stances. Shah for his capture. With reference | post to persons living at a distance porto the last Question, I am not able to tions of samples of supplies required by state what Her Majesty's Government Boards of Guardians; and the matter is might do in any conceivable circum- one in which the clerks would be guided by the direction of the Guardians. The Local Government Board are not at present aware of any necessity for interference on their part with the discretion hitherto exercised by Boards of Guar dians in regard to tenders for workhouse supplies. : MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.) Can either the Under Secretary of State for India, or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, say, without Notice, as it is a question of fact, whether the subvention for the maintenance of Ayoub is paid in advance or in arrear; and, whether his safe custody is one of the conditions of payment? SIR JAMES FERGUSSON: I think it is manifest that that is a Question of which Notice should be given. POOR LAW (IRELAND) - BOARDS OF DERS. HOME OFFICE (FACTORY DEPART. FACTORY PROSECUTIONS AT HALIFAX. MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.) (for Mr. BURT) (Morpeth) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the decisions at Halifax in the matter of some factory prosecutions, which are viewed by the cotton operatives with alarm, as being calcu of the action which, under his direction, have recently been taken by the Factory Department with the view of checking irregularities; and, whether he will cause investigation to be made into the cases? THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): My attention has been called by the Inspector, as well as by the hon. Member, to these decisions, and I do propose to inquire further into them. LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND) — AL LEGED MISCONDUCT IN THE CORK MR. O'DOHERTY (Donegal, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieu-lated to counteract the beneficial results tenant of Ireland, Whether the attention of the Local Government Board in Ireland has been called to the fact that a small number of Boards of Guardians still continue the system of inviting tenders according to antiquated standard samples; whether, having regard to the progress of the woollen industry in Ireland, the system gives to Unions the best present value in cloth; whether, under the system, competition is wide and general, or confined to dealers in the immediate localities; whether any clerks of Unions refuse to send by post to persons living at a distance portions of the samples, and if this is sanctioned by the Board; and, whether the Irish MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.) Local Government Board will call the asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord attention of Boards of Guardians to the Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the matter, in the interest of the ratepayers? manager of the Cork Theatre refused to THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER prosecute the persons alleged to have SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) taken part in the disturbances in the (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied) theatre on the 30th of August; whesaid: The attention of the Local Go-ther, though no one had been arrested vernment Board has not been specially drawn to the system alleged to be adopted by Boards of Guardians of inviting tenders according to "antiquated" standard samples. The Board have no information before them which would enable them to express an opinion on the points referred to in the second and third paragraphs of the hon. Gentleman's Question. There is no Regulation of the Local Government Board requiring Clerks of Unions to send by or charged with taking part in these disturbances, the Mayor of Cork held a sworn inquiry in connection therewith; and, whether, at this inquiry, he administered an oath to several policemen; and, if so, whether these proceedings on the part of the Mayor are sanctioned by law; and, if not, whether the attention of the Lord Chancellor will be directed to them? THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied) | the landlord, the landlord's wife, and said, he was informed that the facts the barman, and was very drunk and were as stated in the Question; and he violent. He had been previously concould not see that the Mayor had any victed. The magistrate believed, from power to hold a sworn inquiry, or ad- inquiries made by the police in addition minister an oath, when no person was to the evidence given at the trial, that charged. the statement of Rogers was untrue; and, under these circumstances, I must decline to direct the release of Patrick Walsh. LAW AND JUSTICE-WRONGFUL CONVICTION AT THE SURREY SESSIONS. MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a man named Patrick Walsh was, on the 7th July last, convicted and sentenced at the Surrey Sessions to 12 months' hard labour for breaking a pane of glass in a public house; whether he can state why several witnesses, who attended the Court on subpoena to give evidence for the defence, were not called upon; whether one of those witnesses named Thomas Rogers, of 19, Saunders Street Lambeth, did, on the 22nd of July, swear an affidavit stating that he was himself the person who committed the damage for which Walsh was convicted; whether a second affidavit was sworn to by another of those witnesses named John Pratt, of 40, East Street, Lambeth Walk, corroborating the last named witness, and stating that he was himself present when Rogers broke the glass; whether a Petition has been presented to him signed by over 40 householders praying for Walsh's release; and, whether, under the above circumstances, he will re-consider his decision not to interfere in the case, and direct the release of Patrick Walsh? THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): Patrick Walsh was tried and convicted by a jury at the Surrey Sessions for doing wilful damage to the value of £5. Several witnesses were called for the defence, but not Rogers or Pratt. The prisoner was defended by counsel, who, I presume, exercised his discretion as to what witnesses would best assist his case. I have received the affidavits referred to, and also a Petition. I have referred the matter to the magistrates before whom the prisoner was tried, and the Chairman reports that the Court was quite satisfied with the verdict. He informs me that the landlord of the house and the barman both swore that they saw the prisoner commit the damage, and that he had previously assaulted CRIMINAL LAW PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT · CONVICTION OF J. P. HAYDEN AT GLASSON PETTY SESSIONS, CO. WESTMEATH. MR. TUITE (Westmeath, N.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, at the Glasson Petty Sessions held on the 8th instant, Mr. John P. Hayden, T.C., editor of The Westmeath Examiner, was convicted before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour, for "obstructing police constables and other ministers of the Law while in the execution of their duty," in assisting the Sub-Sheriff of Westmeath to carry out certain evictions at Coolvin, in the County of Westmeath, on the 17th ultimo; and, where both or either of the Resident Magistrates who presided at the Petty Sessions qualified by their legal knowledge and experience to administer the Act; if so, what are their qualifications; and, whether the evidence of the Sheriff at the hearing of the case was in favour of the prisoner? THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied) said: This Question only appeared upon the Paper for the first time this morning. I was in hopes to have received a telegram containing full information on the subject; but I have not received it yet. I am aware, however, that the portions of the first paragraph with regard to the sentences are substantially correct, and the sentences were substantially, as laid down. The two magistrates, I believe, were Major Boulby and Mr. Stewart; and I presume the Lord Lieutenant was satisfied of their legal qualifications. MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): I wish to ask, whether it is a fact that these two military gentlemen both served in the Army up to 41; and with regard to which of them has the Lord Lieutenant satisfied himself of his legal knowledge? COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Sir, I have stated that I have not received sufficient information to enable me to complete the answer to the latter part of the Question. It rests with the Lord Lieutenant to decide as to the legal knowledge of the magistrates. I am not aware that either of these gentlemen served in the Army, or as to the date at which they left. WAR OFFICE-AUXILIARY FORCESDISMISSAL FROM THE HALLAMSHIRE RIFLES. MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne) (for Mr. BERNARD COLERIDGE) (Sheffield, Attercliffe) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he can now give any further information respecting dismissal, on political grounds, of a member of the Hallamshire Rifles from the Service? THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle): This man was not dismissed from his corps on political grounds, but for insubordination, and he was called upon to pay up a subscription already due from him. The steps taken were under the Volunteer Regulations, within the powers of the officer commanding, who considered the offence proved; and I see no reason for taking any further steps in the matter. MR. CONYBEARE: What was the insubordination? MR. E. STANHOPE: Disobeying the order of his superior officer. MR. CONYBEARE: Was the subscription alleged to be due the capitation grant of 308., or was it something else? MR. E. STANHOPE: I cannot give any answer on that point; but it was a subscription already due. MR. CONYBEARE said, he should ask further Questions on the subject. THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE) (Lincolnshire, Horncastle): For the purpose of facilitating mobilization it has been decided that Cavalry regiments in the First Army Corps shall draw their clothing made up from the depôt at Pimlico. BURIAL ACTS - BATTERSEA BURIAL BOARD-CEMETERY FOR SUTTON. MR. GILLIAT (Clapham) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the public meeting held at Sutton, on Thursday 1st September, to consider the question of the acceptance by Sutton of the offer of the Battersea Burial Board, with regard to the Rose Hill Park Cemetery, was duly convened by the Chairman of the Sutton Local Board, and that at such meeting the principal opponents of the offer were present; whether these opponents, though repeatedly called on by the Chairman to speak, did not do so, and that the meeting, being fully representative, open, and attended by upwards of 400 people, resolved to accept the offer of Battersea, with only nine dissentients; whether, having regard to the decided and practically unanimous voice of Sutton in favour of such offer, and the urgent and pressing requirements of a large district like Battersea, he will now give his consent to the establishment of the cemetery on the Rose Hill Park site; and, if not, when his decision may be anticipated; and, whether he is prepared to state the reasons that are delaying a conclusion being arrived at upon a matter of such great importance to the well-being of the community? THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): I have received statements absolutely contradictory as to the representative character and composition of the meeting in question. I am doing my best to WAR OFFICE (ORDNANCE DEPART- arrive at the truth, and the endeavour MENT)—MANUFACTURING DEPART- has delayed my decision, which, how OF CAVALRY MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne) asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the manufacture of the clothing of three cavalry regiments is about to be transferred from the workshops at Aldershot to Pimlico, and upon what grounds? ever, I hope to be able to give before long. EVICTIONS (IRELAND)-ESTATE OF THE EARL OF WICKLOW. MR. CAREW (Kildare, N.) (for Mr. W. J. CORBET) (Wicklow, E.) asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in The Wick- | require or recommend the use of any low People newspaper of the 3rd Sep- particular lamp or lamps; and, whether tember, to the following effect, in refer- he has yet seen any lamp, electric or ence to an intended eviction on the other, which combines adequate lighting estate of the Earl of Wicklow:power with safety, so as to entitle it to such recommendation ? "William Loughlin, and five others working under the Earl of Wicklow's forester, got notice to attend at the stables after their day's work. Anthony Stafford (the forester) then told them he got orders from Mr. John Ruskell, J.P., under agent, to take four of his men to an eviction which was to take place the following day. . . . he was to choose them by lot and any man who refused to go would be turned out of work and out of their houses;" whether he will inquire if it is a fact that the threat has been carried into effect in regard to the three men who refused-namely, William Loughlin, Samuel Kileen, and John Neville; and, whether he will inquire into all the circumstances; and, if the facts are stated, bring the conduct of Mr. Ruskell, J.P., under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland? as THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER SECRETARY (Colonel KING-HARMAN) (Kent, Isle of Thanet) (who replied) said, he did not read The Wicklow People, and he had not seen the paragraph in question. As the Question only appeared on the Paper this morning, he had not time to obtain information on the subject. It appeared, however, to be a simple matter between employer and employed, and not a matter of which the Government were called upon to take notice. THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.): No, Sir; there are no Rules to be drawn up under the Coal Mines, &c. Regulation Bill; nor should I take upon myself to require or recommend the use of any particular lamp. I have seen several electric lamps which appear to have great merit; and I hope that a lamp may before long be produced which will deserve and receive general adoption. LAW AND JUSTICE (ENGLAND AND WALES)-EAST GLOUCESTERSHIRECHIPPING CAMDEN PETTY SESSIONS -EXCESSIVE FLOGGING. MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.) (for Mr. WINTERBOTHAM) (Gloucester, Cirencester) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the following case :-Three boys, John Banning, aged 13 years, Clarence Jones, aged 12 years, and Edward Capewell, aged 12 years, were brought before Messrs. W. U. Ashwin and J. Averill, magistrates, eitting in Petty Sessions at Chipping Camden, East Gloucestershire, on the 17th August, charged with stealing two pennyworth of apples; there was no previous charge or conviction against either of the lads; Mr. T. S. Shekell, MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): I wish to ask, whether the right hon. and gal-J.P., the prosecutor, appealed to his lant Gentleman thinks that a threat by a magistrate to disemploy men for refusing to do that which they had a legal right to abstain from doing does not come within the Intimidation Clauses of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act? brother magistrates to be lenient, but the sentence they passed was 88. each, fine and costs together 248., and a birching on the two boys Banning and Capewell, who appeared before them, while Clarence Jones, not appearing to answer the summons, escaped the whipping, and was sentenced instead to merely 18. additional for contempt of Court; that the flogging on Banning and Capewell was administered by Police Sergeant Meads so unmercifully that they had to be taken to an hotel and kept up by stimulants; that the backs of the boys showed the marks of cruel punishment, their skins cut, and their shirts smeared with blood; and, whether, in view of this double punishment for a trivial offence, he will direct the Bench of Magistrates who ordered it that, in all future cases where corporal punishment is inflicted, a magistrate shall be present, as well as the parents of those so punished? or THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir MATTHEWS)_(Birmingham, E.): I have JAMES FERGUSSON) (Manchester, N.E.): received a Report from the Justices at I beg leave to refer to an answer which Chipping Camden as to the flogging I gave yesterday to a Question put to me administered to Capewell and Banning. at short Notice, with reference to recent They say that the flogging was admi- events in Samoa. I mentioned Malietoa nistered in the presence of Capewell's as the so-called King, having in my brother and four police officers, and mind the difference of such a title as that these officers positively deny that applied to the Chief of that group; but, the punishment was unmerciful as my attention has been called to it, I unduly severe. If there were no predesire to say that, undoubtedly, Malietoa vious convictions against the boys I has been recognized by Her Majesty's think the double punishment was unGovernment as the King of Samoa, and necessary. I have already stated in this Treaties have been made with him in House that I have no power to enforce that capacity. the attendance of any person whose presence is not required by the Act (42 & 43 Vict. c. 49, s. 10). I have already issued a Circular to the Local Authorities with the view of preventing undue severity in the flogging of young boys; and I hope that in future all cause of complaint will be removed. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER) (Isle of Wight): I have ascertained the facts respecting the case referred to in the Question of the hon. Member. It appears that John Hay was convicted of receiving stolen goods; but subsequently received a free pardon. As the law at present stands, in order to support an action for false imprisonment, it is necessary that the proceedings should be terminated in favour of the person who complains. A pardon does not get rid of the original conviction. It is, therefore, correct that, notwithstanding the pardon, John Hay is not entitled to bring such action. NORTH SEA FISHERIES-OUTRAGES ON BRITISH FISHERY VESSELS BY BELGIAN TRAWLERS-THE "TRIO." SIR HENRY TYLER (Great Yarmouth): I beg to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether he can give any infornation as regards the fresh outrage reported in this morning's papers by the Belgian trawler No. 199 on the Lowestoft smack Trio; and also if he can give any further information with respect to previous occurrences? The following is the statement: "The Trio had her two lights burning as usual, and the moon was shining brightly. Notwithstanding this, the foreigner, which sailed across the nets of the Trio. The crew proved to be the trawler O. 199, deliberately of the latter protested loudly; but the Ostender paid no attention to their complaints, and only vouchsafed a volley of abusive expressions. On taking up their nets, the crew of the Trio found that 65 of them were missing, the pecuniary loss being between £60 and £70. The outrage occurred about 15 miles south-east of Southwold." THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth): In answer to my hon. Friend, I have to say that a statement of the master and crew of the fishing boat Trio has been received; and the Board of Trade have forwarded it to the Foreign Office, with a request that a representation may at once be made to the Belgian Government on the subject. TRUCK BILL-THE IRISH WAGES MR. SEXTON (Belfast, W.): With regard to Order 23 on the Paper, "Truck |