions of the New Zealand authorities with regard to Te Whiti, the Maori Chief, who has been lying in prison for several months past on a charge of sedition; and, whether they have considered the expediency of offering their good offices to the Colonial Government to settle the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast? MR. BROGDEN also asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will furnish to the House the Papers relating to the late proceedings with the Native Maori Tribes at Parihaki, in New Zealand, and the arrest of Te Whiti and others; and, if the speech of the Governor, Sir Arthur Gordon, at the opening of the Assembly in May last, announced the fact that an Act would be applied for to enable the Government of New Zealand to continue to detain him without his being tried or convicted of any offence? MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the Colonial Office has received no official information as to the dealings of the New Zealand Government with the Maori Chief, Te Whiti, later than the Report which informed them that he had been committed to gaol on a charge of sedition in last December. Her Majesty's Government do not think it advisable to offer any intervention in the land disputes with the Natives of the West Coast. Those questions lie entirely within the province of the Colonial Parliament and the Colonial Government. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Brogden), I have to say that we have not received the text of the Governor's speech; but the Press telegram, which is all that has arrived, indicates that the course contemplated is not continued detention of Te Whiti in prison, but only prohibition to visit and agitate a particular district. Papers will be given, if the hon. Mem some delay till the arrival of the documents from New Zealand, which will make the action of the New Zealand Government fully understood, and the Government would rather wait until that information comes to hand. CATHOLIC SCHOOLS, OLDHAM. MR. O'CONNOR POWER asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is aware of a communication having been addressed to the Education Department by the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools, Oldham, setting forth objections to the erection of a School Board in close proximity to their schools; whether he is aware that the Department promised that these objections would be considered when tho Oldham School Board applied for permission to erect such school; and, whether he is aware that the Department have since authorised the Board to purchase the site; and, if so, what are the reasons that induced the Department to give such authority in the face of the objections lodged by the managers of St. Mary's Schools? MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I am асquainted with the correspondence which has passed between the Education Department and the managers of St. Mary's Roman Catholic Schools at Oldham, and I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) that the remonstrances of the managers have had my careful consideration. The St. Mary's Roman Catholic School supplies the requirements, not only of its immediate neighbourhood, but of numbers of Roman Catholic children resident elsewhere. Of two schools quoted in the manager's letter, one provides no infant accommodation whatever, and the premises of the other are not such as can be recognized as efficient. Without reckoning these schools, there is an undoubted deficiency, and both Her Majesty's Inspector and the Board consider that a school is urgently required in this district. PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881PATRICK SLATTERY. MR. O'DONNELL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire land, If the attention of His Excellency has been directed to the case of Patrick Slattery, who has been in prison since the 25th of July last year, on suspicion of being concerned in an unlawful assembly at Bodyke, on the 1st of June preceding; whether Patrick Slattery is the witness who, at the investigation into the death of John Moloney at Bodyke, on the said 1st of June, identified a sub-constable named O'Grady as having struck the deceased man two blows on the head with the butt end of his rifle; whether the arrest of Patrick Slattery did not take place until after his evidence against the sub-constable; whether Patrick Slattery is an American citizen, and whether he was offered his liberty on the 24th of April last on condition of his at once leaving the Country and returning to the United States; and, whether any sufficient reason exists for his continued detention in prison on any charge? MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the offence for which Patrick Slattery was arrested was that of being reasonably suspected of riot, and shooting with intent to murder. The riot, which took place on the 1st of June, was a most serious one; the police were fired on, and the County Inspector's horse was shot. The circumstances otherwise are as detailed in the Question. He is a naturalized American citizen, and has been offered his release upon condition of his leaving Ireland and returning at once to America; but that condition has been objected to, and His Excellency cannot at present permit him to be at large in Ireland. MR. O'DONNELL said, he still wished to know if it was not a fact that Slattery's arrest did not take place until after he had identified a constable as having struck a man, who died, twice with the butt end of his gun? MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, that he had already answered the Question. Patrick Slattery was arrested because he was reasonably suspected of being a principal in a most dangerous riot. MR. O'DONNELL gave Notice of his intention of asking the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether he was not arrested at the instance and upon the identification of the colleagues of the policeman? Mr. O'Donnell LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881, SECTION 21-"SULLIVAN v. BOWEN." MR. HEALY asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Sullivan v. Bowen, lately decided by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland, in which that tribunal decided (reversing the judgment of the Irish Land Commission) that a tenant's application under the 21st section of the Irish Land Act, to break a lease forced on him by threat of eviction should be dismissed on the ground that, at the date when the lease was forced on the tenant, the notice to quit served on him as a preliminary to eviction had expired, and thus determined the yearly tenancy under which he had previously held, and that, therefore, one of the elements necessary for the success of a lease-breaking application, viz. the existence of a yearly tenancy at the date of the acceptance of the lease, did not exist in the case; whether, having regard to this further evidence of the failure of section 21 of the Land Act, he can state the intentions of the Govern ment as regards the amendment of this section; and, whether he will have any objection to the granting of a Return setting forth the number of lease-breaking cases actually adjudicated upon by the Land Commission, the result of each case, and as regards cases in which the tenant's application was dismissed, showing in each case which of the three elements necessary for the success of such an application under the section as it stands, viz.: (a) existence of a yearly tenancy at date when lease was accepted; (b) threat of eviction or undue influence by landlord; and (c) existence in lease of unreasonable terms, was wanting, 60 as to cause the dismissal of the application? MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, as I have obtained a Report from the Land Commissioners dealing with the matters of fact referred to in this Question, I may, perhaps, be permitted to answer it. With regard to the first paragraph of the Question, it is the case that a judg ment of the Irish Land Commissioners was reversed by Her Majesty's Court of Appeal in Ireland as detailed by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), With regard to the final paragraph of the Question, the Return could not be given. If it were granted, it would im pose on the Judicial Commissioner the necessity for perusing the notes in every one of the 600 or 700 cases which have been heard. The duties which he has to discharge render his doing so a physical impossibility. I will, however, look into the question further, and see if the Return can be given in a somewhat different form. The second paragraph of the Question deals with a matter of policy, upon which I cannot give the hon. Member any information. Mr. HEALY having subsequently repeated the Question, and addressed it again to the Prime Minister, or chimney, and have lived there for the last fortnight; whether the result has been that exposure has caused the death of one of the children, and that another is now lying at the point of death; whether the coroner of Queen's County, in accordance with the Law, issued his precept to the police directing them to provide a jury to inquire into the death of the child, and giving them twenty-eight hours' notice for the purpose; whether the police disregarded the precept, and failed to provide the jury, in consequence of which no inquest has yet been held; and, whether the Executive will take notice of the con MR. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir. Probably I failed to make myself under-action in the matter? stood on a former day; but I may now state that the question of the Lease Clauses was one of those I had in view, when I said that, at a certain time, the Government would think it right to state their intentions with respect to various points of importance connected with the Land Act. These points are the Purchase Clauses, the Lease Clauses, and the Clauses with respect to Labourers. I do not, however, think it would be of any advantage to make a statement on the subject, until we see our way to the conclusion of the proceedings connected with the two Bills now before the House -namely, the Prevention of Crime Bill and the Bill dealing with Arrears of Rent. duct of the police, and institute further MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he had just received a voluminous telegram from Ireland in relation to the it carefully, as it touched the conduct of several Government officials. He would answer the hon. Member to-morrow. matter, and he was anxious to look over LORD JOHN MANNERS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he will include emigration? MR. GLADSTONE: No, Sir; I am not in a position to say whether the Government will make any statement with regard to emigration. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-DEATH FROM MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that the police, at Rhode, King's County, recently prevented by threats the erection of a hut, provided by the Ladies' Land League to shelter the family of an evicted labourer named Kavanagh; whether, in consequence of the conduct of the police, Kavanagh, his wife, and his children, who, as notified to the police, were ill of measles, had to avail themselves of the shelter of a shed or stable without door, window, the Question to-morrow. THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— VOTE OF COMPENSATION. MR. O'DONNELL asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a proportionate share of the moneys voted by Parliament to the Royal Irish Constabulary in compensation for loss and hardship in connection with special service since the year 1879, will be paid to those members of the force who served during the years 1879 and 1880, but who happened to have left the force previous to the introduction of the Compensation Vote in Parliament; and, whether it is not the fact that many members of the force who had to retire from various causes since January 1881 suffered severe pecuniary loss and injury to health in connection with the exceptional service in the years 1879 and 1880? MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the grant of £180,000 referred to will be confined to members of the Force who were serving in the Force on the 24th of April last. It is probably the fact that many members of the Force who had retired prior to that date did suffer pecuniary loss and injury to health; but their cases have been disposed of when they retired on pension or gratuity, and cannot now be re-opened. PARLIAMENT-RULES OF DEBATEQUESTIONS-RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED UNDER THE PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881. SIR HERBERT MAXWELL, in whose name the following Notice appeared on the Paper : "To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he has any information as to the movements, since their release, of those suspected of crimes of violence, which would show whether they had or had not gone to reside in those neighbourhoods in which murders have been committed since their release;" said, that before he put his Question he wished to ask the Speaker's direction on a point of Order. That Question had undergone very severe expurgation at the Table. As originally handed in by him, it was in these terms. He proposed to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, How he reconciled the release from prison of John Ryan and Michael M Sweeney, who had been arrested on suspicion of murder, with the assurance which he had given on the 8th of May that none of the "suspects" who had been charged with murder would be released? The point he desired to submit to the Speaker was, how an hon. Member was to proceed when he wished for information on a Question, an answer in reference to which given by the Representative of a Department in the House was at variance with a statement in the printed Papers published by that Department? MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, he thought the course taken by the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Herbert Maxwell) was rather an unfair one. The first form in which he (Mr. Trevelyan) had seen the Question was the form in which it appeared on the Paper. He thought the usual course in a case of the kind was first to inquire privately whether there was any alteration in the Question. ["No, no!"] He had not been a party to any alteration of the Question. MR. SPEAKER said, that the right hon. Gentleman was not bound to an swer any Question other than that on the Paper, unless he desired so to do. With regard to the point of Order, no doubt certain expressions might, and had been struck out of the Question by the Clerk at the Table, because they involved matter of controversy and might MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should have been informed of it. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked whether it would not be desirable to make an arrangement for some information to be given to hon. Members where they inadvertently and unwittingly offended against this unwritten law as regarded putting down Questions? MR. A. J. BALFOUR asked whether there was any appeal from the decision of the Clerk at the Table? MR. SPEAKER said, there was an appeal, no doubt, to the Chair. SIR HERBERT MAXWELL: Perhaps I may be allowed to say, in expla nation to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that I gave public Notice on Thursday last of the Question, in the terms in which I put it on the Table. I would now ask, whether I would be in Order, on a future occasion, in asking the right hon. Gentleman, if he adheres to the statement made in answer to a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), that no men charged with murder were released during the month of May, in face of the fact that John Ryan and Michael M Sweeney were so released? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Baronet puts a Question to me on a matter which has not yet arisen. I am bound to say that I can assure the hon. Baronet and the House that I have quite enough to do to answer Questions upon points of Order when they arise; and now the hon. Baronet puts to me a hypothetical Question, which I must decline to answer. MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I was not aware that the hon. Baronet had given me Notice. I have felt rather keenly the reflection implied by the Question of the hon. Baronet, as I always try to be accurate in answering Questions, and more so, as regards this one, as it is a somewhat serious one. With regard to the Question on the Paper, if I may assume that it is confined to the case of prisoners released by the present Lord NAVY-THE MEDITERRANEAN Lieutenant since he assumed Office, my | ness, he had been going about as usual. answer is simply that the murder of Mr. He was then seen by a medical officer, Bourke in the Gort district, County Gal- who placed him on the sick list, alway, is the only murder that has taken though the illness was not believed to place since His Excellency released any be serious. In the evening he became prisoner, and that no prisoner from that worse, and, notwithstanding all that the district suspected of a crime of violence doctor in attendance could do, rapidly has been released. succumbed to the disease. As the death was unusually sudden, an inquest was held, and the facts were fully investigated, with the result that the jury expressed an opinion that he had received all possible care. It was with great regret that the Admiralty learnt the melancholy and premature termination of this young student's career; but they do not see in the facts of the case any reason for attaching a special medical officer to the Marlborough, the duty being efficiently performed by one of the medical officers of the Asia, and the medical officers of the Yard. SQUADRON. SIR JOHN HAY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the Mediterranean Squadron off Alexandria is not strengthened by such armour-clads as the Audacious,' Defence,' "Penelope," and "Resistance," whose draught of water will permit them to enter that harbour, in addition to or in place of the "Alexandra," "Inflexible," "Superb,' and "Téméraire," which draw too much water to leave it with certainty or safety? MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, I regret that I can make no other answer to the Question of my right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) than this-that the Admiralty are taking the steps which they consider best for the disposition of Her Majesty's Naval Forces in the Mediterranean, including Alexandria, and I must ask the House to allow me to decline entering into any particulars on the subject. NAVY-ENGINEER STUDENTS-H.M.S "MARLBOROUGH." MR. GORST asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether his attention has been called to the death of Robert Mills, an engineer student on board H.M.S. "Marlborough," at Portsmouth, from the results of a severe chill caught in the execution of his duty; and, whether it is intended to attach a medical officer to the "Marlborough," Marlborough," or to make any improved arrangement for the supervision of the health of the engineer students? ARMY-LIEUTENANTS OF MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON asked the Secretary of State for War, Why the increase of pay to lieutenants after joining their regiments is postponed in the case of the Artillery till after a period of three years' service, whereas a similar increase was made to lieutenants of the Line after a period of two years only; and, whether the Government will consider the expediency of placing the Artillery in this respect on a footing of equal advantage with the Line? MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the reason is that before the 1st of July, 1881, a second lieutenant of the Line was entitled to his increase of pay after three years' service, or on promotion to the rank of lieutenant; whereas, in the Artillery, there were no second lieutenants, and the increase of pay to lieutenants was due after three years' service. The Warrant abolished second lieutenants, and made the rule for the Line the same as that for the Artillery; but, inasmuch as it was found that, on the average, promotions from second lieutenant to lieutenant took place in about two years, second lieutenants then serving in the Line were exceptionally granted this increase after two years. Lieutenants appointed on and after the 1st of July, 1881, will serve three years before their MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, I regret to say that it is the case that Mr. Robert Mills, engineer student on board the Marlborough, died on the 24th of May, from acute and rapid congestion of the lungs, the result of a chill sustained on duty in the Sultan on the 22nd | of May. Until the morning of the 24th, although showing some symptoms of ill-pay is increased. |