I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that for the purpose of preventing the formation of a School Board, the Malling Board of Guardians have voted the sum of £50 to the Enlargement Fund of the West Mailing National Schools, and also —5 a year in respect to the pauper children attending the school, the school being in receipt of a free grant; arid, whether the Local Government Board has given its sanction to such payments?

The Local Government Board have not sanctioned the payments of the sums referred to. They have informed the Guardians that they are not aware of any authority under which the proposed contributions can legally be made.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Rose Hannah Loach, of 86, Park Street, Oldbury, who recently entered the Oldbury Smallpox Hospital, Portway Road, with her child Martha, aged five months, who was suffering from confluent smallpox; whether he is aware that Mrs. Loach, having never been vaccinated or had smallpox, resisted the importunities of the Sanitary Inspector and medical man at the hospital, who urged her to be vaccinated, stating that she had seen her husband and children take smallpox after vaccination; and that Mrs. Loach was discharged from the hospital on the death of her infant, after close association with the worst forms of smallpox, unvaccinated and free from smallpox; and, whether it is the duty of officials at smallpox hospitals to put such pressure on persons who may object to vaccination as useless and dangerous?

I am informed that the child referred to, who was about four months old, was suffering from smallpox in a small house where arrangements for isolation were impracticable, and where three cases of smallpox had previously occurred. The mother refused to allow the child to be sent to the Smallpox Hospital unless she was received in the hospital with the child. The Sanitary Inspector endeavoured to persuade her to be vaccinated before being taken to the hospital, but she refused, and the mother with her child was then admitted to the hospital. She was, it is stated, provided with a cottage which was some distance from the main buildings where the chief of the cases were. The utmost was done to prevent her from mixing with the other cases in the hospital, and after the death of the child, the mother, after a bath and her clothing having been properly disinfected, returned to her home. I see no ground for thinking that the officers did more than it was their duty to do in the case.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Enagh Lough, from which it is proposed to obtain water for the proposed Asylum for Londonderry County, is a stagnant pond used by the neighbouring farmers for damming flax in, and that the water is totally unfit for human use; and whether, in face of the present want of water at the City Supply and proposals to fetch water some 20 miles to supply the City, the Government will give their sanction for building the asylum where proposed at Gransha?

It has been decided by the Board of Control to build the new Londonderry Asylum at Gransha, provided the Board is satisfied as to the sufficiency and purity of the water supply. A very competent expert has prepared a scheme by which the asylum will obtain an excellent water supply from the Waterside Reservoir. The Board is still in communication with the Corporation of Derry as to the legal powers vested in the Corporation to increase the Waterside Reservoir so as to yield a sufficient supply under this scheme for the asylum. It may be noted that the supply for the Waterside suburb is quite distinct from the supply of Derry City proper; the quality and quantity of which have been made the subject of unfavourable comment. The proposal to use the Lough Enagh water has been abandoned.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when will an examination under Code (Section) 1383 be held for county inspectors clerks?

The Inspector General informs me that no date has been definitely fixed for an examination under this section of the Code, but that one will probably soon be held.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Inspector General's circular of 1887 cancelling past unfavourable records in the Royal Irish Constabulary has been invariably acted on; and, if not, in what cases; and, was it not intended at the time to be of universal application?

The circular of 1887 referred to has been, so far as the Inspector General is aware, invariably acted on. It is not intended to be of universal application, as the terms of it shew. It only cancels unfavourable records so far as they would affect subsequent punishments or the grants of pensions or gratuities. It was not intended to apply to other matters, such as promotion or the comparison in other cases of one man's claim with another.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether local authorities in Ireland who have adopted the Compulsory Education Act, appointed school attendance officers, and included the expenses in their estimates, can now pay these expenses without being surcharged by the Local Government auditor?

I am informed that in no case in which the expenses mentioned have been paid, save in the case of Belturbet, the circumstance respecting which I explained in answer to a question on the 29th April, has there been a surcharge by the auditors.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the systematic sale of large quantities of unwholesome meat just beyond the area supervised by the Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London; whether he has considered the letter of Dr. Sedgwick Saunders, Food Analyst to the Commissioners, written in March of this year, in which he states that the sale of meat, which would be at once condemned as unfit for food by any competent meat inspectors, goes on openly in the shops referred to; that this outside market is in the area of the Holborn Board of Works, who have not sufficient trained inspectors to examine the meat, or any apparatus for dealing with it when it is condemned; and that, although the Commissioners of Sewers have made proposals to the Holborn District Board of Works to take over, for a time, the inspection of meat in the implicated area, the Holborn Board has neither accepted the offer nor dealt with the evil in any other way; and whether, in view of the fact that this meat is distributed over the Metropolis, involving great risk to the people who buy the worst of it in the street markets, where it is sold as cheap meat, he will use his influence with the Holborn Board of Works to insure efficient inspection of all the meat sold within their area, either in the way proposed by the Commissioners of Sewers or in some other way?

I have no direct information on this subject, and the letter of Dr. Saunders has not been communicated to me. I have, however, been informed by the Holborn District Board that, on every occasion when complaints have been made to them by inspectors under the Commissioners of Sewers, of the nature referred to, they have done their best to investigate them, and have called for evidence to substantiate the charge, but that on no one occasion has evidence worthy of the name been put forward.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the excursion steamer Davwar, with 700 passengers aboard, mostly ladies and children, from Campbeltown to Belfast, ran ashore during a fog on Briggs Reef at Groomsport, near Donaghadee, on the morning of the 7th instant; whether, seeing that Briggs Reef is within a few miles of Mew Island, which the steamer had to pass, he will direct the attention of the Irish Lights Commissioners to the fact that if a proper fog signal had been on Mew Island, the lives of these passengers would not have been so endangered; and whether anything has yet been done by the Commissioners since the Treasury grant, in the way of making the long-promised tests as to the best signals to be used on Mew Island? Also, whether his attention has been called to the loss of the Belfast steam tug Ranger, when going to the assistance of the stranded steamer Davwar on the 7th instant; and whether he will inquire if the loss was due to collision with a submerged vessel wrecked there some time ago; and, if so, will he consider the desirability of taking some means to have this wreck marked in order to warn mariners of the danger?

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade—(1) whether he is aware that the tug Ranger, while assisting the steamer Davwar, stranded on the Briggs Reef in Belfast Lough on Saturday last, struck upon the stern-post of the steamer Emily, which was wrecked on the reef some years ago and foundered; (2) whether this is the same wreck on which the smack Betsy struck and was lost during the winter of 1893–94, and which the Board of Irish Lights then refused to remove, asserting that it did not constitute a danger to navigation; (3) whether he is aware that the managers of the Groomsport Lifeboat have frequently called attention to the risk which would be incurred by their crew if called upon to assist a vessel in distress in that part of the lough from this invisible danger; and (4) whether, in view of the proof now given that this wreck does constitute a serious danger to life and property, he will take immediate steps to compel the Board of Irish Lights to remove it?

; The Board of Trade have ordered an inquiry into the casualty to the Davwar, and, pending the result of such inquiry, I can express no opinion as to the cause of the casualty. The experiments referred to in respect of the Mew Island siren have now been completed (not, however, under a Treasury grant, but at the expense of the Mercantile Marine Fund). A report of the result is before the Trinity House in accordance with the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. As regards the question of the hon. Member for North Down, I had better not express an opinion on the point raised in paragraphs 2 and 3 till I see the report of the inquiry. If it should appear that a wreck does exist, the Irish Lights Board will, doubtless, remove it; should they fail to do so it would clearly be the duty of the Board of Trade to call their attention to the need of doing so. An official inquiry has been ordered into the loss of the steam tug Ranger, and until the report of the inquiry is received, I am unable to express any opinion as to the cause of the casualty.

asked whether the Irish Board of Lights had refused to remove this obstacle.

I am not aware of that, but I will inquire. If they have refused, it must have been because they thought it was not a danger to navigation. If it should turn out from this inquiry that it is a danger to navigation, they will not then, I take it, persist in their view.

said, the fact that two vessels had been lost at this place within the past year proved the danger.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether a sworn inquiry will be granted into the grave charges alleged against Mr. Dawson, Petty Sessions Clerk, Newcastle West. County Limerick, viz.: neglect of duty, misappropriation of the public funds, canvassing magistrates for decisions in favour of parties in whom he was personally interested, and inducing a magistrate to refuse information in a case of serious assault, as evidence in support of these charges can be given at such an inquiry by magistrates of the district and respectable residents of Newcastle West?

I am advised that it is open to any person to prefer a charge against a Clerk of Petty Sessions either to the Lord Lieutenant or to the magistrates of the district. If such a charge be definitely preferred to the Lord Lieutenant against the Petty Sessions Clerk referred to in the question, immediate steps will be taken to inquire into it. But such an inquiry would not, I understand, be on oath, as there is no power in the Lord Lieutenant to order a sworn inquiry in such cases.

asked whether it was not the right hon. Gentleman's duty to dismiss this official when these charges were made against him?

I can give no answer except that which I have already given.

Is it true that this gentleman has been charged with the misappropriation of funds?

Various charges have from time to time been brought against him, and he has twice or thrice been reinstated.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India when Imperial Service troops, the Kashmir-Native Contingent, who are still armed with obsolete Sniders, are to receive the Martini?

Martini-Henry rifles have been issued to the Infantry, which forms the great majority of the Kashmir Imperial Service force. I am not able to say at what date they will be issued to the Cavalry, whose numbers are, relatively, very small.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee, appointed to consider the recommendation of Lord Jersey as Imperial delegate to the Ottawa Conference with respect to the subsidising of a first line of mail steamers between Great Britain and Canada, is likely to be presented; and, whether the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived will, in view of the great importance of this question to Imperial and Colonial interests, be promptly communicated to the House?

That portion of Lord Jersey's Report on the Ottawa Conference which related to the Mail question was referred by Her Majesty's Government to an Inter-Departmental Committee, which is considering the question arising from the approaching termination of the Mail Contracts to Australia and the East. The deliberations of the Committee must necessarily take some time; as many subjects before them refer to matters of the highest importance to our Indian possessions and the Australian Colonies.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor has considered, and arrived at any determination with respect to, the emphatic contradiction given by Mr. P. Crowe, J.P., to certain allegations concerning his action on the bench at the Cashel Quarter Sessions in February last?

The Lord Chancellor informs me he is perfectly satisfied with the statement made by the gentleman referred to in the question. It is only right to add that the chairman of Quarter Sessions, in a letter addressed by him to Mr. Crowe, stated that the latter did not, on the occasion to which this incident refers, remark that he had had an interview with the appellant, and that he intended doing all in his power to get him off, or that Mr. Crowe protested against affirming the decision of the Justices at Petty Sessions; on the contrary, he expressed to the Chairman his approval of the Justices decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any agreement has been come to between the Irish Government and the National Commissioners of Education with regard the Christian Brothers' Schools?

I can only say, in answer to the hon. Member's question, that the correspondence between the Irish Government and the National Education Commissioners is rapidly approaching a final stage. By "rapidly" I mean that it will be concluded within a few days. Whether it will end in an agreement or not it would be premature for me to say.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that there was a strong feeling in Ireland that this question ought to have been settled within the last two or three years.

I am quite aware of the strong feeling. But it is much more easy to entertain a strong feeling than to find a means of settlement.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Governor has yet been appointed for New South Wales; and, if not, whether the appointment will be immediately made, in view of the strong feeling that the position of Governor should not be left vacant for so many months?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if he is now in a position to state whether any appointment to the Governorship of New South Wales has been made?

No statement can be made on the subject at present. But in regard to the terms of the question of the hon. Member for East Clare, it may be pointed out that the vacancy only occurred three months ago, quite unexpectedly, and that in an appointment of this importance many considerations have to be weighed, and it cannot be, and should not be, hurriedly filled up.

asked whether the hon. Gentleman could give the House an assurance that one of the many considerations that would not weigh in this appointment would be a political consideration with regard to any particular seat?

asked whether the appointment had been offered to a Member of the House?

I think the question of the hon. Member for Preston needs no answer. I regret very much that my hon. Friend (Mr. Sydney Buxton) will not be well enough to be present this week, and in his absence I cannot make any further statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in December of last year, a Petition was received from the Ridley Clerks of the Second Division asking for a revision of their scheme of salary; and as nearly six months have now elapsed since its receipt, whether a reply can be given immediately; and whether, in the consideration of this Petition, the Treasury will endeavour to remedy the system which exists in the Government service whereby a junior clerk of the Playfair Second Division, who may be only two years senior to a clerk of the Ridley Second Division, receives a salary of over £50 a year more than the latter?

A reply will shortly be given to the Petition, which was duly received. The salary of the Second Division was fixed in 1890, after very full consideration by the Royal Commission. The Government has no intention of altering it. The scale previously in force has been given to no one since employed, but it cannot be taken away from clerks then serving. A clerk on the new scale who serves till he is 65 will have received in salary £1,700 more than if he had been paid on the old scale.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that serious damage has been done to residential property at Hartlepool by the firing of a big gun from the Lighthouse Battery, part of which is at a distance of less than 100 feet from the battery; and that the lighthouse, which is close to the battery, is endangered thereby; and whether, as it is against War Office regulations to practice with heavy artillery so close to dwelling houses, he will give instructions to discontinue the firing?

Reports received from Hartlepool show that beyond breaking a few panes of glass, scarcely any damage was done to the lighthouse. The lantern was in no way injured, and the lighthouse cannot be said to be in any danger. As regards any damage to houses in the neighbourhood, I may say only one complaint has been received, by the artillery at Tynemouth preferring a claim for 7s.; but the hon. Member has placed in my hands a letter from a resident giving particulars into which I will direct full inquiry to be made. There is no War Office Regulation governing practice with guns near dwelling houses, but when this gun was placed in the battery it was agreed with the Commissioners of the Port of Hartlepool that it should only be fired eight times in the year.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the normal clerical establishment of all the departments of the Admiralty have yet been sent to the Treasury; and, if not, when they will be sent; and whether any promotion which may ensue on the sanction of these establishments will take effect from the same date as those lately made in the Accountant General's Department; and, if not, from what date?

Proposals as regards the clerical establishment of the Admiralty will be before the Treasury a few days hence. Promotions to staff clerkships only take effect from the date of the Civil Service certificate in each case.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether there is any legal standard of water in butter; whether Somerset House has fixed any such standard; and whether he is prepared to issue a circular to local authorities pointing out to them the law in this matter?

The Select Committee on the adulteration of food products have not yet reported. From the evidence before them it appears that there is no legal standard of water in butter, and Somerset House has not fixed any such standard. When the Committee have reported, I hope local authorities will be better informed on the matter.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the congestion in the promotion of the competitive prison clerks, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee of 1886–90?

The actual number of competitive prison clerks, that is to say, clerks who entered under the present scheme of competitive examination, now serving is 76, 31 in the first class and 45 in the second. None of the first-class competitive clerks have attained their maximum, and of the second class only 23 have attained it. The matter has been frequently brought to my notice, and, after very carefully going into the whole question, I am unable to think that a real grievance exists. I will consider the question whether it is possible or desirable to lay the Report on the Table.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War (1) whether the War Office has received any complaints with respect to the quality of the black powder Lee-Metford rifle ammunition served out to the Militia for musketry practice; (2) whether he is aware that bullets are found which have dropped far short of the target, indicating by their condition that the propulsive force has been deficient; (3) whether any steps will be taken to test the quality of ammunition served out for class firing; and (4) whether there is any danger of ammunition of an equally imperfect character being issued for active service?

No complaints have been received, and nothing is known in the War Office of the dropped bullets referred to in the second paragraph. All the ammunition issued has passed proof satisfactorily, and is service ammunition. There have from time to time been complaints of isolated instances of dropped bullets during the time when the regular troops used black powder; but, so far as could be ascertained, such cases were due to individual errors in manufacture, which cannot, except by chance, be detected by inspection.

asked whether he might be allowed to show the right hon. Gentleman a bullet which had been fired and which had dropped short of the target?

doubted whether the mere production of a bullet could prove that it had fallen short of the target in consequence of insufficient propulsive force.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, having regard to the unanimous resolution of the Congested Districts Board, and the expression of opinion in the House as to the necessity for increased financial and compulsory powers for the acquisition of land, for migration, and enlargement of small holdings in the congested districts, he will introduce a Bill this Session applying to Ireland the powers already exercised under the Scotch Crofters' Acts, and enabling the Land Commission, on the requisition of the Congested Districts Board, to undertake the direct purchase of suitable lands out of the funds at their disposal?

Under the 57th and 58th Vic., cap. 50, the Congested Districts Board are enabled to use the powers of the Lands Clauses Acts, excepting the provisions of such Acts relating to the taking of land otherwise than by agreement—that is, compulsorily. The Board are not empowered, however, to draw upon the funds of the Land Commission provided by the Purchase Acts, and the Board have no funds at their disposal for any purpose, except the yearly sum of, £41,250 and the two small fishery loans. The Board are aware that there are large tracts of land that could be used for the purposes of the enlargement of small holdings and the promotion of migration; but they are of opinion that a grant of additional funds to them would be necessary to give due effect to this important department of their work, and that they should also be armed with compulsory powers to acquire lands at their just value. The latter part of this question appears to have been framed under a misapprehension. The power for the enlargement of holdings conferred by the Crofters' Acts upon the Crofters' Commission is a power to make an order for a lease of additional land, subject to various conditions. I am informed that the Crofters' Commission has no power to take land compulsorily. A Bill proposing to confer such compulsory powers on the Congested Districts Board must necessarily, I fear, be calculated to occupy a good deal of time; and, in the circumstances, I cannot undertake to introduce legislation on the subject this Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has information to the effect that Mr. Shepstone removed all the books of the Swazi nation and papers relating to the affairs of Swaziland from the chief kraal to Pretoria, and has not returned them in spite of repeated requests from the king; if so, by what right does Mr. Shepstone retain these books and papers; and will the Government use their influence to secure their immediate return?

It is understood that the books and papers sent to Pretoria were those bearing on Mr. Shepstone's financial and other relations with the Swazi nation. They were sent to Pretoria with a view to a thorough investigation into Mr. Shepstone's financial transactions, which was desired by the Swazies. A Swazi deputation went to Pretoria to attend at the audit. It is understood that on completion of the audit the books and papers will be returned to Swaziland.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board out of what fund is a waywarden or surveyor of highways to be paid any balance due to him at the date of the transfer of the liabilities of the highway authority to the district council of a rural district; and can he make a highway rate for the purpose, and will such rate require allowance by justices; or can the parish council (or parish meeting in a parish where there is no parish council) include the payment of such balance in the expenses to be paid out of the Poor's Rate under Section 11 (4) of The Local Government Act, 1894; or is such balance a liability transferred to the district council under Section 25 (1), and to be defrayed as part of the general expenses of the council under Section 29 (a).

Where the powers of a highway authority are transferred to a rural district council, it appears to the Local Government Board that the rural district council may discharge any liabilities legally incurred by the highway authority. A waywarden or surveyor of highways would have no authority to levy a highway rate for the purpose mentioned in the question, and Section 11 (4) of the Local Government Act of 1894 would not apply to the case.

I beg to ask whether the district council will defray this liability out of general funds or out of a special rate levied on the highway districts?

That is rather a difficult point. I think an adjustment may be necessary under Section 68 of the Act.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if in a rural parish where the parish council (or parish meeting in a parish not having a council) has neither received nor paid money prior to the 31st March 1895 a financial statement will have to be prepared and audited by a district auditor; if a 5s. stamp will have to be impressed upon or affixed to such a financial statement in which neither receipts nor payments appear; and who is to attend the audit on behalf of the parish council or parish meeting?

When there are no payments or receipts there cannot be any audit. In such a case, however, the Auditor should be furnished through the posts with a statement under the hand of the chairman of the parish meeting, or of the chairman or clerk of the parish council, as the case may be, that there have been no payments or receipts.

Perhaps a simple certificate will be sufficient, and there will be no necessity for the return of a financial statement?

Yes; a mere statement.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Representative of the War Office on the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into Target Practice Seawards, gave a distinct pledge that the War Office would not contemplate the possibility of shutting up either entrance to Plymouth Sound (as is now proposed by the new by-laws); and that, on the strength of that pledge, the mass of evidence which had been accumulated against such a proposition was not produced before the Committee; and whether he can give an assurance that this pledge will be adhered to?

There is no intention of interfering with vessels and boats in the ordinary course of navigation; the object of the by-laws is to prevent boats or vessels anchoring, or intruding and causing wilful obstruction in the areas which are described as closed. It is quite a misunderstanding that fishing or other vessels will be prevented from going into Plymouth. I may add that the objections to the by-laws have just been received from the Board of Trade. Most of the objections are based on this misunderstanding; others are on minor points. It is hoped that there will be no difficulty in coming to a satisfactory understanding.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what extensions have been made of Her Majesty's Indian Possessions subsequent to the passing of the Act for the better government of India (1858); in what years were such extensions made; and, what is the name and area of such extension?

In 1886 the province of Upper Burma was added to Her Majesty's Indian possessions; its area is about 83,500 square miles. In 1887 the frontier districts of Pishin and Sibi with their dependencies which had been under our administration under the treaty of Gundamak since 1879, were incorporated with British India. Besides these a considerable number of acquisitions of territory, including numerous exchanges with native princes, have taken place in various ways since 1858, the area in most cases being comparatively small. The information necessary for giving a complete answer to the hon. Member's question does not exist in this country.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a party of non-commissioned officers of Royal Engineers has already sailed for Zanzibar, in connection with railway works in Uganda?

A party of non-commissioned officers under Lieutenants Sclater and Smith have left for Zanzibar, but they are to be engaged in improving the road between Kikuyu and the Lake, and not on railway work.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether before introducing the Seal Fisheries (North Pacific) Bill Her Majesty's Government apprised the Government of Canada of their intention so to do; whether the Government of Canada have been made aware of the provisions of the Bill; whether they have expressed their concurrence with those provisions or any opinion concerning it; and, whether he will lay upon the Table any correspondence which may have reference to the subject in or since the year 1893?

The Dominion Government were aware that legislation would be necessary to take the place of the existing Act, which expires on the 30th instant, and some time ago they furnished Her Majesty's Government with a full expression of their views as to the Amendments which they desired in the existing Act. These views have received careful consideration from Her Majesty's Government, who have endeavoured in the Bill now submitted to meet them substantially.

The hon. Member has not said whether correspondence will be laid upon the Table.

I cannot say anything upon that point at present.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the gist of the Report received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg with regard to the murder of Mr. Joseph Crawshaw, to which reference was made on 30th May?

A despatch has been received from the Acting British Consul at Moscow confirming the Report which appeared in the newspapers of the attack on the mills at the Tikoso, near Moscow, and the murder of Mr. Crawshaw by the mob. Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg has been assured by the Russian Government that a full inquiry will be held, and that measures were being taken by the local authorities to prevent further disorders.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland with regard to his statement that a Bill dealing with Private Bill Procedure in Scotland was prepared and would be introduced during the present Session of Parliament, if he can now say when that Bill will be introduced; and if he can say that it is still the intention of the Government to use their best endeavours to pass it into law?

The Government have a Bill prepared on this subject, and would be glad to pass it if it were accepted as absolutely non-contentious. Those are the only conditions under which it could pass this Session.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the serious and unusual loss of life occasioned by an accident on the 31st May last at the Fife-shire Main Colliery Pits; and whether he proposes to direct a public inquiry to be held as to the causes thereof?

I have received a report upon this lamentable disaster from the Inspector, and have already ordered a public inquiry, in which the Home Office will be represented by Counsel.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if the United Kingdom or India is to bear the expenses incident to the Shahzada's visit to this country?

The cost of the entertainment of the Shahzada will be defrayed by the Indian Government.

Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat his answer? We could not hear it in this part of the House.

repeated the answer.

Will the Indian Government bear the entire cost—every penny of it?

Yes; but we shall be glad to receive any contribution from the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the strength of the Aldershot division, men and horses; and how many were present on parade on the occasion of the Shahzada's visit?

The strength of the Aldershot command on June 1 was 20,051 men 4,045 horses and mules. Of these numbers 17,098 men and 3,377 horses were present on parade on the occasion referred to.

asked whether the difference between the total strength of the men on parade was not to be attributed to a great extent to the large number of employed men; and what was the number of employed men now at Aldershot.

I have not got the figures for this year. But last year, when there was a large margin between those present on parade and the number in the command, those absent were accounted for as being a large number of them recruits, a certain number on guard, some sick, some on leave, some dismounted cavalry and engineers, some Army Service Corps, a large number at musketry practice, some attending classes, clerks, cooks, officers' servants, and so on. I may mention that last year of the discrepancy of 5,000, the officers' servants only numbered 208.

But they were not the only employed men.

No; I have not got the figures of the employed men.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, why the names of the Select Committee on Government Printing Contracts were not moved for on 28th May, in accordance with the promise given on this subject?

I am sorry that there has been delay in settling some of the names, but they will be put down on the Paper as speedily as possible.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any ship of Her Majesty's Navy is stationed at Madagascar; and, if so, what instructions have been issued in regard to the protection of British subjects and their transport to South Africa?

said, a ship has been ordered to Madagascar for the protection of British subjects and to arrange for their removal if necessity arises.

When was the ship ordered to go, and when is she likely to arrive?

I must ask for notice of that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the engagement by which the Russian Government undertook, when Great Britain evacuated Port Hamilton, not to occupy any position in Corea still holds good; and, whether the Russian pledge equally applies to the territory west and south-west of Corea?

I stated in reply to a previous question from the hon. Member, that full particulars with regard to the withdrawal from Port Hamilton will be found in the Parliamentary Paper, China, No. 1, 1887, and that it would be seen from that correspondence that in the event of the British occupation of Port Hamilton ceasing, Russia gave a distinct pledge to China that in the future Russia would not take Corean territory. Her Majesty's Government consider that this engagement still holds good. The engagement which was given by Russia referred exclusively to Corea territory.

Perhaps the hon. Member will say whether the Government have received any information confirming the statement which appeared in most of the newspapers to-day, that China has agreed to assign to Russia a portion of Manchuria, or a new port for the Russian fleet?

said that he could not answer a question of that kind without notice.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the letters by Mr. Bennett Burleigh from Madagascar, published in the Daily Telegraph, and especially to those dated 25th February and 16th April, and published on 16th May and 4th June; whether there are a considerable number of English traders and missionaries with their families in the interior of the island, and exposed to dangers from the Senegalese and Turco auxiliaries that form part of the invading army; whether Her Majesty's Government will send a man-of-war to Malagasy waters to give protection to British subjects and British interests; whether the French authorities at Tamatave seize and detain all British correspondence and newspapers; and whether M. Sauzier, the acting British Consul at Tamative, will be permitted to refuse to forward private correspondence?

The English traders and missionaries who elect to remain in the island are, from the nature of the case, exposed to the ordinary risks inseparable from military operations, but there is no reason to believe in special danger from the French forces. We have no information that British correspondence has been seized and detained. In the case of one mail the commander of a French cruiser demanded that the contents should be handed over to him, but it is not understood that he detained them. Mr. Sauzier cannot, while hostilities continue, receive and forward private correspondence.

On behalf of the hon. Member for East Wick-low (Mr. E. P. O'KELLY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in view of the failure of the Arklow fishing industry, he will impress upon the Congested Districts Boards the necessity of extending the time for repayment of money lent to Arklow fishermen for the building of boats and for fishing purposes; and whether the legal proceedings threatened by the Board against the sureties for loans to Arklow fishermen will be suspended while giving the borrowers a reasonable time to pay the instalments due to the Board; also whether he is aware that the Congested Districts Board have seized upon an Arklow fishing boat named the True Light for a balance due upon the original loan, although the borrowers havealready paid £210 of the loan; and whether it is the intention of the Board to sell the boat by auction?

A letter has been written to the hon. Member asking him to be good enough to defer these questions until Monday next. They will be brought before the Congested Districts Board at its meeting to be held to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether, since the India Office communicated with the Government of India more than 12 months ago on the subject of flogging in the native army of the Crown, any decision has been arrived at with reference to its continuance or abolition; and whether he will lay the Correspondence upon the Table?

No decision has yet been arrived at on the subject of flogging in the native Army in India. Until the correspondence is completed it cannot be laid upon the Table.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the Government intend to take steps to accelerate the passage of the Welsh Church Bill, so that the Irish Land Bill may get into Committee in time to ensure its proper consideration.

This question and the two following questions really relate to the Business of the House, and I would submit to the hon. Member and to those who have the following questions that they should postpone them till I have made my statement, and they will arise naturally on the discussion on the Motion with which I shall conclude the statement.

On the Second Reading of the Rural Advertisements Bill, to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

The House will, I think, agree with me that we have nothing to complain of in the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will go further and say that, so far as the terms of the Motion he has brought forward are concerned, I think they are in accordance with the practice of this House that about this period of the Session privileges should be given to the Government of the day with regard to the time of the House not in excess of what he has asked for. On the substance of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, I have little or nothing to say or complain of. He has, however, naturally enough, taken this occasion for making a survey of the past work of the Session, and forming some forecast as to its future. I am bound to say that, both as regards the present and as regards the future, the right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be animated with an extremely sanguine spirit. It is a spirit which I have known before exhibited by Gentlemen in charge of Bills, which I myself have, perhaps, felt with regard to Bills I have been responsible for, but which the progress of events has not in the past, and, I think, will not in the future, always justify. It is the business of Governments to be sanguine about their business; and so far as I have had experience in these matters, either as a Member of the Government or of the Opposition, I have seldom found their sanguine forecasts have altogether met with the success which perhaps they have deserved. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt briefly with the condition of Supply, and has compared the number of days given to Supply in this Session with the number given in former Sessions. I have not had time to examine or check the figures of the right hon. Gentleman, but I have no doubt they are quite correct. I notice the right hon. Gentleman, in discussing the time given to Supply, mixed up together with that the time given to Votes on Account and to Supplementary Estimates, and that he did not make any comparison of the amount of time given up to this period in June to the discussion devoted to the Ordinary Civil Service Estimates with the time given on previous occasions. Had he given us that material for comparison, I cannot help thinking it would be found that in no normal Session of recent years had the discussion of the Ordinary Civil Service Estimates been so long delayed or such small progress made with them. However, I think the plan adumbrated by the Government of giving one day in the week to Supply for the remainder of the Session is a good plan, and is one which will meet with the legitimate needs of private Members, and will, in my judgment, more than supply the place of privileges which this Resolution takes away. I think now, as I have always thought, that private Members find better scope for their powers of criticism upon Supply than they can possibly have either on Friday or Tuesday evenings, and, I might possibly add, even on the Wednesday, for there is no part of the Government Resolution which I look upon with more satisfaction, taken as a whole, than the fact that it puts an end to some of those Wednesday proceedings. When I look back over the course of the Wednesdays of the present Session I see not very much to be very grateful for and a great deal which I have great reason to regret. I turn now to the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has made with regard to the great Government measures now before the House. He has told us, in language which, I think, will find an echo in the heart of every man who loves the House of Commons, that he regards with extreme regret, and he would avoid by almost every means in his power, any operations which might stifle debate. He has appealed to his own past career as proof that the principles which he has expressed to us have been put by him into practice. If I were in a controversial mood, I think there are instances in recent Sessions which I might call up to the memory of the House, which would, perhaps, not altogether bear out the reminiscences of the right hon. Gentleman, and especially when I remember last year, the first, think, in which the right hon. Gentleman had been the Leader of the House and had the guidance of our proceedings. I remember, while he gave us ample opportunity for discussing the important proposals he brought before us in the Budget, what happened immediately after that, and when I recall to mind the incidents connected with the Evicted Tenants Bill, unless I am greatly mistaken, the same phrase cannot be bestowed upon the course the Government took upon that occasion. I do not wish to revive forgotten controversies, and I will only say that I entirely subscribe to and associate myself with the views which the right hon. Gentleman laid down as those most consistent with the honour, with the dignity, and with the usefulness of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has said, and quite truly, that if unfettered Debate is to go on in this House it must be by the co-operation of the minority with the majority. I quite admit that if the minority have rights the majority have rights too, and it is impossible for either parties to press those rights to excess without its being absolutely necessary to resort to those measures which, I am glad to think, by common agreement on both sides of the House we desire most of all to avoid. That general proposition being laid down, the difficulty comes in the application. What are the rights of the minority and of the majority, and in what consists an abuse of those rights by one Party or an abuse of them by the other? I admit, of course, that it is easy for the minority to carry to excess the powers of discussion which the ordinary rules of this House allow. I admit it would not be difficult to find examples in the past where that power has been exercised and abused in the minority; but, as I have said, I do not wish to recall such instances. But if the minority thus have abused and may abuse the right of discussion properly given by the rules of this House, let it be noted that the majority on their side must not press their rights too far. They must not overload the Paper; they must not swell their programme with measures in their nature so difficult and controversial that any minority which attempted to carry out its duties would be obliged to discuss them at considerable length and with fulness. And when I reflect upon the bill of fare which the Government have prepared for us I cannot help thinking that they have, unwittingly and unintentionally perhaps, set before themselves a task which neither they nor the House can possibly perform. The Welsh Bill has reached the middle of the 5th Clause. It consists of 31 clauses, and we are now at the 13th of June. After the Welsh Bill there is the Irish Land Bill, some of which is of an extremely controversial character and must be bitterly contested across the Floor of the House. Then there is the Local Veto Bill—a Bill which may have great merits, but which certainly has not the merit of allaying gentlemen of all Parties and shades of opinion in its support. And when these three great measures have been passed, we have still the Crofters' Bill, some parts of which must necessarily lead, I will not say to a protracted, but to some, controversy in this House. In addition to all these Bills—and possibly there are others—there is the whole work of Supply.

There is also the Plural Voting Bill.

Yes, I forgot the Plural Voting Bill; and there is another measure which the Government can hardly hope to get through the Report Stage without discussion; I refer to the Factories Bill of the Home Secretary. I do not wish to map out the time which those Bill ought to take; but I do submit to the House that it is absolutely impossible, so far as my experience of House of Commons work goes, that this vast mass of legislation can be carried through without throwing on the Members of the House a burden which it is impossible that they can bear, or at least without unduly curtailing Debate, and bringing on the House that disgrace which the right hon. Gentleman very justly desires to avoid. I do not press the matter further now. I only respectfully remind the majority that if they have rights, as I am far from contesting, they also have duties, and that one of their duties is not so to overstrain the amount of work they desire the House to perform as to put them in the dilemma either of having a continuous sitting to the utter destruction of the health and efficiency of the Members of this House, or else of unduly curtailing Debate by violent means, which all Members of all Parties sincerely desire to avoid. With that respectful warning as regards the future, I beg to say that, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should not give the Government the privileges, as regards the time of the House, asked for by the right hon. Gentleman in the Resolution which you, Sir, have read from the Chair.

said, he most cordially and heartily supported the right hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken in their desire to preserve, in whatever might be done, the honour and dignity of the House. Private Members were as jealous of the honour and dignity of the House as either the right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench or the right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench. He found, after a careful investigation in the Library, that the Government had already had 61 days of the present Session for their business, and he did not think that for that vast amount of time a proportionate; amount of work had been done. As to the time given to private Members, there had been, since the beginning of the Session, 17 Wednesdays, on 15 of which private Members had had the opportunity of discussing private Bills. At the beginning of the Session private Members ballotted for places for their Bills, and there was a Standing Order that Bills which had passed their Second Reading should have precedence over other Bills. But it would be far more satisfactory if the Government of the day, instead of taking away the time of private Members by motions of this sort, were to say distinctly at the opening of the Session that they would appropriate all the time of the House. He could not help feeling that the time of the House might as well be devoted to the Bills brought in by private Members as to the Bills of the Government, for there was an absolute unreality in the whole proceedings of the Government. The Home Secretary had told his constituents in Scotland, and he was now carrying out his word, that Parliament was to "plough the sands of the seashore," and it had also been said that Parliament was to be kept sitting to "fill up the cup," but that cup seemed to take a long time to fill. He did not think there ever was a Session, since he had the honour of having a seat in the House, in which there was such a multiplicity of Bills read a first time and then dropped. There were no less than 25 Bills of the Government on the Paper, and eight of the nine of them were of a very highly contentious character. The Government had brought in those measures without any earthly hope of passing them, but merely with the desire of pleasing various sections of their supporters. The right hon. Gentleman had said that financial business was in some arrear. That was not the fault of private Members. He ventured to say that the Estimates had not been discussed by private Members in this Parliament at anything like the length at which they were discussed in past Parliaments. He noticed that there was a great tendency to take away the rights of private Members, and to exalt the powers and privileges of Members who sat on both front Benches. Against that tendency the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton strongly protested when just such another Motion was made by a Conservative Government in the Session of 1892, and he therefore hoped that if there was a Division they would have the support of the hon. Member. If the Government had proceeded from the commencement of the Session in a businesslike way—if they had curtailed the discussion on the Address, for instance—this Motion would have been unnecessary. He did not think Friday evenings had been used as well as, perhaps, some Members on his side of the House approved of, but there were three useful Motions down for the next three Fridays—Motions in respect to old-age pensions, procedure of the House, and the taking of a religious census in Wales. He could not find any opportunity for bringing the latter Motion forward. If he put it down as an Instruction it was ruled out of order, and if he won a good place in the ballot the Chancellor of the Exchequer took away his opportunity. He trusted that in some future Session the Leader of the House would be able to give hon. Members who were non-official their rights in regard to the time of the House.

appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to except from his Motion the Rating of Machinery Bill. This Bill had passed the House of Commons by large majorities in five or six successive Sessions; it had been regarded by successive Governments with something more than benevolent neutrality; and, if he was not mistaken, on more than one occasion hopes had been held out by the Government that special facilities would be given for advancing the Bill. In the present Session he was fortunate enough to get the third position in the ballot. The Bill again passed the House of Commons by a very substantial majority; it was referred to Grand Committee, and it passed through that Committee without amendment. It now stood first on the Paper for next Wednesday, and was the only private Member's Bill which stood for Third Reading Now, when, after years of endeavour, they had managed to get the Bill this favourable position, and when their hopes were in course of fruition, the right hon. Gentleman came with his fateful shears, and was prepared to snip the thread of its life. His impression was that very few, if any, precedents could be found for taking the whole time of the House before the second Wednesday after Whitsuntide. He admitted that the majority of private Members' Bills which were brought forward on Wednesdays dealt with subjects which, if they were to be dealt with at all, should be dealt with by the responsible Government of the day. That statement, however, did not apply to Bills of every kind; it did not apply to measures like the Rating of Machinery Bill, which, though they divided opinion, did not divide it upon Party lines. Such a Bill as the one of which he had charge could only be introduced by a private Member. He strongly appealed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make an exception in favour of the Bill of which he had spoken.

I am sorry to say that I cannot give any support to the appeal which has just been made by my hon. Friend opposite. Assuming that the Government are entitled to make this demand on the time of the House, they are, in my opinion, justified in refusing to make any exception, for if they once begin to make exceptions they will find they will have demands made upon them from all quarters of the House, and it would be invidious to refuse any. And I am bound to say that if there is one Bill more than another with reference to which I would not make an exception, it is the Bill which is patronised by my hon. Friend. That is not only on account of the character of that Bill, which I myself oppose, but it is also and especially because of the method in which that Bill has been brought to its present stage. We have exactly the same charge to bring against the Bill as we had to bring against the Bill we were discussing yesterday. I do think we ought to refuse support to any Bill which has been passed through the Grand Committee without Amendment, and by which means this House has been deprived of the opportunity of considering its details. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that the time has come at which there is full justification for the course taken by the Government, and I am quite prepared to support the Motion. But we might have a little more information from the Government. I think the position is a very singular one, and that we are establishing a new precedent in regard to the taking of time. Hitherto it has been customary at this period of the Session, when the Government has asked for additional facilities, for the Government to make some statement as to the Bills or measures which it is prepared to withdraw from the consideration of the House. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER shook his head in dissent.] I think I am right in saving that in the time of the late Government there was no demand of this character made without at the same time a statement being made as to the course of business. It is extremely inconvenient to the House that we should go on as we are going on at present. I trust the Government will tell us in no vague terms whether or not they hope to carry forward their measures and intend to sit until they have carried them. The hon. Gentleman opposite said the Government had 25 Bills on the Paper. He makes a mistake; they have 36. There are 36 Bills, each one of which the Government thinks of sufficient importance to attach the name of one of themselves to it. Of those 36 Bills I believe there are only eight that have reached the Second Reading. Therefore there are at the present time 28 Government Bills, including Bills which come down from the House of Lords, which have not even reached the stage of Second Reading. Well, surely it is undesirable that the House should be face to face with this mass of business unless there is a most determined intention on the part of the Government to proceed with the whole of it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave us on information whatever to show upon what the Government base their hopes of dealing with this mass of legislation. He said he expected moderation from his opponents—moderation on the part of the minority as well as on the part of the majority. We all agree that is a demand which he may fairly make upon us, but we have a right to ask him in reference to this mass of business, what treatment on the part of the Opposition he would consider moderate. How are we to divide the time of the Session so as by any possibility to give a practical chance to the great majority of these 36 Bills, 28 of which have not yet passed the Second Reading? The Chief Secretary for Ireland, I suppose speaking with authority, ventured upon a confident prediction at a meeting of his constituents the other day with regard to the business of the House. It was a very important and definite statement. It was that the Welsh Bill and the Irish Land Bill would both be passed through the House of Commons by the beginning of the last week in July. Well, now, we are not going to deal with either of those Bills until next week, and I have made a rough calculation from which it appears to me there will be about 25 days—that is five weeks of five days each, including Wednesdays and Fridays, at the disposal of the Government. Of those 25 days five must be given, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has promised us, to the consideration of Supply. That leaves 20 days, from which he must make some deductions for contingencies. There may be, for instance, Motions for Adjournment or something of that kind. You have to carry the Irish Land Bill through three stages—the whole of the Committee stage, the whole of the Report stage, and the Third Reading stage. You have to carry the Welsh Church Bill through the greater part of the Committee stage, the whole of the Report stage, and the Third Reading stage. I ask how can the Chancellor of the Exchequer expect to get through these two measures alone, without reference to anything else, by the time named by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? We ought to have some idea of what is in the minds of the Government as to what they think at the present time would be a fair amount of time to give to the discussion of these and other principal measures. If it is the general opinion that the demand which the Government make is moderate and reasonable, we may hope to deal with so much business as is agreed upon. But the point which I wish to press is that it would be absolutely impossible with any fair discussion, even if you could carry these two great Bills through in the time named, that you should deal with any of the other 34 Bills on the Paper. Then why this hypocritical pretence of going on with Bills which the Government in their hearts have discarded long ago? It is assuming that the supporters of the Government in this House, and in the constituencies, are very foolish indeed if it is supposed that they are really taken in by such a pretence of legislation as merely the Bills on the Paper when there is not the slightest chance of dealing with them. I have said enough to show that the situation is really exceptional; and while we may willingly grant the facilities for which they now ask, we may ask in return that they should give us to-day, or at an early date, some indication of the Bills which they think the House may be able to dispose of.

The hon. Member for Leeds has been answered to a large extent by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, though I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's views at all. Unfortunately, it is inherent to motions of this kind that they should interfere with the progress of more than one highly meritorious Bill which the Government would gladly see passed into law.

This Bill is in a unique position.

It cannot be in a unique position, because the right hon. Member for West Birmingham says that it is a double of the Bill of yesterday, having passed through the Standing Committee without amendment. The real truth is, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has said, it is impossible for the Government to enter upon the question of exemption. It would be a most invidious task to decide between one Bill and another; and I had a sufficient experience last year of holding out hopes of the passing of a particular Bill to make me extremely cautious about holding out such hopes again. Of course, that is a course which the Government could not take. But there are accidents in human affairs which might give the hon. Member's Bill a chance, and there might come a time when the Third Reading might be taken. As to that I cannot offer an opinion; but, if such an opportunity should occur, the hon. Member will find me a supporter of his Bill. With reference to what the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has said, I would remind him that the time has not yet come as to making a classification of the Bills. When I made this Motion last year, on May 31, the Leader of the Opposition said:—

"I do not expect the Government as early as May 31 to go through the painful operation of the slaughter of the innocents."

I do not know why that particular phrase is applied to this process of dealing with Government Bills, because the Opposition do not regard them as "innocents" at all. It is not on that ground that they desire their slaughter. There was a heathen deity who was in the habit of devouring his children, and who would, I think, offer a more natural image to apply to this case. But last year, when I was called upon to specify the measures with which the Government intended to go on, it was on July 18, and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham then went through an elaborate arithmetical calculation by which he demonstrated that it was impossible that those Bills should pass. But, as a matter of fact, they did pass.

I did demonstrate to my own satisfaction that it was impossible for them to pass with fair discussion. They did not have fair discussion.

That they did not have fair discussion was partly due to the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. They were not Bills of a highly-contentious character. But I am afraid that if we come to political arithmetic the right hon. Gentleman and I should not entirely agree. At all events, I cannot undertake at the present time to answer his appeal by giving a certain number of days for each particular Bill. The time for that has not come yet. But in answer to one question addressed to me I can say that it is the intention of the Government, at all events with reference to the great and principal Bills which have already been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, to go on with them with the intention of passing them into law during the present Session. If the time be short, then the Session will be short; if the time be long, then the Session will be long. I have no desire to close discussion, but at the same time I have a strong desire, and on the part of the Government I wish to express their determination, to proceed with those measures until they have passed through this House.

said, that he also had a Bill for which he should have liked to invite the tender mercies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him not to make an appeal for invidious distinctions; but if he did not, it was not because he did not think this Bill was of far greater importance than the Rating of Machinery Bill. This Motion was brought forward at absolutely the wrong time. It ought to have been made four months ago or six weeks hence. He did not stop to argue whether the rights of private men were good or bad; but at this point of their legislation to interrupt them with such a Motion was to make the opportunities of legislation a farce and a sham. If their rights were bad, then they had wasted 14 Wednesdays since the Session opened. First, much time was spent in balloting for places and bringing in Bills; and in 12 Wednesdays, with five hours each, 14 Bills had been discussed. Of those 13 had passed a Second Reading; six had been referred to the Standing Committees; one to a Select Committee, and one had been read a second time. Several of the Bills had been passed by the Standing Committees, and a great deal had been said lately about the Standing Committees being brought into contempt and their work being rendered useless. No better way of doing that could be found than calling Members to discuss Bills which they knew had no conceivable chance of becoming law. Many of the Members of the Standing Committees complained of the strain which the work imposed upon them; and if this Motion were to become annual, it would be found that Members would not attend the Standing Committees to consider Bills which could not possibly become law. This Motion went very much further than the right hon. Gentlemen on both Front Benches seemed to think. The occasion was one on which the two Benches conspired to sit upon private Members, and the Motion burked one of the Standing Orders of the House. Order No. 12 said that after Whitsuntide public Bills other than Government Bills should have precedence according to the stage which they had reached. What was the use of that Order if the Government took away the only day on which it could come into force? If this Motion were to be made every Session, the sooner that Standing Order was repealed the better. It was perfectly obvious from this Motion that the Government thought that private Members' legislation was bad; and on that ground he had another cause of complaint. The Motion did not go far enough. This Session 400 Bills had been introduced. Night after night batches of them appeared on the Paper, and the titles were read out, occupying from ten minutes to three-quarters of an hour. That necessitated certain hon. Members sitting on night after night for no other reason than to prevent pernicious Bills becoming law. If the Government were opposed to private Members passing their Bills, they should save them the trouble of going through this dreary list night after night. If the Government's Motion were carried, he should propose as an addition:—

"That after all Government business has been disposed of, Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair without question put."

That would not meet with the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but they could not eat their cake and have it also. If they were determined, for the sake of these valuable Government measures, to give up the whole time of the House, and take away the few rights remaining to private Members, they must pay the penalty. They must expect henceforth very little mercy, and no sympathy for their Bills from those who were opposed to this Motion.

said, he was very glad that some hon. Members, on the Opposition side of the House at least, had stood up for the rights of private Members. But he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for West St. Pancras would not press his Motion to a Division. He thought that on this occasion there were special reasons why the Opposition should not oppose the Motion of the Government. The Session was somewhat far advanced, and some Members of the Opposition, for good reasons, desired to be outside the House. That, however, was only a minor reason; but he thought that the private Opposition Members had on this occasion been deserted by their leaders. The front Opposition Bench had been "squared" by the Government. They were aware, from the speeches which had been delivered, that the Government programme was in an unexampled state of confusion, and it appeared to him that the Opposition ought to divest themselves of all responsibility for the remainder of the Session with regard to the time of the House. He looked upon this as an unprecedented occasion, because all hon. Members were anxious to hasten the time when they would have the opportunity to consult the views of their constituents on the Government's programme. In these circumstances it seemed to him that it would be the more straightforward course to give the Government ample time for the remainder of the Session, in order to show the country what their programme was really worth. For that reason he would not oppose the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he had no intention of contesting the claim of the Government to a larger share of the time of the House. He thought, however, that an exception might have been made in favour of the Wednesday Sittings, because that day was in a different category from the other days of the Parliamentary week. Wednesday was the only day in the week on which it was possible for a private Member to submit a Bill for the consideration of the House. He had, however, heard with satisfaction, and the Liberal Party throughout the country would learn with satisfaction, that it was the intention of the Government to persist in their efforts to carry out the whole of their Sessional programme before the House rose. He trusted that the Government would, when the proper time arrived, come to the conclusion that it would be their duty to sit later in the year in order to complete the work which could not be undertaken during the Sittings of the present period, because he should like to see certain measures which had reached an advanced position obtain a chance during a later period of the year to pass into law—a chance which was now denied them. There was one measure in which he was greatly interested—namely, the Burial Acts (Amendment) Bill. He reminded the Government that pledges had been given with reference to this subject over and again. Fifteen years ago a Liberal Government promised that at no distant day the whole question of the Burial Laws should be dealt with; and in February, 1893, the Home Secretary promised that if a private Member dealt with the question, the Government would do their utmost to facilitate the passage of the measure. That work had now been undertaken by a private Member, and he warned the Government that, in consequence of the creation of Parish Councils, trouble might be in store for them unless something was done to pass a measure dealing with a reform of the Burial Laws.

said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was really entitled to some acknowledgment for the courtesy and dignity with which he had treated this question. His speech, indeed, amounted to a rebuke, proper and necessary, of those among the right hon. Gentleman's followers who were always clamouring that he should go into the Torture Chamber and bring out his thumbscrews and apply them to the Members of the Opposition. He took note of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had expressed confidence in the House, and that reasonable opportunities would be afforded for discussion. He also took it for granted that, the right hon. Gentleman having "set his bow in the cloud," there would be no Autumn Session. As to the Amendment, however, he thought that if there was one day of the week which ought to be appropriated, the most criminal day of the week was Wednesday. Perhaps it might be thought that this was his view because he had not succeeded in the Wednesday ballot. He might remark that he had never tried. He was glad to find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had appropriated one day in the week to the interests of Supply. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman had chosen Friday possessed many advantages. It would enable those Members who did not take any interest in the financial affairs of the country to take an extra day's holiday in addition to the following Saturday, and it would have the additional advantage of leaving in the House only those Members who took an interest in the financial affairs of the country; and thus he looked forward to many a happy symposium. But private Members had always their Habeas Corpus Act suspended at this time of the year. The daughters of the horse leech were not in it with the Leader of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer not only cried "Give, give!" but he had the power of enforcing his demands, because when once the Government had taken all the time of the House they had in fact taken all the power of the House; they could prevent any Member from doing anything, and they could do anything they chose themselves. He would point out, however, one reason which rendered it necessary for the time of the House to be absorbed at this moment. It was because they had not used the time hitherto at their disposal wisely or well. Take for example the flagrant instance of the Seal Fishery Bill. That was an important Bill; but the Government had introduced it so late as only to leave Parliament 20 days for passing it. The result would be that, having allowed this short period of time for the consideration of the Bill, the Government would in all probability appeal again to the House, on the ground of lack of time, that hon. Members should forbear to use their opportunities for a proper discussion of the measure. If, therefore, the whole time of the House was now to be taken, some of it must be given to the consideration of that Bill. The Leader of the Opposition did not mention one most important piece of Government business which they had to deal with. It was the Resolution against the House of Lords. The Prime Minister told the country at Bradford that until the question of the House of Lords was got rid of no legislation could be passed by the Liberal Party in the House of Commons; that the House of Lords was an obstacle in the way of every step which the Government took in the direction of legislation. Lord Rosebery went further, and said there were two acts in the course which had to be taken by the Government. The first was the Resolution against the House of Lords; the second was the appeal to the country to support that Resolution. Were they going to have the second act before the first, or were they to have a third act embodying the tragical end of the Government before the second or the first act, or was it that the predominant partner in the Cabinet had overridden the sleeping partner in another place, and that the two-act tragedy of "Resolution" was to be supplanted entirely by the farce of "the Sands of Dee"? He trusted that both for Bills and for the Resolution the House would have proper and adequate opportunity for discussion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had very handsomely acknowledged that there had been no obstruction, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in asking for the time of the House, of which he hoped he would make good use.

said, it was not often that he had an opportunity of voting with Her Majesty's Government, but he would have that honour to night, because their Motion would have the effect of choking off one of the most mischievous Bills ever brought before the House. He alluded to the Rating of Machinery Bill. The hon. Member for Leeds had said that that Bill had received the sanction of five or six Parliaments, but those who were interested in argiculture thought it had gone far enough. The Bill in question simply sought to relieve the manufacturers of taxation and to place it on the agricultural interest. He hoped that agricultural Members would remember that the Government had in a left-handed fashion endeavoured to support them by the course they had taken and would give them their support now.

hoped that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might see his way at some early period to give the House some further information. The right hon. Gentleman had already stated that the Government intended to pass all their principal measures. It was perfectly clear that they could not pass the secondary measures, which they were now sending to the Grand Committees and Select Committees. It was all very well to call upon Members to serve on these Committees in the early part of the Session, but it was asking too much to call upon them to come down to the House day after day for five days in the week, when Government Bills were being discussed, and, at the same time, to serve on Select and Grand Committees. He really thought that the right hon. Gentleman might consider this point—namely, whether he could not relieve hon. Members from the necessity of serving on Committees.

ventured to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would have some regard to the pledge he gave more than three months ago, that he would take the Army Estimates at an early date, seeing that, in consideration of that pledge, he obtained a large Vote in two and a-half minutes. He hoped the House might ask for some tardy observance of that pledge.

I will consider that. I hope I may get many more Votes in two and a-half minutes.

said, he understood that the Welsh Bill would go on during the whole of each week except on the day in which Supply was put down. He wished to ask what the next Bill would be, the Irish Land Bill or the Local Veto Bill?

I have already said that the Irish Land Bill will follow immediately on the Welsh Bill.

asked whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had any time-table in his mind which would enable him to indicate the probable time when the Irish Land Bill would get into Committee?

No, Sir; I am afraid I cannot give any indication at present.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would allow his Motion not to take effect until next week. The result of its taking effect now would be to closure a discussion on agriculture which was down for to-morrow. It was desired to ascertain whether the Government could see their way to apply the increasing profits of the Post Office to the establishment of an agricultural parcels post, for the purpose of conveying produce quickly and cheaply to the consumer.

asked what Supply would be taken tomorrow. He also wished to ask, with reference to a question he had upon the Paper, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not seriously take into consideration some means of making the discussions in Supply a little more effective. Under the present system the same Votes were discussed year after year, with the result that a good many important Votes received no consideration at all. If the right hon. Gentleman, instead of taking regularly the first class as the first subject for discussion, would vary the order, and begin with some of the more important Estimates, such as the Education Vote, it would be a great improvement.

said, he entirely sympathised with what had been said by the hon. Gentleman. At present they had the same petty questions raised first on the Vote on Account, which, in his opinion, ought to be devoted to major political questions, repeated when they came to the Estimates themselves, and he thought the time might be much more usefully employed. He would consider the matter with a view to carrying out, as far as he could, the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. Meanwhile, he understood that it would not be convenient to bring on the Army Estimates to-morrow, so he would put down the Civil Service Estimates; but, in the absence of any other arrangements, they must begin with Class 1. In the future arrangements of Supply he would feel very desirous of acting on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion. With reference to the appeal of the hon. Member for Dorset as to the Motion upon Agriculture, he must point out that he had said that even those in the most beneficial position could not be excepted, and the hon. Gentleman did not stand even in a foremost position, for his was not the first Amendment on the Paper. He would not be justified in making a selection.