to comply with the requirements of the law are subjected to very heavy loss by what it is, at least, possible may be an imperfection of the test laid down by the law, and also that a reduction, by the rejection of the cargoes in question, of something like a quarter of the year's imports must greatly raise the price of petroleum in India and cause loss and inconvenience to the Indian consumer, I thought it right to communicate the facts before me by telegram to the Government of India, and to ask their earliest consideration of the matter. The question of any permanent modification of the test under the Act cannot be considered for some time--till the opinions of the experts who have been consulted are received. But, to meet the pressing case of the alleged hardship to shippers of cargoes of petroleum already arrived in India or afloat, the Government of India propose to pass in their Legislative Council to-morrow a temporary Act, admitting petroleum certified by the New York Public Inspectors not to flash below the standard required by the Act. I have issued no instructions in the matter, but have simply communicated the information received and the opinions of experts, leaving it to the discretion of the Legislative Council whether to pass the Act.

NAVY-THE RIGGERS IN THE

DOCKYARDS.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Secretary to the Admiralty; Whether any answer has been or will shortly be sent to the petition presented to the Admiralty by the established riggers in Her Majesty's Dockyards?

MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, several representations have recently been received from the Dockyards in favour of an increase of pay. So far as this year is concerned, no provision has been made for such a purpose; but, before the next Estimates are framed, the claims which have been urged will

receive full consideration.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO. PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881 - THE REV. THOMAS FEEHAN.

MR. MARUM asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in view of the precedent established by the release of a person

The Marquess of Hartington

from Limerick Gaol last week, imprisoned in default of bail for good behaviour, he will take into his favourable consideration the discharge from Maryboro' Gaol of the Rev. Thomas Feehan, in custody under similar circumstances?

MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has had the Rev. Mr. Feehan's case under consideration. I will let the hon. Member know more on Thursday.

MR. LEAMY asked whether the right hon. Gentleman could state whether the cases of other persons imprisoned under the Act of Edward III. were also under consideration?

MR. TREVELYAN: They are, Sir. The same considerations govern all these cases.

MR. GIBSON asked whether His Excellency, in considering these cases, had regard to the question whether intimidation was likely to be exercised by the persons released?

MR. TREVELYAN: What His Excellency has considered is the relation of the length of imprisonment which these people have undergone to the charges on which they were imprisoned. He has also considered the effect of their release on the peace of the districts in which they lived.

IRELAND-STATE-AIDED EMI.
GRATION.

CAPTAIN AYLMER (for Mr. FITZPATRICK) asked Mr. Chancellor of the Mr. Tuke's letter in the "Standard" of Exchequer, Whether, having regard to June 5th, stating the anxiety of the people in the western districts of Connaught to emigrate, and the difficulty of procuring funds for that purpose, Her Majesty's Government will make arrangements to supplement the power now possessed by guardians of Poor

Law Unions of giving money in aid of low rate of interest to those Poor Law emigration, by granting a loan at a Unions which were scheduled under the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act of 1880; and, whether, having regard to the great urgency of the case, they will make such arrangements as rapidly as pos

sible?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, there is no doubt of the importance of this question; but, if it be an urgent question, it is not the only urgent one in connection with

Irish legislation, for there are other matters which have been partially the subject of discussion this year, some relating to the various clauses of the Land Act, and more particularly to the Purchase Clauses, which likewise demand the consideration of the Government. But I do not think that any advantage will arise from my entering at this period into a statement of what the Government intend upon the subject. We have before us the passing of two Bills, which form the bulk of our immediate duty in this House. By the time these two Bills are disposed of, there is one subject which it will be quite necessary to take up-namely, the Taxes Bill.' When that again has been disposed of, and it is not a matter that can possibly occupy a great deal of time, then will be the time when we may fairly be called upon to state our intentions with regard to other subjects.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: May we hope, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, that we shall have a statement from the Government with reference to the other points under the Land Act before the close of the Session ?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Yes; I do not pretend to say now, Sir, what we shall be able to deal with practically, and what we shall not be able to deal with practically, during the remainder of the present Session; but I think it will be quite proper for the Government to state their intentions when we have arrived at the point to which I have referred.

EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS). SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can state which of the Powers have consented to the Conference on the affairs of Egypt; and, whether, before issuing invitations to a Conference at Constantinople, Her Majesty's Government and the Government of France had taken steps to ascertain whether such conference was acceptable to the Sultan, the Sovereign of that capital? The hon. Member further asked whether the French text of the Circulars published in The Times and addressed by the Sultan to the other Powers was authentic; if so, when where the Circulars received, and had any answer been sent by Her Majesty's Government?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, my hon. Friend asks which of the Powers have consented to the Conference? All of them have expressed themselves favourable to the idea, except the Porte, which, without declining, has expressed the belief that the Conference is unnecessary. The text of the Circulars which appears in The Times is no doubt accurate, as it corresponds pretty closely with the purport of a conversation which Musurus Pasha had with Lord Granville yesterday evening, and which was the first expression of the opinion of the Porte on the matter which we have had before us. The hon. Member also asks whether, before issuing invitations to a Conference at Constantinople, we have taken steps to ascertain whether the Conference was acceptable to the Sultan? No, Sir; we did not. I find from examination of the latest precedent-that of the Constantinople Conference of 1876that the late Government took the initiative in proposing it, without taking steps to ascertain whether it was acceptable to the Sultan. All the Powers expressed themselves favourable to the idea, except the Porte, which objected to it. The preparations were actively pushed on all the same, and the Porte only agreed 14 days later. As my hon. Friend may be inclined to agree with me that the precedent is an interesting one, I will give him the exact dates. The invitations to the Conference of 1876 were sent out on the 4th of November.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Were they laid before Parliament ?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes; I am quoting from the Blue Book. On the 8th of November Lord Salisbury was named British Plenipotentiary. On the 8th of November the Porte made its first answer, stating that—

"The meeting of a Conference would be too disadvantageous for us not to wish that the desired understanding be obtained without the meeting of foreign Plenipotentiaries, having as their mission the discussion of the internal administration of the empire."

On the 13th of November, the Porte again protested against the Conference. On the same day the reply sent somewhat intimated that the Conference might take place, whether the Porte joined in it or not. It was not until the 18th November that the Porte agreed to the Conference.

I 2

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Is the hon. Baronet not aware that the result of that Conference was entirely futile, and does he anticipate a similar result from the proposed Conference?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member might obtain information as to the result of the Conference of 1876 from right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to ask whether the answers received from the other Powers except the Porte, which are said to have been favourable, were distinct acceptances? SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; I take it that the Powers are following on this occasion the precedent of 1876. In 1876 the Powers informed us that, while they were generally favourable to the idea, they should keep back their formal answers until they had agreed amongst themselves upon the terms. That was the answer of Germany, and I think it probable that the same course is being taken on this occasion.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Have the Government received any communication from any of the Powers to the effect that they think a Conference unnecessary?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir.

MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Have the Government received any intelligence as to the arrival of Dervish Pasha in Egypt, or as to the instructions he has been empowered to carry out?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The conversation between Musurus Pasha and Lord Granville has placed generally before the Government the instructions given by the Porte to Dervish Pasha, and they are substantially on the same bases as those proposed for the Conference. With regard to the arrival of Dervish Pasha in Egypt, judging from the distance, which is only 800 miles, I think he would probably arrive to-night or to-morrow morning.

MR. O'DONNELL: I should like to ask whether the instructions to Dervish Pasha contained any instructions to the effect that the terms of the recent AngloFrench Ultimatum should be insisted on-with respect, for example, to the exile of Arabi Pasha and other matters ?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think it would serve any good end

to go largely into discussion on this subject, and I could not answer without entering considerably into discussion. I have already stated that the document in question is not an Ultimatum, and I have given certain reasons why it is not an Ultimatum. The instructions given to Dervish Pasha have not been communicated in detail to Her Majesty's Government, but only general terms; and they resemble those that have been placed before the Powers as the bases of the proposed Conference.

MR. M'COAN: I beg to ask the hon. Baronet, whether, in the instructions given to Dervish Pasha, the expulsion of Arabi Pasha from Egypt was included?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think we know the exact nature of the measures which the Porte is prepared to take. The measures are, generally speaking, the restoration of order in Egypt, and of the authority of the Khedive.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked when the promised Papers relating to Egypt would be distributed to Members?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Communications with the Government of France with regard to them have now ceased, and the Papers went to the printers this morning. I think it will take two days to get them printed, but they will probably be distributed on Friday morning.

SIR WILFRID LAWSON inquired if this referred to the distribution of all the Papers?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; these are only the first set down to February 5. We are still discussing with the French Government with respect to others, and I think, as I said yesterday, we shall obtain their assent to the production of the remainder.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS asked the hon. Baronet whether the fortified works at Alexandria had been discontinued, because the statements in that day's newspapers on the subject were contradictory?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am sorry I cannot give any additional information on the subject. Sir Beauchamp Seymour may have telegraphed further particulars to the Admiralty since I came to the House; but, so far as I know, he has not yet telegraphed.