asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, looking to the fact that the House could not be made till one o'clock on Wednesday last, it is the intention of the Government to appropriate the remaining Wednesdays of the Session for the despatch of Government Business?

Sir, we are very desirous, and I believe it would be for the convenience of the House, to obtain as large a portion of time as possible for Public Business during the remainder of the Session. At the same time, that must be clone within the rules and precedents which I find are applicable to cases of this kind. It has been usual to ask the House to give up Tuesday evenings to the Government about three weeks before the termination of the Session, and as I hope the Session will terminate within three weeks or somewhat less from the present time, it would not be unreasonable to ask the House for the remaining Tuesday evenings. There is, however, on the Notice Paper a Motion for Tuesday evening of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Fawcett), who intends to ask the House to agree to a very important question with respect to the distribution of seats and matters connected therewith. That may constitute a reason why we should not ask for that particular evening; but my impression is that, on the whole, viewing the period of the Session, the House would not be disposed to entertain it, or think it a practical proposal at the present time, particularly as a Bill stands for Wednesday which has stood on the Paper for several months, which should be discussed, and the discussion of which will give my hon. Friend the opportunity of advancing all he wishes on the question. If, however, my hon. Friend wishes to bring it on, of course he will be at liberty to do so; but the Government must meet the Motion with a direct negative. I do not think, then, it would be quite fair to ask for next Wednesday, because it would not be quite conformable to usage, and I do not wish to go beyond usage. The practice appears only to have been to ask for the very last Wednesday in the Session. I hope the hon. Member will approve that method of proceeding. I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton is out of town; but after this public intimation, I shall probably give Notice on Monday that on each remaining Tuesday evening Government Orders have precedence.

said, he hoped the prospects of the Session would justify the Government in asking that Wednesday, the 30th of July, should be given to Government Business.

said, he was reluctantly obliged to withdraw the Valuation Bill, in consequence of the advanced period of the Session.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it be intended immediately, or if not immediately, when, to put the land within the iron railing now surrounding the Museum at Bethnal Green into proper order?

in reply, said, that instructions had for some time been given to lay down the piece of land within the railings of the Museum with turf, and he hoped it would soon be done.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he can now give the House an explanation of the circumstances attending the arrest and imprisonment for eight days of John Larkin, one of the chief witnesses against the coastguard in the Lettermullen shooting case; and, whether the Government is aware that this man was imprisoned on the charge of perjury upon the sole testimony of the person already awaiting his trial for manslaughter, and at a time when Larkin had voluntarily visited Galway for the purpose of obtaining his salvage money, thirty miles from where the inquest had been held, at which the accused person said Larkin had perjured himself?

in reply, said, he had received a report on the subject from Mr. Hill, the resident magistrate in Galway, and he did not think he could answer the hon. Member's question more briefly than by reading an extract from that report. Mr. Hill stated that John Larkin was brought before him charged with being drunk and disorderly in the public streets of Galway, and was fined 5s. and costs, or in default, seven days' imprisonment. Immediately after his conviction for the above offence, Lieutenant Drew, of the Royal Navy, tendered an information, in which he charged Larkin with having committed willful and corrupt perjury at the coroner's inquest, and added that he had reasonable grounds to believe that Larkin was about to leave the country, and upon that information, tendered in open Court, he (Mr. Hill) considered it his duty to remand Larkin to the next petty sessions, but he subsequently went to the gaol and informed Larkin that he was ready at any time to take ordinary bail for his appearance. No one appeared to bail him, and when he was brought up on the remand warrant eight days after, he got one man to enter as security for his appearance at the petty sessions, and he was forth with discharged. Having appeared at the petty sessions, he was fully committed for trial at the next Galway Assizes for willful and corrupt perjury, bail being offered and accepted for his appearance. He (the Marquess of Hartington) did not know that there was anything in that statement absolutely inconsistent with that contained in the question of the hon. Member; but he was unable to perceive that the resident magistrate, under the circumstances, could have acted otherwise than he did. He trusted that pending the trial, which would take place next week, there would be no further discussion on this subject.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, with reference to his statement of June 30th, that—

"A proposal to grant the identical promotion to the Royal Marine Artillery which had been granted to the Royal Artillery had never been placed before the Admiralty, and, therefore, he never had an opportunity of consenting or refusing,"

in reply, said, that Memorials were received from three First Captains serving at Head Quarters, in the Channel Fleet, and in the Mediterranean in the course of July, relative to the general position of the Royal Marine Corps. They were only individual Memorials, and dealt, not exclusively with the position of the Royal Marine Artillery, but generally with the position of the Royal Marine Corps; nor did they pray, as a practical remedy for the grievances complained of, the same promotion which had been granted to First Captains in the Royal Artillery. The answer given to them was, that proposals had been made to the War Office, in which the Admiralty endeavoured to remedy the position both of the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery and of the Light Infantry. But the officers themselves never suggested that any difference ought to be made in their position.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If it is true, as stated in the "Times" of the 7th July, that—

"There is considerable discontent at present existing among the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery at the head Quarters of the Corps at Eastney, Portsmouth, at what they consider the unjust way they are treated for promotion in comparison with Officers of the Royal Artillery stationed in Portsmouth garrison. It is averred that many Officers of the Royal Artillery have been promoted to Majorities over the heads of Marine Artillery officers, where the latter have had very much greater length of service;"

in reply, said, that all he could say on the subject was that he had received a Memorial from an Artillery officer at Eastney, Portsmouth, expressing dissatisfaction. No doubt, the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery felt dissatisfied at being superseded in certain cases by the officers of the Royal Artillery. The allegations of discontent were so far correct. On the other hand, as he had endeavoured heretofore to explain, the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery were never treated on different grounds in respect of promotion from those on which the officers of the Royal Marines and of the light Infantry were treated. If promotion were granted to the officers of the Royal Marine Artillery now in the same way as had been granted to officers of the Royal Artillery, those officers would supersede the officers of the light Infantry, with long services, and in thus endeavouring to redress one grievance they would be establishing another. The Admiralty had applied to the War Office for the rank of major, both for the Royal Marines and the light Infantry, but the objection of the War Office was that such a concession would have the effect of superseding a large number of the officers of the Line. A compromise, however, was being effected which he trusted would give satisfaction to all parties concerned, and by it the Government had met the grievance as far as they could.

explained that the words of the sub-section would be taken in their natural sense, and in the case of laud used for a plantation or wood, the value of the land would be assessed simply as if the trees were not there.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 5, to insert after "natural" the words "or unimproved." He said if they were not inserted the clause would introduce a new principle into rating—namely, that you were not to be rated on what you have, but on what you ought to have. Many woodlands, indeed, would be rated at less than they were at present under the word "natural" only. What he and his hon. Friends complained of was, that land such as that alluded to was rated at its full value before any money was laid out upon its improvement. At the same time, there were many lands which, through long rest and the deposit of leaves, would, if cultivated, be as valuable as the lands by which they were surrounded; but the clause as it stood would require that these should be rated without any consideration for the outlay which would be required to bring the lands into a state of cultivation; and that suggested the question how far the principle was to be carried, and whether fens and marsh lands were to be assessed at that which might be made their value by a largo outlay.

said, he was not prepared to say whether the words proposed to be added would cover the difficulty. Upon consideration, however, he thought the words ought to be inserted. He would wish to see the right hon. Gentleman introduce into the measure some provision for making allowance for bringing the soil into cultivation, not that that would do away with all injustice, but it would render it less unjust. There would not be much difficulty in dealing with little bits of woods; but the clause would involve injustice in its application to large masses of woodland which could not be cultivated without large outlay for grubbing, farmhouses, and water supply, which in some cases there was great difficulty in procuring.

thought the word "natural" might meet all the right hon. Gentleman had in view, because the assessment committee would have very little difficulty in arriving at a just conclusion by applying the word "natural" in its natural sense. That word would give more information than the word "unimproved." Farm buildings were not natural improvements. Where there was woodland surrounded by arable land people were very likely to consider it of the same value as the land by which it was surrounded; whereas the one when the trees were removed was in its natural state, and the other in an improved condition. They therefore should not be rated on the same scale; and when the woodland came into cultivation, it was but reasonable that an allowance should be made for the capital to be invested, with the view of bringing about that result. But as the words proposed by his hon. and gallant Friend could do no harm, and might do some little good, he hoped the Government would accept them.

opposed the Amendment, and considered the word "natural," being a comparative expression, met all the difficulties of the case.

in supporting the Amendment, suggested that it would be better to use the word "unreclaimed," as having reference to the great cost of clearing the land of stumps and roots when the timber was cut down.

on the part of the Government, said, he would accept the Amendment.

complained that the time of the House should have been taken up in the discussion of a matter so trivial, and opposed the Amendment. He should press the matter to a division.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 2, division (b), after "exercised," to insert the words "either the tenant or." His object was to ensure that where the owner of any right of shooting, &c., severed from the occupation of the soil did not receive rent for the land over which the right was exercised, either the tenant or the owner of the right might be rated as the occupier thereof.

thought that there would be considerable difficulty in settling who was to pay the rent under the clause. In his opinion they should rate the shooting.

moved, as an Amendment, in sub-section 3, line 1, after "land," to leave out "occupied under any lease or agreement existing at the commencement of this Act," and in line 6, after "entitled," to leave out "during the continuance of such lease or agreement." His wish was that not only during the existence of any lease or agreement, but also in the absence of any lease or agreement, the tenant-farmers should be entitled to deduct from the landlord on the next payment of rent the amount of rate paid in respect of the increase of rateable value caused by the gross value of the land being estimated as if the right of shooting, &c., were not severed from the occupation.

expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment, on condition that words should be inserted with the view of making the arrangement subject to any future contract or agreement between the landlord and the tenant.

thought the rate for game should be paid by the landlord, he therefore opposed the Amendment.

feared that such an Amendment would not be for the interest of the tenant, because it would lead to the re-valuation of estates and an increase of rents.

protested against the principle of the clause, and contended that all land should be assessed irrespective of the purposes for which it was used.

in rising to move a new clause, providing for exemptions from rating of public elementary schools said, he desired to put the non-board schools on the same footing as the board schools, and the elementary schools on the same footing as the ragged schools with respect to exemption from rating. If it were right to exempt Sunday and ragged schools, which were not a public necessity, the case in favour of public elementary schools was far stronger, because the State ordered the latter to exist, and their existence was a saving of the money of the ratepayers.

who had on the Paper a new clause of a similar kind, supported the Motion. A great portion of the property of the country was exempt from taxation, such as places of worship and public roads, and therefore the only thing to be considered was, whether the exemption now proposed was a fair one. He contended that it was. Whatever the State required to exist must be considered a public necessity. The country could go on without hospitals; for if there were none, the man who could not be treated in his own home could go to the workhouse infirmary. But the law said that elementary schools must exist, and they should therefore be exempted from rates. If the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. C. Reed) were present, he (Mr. Talbot) would claim his vote on the ground that these public elementary schools were used as Sunday schools. There was no beneficial occupation; on the contrary, such schools were rather a source of loss to the managers. In some cases, the managers had to pay, not only a poor rate and a highway rate, but a school board rate as well.

said, he wished to remind the House, that that was not a Bill to create exemptions, and such being the case, he maintained that the case of public elementary schools was entirely different from that of Sunday and ragged schools, which were exempt under the provisions of the Act of 1869; and the Bill merely allowed that exemption to continue. His hon. Friend, however, desired to extend the number of exemptions; but after the feeling expressed by the House in favour of rendering all property liable to rating, the Government could not consent to this proposal.

denied that the Bill did away with all exemptions. It did not remove the exemption of Sunday and ragged schools, which might be considered the luxuries and fancy articles of elementary education. That being so, it would be most unfair that the great class of schools which by the Act of 1870 had been elevated into the position of national institutions should be liable to rates. He could see no logic or consistency in the exemption of the less necessary institutions, and insisting on the rating of the more necessary.

said, that elementary schools were often the private property of the owners and conducted for their profit. It might be illogical to exempt Sunday and ragged schools; but the country had determined that they should be exempted. But if elementary schools should also be exempted, where were they to stop? There was no wish in the country for that unjust exemption, and he considered it mischievous and absurd.

said, he thought that if Sunday schools, which were principally supported by Nonconformists, were exempted, and elementary schools, which were principally supported by Churchmen were not, an advantage would be given to Nonconformists which was denied to members of the Church of England.

said, that every public elementary school received a grant equal to half its expenditure from the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but Sunday schools and ragged schools did not receive a farthing.

said, on the contrary, that many of such schools received no public money whatever. He believed the refusal of exemption in this case would increase the difficulty of passing the Bill.

said, that after all their labour, he feared the Bill had got plenty of anomalies, if not of injustices, in it, and those who wished it to have a chance in "another place" should be anxious not to send it up bristling with more anomalies than need be. In a matter of that kind, it would strike everyone as an anomaly that one class of schools should be rated and another free from rate. He could not see why ragged schools ought to be exempted and public elementary schools rated, more especially when it was considered that the latter were in 19 cases out of 20 used as Sunday schools, and therefore he should vote for the clause.

rose to say in the most unmistakable manner, that it was impossible for him to assent to the clause, and he was not tempted by the suggestion that by doing so he might facilitate the passage of the Bill in "another place." It was not necessary for him to satisfy the House that Sunday schools ought to be exempted in order to justify him in refusing the clause. When the Bill was introduced it contained a clause abolishing the permissive exemption of Sunday schools, but hon. Members knew that they were compelled in this instance to yield to superior force. There was all the difference between continuing a statutory exemption which already existed and creating another by a Bill the object of which was to abolish all exemptions.

said, understanding that reference had been made to himself during his absence, he wished to explain that the object of the proposal which he made in 1870 was, that one-half the Sunday schools in the country should be placed on the same footing as the other half. All the Sunday schools attached to churches and chapels were previously exempt from rates, and a legal question having arisen with respect to the others, it became necessary to settle the matter by legislation. He did not come to the House to ask for exemption as a new thing in the case of Sunday schools.

moved, as an Amendment, in line 40, to leave out from "otherwise" to end of clause. That qualification of the clause was surplusage, and the last three words were an invitation to the assessment committee to invent or imagine any purpose for which, in private hands, a building would command a high rental.

said, the clause had been drafted by the best legal ability the Government could command, and he could not consent to any alteration. At best the words objected to were mere surplusage, and could do no harm.

suggested that the omission of the last three words, "for any purpose," would meet the difficulty.

said, he had no objection to the omission of the words "for any purpose," as verbal Amendments which he would at a later stage propose would, if adopted, secure that the object of the clause should be attained.

was glad the words were to be omitted, as, if they were surplusage, as he thought they were, their retention might lead in the carrying out of the Bill to mischievous results.

moved, as an Amendment, to omit lines 28 to 35, inclusive, containing words which provided that the acquisition, appropriation, and use of Government hereditaments should be taken into consideration by the assessment committee in dealing with the rating of Government property.

hoped the Government would adopt some mode of rectifying an omission in the Bill with regard to the liability of a tenant to assessment in the case of timber. He had moved an Amendment on the subject which the Government were willing to accept, but through some oversight it had not been inserted in the amended Bill. He only asked in this case what was admitted in other cases—namely, that the tenant should be entitled to deduct any increase of rates arising out of the operation of the Bill from the landlord.

hoped the Bill would be reprinted before the third reading.

said, it was proposed to read the Bill a third time on Monday, and in the meantime it would be reprinted.

rose to move—

"That it is expedient that a Commission be appointed to inquire and report to the Board of Trade as to the practicability of stowing con- veniently in Passenger Ships such a number of Refuge Boats or Rafts, or other insubmergible appliances, as may be sufficient in their aggregate capacity to receive all on board in the event of accidents to the ships."