might be created to be compensated for on the principle proposed by the Mover. The effect would be that till such time as, in the conflict of parties, the Bill might be introduced and passed no appointment by the Crown would be made. [The Duke of ARGYLL: No!] All he could say was, if that was not the meaning of these Resolutions the sooner the language in which they were framed was altered the better. It was utterly impossible that any other interpretation should be placed on them. VISCOUNT HALIFAX had already stated that he was in no way responsible for the Resolutions; but the noble Earl who had sat near him (Earl Russell) had distinctly stated what indeed must be obvious to everyone, that no addresses could interfere with the action of the Sovereign, so as to suspend making any appointments, in the exercise of the Queen's patronage, which it was her duty to fill up. THE EARL OF HARROWBY said, the question was not what was the intention of the Mover of the Resolutions, but what was the meaning which the words them selves bore. He did not see how it was possible to put upon the Resolutions any other interpretation than that they were to have some immediate effect. THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: The Resolutions were framed for the purpose of placing the patronage of the Crown at the disposal-not of the House of Commons-but of Parliament. THE EARL OF HARROWBY: The Resolutions, if they were carried into effect, would prevent the creation of any new in terest in the temporalities of the Irish Church. The position of the Crown in that case was one of a very peculiar charac ter. It might be that the Crown might give leave to Parliament to discuss a Bill prepared on the subject; but at the present moment there was no Bill in existence; and it would be a most painful thing for the Sovereign, who was sworn to maintain the Irish Church, to be over-ruled, not by a legislative Act, but by a Resolution of the House of Commons calling upon the Crown to allow that body to deal as it pleased with the Irish Church. Such a course of proceeding would not be consistent with the duty with which the Crown was invested in the character of its head and protector. House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock. MR. MONSELL said, he would ask permission of the House to allow him to speak for a few moments on a matter personal to himself. He found that Dr. Magee, the Protestant Dean of Cork, had complained of a statement attributed to him (Mr. Monsell) with regard to the burial-ground of Enniskillen. He begged to state that he made no statement with regard to the Enniskillen burial-ground, but to a place called Pubble. The facts about a mile from the Protestant Church; were that the graveyard of Pubble was that for the last twenty-six years the burial service of the Established Church had not been celebrated therein more than five times; that Roman Catholics had no other available burying-place than that of Pubble within a circuit of not less than ten miles; that, notwithstanding, the Rev. T. C. Maude, rector of the parish in 1848, prohibited the Roman Catholic priests from Rev. Dr. Magee, who succeeded Mr. Maude officiating at Pubble graveyard; that the as rector, was requested by a lay Roman Catholic parishioner to remove the veto of his predecessor, and permit the Roman of Christian interment. This request Dr. Catholic parishioners to have the privilege Magee held under consideration for some time, but ultimately refused to communicate further on the subject with the applicant. Dr. Magee had also impugned the statement which he had made in a recent debate on the Irish Burials Bill, to the effect that the very rev. gentleman had declined to allow Roman Catholics to be buried in a graveyard at Enniskillen according to the rites of their religion. He begged to say that he had made the stateon the authority of a petition, to which he called the attention of the hon. and learned Member for Mallow (Mr. Sullivan), in order that, if there was any thing erroneous in it, he might contradict it. reply, that nothing was known at the Home Office of typhus fever having prevailed in Devizes Gaol, nor would such a fact come before him officially, unless the visiting Justices applied to Government to send down an Inspector. It was for the GRIEVANCES OF CUSTOMS OFFICERS. local Magistrates to decide whether Devizes QUESTION. MR. GRAVES said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Commission appointed by the Treasury to inquire into the grievances of Customs Officers in London has made its Report; and, if it is intended to extend the investigation to the outports, when the inquiry may be expected to commence ? MR. SCLATER - BOOTH, in reply, said, the Commission referred to had not yet made its Report. It was originally the intention to extend the inquiry to the outports; but it was doubtful how soon this would be done. ARMY-WOOLWICH ARSENAL. QUESTION. CAPTAIN PACK BERESFORD said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War. Whether the manufacture and repair of machinery in use in the Royal Arsenal at Woolwich has not hitherto been executed in the Royal Gun Factory, under the immediate superintendance of the officers connected with that Department; and, whether any change has been made recently in this system, or if any change is contemplated; and, if so, to what effect? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, in reply, that the original custom was as stated by the hon. and gallant Member. Latterly it had been decided to manufac ture and repair the machinery by contract, but it was now under consideration whether it would not be wiser to revert to the former practice. DEVIZES GAOL.-QUESTION. MR. MARSH said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been cailed to the fact of the Wiltshire Magistrates having decided to make Devizes Gaol the only gaol in the county; whether he is aware that malignant typhus exists in that gaol; and, whether he will send down an Inspector of the Board of Health to report whether Devizes Gaol is fit to be the only gaol in the county? MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in should be the only gaol for the county; and, as long as they complied with the Prison Act Regulations, they could place it where they pleased, and the Home Office had no power to interfere. ARMY-FORTIFICATIONS.-QUESTION. MR. O'BEIRNE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the following announcement, which appeared in The Times of the 2nd of April instant, is correct :— "Sir John Pakington, as Secretary of State for War, has nominated the following gentlemen to act as a Committee to inquire into the character and construction of our Coast Defences, whether of iron, masonry, or earthwork, as recommended by the Royal Commission on National Defences: -Admiral the Hon. Sir F. G. Grey, G.C. B., chairman; Major General Collingwood Dickson, C.B., Royal Artillery; Major General Simmons, C.B., Royal Engineers; Major General Harness, C.B., Royal Engineers; and Mr. Hawkshaw, Civil Engineer;' and, if that announcement be correct, whether he will state to the House the nature and extent of the instructions under which the Members of that Commission are to act, what powers have been given to them, whether they are authorized to examine witnesses, and whether he will place a Copy of the Commission, and of the instructions upon the Table, for the information of the House? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, he would not commit himself to the exact expressions used in the paragraph the hon. Member had quoted from The Times, but it was quite true he had appointed a Committee of the character described in it. Allegations had been frequently made in the House that the large expenditure on our fortifications and arsenal defences had been to a great extent thrown away. It had been stated that the foundations were in some cases giving way, that in others the walls were cracked, and ia others the roofs were falling in; and when he asked on what authority such allegations were made, it proved to be newspaper articles and anonymous letters. It therefore appeared to him desirable to get some authentic information on the subject, and he accordingly appointed the Committee. He selected Sir F. G. Grey to preside over it because of his known ability and high character, and also because he held the office of President of the Fortifications Committee, and because he had nothing to do with either the designing or construction of the works he would survey. He had associated with Sir F. G. Grey the officers whose names the hon. Member had read, and every one would agree that it was impossible to nominate a Committee of higher reputation. He had no objection. to lay the instructions given to the Committee on the table; they were of the simplest kind; both in them and in his private communications with Sir F. G. Grey, the only point he had insisted on was, that in the Report of this body of gentlemen, whose honour and competence were above all suspicion, the whole truth should be made known for the information of the House and the country. re-open the case. He would, however, say that, although the irregularities of which Mr. Coble was convicted rendered his discharge necessary for the discipline of the service, he was inclined to think his misconduct might be attributed mainly to want of judgment and discretion, and that he was not guilty of any intentional dishonesty or moral offence. REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS. QUESTION. SIR EDWARD BULLER said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the the Bill for the amendment of the Law Treasury, When he proposes to introduce relating to the Registration of Electors in Counties and Boroughs in England and Wales? COLONEL SYKES said, he would beg to ask. Whether Mr. Hawkshaw was included in the Committee? MR. DISRAELI replied that he regretted he had neglected to communicate been his intention to ask him for some privately with the hon. Baronet, as it had explanation of his Question. He was not under SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, he introduce a Bill relating to the Registration any obligation that he could recall to was. IRELAND-LOCAL GOVERNMENT. QUESTION. MR. PIM said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he expects to introduce the Bill for the extension to Ireland of the facilities which are afforded to England and Scotland by the Local Government (England) Act, 1858. and the General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Act, 1862? THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, the Bill referred to by the hon. Member was ready but; it wholly depended on the course of business whether he should feel it his duty to introduce it or not. CASE OF MR. COBLE.-QUESTION. MR. BAGNALL said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Mr. Coble from his office as Collector of Customs at Whitby; and, whether the Treasury is prepared to reconsider the case? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH said, in reply, that, after full consideration of the further representations made by Mr. Coble, and looking to the length of time which had elapsed since the inquiry took place, the Treasury had come to the conclusion that no sufficient reasons had been adduced to of Electors in England and Wales; and he believed that if the Boundary Bill were passed at the period he at present thought quite practicable, all that was requisite for the proper registration of electors in England and Wales would be provided for in that measure and the Bill of last year. He did not attach any definite idea to the Question of the hon. Baronet; he must, therefore, excuse him from answering, and not set it down to any want of courtesy. SIR EDWARD BULLER said, he had certainly been under the impression that a Bill was to have been introduced for the express purpose of calling upon certain officers in parishes and boroughs to put upon the registration those persons who, in their lists, stood entitled to the possession of the franchise. INDIA-TELEGRAPHIC COMMUNICA TION. QUESTION. MR. DYCE NICOL said, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, in the present unsatisfactory state of Telegraphic Communication with the East, steps are being taken to ascertain the soundings between the English Channel and Gibraltar, and along the Mediterranean to Alexandria, as also from entrance of the Red Sea to Bombay, for the purpose of facilitating and encouraging the early establishment of an independent and more efficient and economical Telegraphic Communication with India than now exists? MR. CORRY replied, that deep sea soundings between England and Gibraltar, and along the Mediterranean to Alexandria, and through the Red Sea, were specially obtained by the Admiralty between 1857 and 1859, with a view to laying a submarine telegraph communication, and the line of the soundings had recently been successfully completed between Aden and Bombay. As far, therefore, as the soundings were concerned, there was no impediment to the establishment of telegraphic communication between India and England. IRELAND-THE LAND QUESTION. MR. PIM said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When he intends to introduce his measures respecting the Land Question in Ireland; and when he expects that the "Electoral Statistics" for Ireland, ordered on Monday, 23rd March, will be laid upon the Table? THE EARL OF MAYO said, in reply; that the electoral statistics would be laid on the table to-morrow. The Land Bill had been ready for some time; but it would be useless for him to introduce it unless he could see that there was a prospect of securing a full discussion for the measure, and that there was a chance of passing it this Session. Should he see a likelihood of this being the case, he would introduce the Bill, and explain its provisions to the House. IRELAND-MURDER of Mr. FEATHER STONHAUGH.-QUESTION. MR. EYKYN said, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in consequence of the barbarous murder that recently took place in the county of Westmeath, to apply to Parliament for extension of their powers under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, so as to enable them to adopt against Ribbonism and Agrarian Outrage, the same course that has been so successfully adopted for the suppression of Fenianism in Ireland? THE EARL OF MAYO, in reply, said, he could sympathize with the motive which induced the hon. Member to ask this Question, knowing, as he did, that the hon. Member had spent a portion of this year in the district where this frightful outrage had been committed. Everyone must feel that a great stain had been inflicted upon Ireland by the perpetration of this terrible murder; but, at the same time, he must remind the House, that such crimes have latterly greatly diminished. He did not, therefore, think that the general state of the country would justify the Government in proposing to extend the provisions of the Act, to which the hon. Member referred, to any other description of offences than that to which it was now applied namely, to the suppression of Fenianism. INDIA-CIVILIAN JUDGES (BOMBAY). QUESTION. SIR ROBERT COLLIER said, he would dia, Whether, in the temporary absence of beg to ask the Secretary of State for Inthe Chief Justice of Bombay, a civilian member of the Court has been appointed to fill his place; if so, whether any special lian to a Barrister Judge; and, whether reasons exist for the preference of a civiany Despatches have been sent by the India Board to the Government of Bombay on this subject; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay those Despatches upon the Table of the House? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, the Chief Justice of Bombay had taken a short leave of sbsence; and upon the occasion of his absenting himself the post of Acting Chief Justice was, in the first instance, offered to the senior Barrister Judge, Sir Joseph Arnold, by whom it was declined. It was then offered to the next senior Judge, Mr. Newton, who, he believed, was a very competent person, and accepted. He was not aware of the reasons for appointing a civilian to the post, except that he was next in seniority. He had no objection to the produc tion of the Papers asked for, and would produce also a despatch written some years ago, on a similar occasion, by Sir Charles Wood. ARMY-THE 86TH REGIMENT AT THE MAURITIUS.-QUESTION. MR. WHALLEY said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, What measures have been taken for the removal of the 86th Regiment from the Mauritius, and within what period it may be expected that the Regiment will, by this or other means, be rescued from its present perilous condition; and, with reference to the General commanding in the Mauritius and the Colonel of the Regiment, whether any steps have been taken, or are intended to fix upon those officers respectively the responsibility for the disastrous results of their having landed the said Regiment, in disregard of instructions and in defiance of the express warning of the local authorities? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON replied that he could only repeat the Answer which he had given to a similar Question some time ago, as far as the first part of the hon. Member's Question was concerned. He had taken no measures for the removal of the 86th Regiment from the Mauritius beyond those which he had already communicated to the House-namely, that he had given authority to the officer in command in the Mauritius to remove the troops whenever the state of the health in the island might render such a course advisable, a question upon which he could not of course at such a distance give any decision. The instructions sent out referred also to others, for the 32nd Regiment and other troops were also stationed there. His Royal Highness the Commander-inChief had sent out instructions that a strict investigation should be made into the reasons for permitting the troops to land, in disregard of the warning of the local authorities, and as the hon. Member would see, he could not give any further answer to the Question until that Report had been made. ADMIRAL ERSKINE said, he would beg to ask, How many men of the 86th had died? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, that only one death had occurred among the men of the 86th Regiment, although there had been a great deal of sickness. MR. WIIÄLLEY: Have not the women and children suffered more? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I cannot tell exactly the number of women and children that have suffered. The last account is that the women and children have suffered more than the men; I will be prepared to give a more exact Answer on Thursday. TURNPIKE TOLLS.-QUESTION. MR. MORE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home De partment, If he can state when it is his intention to introduce his Bill with reference to the subject of Turnpike Tolls? MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in reply, that he had not promised to bring in a Bill on the subject, but only to conThe Bill sider whether he should do so. was in the hands of the draughtsman; but he was not prepared to say at present whether he would introduce it. ESTABLISHED CHURCH (IRELAND). MR. VERNER said, that having heard a rumour that there was a wish to close the debate that night, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any opportunity would be afforded to Members of northern constituencies in Ireland to express not only their own opinions, but also the opinions of their constituents? MR. DISRAELI: Sir, one of the most difficult duties devolving upon an individual occupying the office I have the honour to hold is to attempt to regulate the conduct of a debate in a manner which will give satisfaction to both sides of the House. With regard to the present Question, first of all it presents itself to me as affecting the feeling of the Government, and then as regards the sentiments of the House. The Government have obtained what they wanted-that the opinion of the House should be taken upon a distinct issue; and we shall offer no obstacle to the conclusion of the debate. At the same time, it should be recollected that it is a question of great constitutional importance, upon which Gentlemen on both sides of the House-es pecially if there be a prospect of its being submitted to the consideration of the people generally reasonably wish to express their opinions. I therefore have to consider the reasonable requirements of both sides, and have no other wish than to adopt a fair conclusion, and it remains for the House to express to me their general view of the subject. I regretted last night to see that reference was made to the circumstance that the debate was chiefly maintained by Gentlemen who generally do not take part in discussions. Although it is a necessary consequence of our Parliamentary constitution, and the mode in which business in this House must be carried on, that generally discussion must be confined to a few what are called leading Members, yet there are questions which sometimes arise, like the present, on which it is not fair that the |