which collects the Customs-that is to say, European hands. In that case smuggling would be absolutely barred, and the tax upon opium might be raised to any amount provincial Governors pleased. That would be a result which, practically, would neutralize the policy which hitherto has been pursued by this country in respect to that drug. Nevertheless this is the interpretation which some persons have placed upon the Convention. I think my noble Friend who asked the Question (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not fall into that error. He said, by the last sentence of the 3rd clause of the Convention, that the amount of li-kin collected should not be left to the discretion of these Governors, but that it should be settled, in the first instance, how much li-kin should be levied before they gave to the levying of that li-kin the additional security which the Convention offered. The clause says that the amount of li-kin will be decided by the provincial Governments according to the circumstances of each; but it seems to be a question whether this is, or is not to be, done before the Convention is put into operation. We propose to wait until that clause is put into a less ambiguous form and a distinct understanding is arrived at with respect to it. I do not think this country will be entitled to say that no additional duty in the form of li-kin should be levied upon opium. I conceive there may be circumstances in the financial position of China which would make that a harsh decision. Probably, a certain rise in duty may be effected without a serious interference with the trade; but when we are told that the probable rise is to be something like 300 per cent, it at once becomes evident that if this clause were carried into operation in the form in which some people understand it, the result would not be a benefit to the finances of China, but simply a protection to the growth of the native poppy; and that is a result we cannot favour. Under these circumstances, we felt it necessary that further explanations with the Chinese Government should be entered into, so that a Convention of this important character should be free from doubt as to its exact meaning. The policy which the Government has consistently pursued should be steadily adhered to. I hope we shall soon have a communication from Sir Thomas Wade which will justify The Marquess of Salisbury us in concluding that a definitive arrangement has been arrived at. With respect to the second Question-that concerning the mission of exploration to Thibet and thence to India-not much progress has been made. Since this Convention was signed the affairs of Central Asia have become much more troubled on the boundaries between Russia and China, in Kashgar; and, again, on the Western boundary of Thibet a very considerable disturbance has occurred, which re-acted on the Government of Thibet-the most jealous Government in the world-making them unwilling, even at the bidding of their superiors at Pekin, to admit an English expedition. We should be incurring dangers which the advantages to be gained would not at all justify if we insisted, in the face of these circumstances, on pushing forward any expedition. With respect to the third matter-the appointment of a Commission to regulate the differences between Hong Kong and the City of Canton-if you look at the 7th section, you will find that this is a unilateral provision in favour of the British Government on account of the interference of the Customs Revenue cruisers with the junk trade of the Colony. It was a provision inserted in order to redress grievances felt by the Governor of Hong Kong. He has reported that the grievance it was intended to remedy has ceased, and there is, therefore, no further reason to appoint the Commission. SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (OFFICERS) BILL [H.L.] A Bill to amend the Supreme Court of Judicature Acts-Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 76.) Ordered-First Reading-West India Loans First Reading Local Government (Ireland) Considered as amended — Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment * [16]. SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he had also a Question to put, consequent that of the hon. Member for North upon Staffordshire. It was, Whether Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer can explain to the House why an incorrect translation of the 3rd paragraph of the 22nd Article of the Treaty of Berlin was laid upon Third Reading Statute Law Revision (Ire- the Table of this House by Her Majesty's land) * [132], and passed. QUESTIONS. TREATY OF BERLIN-EASTERN ROUMELIA.-QUESTIONS. MR. HANBURY said, he had given Notice that he would ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What modification has been introduced into the Treaty of Berlin in reference to paragraphs two and three of Article twenty-two of that Treaty, which, in the official English translation, stand as follows: "The period of the occupation of Eastern Roumelia and Bulgaria by the Imperial troops is fixed at nine months from the date of the exchange of the ratification of the present Treaty. The Imperial Russian Government undertakes that within nine months the passage of its troops across Roumania shall cease and the Principality shall be completely evacuated " Perhaps he might be allowed to state that these paragraphs were taken from the Copy of the Treaty of Berlin which was despatched by our Representatives at Berlin to the Principal Secretary of State at home, and the first to be laid upon the Table of the House and published in the country. The official version, however, showed that it contained a very remarkable mistranslation, and that it ought to run thus— Government on the 15th of July last, whereby the period accorded to Russia for the passage of troops across Roumania, and the complete evacuation of the Principality, was incorrectly stated to be nine months instead of twelve months; and, if he can explain to the House why, in the translation of the 4th Article of the Treaty above mentioned, the French word "avant" was translated "after" instead of "before." MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Alexander Gordon) has asked his Question just after that of my hon. Friend behind me, because my hon. Friend has given the explanation which I was going to give in answer to the hon. and gallant Member's Question, and which, in fact, was given by me last year in this House. It will be in the recollection of the House that I took the opportunity, last year, in answer to a Question put by the hon. Member for Rochester (Sir Julian Goldsmid), of saying that there were certain inaccuracies in the translation of the Treaty which I had laid upon the Table of the House, and that those inaccuracies arose in consequence of the very great hurry that took place in the translation and the anxiety of the Government not to lose a moment in placing the Treaty before the House. That is the explanation I gave last year, which the House, having all the circumstances in its recollection, was good enough to accept. I then took occasion to express my regret that those inaccuracies should have taken place; but I stated that no He did not propose, therefore, to put the substantial inconvenience, except that first part of his Question, and only would caused temporarily to Members of the ask, Whether, since the Treaty fixes a House, would result, because a correct limit to the continued presence of Rus- translation would be laid upon the sian troops in Roumania only, any date Table when the ratification of the Treaty has been agreed upon as that before took place. The hon. Member for North which Eastern Roumelia also shall be Staffordshire (Mr. Hanbury) has just excompletely evacuated in case the Rus-plained that another translation was laid sian authorities decide to ultimately withdraw their troops from that Province otherwise than through Roumania? "The Imperial Russian Government under takes that within the space of a further period of three months," &c. upon the Table after the ratification. The hon. and gallant Member for East Aberdeenshire has not been kind enough to adopt that; but has quoted from the The previous translation, which, as I said | The same statement applies to this case. woman charged was the aunt, not the mother, of the child. The child beaten was not naked, SIR ALEXANDER GORDON said, he was not aware that an explanation had been made last Session, or he should not have put his Question. CRIMINAL LAW-ALLEGED CRUELTY AT HANLEY.-QUESTION. EARL PERCY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Hannah Martin, a farmer's wife, who is reported to have been charged before the stipendiary magistrate at Hanley, on the 7th of April last, with having, for a trifling offence, beaten her child of nine years old while naked, and afterwards rubbed turpentine and salt into the wounds; the child being in consequence of this treatment "" one mass of wounds from neck to feet"; and, whether it is true that "The magistrate, taking a lenient view of the case, cautioned the woman and inflicted a nominal fine and costs, which amounted to one guinea ?" MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, this is an instance of a newspaper paragraph grossly misrepresenting the facts of a case, so far as I am able to ascertain them. I only wish that, in reporting these cases, the persons responsible would be more careful in being accurate; because I am sure that, unintentional though it may be, such a representation of the proceedings of a Court of Justice is calculated to have a very bad effect throughout the country. The magistrate who dealt with the case writes to me "It will be in your recollection that, a few weeks ago, I was in communication with you relative to another case which I tried at Stokeupon-Trent, a report of which, as it appeared in some of the London papers, was a sensational one, and the invention of some local reporter. Mr. Bourke but was in her usual dress; and no turpentine or salt was used. In deciding the case, I was of opinion that the girl had received no more punishment than she really deserved, and I hesitated whether or not I should dismiss the living several miles off, and had taken out a summons; but as the mother was a poor woman summons, influenced by the fears of her daughter and some falsehood which had been told her, I ordered the costs to be paid, and inflicted a nominal fine of 1s." I may add that a Question was given Notice of the other day with regard to another case. I presume the hon. Member found the statement untrue, and accordingly has not put the Question. FORTUNE DOMINION OF CANADA MR. BOURKE, in reply, said, no communications had taken place between the British and American Governments since November 9 on the subject mentioned in the hon. Gentleman's Question. ARMY-COMMISSARIAT AND TRANS PORT DEPARTMENTS.-QUESTION. SIR HENRY HAVELOCK asked the with reference to the replies given by Secretary of State for War, Whether, the War Department during the last three years, the promised Warrant reorganizing the Commissariat and Transwhen it is likely to be issued; and, port Departments is yet decided upon; whether it will meet the grievances of the officers to which consideration has so often been promised? the promised Warrant re-organizing the COLONEL STANLEY, in reply, said, Commissariat and the Transport Departments had been decided upon; and he had reason to believe, if it had not already gone to the Treasury, it would go to them in the course of this week. As to when the Warrant was likely to be CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1870-FOREIGN SHEEP. QUESTION. issued would depend upon the time taken | 500 sheep from Monte Video, called at by the Treasury to sanction the scheme. Southampton about the end of April; but He was bound to say that the Warrant being unable to land there, as there was did not, in his opinion, meet the no foreign animals' wharf, the vessel grievances of the officers; but the ar- went over to Havre, and ultimately to rangements that were made in conse- Plymouth. The only foreign animals' quence of it would, he hoped, tend to wharf in Plymouth is one established for remove some of the difficulties, though victualling purposes in the Royal Viche should be sorry to say that it would tualling Yard. An application was then redress every grievance. made to the Admiralty to allow the animals to be there landed for slaughter; but the Yard being entirely occupied with stores, the Admiralty were compelled to decline. The shippers then asked for permission to slaughter the animals on board and land the meat at Glasgow, and this has been done under the superintendence of the Inspector of the port. Any inconvenience which may have occurred resulted from this cargo of sheep being taken to ports where there is no foreign animals' wharf. If the local authority of any port consider that the cattle trade of that port is sufficient to justify them in incurring the expense of establishing a foreign animals' wharf, the Privy Council will always be ready to entertain any such proposal. There is no regular trade in animals between Uruguay and this country, and the Plymouth local authorities have not offered any eligible site for a foreign animals' wharf. DR. CAMERON asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is a fact that five hundred sheep brought from the Allan steamer" Nestorian " from Monte Video to Plymouth were prevented from being landed, and ultimately obliged to be slaughtered on board; whether there are not three authorized places for the landing of foreign animals at Plymouth; whether it is true that the "Nestorian " was prohibited from landing her sheep at one of these places, when it would have been necessary to employ boats or tugs, by the refusal of the Board of Trade to allow boats or tugs to be employed; whether the Board of Trade refused to allow the sheep to be landed at a second place, on the ground that it was reserved for horned cattle; and whether, and if so on what ground, the authorities of the Royal Victualling Yard refused to permit the debarkation for the sheep at the third landing-place; whether he is aware that this consignment was the first of an intended series of shipments of sheep from Monte Video to this Country; and, whether any steps have been taken to remove impediments presented in this case, and which threaten to prove fatal to a trade tending to cheapen the meat supply of Great Britain? LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Sir, as the allegations contained in the Questions of the hon. Member do not tally with the facts reported to the Privy Council, perhaps I may give the information which the hon. Member wants, by telling him exactly what occurred rather than by answering seriatim the Questions which he has put. Under the provisions of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1878, animals brought from Uruguay can only be landed in this country for slaughter at a foreign animals' wharf. The Nestorian, with a cargo of EDUCATION DEPARTMENT - LONDON POTTER.-QUESTION. MR. ONSLOW asked the Vice President of the Council, If his attention has been called to the fact that Mr. George Potter, a member for the Westminster Division of the London School Board, has committed an act of bankruptcy by entering into a statutable composition with his creditors; and, if so, whether he is not thereby disqualified from voting any longer as a member of the London School Board? LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to this by the London School Board forwarding to us a statement to the effect that Mr. George Potter has entered into a composition with his creditors, and that, therefore, his seat at the Board is vacant. TREATY OF BERLIN - THE GREEK FRONTIER.-QUESTIONS. MR. W. CARTWRIGHT asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he will SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: May I ask, Whether by the Ambassadors at Constantinople, singly or collectively? MR. BOURKE: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give Notice of that Question. SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: My hon. Friend asked whether there is to be a Conference of Ambassadors, and the hon. Gentleman said that mediation was to be exercised by the Ambassadors. I wish to know whether singly or collectively? inform the House whether there is on | under the Treaty of Berlin, and that record merely the general affirmation by they also agreed that that mediation. all the Powers of the principle of me- shall be conducted by the Ambassadors diation in reference to pending terri- at Constantinople. torial questions between Turkey and Greece which is implied in their subscription to the Berlin Treaty without reservation as to any of its articles; whether, since that subscription, the principle has been specially affirmed again by all the Signatory Powers in respect of putting in force the mediation which by Article twenty-four is contemplated for ensuring the rectification of frontier between Greece and Turkey on the basis of the line recommended by the Congress; and, furthermore, if such reaffirmation had occurred, whether he can state to the House that the acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government in the contemplated mediation has not been accompanied by any views suggestive of cession, by the Porte to Greece, of territory that does not comprise the whole country which the Plenipotentiaries at Berlin recommended in Protocol thirteen should be ceded to Greece? THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid that the only answer I can give to the hon. Gentleman is this-that there has been a good deal of diplomatic Correspondence upon this subject since the signature of the Treaty of Berlin, and that communications are still going on. It is impossible for me to enter into detail upon these questions; but I may say that Her Majesty's Government have expressed their readiness to join with other Powers in mediation in conformity with all the provisions of the 24th Article of the Treaty of Berlin. MR. BOURKE: If my hon. Friend will give Notice of his Question I will endeavour to answer it. CRIMINAL LAW-CASE OF EDMUND GALLEY.-QUESTIONS. SIR EARDLEY WILMOT asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the table in the Library the Documents and Papers relating to the case of Edmund Galley, who, with Exeter in 1836, was afterwards reprieved, one Oliver, was convicted of murder at and is now a shepherd in New South Wales? MR. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, I may state, with reference to Galley, that he is not beyond that of being kept abroad. With now undergoing punishment regard to the main question, this case was decided by Earl Russell when he held the Office I have the honour to hold, and he had a great deal of communication with the late Mr. Justice Williams and the late Lord Denman on the subMR. MONK subsequently asked the him and these Judges, but also between ject. Papers passed not only between Under Secretary of State for Foreign Af- them and my other Predecessors. All fairs, Whether the English Government these communications, invariably on the has acceded to or rejected M. Wadding-ground of public interest, have been conton's proposal for a Conference of Am-sidered as confidential, and I certainly bassadors at Constantinople, with a view am not inclined to depart from that rule. to the settlement of the Græco-Turkish Frontier Question. MR. BOURKE: Sir, I am sorry that the answer I gave the other day was not sufficiently intelligible to the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend has already answered one part of this Question; but I may say, in answer to the whole Question, that in pursuance of a proposal made by the French Government, Her Majesty's Government have consented to offer to exercise mediation Mr. W. Cartwright SIR EARDLEY WILMOT asked, Whether the sole surviving juryman who heard the case had not addressed a strong appeal to the Secretary of State upon the subject? [No reply was given to this Question.] PRISONS ACT-PERTH PRISON. QUESTIONS. MR. MACDONALD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, |