money into Court. But the India Office had placed itself in this dilemma-that if the action proceeded the conduct of one of its permanent officials would be exposed in a not very creditable manner; and if the Office avoided the action it would be discredited by having refused to pay a debt until threatened with an action, and it would become apparent that Sir Owen Burne was not prepared to state on oath that which the Under Secretary of State had been made to say in an official letter. He must now go back to what took place last year in India, when Suchait Singh returned there full of hopes of a speedy settlement of his affairs. After waiting a long time at Bombay getting no settlement he wrote to him (Lord Stanley of Alderley). He then complained at the India Office of these delays, and was told that the Indian officials could not settle his affairs at Bombay, and that they wished Suchait Singh to go to head-quarters. He accordingly wrote to him in that sense, and he proceeded to Calcutta. When there he was not allowed to see the Viceroy, nor could he even see a junior Under Secretary of the Foreign Office. He was driven from pillar to post, and at last got a letter offering him only the pittance which had been originally offered, and in despair he returned to this country. Now, was this the way to govern India, and to carry out the Queen's Proclamation, which was reiterated in Lord Canning's two Charters? An arrangement was made which satisfied all parties, but which had been set aside by chicanery, with no other apparent advantage than that of gratifying the spite of some subordinate officials and of punishing a man for having dared to appeal to the Secretary of State, and for having brought his case to this country. The Indian bureaucracy had the pretension that all their members were infallible, and when driven to rectify an error they did it in a hidden and secret mannerfor instance, after he had complained of Mr. Burney, the second Resident at Chumba, and of his enormous salary, though what he said was scoffed at, Mr. Burney was removed, or promoted if they so liked to call it, but his successor was appointed with only half his salary. The Indian officials were masters in the arts of delay; they put by a letter and left it unanswered for a long time, and then called procrastination deliberation.

It had often happened that they sent home to the Secretary of State their own view, and delayed for some time to send the document which was in opposition to them. Not only the Secretary of State, but the Viceroy also, was hoodwinked by these officials, and he was prevented from seeing and judging for himself. How was it that Suchait Singh had never been able to see a single Viceroy? How was it to be explained that the present Viceroy passed such a Bill as the Assam Coolie Bill, and that the Secretary of State could not do more than promise an annual Report upon it, though it was pointed out to him that two high retired Indian officials had been allowed, in the laxity which had succeeded the stricter government of the East India Company, to become President and Vice President of the Tea Planters' Association? Now that the check of the Board of Control over the Court of Directors no longer existed abuses, injustice, and tyranny must increase if the Secretary of State did not exercise greater vigilance over the Indian officials.

Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for correspondence with the India Office in June and July last respecting Suchait Singh."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

LORD ELLENBOROUGH thought that it would be of great advantage to our Indian Empire for it to be known that all grievances of Natives, whether well-founded or otherwise, were brought under the notice of Parliament, and that no real grievance would long remain unredressed. Sir Owen Burne had been referred to; but he could not do otherwise than as he was authorized. The whole question was whether anything of the kind referred to by the noble Lord took place. Of his (Lord Ellenborough's) own knowledge Sir Owen Burne had always acted as he was authorized, and no real complaint could be made of his conduct.

VISCOUNT ENFIELD said, that the noble Lord who had commenced this discussion had rather embarrassed him by introducing into his speech a number of topics which were not included in the Notice he had placed upon the Paper; therefore, he would address himself only to the complaint which the noble Lord had made and to his Motion for Correspondence. He must state at once that he was not authorized to grant the pro

duction of the Correspondence which the noble Lord wished for. The noble Lord desired to restrict himself to the Correspondence of June and July last; but it certainly would not be advisable to give the Correspondence which extended over only two months, as that would create an unfair impression of the whole case, which really extended over a period of 12 years. As to the claims of Suchait Singh, they had been repeatedly considered by successive Secretaries of State for India and adversely decided against. He hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK entirely concurred in the observations of the noble Lord who had just sat down. LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

Committee - Report Third Reading-Pensions
Commutation* [252], and passed.
Considered as amended - Third Reading-Arti.

*

zans' Dwellings [255]; Intermediate Education (Ireland) [258], and passed. Withdrawn - Municipal Corporations (Unreformed) * [220].

QUESTIONS.

19:0:

THE MAGISTRACY (SCOTLAND)—THE PROVOST OF DINGWALL.

MR. BIGGAR asked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been drawn to the fact that Mr. D. G. Ross, Provost of Dingwall, has been convicted and fined £1, with £3 38. expenses, for travelling on a Railway without a ticket; and, whether, under the circumstances, he should not be removed from the magisterial bench?

BALFOUR): On inquiry, I find that in THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. 1877 Mr. Ross, now Provost of Dingwall, pleaded guilty to a charge of travelling on a railway without a ticket, and that he was fined in the sum mentioned in the Question. It appears that he had had a season ticket, which had shortly before expired, and it was stated on his behalf that on the occasion referred to he had no intention to defraud. Since this occurrence Mr. Ross has been elected a member of the Town Council by his fellow-townsmen, and he has been by the Town Council unanimously elected Provost. The Government do not intend, therefore, to take any steps in the

matter.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-ALLEGED SEARCHES FOR ARMS.

MR. BIGGAR asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on or about 21st July, Constable Young, of Ballyhaise, accompanied with a number of other policemen without producing any warrant, entered during the night, on the pretence of searching for arms, the houses of

MR. TREVELYAN: Constable Young, accompanied by three sub-constables, entered the houses of the persons referred to in this Question, not under any pretence of searching for arms, but under warrant issued by the Resident Magistrate on the information of a summons-server to the effect that he had been assaulted and intimidated by a party of five men when serving summonses for poor rates. The police did not enter the sleeping apartments of the females. The police were in search of the perpetrators of this outrage. There was no pretence of searching for arms, and they had a legal warrant for their action.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881-DETENTION OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT-PATRICK CURLEY AND OTHERS.

MR. REDMOND (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there be any reason for the further detention of Patrick Curley and his son John Curley, the one confined in Naas and the other in Kilmainham Gaol, since the 27th January; and, whether Patrick Curley is not an old man seventy years of age, and disabled?

MR. TREVELYAN: The cases of both these men were considered on the 28th ultimo, when His Excellency decided that they should be detained for the present. Patrick Curley is reported to be 50 years of age; I have no information about his being disabled.

MR. REDMOND (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the time has arrived for the release of Thomas and James Morrissey, who have now been subjected to a lengthened period of imprisonment?

MR. TREVELYAN: There is no person named James Morrissey in custody.

MR. REDMOND (for Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will cause particular inquiry to be made. into the case of James M'Dermott, now detained in Kilmainham Prison, and arrested with twenty-two others on the 4th of July in Loughrea ; and, whether, Mr. M'Dermott, being a newspaper correspondent, there is any truth in the prevalent opinion in his district that he owes his arrest to his supposed exposure in the local press of police misconduct?

MR. TREVELYAN: His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant examined into this case, and was satisfied that sufficient grounds existed for the arrest of James M'Dermott as being reasonably suspected of being accessory to murder. There is no ground for the idea that his arrest was in any way owing to the fact of his being a newspaper correspondent.

FISHERIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

-DIGEST OF STATUTES AND RE.
GULATIONS OF FISHERY BOARDS,
WITH INDEX.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR asked the Lord Advocate, If he will cause a thoroughly good digest to be made in the ensuing Recess of all the many Laws and guiding regulations relating to all fisheries, sea and fresh water, also about the Fishery Board, with useful indexes by subjects and in alphabetical arrangement?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): I am afraid I cannot undertake to cause so large and important a literary work to be prepared in my own Department during the Recess. There already exists, in a convenient form, a compilation of the Herring and Sea Fishery Acts, prepared by the present Fishery Board, showing what Acts are repealed and what are still in force. If we are enabled to pass the Fishery Board Bill, and establish the new Board, that Board will naturally address itself to the preparation of such a digest of the Fishery Laws as my hon. and gallant Friend desires.

GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I would ask, in the event of the Fishery

COAL MINES-REPORTS OF THE

RECENT EXPLOSIONS.

MR. BURT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state when the Reports of the special inquiries, which he authorised to be made, into the colliery explosions at Trimdon Grange, Tudhoe, West Stanley, and Whitehaven, will be in the hands of Members?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: In reference to the two first explosions to which my hon. Friend refers, the Reports will be delivered to Members this week. The other Reports are in a forward state of preparation.

MR. SEXTON asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has observed that in every one of the five prosecutions which have taken place in the King's County under the Crime Prevention Act the persons accused have been discharged by the magistrates; whether, in a case tried at Birr on Thursday last, in which the police accused two men, Michael Kenny and William Dorrley, the latter an "exsuspect," with having been on the public road at eleven o'clock at night

"Under circumstances giving rise to a reasonable suspicion of their being about to commit a criminal act,"

the magistrates discharged the prisoners, Mr. McSheehy, R.M. observing that"The Legislature did not contemplate, in passing the Act, that it would be used to ter

General Sir George Balfour

rorise the people, and he trusted those entrusted with the carrying of it out would use all due discretion in future;"

and, whether, in view of this and similar cases since the passing of the Act, the Irish Executive will instruct the Police to use the power of arrest with more discretion?

MR. TREVELYAN: There were two cases only tried under the Prevention of Crime Act in the King's County, and both of these were dismissed by the magistrates. Mr. M'Sheehy did not use the expression "terrorize" attributed to him in the second paragraph of the Question. He informs me that what he said was that it was not the intention of Government that the Act should be carried out oppressively. Attention will be called to the necessity of exercising discretion in making arrests under the Act.

NAVY-THE MEDITERRANEAN FLEET -ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGYMEN. MR. MOORE asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, What steps have been taken to carry out the Minute of 7th June 1878 in the Squadrons at Alexandria and Port Said; and, whether, in the event of ships being used for hospital purposes, he will take care that the sick and dying soldiers and sailors

of the Roman Catholic Church are not left without consolation of religion?

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, I have been in communication with Dr. Virtue, Bishop of Portsmouth, and with my hon. Friend himself, on this subject. The result is, that as there is some doubt whether there is, especially on the Suez Canal, an adequate provision of Catholic clerymen for the seamen of the Fleet, the Admiralty have arranged with the War Office to send out an additional priest above the number to be sent for the Army-and the services of this additional priest will be available for the Fleet.

fighting force under his command; and, whether the propriety of appointing a Brigadier and Staff to the Marine force in Egypt has been considered?

MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN :| The despatches received from Sir Beauchamp Seymour refer only to the action of July 11 at Alexandria, and no special mention is made in them of the services of the Royal Marines, although the Admiral speaks most highly of all the officers and men-including, of course, the Marines-under his command. The second Question addressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend I have already on two occasions answered. The Marines now on active service are attached to the ships of the Fleet, and it is not thought necessary to appoint a special Brigadier General and Staff for the part of the Force serving on shore.

the international engagements which it is a part of their policy to maintain.

MR. BOURKE asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will state what the conditious of the negotiations are respecting Turkish Military intervention in Egypt; if Turkish troops are to go to Egypt, what steps will be taken to secure unity of action on the part of the Military commanders; whether the Conference will control or interfere with the Military action of England; what flag is treated as the territorial flag at Suez and elsewhere when British troops are in occupation, and in whose name is civil authority exercised in those places; what is the nature of the agreement respecting the protectorate of the Suez Canal; and, has the neutralisation of the Suez Canal been discussed at the Conference, or between Her Majesty's Government and any other Foreign Power?

MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Firman of August 1879, investing Tewfik Pasha with the Khediviat, which, before promulgation, was communicated to and accepted by the Governments of England and France, forms one of the "International engagements" of the Sultan; whether the Egyptian tribute of £T.750,000, payable to the Sultan, is fixed by that Firman; and, whether the Plenipotentiaries at Constantinople are taking measures to ascertain if the Sultan adheres to that engagement?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; the Firman, as communicated by the Porte to the English and French Ambassadors, is an international engagement on the part of the Sultan. It fixes the tribute at £T.750,000. I am not aware that any measures have been taken by the Conference to ascertain if the Sultan adheres to that engagement. But it has been frequently referred to by Her Majesty's Government as one of

stage at which I can make any statement in regard to them. As regards his third Question, I have no reason to believe that the Conference "will control or interfere with " the military action of England. In reply to the fourth Question, Her Majesty's Government consider that the flag of the Khedive is the flag to be flown in Egypt when British troops are in occupation, and civil authority is exercised in the Khedive's name. In reply to the fifth and sixth Questions, I have to state that no agreement has been come to for any "protectorate of the Suez Canal." The only proposal that has been made is one for securing the safety of a free passage through the Canal by arrangements in which all the Powers should be invited to take part. Her Majesty's Ambassador has been instructed that any agreement at present for this purpose should be confined to temporary arrangements, having reference to existing circumstances.

MR. BOURKE: Are we to understand that the Government has departed from the recent declaration of the Prime Minister that any questions relating to the Suez Canal are outside the purview of the Conference?

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Prime Minister has already stated in the