add, to show the value of the restrictions MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Does

we have imposed, that we have checked the disease in a manner hitherto unprocedented, and that there were more outbreaks in a single week in 1871 than DOMINION OF CANADA-RAILWAYSthe entire number reported since the outbreak of the disease in October last.

in the number of officers and men under the proposed scheme for Army Reor-condition by which they were induced to ganisation as contrasted with the number of officers and men for the years ending 31st March 1874 and 31st March 1880; and, whether there will be any, and, if any, what increase in the ordinary expenditure for the Army under the new scheme as compared with the ordinary expenditure for the years ending

rials have been received from Lieutenant | Chairman of the Committee on Pale Colonels of the Local Service in India, Petitions, Whether any Petitions in favoar complaining that their promotion to of the admission of Mr. Bradlaugh have Brevet Colonel, under the terms of his been submitted to that Committee, and predecessor's Military Despatch No. 180, subsequently printed in the Report, in of the 25th May 1865, has been with- which the prayer of the Petition is exheld; and, if so, what reply has been pressed in these wordsgiven to the prayer; and, whether his predecessor's Military Despatch No. 180, of the 25th May 1865, is still in force, or whether it has been cancelled; if cancelled, on what date and by what authority?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, no such Memorial appears to have been received in the India Office. The provisions of Sir Charles Wood's Despatch, 180, of the 25th of May, 1865, are still in force, and lieutenant-colonels of the Local Army continue as therein provided to qualify for the rank of colonel after the same period of service in the former grade that would entitle an officer of the Staff Corps to such pro

MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to Order. I beg to ask whether the hon. Member is entitled to make any such explanation in putting his Question ?

MR. SPEAKER: I cannot say whether or not the hon. Member is out of Order until I hear what he has to say.

BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I was going to say, when the hon. Member for Northampton interrupted me, that I wished to make an explanation in justification of the course I took in refusing to present a Petition on the ground of illegality, and to read a few words from a letter I have received to-day from the Association from which the Petition emanated. My ground was that the House had been treated disrespectfully by the allegation of illegality contained in that Petition. The words of the letter are as follows:-"In the first place, we not only impute that the House has acted illegally, but we affirm it." I therefore beg to ask the

Colonel Barne

"Your Petitioners therefore pray that G honourable House will cause the Law to he obeyed and justice to be done, or that it w forthwith allow Mr. Bradlaugh to take his mat on his making a solemn affirmation;" whether such words are held by the Committee to be disrespectful to the House; and, whether, in view of Mr Speaker's recent ruling, the Chairmas of the Committee on Public Petitions would submit such Petitions to the House for its consideration and decision?

MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, perhaps my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions will be good enough to say whether that Committee is aware that by a Statute of Richard II.-which has never been repealed-Mr. Bradlaugh is liable to fine and imprisonment for not taking part in the deliberations of this House after having been duly elected; and whether, considering this, together with the declarations of the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Prime Minister, and of many other learned Members of the House that he has a legal right derived from his election to take his seat, and that he cannot be deprived of this legal right by the Resolution of one branch of the Legislature, the prayer of the Petition that the House will cause the las to be obeyed, can be regarded as disrespectful? ["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is putting a Question which does not at all arise out of the Question of the hot. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms). It does not appear to me to refer to the same matter-that is to say, to a Petition which the hon. Member did not think proper to present to this House.

MR. LABOUCHERE: I think this will answer your objection, Sir. I wish to ask whether, under these circumstances, the Petition which the hon. Member presented-or rather did not present-asking that the House should cause the law to be obeyed and justive to be done, can be regarded as disre spectful, except upon the impossible assumption that this House does not

wish the law to be obeyed or justice to | put by some of the petitioners upon the be done? language of the Petition, it would be right that Petitions of that character should, for the future, be received?

SIR CHARLES FORSTER: At such short Notice, I cannot be expected to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton into his historical researches; but perhaps the general reply which I shall give to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) will answer his purpose. It is true that Petitions have been submitted to the Committee over which I preside in which the words referred to appeared, and I may state that the majority of the Committee determined that these words are not disrespectful to the House. It is, however, only right that I should say that there were hon. Members in the Committee who took a different view. With regard to the last Question, I think the hon. Member labours under a misapprehension. I do not understand you, Sir, to make any ruling on the subject of these Petitions, but simply to state that the hon. Member, taking the view he did, was perfectly justified in refusing to present the Petition. But it is one thing for an hon. Member to refuse to present a Petition on the ground of disrespect to the House, and another thing to call on the House to reject the Petition. It would be a matter of regret if these Petitions, which are 168 in number, and contain 3,000 signatures, were rejected on the assumed ground of want of respect, which, after all, is imaginary. For myself, I have always held that the House should not press too far the doctrine of privilege; and though I never would pass any Petition which insults the House, or is wanting in respect, yet in doubtful cases I have always inclined to give my vote for the acceptance of the Petition. This question has already been twice considered, and I am not disposed to take any further action in the

matter.

MR. ONSLOW: I should like to ask the Chairman of the Committee how many Members of the Committee were present when this matter was discussed? [Cries of "Oh!" and "Notice!"]

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: With reference to the language which has been used in the letter from which an extract has been read by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, I would ask you, Sir, whether, in your opinion, after that construction has been

MR. SPEAKER: The Question of the right hon. Gentleman is a Question for the consideration of the House rather than for me, and I must leave it for the judgment of the House.

MR. ONSLOW: I really must press my Question; or, I will give the hon. Baronet Notice.

SIR CHARLES FORSTER: I should be very glad to give the hon. Member for Guildford the information he asks for if I could, but I have no data before me. If, however, the hon. Member will give Notice of his Question, I shall be very happy to answer it.

MR. LOWTHER: I think I can give the information. I believe there were only eight Members of the Committee present when the Petition was discussed.

ARMY ORGANIZATION-THE CITY OF

LONDON REGIMENT-REGIMENTAL
TITLES.

SIR EDMUND LECHMERE asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, looking to the fact that the 7th Regiment (Royal Fusiliers), proposed to be called the City of London Regiment, has no connection, historical or other. wise, with the Metropolis, and that the officers and men of the 3rd Regiment (Buffs), proposed to be designated the Kentish Regiment, are very desirous of maintaining their intimate connections with the City of London (owing to the circumstance of their Regiment having derived its origin and special privileges. from the old Trained Bands), there would be any objection to such an interchange of Depots and Territorial Titles as would be mutually satisfactory to both Regiments?

MR. CHILDERS: Sir, I am sorry to say that the hon. Baronet is in error with respect to the greater part of the facts which his Question purports to place on record. The Buffs have been a Kentish regiment since 1782, and as such fought all the battles recorded on their colours. After the peace of Munster, in 1648, they were called the "Holland" Regiment, and in 1689 Prince George of Denmark's Regiment. At his death they were called the Buffs. They have never been called a London regiment,

although it is the case that in 1572 there | Gordon still retains the supervision of had been raised from the citizens of certain Fijian questions, principally conLondon a company of a regiment raised nected with Native affairs and the titles in different counties of England for to land, of which subjects he has exservice in the Netherlands, and which ceptional knowledge and experience. To was the nucleus of four regiments re- the second Question it is difficult yet to duced to the Holland regiment, as I have give a positive answer. There are few said, in or about 1648. The 7th Royal facilities for communication between Fusiliers, so far from having no con- Fiji and the other islands of the Westera nection, historically or otherwise, with Pacific, and Sir Arthur Gordon, who has the Metropolis, was in 1685 raised by a very deep interest in the work of the Lord Dartmouth in London and its Commission, is, as at present advised. of neighbourhood, and part of it was long opinion that he can perform his duties, stationed at the Tower. This regiment which are, as the right hon. Gentleman holds strongly to its proposed title of knows, gratuitous, at least as well in "City of London," and, under the cir- New Zealand as in Fiji. The question cumstances, I see no reason for making whether the officer commanding Her the suggested change. Majesty's Naval Forces in the Paris might not with advantage be invested with the powers and functions of the High Commissioner has been the subja of much consideration; but Her Majesty's Government have not been able to satisfy themselves that the impeliments to such an arrangement can be overcome.

MR. WARTON asked the Secretary of State for War, whether he was aware that from 1572 the 3rd Buffs had the right of marching through the City of London with fixed bayonets, colours flying, and drums beating, without leave of the Civic authorities, a right of which they were particularly proud; and whether he did not consider that that fact gave them a better right to be called the City of London Regiment than the 7th Fusiliers, which was to be so designated?

MR. CHILDERS said, that was a matter of opinion, and he should think not; and, as he had already stated, the regiment to which the hon. and learned Member for Bridport referred had been called a Kentish regiment for 100 years.

THE WESTERN PACIFIC-POWERS OF
HIGH COMMISSIONER.

SIR MICHAEL HICKS BEACH asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Sir Arthur Gordon, who was appointed Governor of New Zealand about a year ago, still retains the office of Governor of Fiji and High Commissioner for the Western Pacific; whether the adequate performance of the duties of their offices must not be materially impeded by the distance and difficulty of communication between New Zealand and the Pacific Islands; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the advantages that might accrue from uniting the office of High Commissioner with that of the Naval command on the Pacific Station?

MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir Arthur Gordon is still High Commissioner for the Western Pacific; but Mr. Des Voeux is Governor of Fiji, although Sir Arthur

Mr. Childers

ARMY ORGANIZATION THE ARMY (INDIA)—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON asked the Secretary of State for India, Whe ther the proposed rules with respect to the compulsory retirement of efficient Officers of the British Army will also be applicable to Officers of the Indian Army?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the question of the adaptation of the proposed rules to those officers wh are under Indian retiring regulations is receiving careful consideration. unable to say at present what decision will be come to; but due regard wil! ba shown to the interest of the Indian Services and to the guarantees given by Parliament. Provision will be made in the proposed Warrant enabling the Secretary of State for India in Council to issue such supplementary warrant or instructions as may be requisite to secure these objects.

PARLIAMENT-BUSINESS OF THE
HOUSE-LAND LAW (IRELAND)
BILL.

MR. H. H. FOWLER asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether having regard to the fact that during the last fortnight the House has been counted

out on three nights appropriated to Pri- | Representative of any other Nation vate Members) the time has arrived whatsoever? when the Committee on the Irish Land SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Bill should be proceeded with from day the list of privileges and immunities, to day in priority of all other business? which I stated on being pressed on MR. HEALY wished, before the right Tuesday last, was a list of the ordinary hon. Gentleman answered that Ques-privileges and immunities of diplomatic tion, to know whether he had not assented Agents. These can be found in any to setting aside the Irish Land Bill to- text-book of International Law, to which morrow, in order to proceed with the dis- I would refer the hon. Member. With cussion on the re-organization of the regard to the second portion of the hon. Army? Member's Question, if it is intended to raise points other than those to which, on two previous occasions, I have already replied, I would beg leave to say that I cannot be expected at 12 hours' notice to give the legal construction of clauses in Treaties on which questions may arise with other Powers. But, understanding that the Question is only a repetition of the Question put to me by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), I would reply as follows:-If by his Question the hon. Member means that the Bey is bound to make Mr. Reade a Minister of Foreign Affairs as well as M. Roustan, or that if the Boy gave an order to the Italian Consul, he is bound to do the same to the English Consul, I doubt his declaration being correct. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member means that the clause provides that equal marks of honour and respect and all privileges and immunities should be paid to the British Consul which are paid to other Consuls in their consular capacity, I think he is right.

MR. GLADSTONE: It is quite true, Sir, that we have given way as regards the Land Bill to the discussion on Army re-organization, in consequence of finding, after every effort to make other arrangements, that it was the only way in which an unconditional pledge we had given early in the Session could be redeemed a pledge, too, by which we have already received considerable advantage in obtaining a Vote in connection with the indispensable arrangements of the Public Service. With regard to the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), in the course of a day or two I hope to consult my Colleagues on the subject, and we shall certainly review the progress that has been made with the Land Bill, and endeavour to estimate what are the prospects for the future.

FRANCE AND TUNIS - PRIVILEGES
AND IMMUNITIES OF DIPLOMATIC
AGENTS.

SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state the authority on which he enumerated the privileges and immunities granted to the Representatives of Foreign Nations at Tunis; and, whether the words of Article II. of the General Convention of July 19, 1875,

“Every mark of honour and respect shall at all times be paid and every privilege and immunity allowed to Her Majesty's Agent and

Consul General, accredited to His Highness the Bey, which is paid or allowed to the Representative of any other Nation whatsoever,"

do not constitute a continuous obligation on the part of the Bey to pay and allow to Her Majesty's Agent and Consul

RELIEF OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) ACT,

1880-FISHERY PIERS AND

HARBOURS.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Comtion the money voted under "The Relief mittee appointed last Session to apporof Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880," for Piers and Harbours in Ireland, have yet made their Report; and whether ho has any objection to lay a Copy of the same upon the Table?

MR. W. E. FORSTER: No, Sir.

ARMY THE CURRAGH CAMP. MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR asked General every additional mark of honour the Secretary of State for War, Wheand respect and every additional privi-ther his attention has been called to the lege or immunity paid or allowed to the Curragh Camp Brigade Orders, No. 8,