to say that there was no strike in land-what was asked having been the building trade at the time referred their population and number of inhato; but there was a lock-out-that is, a bited houses according to the Census of strike by the employers against the 1881, together with the number of perworkmen. At that time, the workmen sons on the burgess roll, distinguishasked me to take charge of their case, ing men from women. The terms "muwhich I did, and the difference was very nicipal burghs" and "burgess rolls" speedily settled to the mutual satisfac- are inapplicable to Scotland, and great tion and interests of both parties to the difficulty was experienced in dealing dispute. With regard to the innuendo with that part of the Return which reabout the police, I can assure the hon. lated to population, both for this reason Gentleman that there was nothing at all and also because the Census of 1881 of the kind. I do not suppose the police does not specify the number of persons knew of the existence of the dispute, or entitled to the municipal franchise. anyone else not directly interested in After a correspondence between the it, as during the dispute there was no Home Office and the Crown Agent, it police case, nor any cause for the inter- was decided that the number of muniference of those charged with the duty of cipal electors only should be giventhe maintenance of peace and order. That these being taken from the population is the last time that I have been per- of the Parliamentary burghs, as shown sonally responsible in any trade dispute by the Census, so that in cases such as between workmen and employers. I Kirkcaldy and Dysart, where the Parlia should like to add one word more, and mentary and municipal boundaries are that is that the hon. Member will find not identical, the Return cannot be that the work of advertising obscure said to be reliable, and the statistics country newspapers will not bring him necessary for making it so do not exist. any very desirable Parliamentary dis- May I be allowed to suggest to my hon. tinction. Friend and to other Scotch Members moving for a Return, that it would be convenient before doing so to submit the draft terms of the proposed Returns to some Scotch official, so that it may be adapted to make the Return accurate. Thereby much inconvenience and such anomalies as exist in the present case would be saved. But, under the circumstances, there is certainly no blame attached to the Crown Agent under the late or present Government.

MR. GENT-DAVIS: Sir, might I, with your permission, resent the insinuation-- Cries of "No!"]

MR. SPEAKER: Sir George Campbell.

SCOTLAND-ERRORS IN STATISTICAL
RETURNS-RETURN OF MUNI-

CIPAL BURGHS, 1885. SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked the Secretary for Scotland, Whether his attention has been called to the palpably SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL asked if erroneous character of some of the statis- the right hon. and learned Gentleman was tical Returns relating to Scotland pre-aware that every almanac and railway sented to this House; for instance, to the Return of Scotch Municipal Burghs, No. 260 II. dated November 1885, in which Kirkcaldy is made to have a population of only 13,320 and 4,218 municipal electors, or nearly one elector to every four inhabitants; and Dysart, a population of 10,877, with 484 municipal electors, or one elector to upwards of twenty-two inhabitants; whether the Crown agent is the only person responsible for such Returns; and, if he will take steps to establish an efficient agency to furnish correct Returns for Scotland? THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR) (who replied) said: The Return in question related to municipal burghs in England, Wales, and Scot

guide published in Scotland gave the population of the municipal burghs and the municipal and Parliamentary voters; and, whether, in future, the Municipal Returns were to be prepared in his Office or in that of the Secretary for Scotland?

MR. J. B. BALFOUR, in reply, said, that would be a matter for amicable arrangement. He objected to the quotation of unauthentic and irresponsible railway guides.

POST OFFCE-TELEGRAPH CLERKS

SUNDAY WORK.

MR. HOWARD VINCENT asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is a fact that postal telegraph clerks and messengers receive extra pay in London

facts of this case; and, whether the facts were substantially as represented?

for work upon Sunday, but that those employed on similar duty in the Provinces receive no such additional payment; and, if the Postmaster General will take steps to remove a distinction which causes dissatisfaction among a deserving body of public servants?

MR. O'KELLY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I should like to ask him, Whether it is not true that all these Kingston estate tenants were refused any reduction at all of their rents; and, whether the priest, so far from advising the people not to pay, used his whole influence to effect a settlement?

MR. LALOR: Might I also ask the right hon. Gentleman who is responsible for this Question?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): As to the last Question, I must reply that I really cannot say. In reply to the hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), I may say that I think I have heard the statements which he has made, but on other authority. I cannot say of my own knowledge whether they are, or are not, well founded. With reference to the Ques

THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the arrangements in London differ from those in the country. The question of pay for Sunday work in the Provinces was carefully considered at the date of the reorganization of 1881, and the scale of weekly wages was fixed so as to cover two hours' work on Sundays. Applications have been received by three successive Postmasters General for further pay on Sundays and refused by each. My noble Friend the Postmaster General concurs in the decision arrived at by his Predecessors and feels it his duty to decline to re-open the question. In reply to the further Question on the paper, I have received a tion of which the hon. Member has given me private Notice, I beg to state that some delay has arisen in the payment of extra duty during the Christmas season, owing to the claims having been incorrectly made out. An inquiry was necessary before they were passed; but every effort was made to avoid unnecessary delay. There has not yet been time to settle the allowances for St. Valentine's Day.

Report which shows that, with the exception of the particular amount of rent due by the man arrested-which was £9, and not £3 10s.-the facts are substantially as stated.

CRIME AND OUTRAGE (IRELAND) —

"BOYCOTTING" AT CLONMEL. COLONEL WARING asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a shopkeeper and farmer named Edward Tobin, living in the

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) centre of the town of Clonmel, had been

-THE KINGSTON ESTATES.

MR. LEWIS, who said he was not responsible for the Question, but as it was on the Notice Paper in his name, he had no objection to put it, asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to an article in The Daily Express of the 25th February, in which the following passage occurs:—

"When the agent of the Kingston Estate appointed a day to meet them, the tenants, and receive the arrears, the priests incited them to stand and resist to the end. At that time many of the tenents were ready and willing to pay. But they were told not to do so, and so they went away and had an orgy. One man, arrested for drunkenness, had on his person a bank deposit receipt and other valuables to the amount of two hundred and twenty pounds. The rent he was asked to pay amounted to three pounds ten;

whether he has made inquiries as to the Mr. Howard Vincent

boycotted; whether the town band had not annoyed him by halting in front of his premises and playing the "Rogue's March" and other offensive tunes; whether it is intended to indict certain of Tobin's neighbours at the next assizes for picketing his house; whether his securities in a road contract were objected to though of well-known solvency; whether they have since been subjected to obstruction in their lawful business; and, whether Tobin's offence consisted in taking charge of a vacant farm?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. Jonn MORLEY): Sir, it appears that Tobin has been "Boycotted" since August 30 last, the cause being that he managed two vacant farms. Two persons were prosecuted under the Conspiracy Act at the last Winter Assizes, for preventing persons from entering his shop. The

MR. JOHN MORLEY: Well, Sir, if | mittee of Council on Education, WheI have not answered it, it is because I ther he will direct the returning officer have not the information at my disposal. for the Metropolis to afford an abstract of account explanatory of the details of IRELAND-ILLEGAL USE OF FIRE- the expenses of the London School ARMS-CASE OF JOSEPH DELANEY, Board Elections in November 1885, to BORRIS, CO. CARLOW. each of the sections to which by him they are apportioned; and, whether he will put a stop to the present system, which results in the ratepayers being kept in compulsory ignorance as to the manner of the expenditure of many thousands of pounds?

MR. CHANCE asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Joseph Delaney, ex-policeman, Civil Bill Officer and Bailiff to Mr. Arthur M Murragh Kavanagh, on the evening of the 27th November last, fired three revolver shots into the streets of THE VICE PRESIDENT (Sir LYON Borris, to the great danger of the PLAYFAIR): The Education Department passers by; whether the said Joseph has power, under the Act of 1873, to Delaney is a person of intemperate obtain and tax accounts of school boards habits, and subject to fits of temporary throughout the country when appeal is insanity; whether on the 21st January made; but that power does not extend last, an application was made to the to London. The Returning Officer, who magistrates at petty sessions in Borris is the Recorder of London, has to ascerfor the revocation of the arms licence of tain and determine the amount to be the said Joseph Delaney, and was re-paid; and is not bound by Statute or fused by the said magistrates; whether steps will be taken to ascertain the fitness of the said Joseph Delaney to have a licence under the Arms Act; and, whether, if evidence of the above facts be laid before the proper official, the matter will be promptly dealt with? MR. MACARTNEY: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that Question, I would ask whether, on the evening in question, stones were not thrown and windows broken in the house where Delaney was?

THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): My answer will answer the Question of the hon. Member opposite. It appears that, on the night in question, two of Delaney's windows were broken with stones; and he fired two revolver shots at random from his window, without doing any harm. The police are not aware that Delaney is a man of intemperate habits, though he was some time ago. He is not subject to fits of insanity. He is a Civil Bill officer, ex-policeman, and care-taker of evicted farms. As long as he acts in that capacity he requires fire arms, and the magistrates have declined to revoke his licence. I have, however, information from which I think he requires to be cautioned as to the use of fire arms.

LONDON SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION
EXPENSES.

SIR ALGERNON BORTHWICK asked the Vice President of the Com

In

by the Order in Council to make returns of the expenses. I have, however, seen Sir Thomas Chambers, the Recorder, who voluntarily offers to send the accounts of the last election to the Education Department, which will send them to the School Board; and, by Section 87 of the Act of 1870, they can be inspected and examined by any ratepayer. answer to the last part of the Question, I have to say this course will be pursued in future elections by a condition in the Order of Council regulating the election, so that the hon. Member will perceive that the second part of his Question will be attained. Under these circumstances, I hope the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. H. Smith) will delay the Motion for the Return of which he has given Notice.

MR. W. H. SMITH: Certainly.