asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any Order has been issued regarding the enforcement of sections 11, 26, and 49 of the Licensing Act, 1872, having reference to publicans' sign-boards; if he is aware that the provisions of said sections are generally unenforced throughout Ireland; and, if the Government intend to take any steps to have the Law carried out?

The sections referred to, Sir, provide that sign-boards, showing the name of the licence-holder and the particulars of the licence, should be affixed to the premises of publicans and retail beer-dealers. They have not been generally enforced throughout Ireland. My attention was called last winter to the subject; and in January last instructions were issued to the Dublin metropolitan police to enforce these sections throughout the Dublin police district, in which a large proportion of the retail beer-dealers of Ireland are comprised. In the rest of Ireland it is the duty of the magistrates in quarter sessions to issue directions on the subject with regard to publicans. Application was made to them at the last quarter sessions to do so, and such directions were given. We are now inquiring how far these directions have been carried out. As to beer-dealers, the directions must be given by the magistrates in petty sessions, and inquiry will be made on that point also.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to accede to the application of "The National Rifle Association" for Martini-Henry rifles, for the first stage of the Queen's Prize at the next Wimbledon meeting, with a view to thoroughly testing the alleged defects in that arm?

There is no intention, Sir, of making any additional issue of Martini-Henry rifles to the National Rifle Association for the purpose spoken of in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question. Last year 120 Martini-Henry rifles were issued for distant shooting, and it is proposed to issue the same quantity this year. The alleged defects of the arm have been very recently tested by no fewer than 16 regiments and battalions in different parts of the United Kingdom, and the reports of those regiments being satisfactory, they were considered at a full conference of officers on the 28th of January last, when the alterations proposed, having received the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, were adopted both for land and sea service.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether, taking into consideration the many casualties which have resulted to Her Majesty's ships, either from default or through insufficiency of Navy cables, the "Admiralty and Rodger" anchors, he has satisfied himself as to the trustworthy character and thorough efficiency of the ground-tackle provided for the use of the Royal yacht "Victoria and Albert," now refitting, and about to proceed to sea with Her Majesty on board?

Sir, I have had a report from Portsmouth that the ground-tackle of the Royal yacht is in a satisfactory state. The cables were surveyed in December, 1875, and the anchors went through the fire proof a year ago.

said, that Captain Harvey received £1,000 from the Admiralty in recognition of the intelligence and ability he had displayed in bringing his invention into an efficient state. The amount had no reference to Captain Harvey's expenditure in the matter. His invention has been adopted in the Service; but the Admiralty did not obtain any exclusive right to the invention. Captain Harvey's torpedoes had been manufactured in this country for foreign Governments, and it was not intended to award any further sum to him. £15,000 had been paid by the Government to the inventor of the fish torpedo for the secret of his invention and the sole right of manufacturing it in this country.

gave Notice that in the event of the Royal Titles Bill obtaining the assent of Parliament, he would move an humble Address to Her Majesty praying Her not to assume any addition to her title in respect of India other than the title of Queen.

gave Notice that as the Report of Mr. Cave was not to be presented to Parliament, he would on Monday ask the Prime Minister to fix a day for taking the Vote for the expense of Mr. Cave's mission, and to undertake that it should be brought on at a convenient hour.

referred to the Order of the House of last Session, which directed that Supply should stand as the First Order on Friday, instead of which the Money Bill, whose third reading had just been moved by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, had been put down as the First Order. If this were allowed, it would be an interference with the privileges of private Members, and hereafter be referred to as a precedent. He thought it his duty to protest against such a proceeding, as they ought all to endeavour to prevent the violation of the Rules. He took a decided objection to it in the present instance, and wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair whether it was proper to do so?

The hon. Member for Swansea has correctly stated the substance of the Standing Order by which Supply is the First Order of the Day on Fridays; but I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury consulted me as to the propriety of taking this Bill as the First Order at half past 4 o'clock to-day, and that I informed the hon. Gentleman that there were occasions on which such a course had been taken, especially in the case of Money Bills which are urgently required, and which are not calculated to interfere with the progress of Public Business.

said, that he had no doubt the House, out of favour to the Government, would consent to take the Bill first, though that was not its proper place, according to the Rules which governed the conduct of Public Business in that House. He did not in any way wish to interfere with the progress of Public Business; but if that course were adopted, he was anxious it should not be afterwards drawn into a precedent. When the Rule was passed that Supply should be the First Order, Lord Palmerston said he would pledge his word that Supply should be always taken first on Fridays, and the present Prime Minister also said that he would pledge his word. Not very long ago the House was told that the word and the pledge of a Prime Minister were better than an Act of Parliament, but in this case they had been forgotten. There might be mysterious reasons why the Bill should be taken before Supply; there might be grave political considerations; perhaps the Russian advance towards our Indian frontier might have some connection with it——

reminded the noble Lord that the question before the House was a point of Order.

said, he should not propose that the Bill be postponed until after Supply, but the case must not be drawn into a precedent, and he should advise the hon. Member for Swansea to be satisfied with a statement from the Prime Minister that that should not be so.

said, his noble Friend had thrown away a great deal of fervid eloquence upon very insufficient grounds. There was not the slightest intention to depart from the Rule of the House that Supply should betaken first on Fridays; but there had been occasions, and occasions might recur, when it was of the highest importance that these Money Bills should pass at a particular time. Last night his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury stated that it would be desirable and important to get this Bill read a third time early this afternoon, in order that it might be sent to the House of Lords before the close of their Lordships' sitting, and the House accordingly, without any dissentient voice, agreed to the Bill being placed in its present position on the Paper. There was no reason to suppose that the Bill would cause more than a moment's interruption to the ordinary course of business. This would not be drawn into a precedent in regard to Bills of a different character; but he might remark that the Consolidated Fund Bill had on former occasions been treated in this way. The last occasion, he believed, was in March, 1873. This Bill had been placed before Supply by the express order of the House made that morning, at an hour when the House was so full that objection might have been raised to the proposal.

said, it was unfortunate that the Notice for taking the third reading of the Bill had not been given at the time when Notices were usually given, instead of at a late hour, when comparatively few Members would be aware of it. The course pursued was a mischievous one, as it interfered with the freedom of action of hon. Members, and he hoped it would not be made a precedent of.

said, he had acted in the matter in accordance with the advice of the Speaker, and of the highest authorities in the House. He was informed that he could not give the Notice yesterday at the usual time for giving Notices; but that the proper time to ask the House to read the Bill a third time to-day was after it had passed the previous stage last evening.

urged the House to read the Bill without further discussion. The hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had acted fairly in the matter from the beginning, and ought to have the credit of doing his work well. The Question had been put to the House on the previous evening, that the Bill should be taken at half past 4 o'clock, and it was agreed to.

considered the alteration of the order of Business at an early hour of the morning when the House was to meet again in the afternoon was very objectionable; but as the House had, in this instance, agreed to take the Bill first, there was no alternative but to proceed with it. The objections which had been raised would have been considerably mitigated if the House had been informed on the previous night—when the Notice was given—that the taking of the third reading of the Consolidated Fund as the First Order on Friday was an exception to the rule. That Notice had been given at a very late hour, when it was impossible for the country to know what was done; and it created a monopoly of power in the hands of hon. Members who happened to be present.

said, that as he did not wish to stand in the way of Public Business, he would withdraw his opposition.

said, it had occurred to him, since giving Notice of a Question on this subject, which he had intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go- vernment on Monday next, that it might be as well to put the Question at once. Of course, he did not press the Government to give him any answer if they were not prepared to do so; but if, as was not improbable, the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to give the information he asked for immediately, it would probably be for the convenience of the House. The House would have observed that, in consequence of the answer given by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, several Notices affecting the publication of Mr. Cave's mission in Egypt had been placed on the Paper. He was under the impression that the most regular and convenient course would be to take the discussion, or at any rate a preliminary discussion, upon the Vote for the expenses of Mr. Cave's mission; and if the Government were able now to say they would fix an early day for taking the discussion, it would be useful for the guidance of hon. Members who were interested in the subject as to the time of bringing on their Motions. The right hon. Gentleman had probably observed that a Motion on the subject of Egyptian finance was on the Notice Paper for this evening, but that would not, perhaps, be a very convenient opportunity for discussing so important a question.

said, it was impossible for him to answer precisely as to the day on which the question could be discussed, because he had to consider the whole course of Business, and had not yet had an opportunity of doing so. Probably on Monday he should be able to make a more precise statement.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the expenses of Mr. Cave's mission would be included in a Supplementary Estimate, or left over till next year? It seemed to him that those expenses formed part of the service of the present year, and ought, therefore, to be included in a Supplementary Estimate, and not left over till next year, with which they had nothing whatever to do.

feared that it would be impossible to include the Vote in a Supplementary Estimate. Before it was prepared the time would expire within which it could be got into an Appropriation Bill, and therefore it must stand as an Estimate for next year.

who had a Notice upon the Paper to the effect, "That it is expedient to remove the grating in front of the ladies' gallery in this House," which the Forms of the House precluded him from moving, said, he was once asked by an educated and intelligent foreigner how it was that whilst ladies were admitted to hear the debates of that House it was deemed necessary to enclose them in a cage, and he was unable to give any reply that would be either satisfactory to himself or consistent with the good taste and good sense of the House. The existence of the grating in question had been discussed in that House, in the newspapers, out-of-doors, and had been a source of controversy and contention amongst hon. Members themselves. Arguments had been urged against it, and the most weighty arguments had been directed against the admission of ladies at all to hear the debates. It must, however, be recollected that the presence of ladies was an acknowledged institution of that House. They had made regulations for the admission of ladies, and the plans of the architect contemplated their presence. At present the first thing they did after prayers was the balloting for admissions to the limited space which the Gallery afforded, the architectural arrangements of the House not giving sufficient accommodation to the Members of the House, the representatives of the Press, and the ladies. It was said that if ladies were admitted to the full view of the House in the manner he proposed, their presence might have an unfavourable effect upon the speeches of hon. Members. It was urged that hon. Gentlemen would become nervous or be induced to address the House at too considerable length; but they were all aware, at the present time, that every hon. Member who stood up to speak knew and felt that ladies were present, and yet he did not think any hon. Gentleman was ever disconcerted from that cause, or took up an unnecessary length of time in speaking, because ladies were listening to what was said. Therefore, when they were told that hon. Members, for the purpose of attracting attention, spoke at great length, it must be recollected there was precisely the same inducements now; and when they were told that certain hon. Members felt alarmed, and became nervous, it should be understood that there were influences at the present moment more likely to alarm them. The Strangers' Gallery contained a large number of persons who came there to listen, and sometimes to criticize, and there were spaces below the Gallery which, whenever any great or technical question arose, were filled by persons interested in the subject. Again, they had places devoted to Members of the other branch of the Legislature, which places were filled whenever any subject arose affecting the dignity or jurisdiction of the other House, and yet it exercised no effect upon the speeches of hon. Gentlemen. Then they had the members of the Press listening to them; and if they could realize what might be the possible danger arising from their presence, he thought it would exercise more influence upon hon. Members than any danger arising from the presence of ladies. He was far from saying they would be misreported under any circumstances, as he did not think any hon. Member who said anything worth listening to would go unreported, though he thought they did incur, he would not say the hostility, but the displeasure, of any gentlemen of the Press; but they might be subjected to, what, to them, would be the greatest infliction possible—that of having their speeches reported verbatim et literatim. [Laughter.]The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope)laughed, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman he was not laughing at him at all. He thought that would be inflicting upon them an even greater punishment than would result from misrepresentation, and yet they went on and talked without any regard to that great danger which was impending over them. All these were influences which would exercise much more effect in alarming hon. Members than the mere removal of the grating before the Ladies' Gallery. Objections of various descriptions had been raised, some of them being of an architectural character. One hon. Gentleman had told him that if the grating were removed the whole roof might come down; but that was a matter, he thought, which might be left to their architects, and to them, also, might be left that other objection, that they might fall over. It was said again that the ladies desired that the grating should continue. If he knew that to be their wish, he should not have brought forward the Motion; but the ladies who came to the Gallery were a migratory body, and it was not easy to ascertain their wishes on the subject. Most probably they were divided. As to the inconvenience which it was sometimes suggested would be experienced both by the ladies and hon. Members of the House in regard to matters of the toilette, he thought there need be no apprehension. The ladies would not be interfered with, and in wearing what they thought proper, he was sure their choice would always be consonant with good taste. In a week after the grating was gone, the ladies might come and go, and in a week or two the attention of hon. Members would entirely cease being attracted to that Gallery. ["No, no!"] He meant that he was satisfied that no inconvenience would arise from the presence of the ladies attracting hon. Members' attention. He had tested the subject by the practice of the House of Lords, and had ascertained that no inconvenience whatever had resulted from the presence of the Peeresses in that House. The hon. Member for Cambridge University stated that the difference between the two Houses in their practice on this subject was, that the Peeresses sat in the other House as a matter of privilege; while, in the Commons, they did so as a matter of favour. He differed from the hon. Member in that view; but assuming that the hon. Member was correct, the inconvenience at any time felt would not be lessened by their presence being a matter of right. But other ladies were admitted below the Bar of the other House by favour of the Usher of the Black Rod, and he had seen noble Lords, after speaking, come down to the Bar and speak to their lady friends there without any inconvenience whatever resulting. He was not, however, asking for any such privilege. They did not find that the Bar or the Bench suffered inconvenience from the presence of ladies in the Courts, nor that actors on the stage nor ministers in the pulpit were in any way affected by that cause. In the middle of the last century ladies were admitted to the body of the House of Commons; and though, owing to the particular political excitement of the time, they, with all other strangers, were necessarily excluded, yet if they went back to old usages, they would find ample ground for justifying his Motion. He found in an authoritative work on the Law and Practices of Parliament, to which they were in the habit of referring, this rule laid down—

"By the ancient custom of Parliament and the Orders of both Houses, strangers are not to "be admitted while the Houses are sitting," and on the 18th of April, 1788, it was ordered by the Lords "That for the future no person shall be in any part of the House during the sitting of the House except Lords of Parliament, Peers of the United Kingdom not being Members of the House of Commons, the heirs apparent of such Peers or of Peeresses of the United Kingdom in their own right, and such other persons as attend that House as assistants."

That did not include, therefore, the privilege of Peeresses. He also found this account with regard to the House of Commons:—

"On the 2nd of February, 1788, strangers were ordered to withdraw. This order was enforced against the gentlemen, but the ladies, who were present in unusual numbers, were permitted to remain. Governor Johnson, however, remonstrated, and they were also directed to withdraw; but they showed no disposition to obey, and business was interrupted for nearly two hours before their exclusion was accomplished. Amongst the number were the Duchess of Devonshire and Lady Ogle. This ended in the withdrawal of the privilege which they had long enjoyed of being present at the debates of the House of Commons."

He, however, found that on the 1st of December, 1761, the interest excited by the debate in the Commons on the renewal of the Prussian Treaties was so great that Lord Royston, writing to Lord Hardwicke, said—

"The House was hot and crowded; as full of ladies as the House of Lords when the King comes to make a speech, and Members were standing about half-way up the floor."

In the time of John Wilkes the ladies were excluded with other strangers. Years elapsed before the ladies were readmitted; but ultimately they again obtained the entrée to the House, and in 1836, when it was intended to rebuild the House, the matter was referred to a Select Committee, and they reported in favour of giving up a part of the Strangers' Gallery for the accommodation of the ladies. A grating was proposed, and the introduction of tickets not transferable, with other restrictions, which had since been in great degree relinquished without entailing any public or individual inconvenience. Now a suggestion, which he considered extremely practical, had been made in a letter he had received from a lady on the subject, which he would communicate to the House. There were three divisions of the Ladies' Gallery. That to the left was devoted to the Speaker, and with it it was not proposed to interfere. With respect to the other portions of the gallery, in one of these ladies who desired to retain their seclusion might still have it, but the remaining portion he would propose to assign to those who were anxious to have a more open and unrestricted view of the House. Were that done, he believed that, after a time, the division of the gallery from which the grating was removed would be found so much more agreeable that there would be a general disposition to remove the grating altogether along the whole front of the Gallery. There was no Legislative Body in the world which shut out the ladies so rigidly as the House of Commons. From Italy to America all persons who desired to listen to the debates in the Legislative Assemblies were admitted with perfect freedom. It was only in Jewish synagogues and conventual institutions that there were gratings, and he saw no reason why the House of Commons should follow such a precedent.

said, he did not think that the constitutional rights and privileges of the House would be endangered by taking away the lattice from the galleries where the ladies sat. The argument of his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Serjeant Sherlock), if carried to its full extent, would prove that ladies ought to sit in the House of Commons as they did in former times. He, however, was favourable to the removal of the grating in front of the Ladies' Gallery, and he was certain that if the question of placing it there were now raised for the first time, not a single Member would vote in favour of such a course being adopted. It was, he thought, in obedience to a stupid Conservatism that the grating was kept up, simply because it had been placed there. [Laughter.] He would admit there was such a thing. The House might be compared to a sort of Zoological Gardens, and in a cage there were kept a number of fair and beautiful animals to approach whom would be fatal, and who were considered too dangerous to be looked upon. What possible reason could be assigned for keeping up that objectionable latticework, which would lead a Mahomedan visitor to the House to believe that he was in his own country, unless they found a general wish for it among the ladies themselves? He saw no ground for preventing the ladies from conveniently seeing hon. Members who were making speeches, and surely hon. Members themselves were not more susceptible than Members of the House of Lords. He had never heard of a noble Lord breaking down in his speech because his wife or the object of his affections happened to be present in the Peeresses' Gallery. The two grounds upon which he supported the proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman were—first, that it would conduce to the comfort of the occupants of the Ladies' Gallery; and, secondly, that it would add to the grace and ornament of the House.

said, he would remind the House that seven years ago, when the hon. Member for Kerry(Mr. Herbert) first brought the matter before the House of Commons, he did not venture to divide the House upon it after Mr. Layard, who was then First Commissioner of Works, had read a letter from a lady who was a frequent visitor to the Gallery, which proved that the ladies preferred that things should remain as they were. Nothing had since occurred from which it could be inferred that things were now different except so far as the long silence observed by the innovators demonstrated how conscious they were of the weakness of their cause. Their own tactics showed that the subject was not one that had grown very rapidly either in public opinion or in that of the ladies themselves. The matter had been dragging on since 1869 down to the present time without hon. Members being able to get up any steam in favour of their suggestion, and he thought the hon. and learned Serjeant would not now have brought it forward unless impelled to do so by that instinctive gallantry under which the wisest of men were not proof against occult influence such as might radiate from behind the grating. The hon. and learned Gentleman had gone deeply into the archæological part of the question, but he might have reminded him, when he told them of ladies 100 years ago crowding the floor of the House, that many deviations from what was now considered, Parliamentary rules were winked at 100 years ago could not now be treated lightly, and that many irregularities that were permitted then would not be tolerated in the present day. Would his hon. and learned Friend like Election Petitions now to be tried by Committees of the Whole House, and Committees which had dined as Members used there to dine? Reference had been made to the usage of the House of Lords in the matter; but the Peers had several other practices which did not prevail in the lower House. They had cross benches for Peers who were not sure of their politics to sit upon, and they allowed their messengers to carry messages to Peers all through the House; but in this House Members sacrificed their convenience to their dignity, and did not admit any messenger within the Bar. All those things might be discussed with advantage before the House troubled itself with the grating grievance. It was not unimportant in viewing this question to take into consideration the hours during which the House sat. The Lords, as a rule, sat for a very short time each evening, so that the ladies could come down in morning dress. The House of Commons, on the other hand, met at 4 o'clock and sat until past midnight, so that if the screen were to be taken away, it would necessitate the ladies who chose the latter part of the sitting coming down in evening costume. If the grating were removed, this question of morning or evening dress would become a prominent one, much to the detriment of that sensible portion of their lady visitors who come to listen and not to be looked at. True it was that Members of Parliament had emancipated themselves from the old-fashioned ceremonial of dress. In the last century the Prime Minister used to come down in his Star and Garter, and evening dress was the rule of the House, while he might remind the hon. and learned Serjeant that a countryman of his, a distinguished Member of the Irish House of Commons, was known as "Tottenham in his boots," because on one occasion, there being a very close Division, that Gentleman had committed the enormity of walking into the House in his boots. Had the hon. and learned Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the proposal produced any letters on the subject from ladies pleading for the removal of the grating, he should have thought that the agitators had gone some way towards making out their case, but they had done nothing of the kind. His own experience was, that the ladies did not desire the grating to be removed, and before he could give his assent to the suggestion there must be a much stronger and sterner demand for the change on the part of those whom it chiefly concerned. If the proposal were adopted it would only destroy an institution which was very pleasant and had worked out its own conventional law.

said, the subject was discussed in 1869, when only one lady gave her opinion upon the subject, and it was to the effect that no alteration should be made in the gallery. He presumed that the lady represented the general body of opinion, among those who frequented the gallery, and he was therefore opposed to the removal of the lattice.

could not say much for the gallantry of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. Forsyth) or the hon. and learned Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) The former spoke of the ladies as beautiful animals, while the latter referred to them as things to be winked at.

explained that he did not say that the ladies were things to be winked at, but that irregularities might a long time ago have been winked at or overlooked which would not be tolerated now.

thought the House ought to get rid of this piece of prudery. If those who were in favour of the grating desired it for the protection of the ladies they paid but a poor compliment to the House; while if, on the contrary, they thought it necessary for the protection of the House, that was but a poor compliment to the ladies. It was very rarely indeed, even in postprandial hours, that anything was said in that House which would raise a blush upon the most susceptible cheek, and if the argument to which he was referring were pushed to its logical conclusion, it would involve the exclusion of ladies altogether. If there were any danger of unseemly discussion or altercation, the presence of ladies would act as a check upon it, just as in the days of contested elections when ladies were placed in front they reduced the crowds to comparative quiet. Then was the grating necessary for the protection of the House itself? He saw the other day in a newspaper that the Members of that House averaged the sober age of 55 years. Surely at that age they ought not to be liable to such susceptibilities. The House of Commons was the only Assembly in the world in which it was found necessary to shut up the ladies in the way they did. In Italy the most prominent place in the Chamber of Deputies was given to the ladies, and in the House of Lords they also occupied a very prominent place. It was to Mahomedan countries that they must go for a precedent for the Gallery of the House of Commons. He protested against placing the ladies in a cage where, except in the front seat, they could neither see, hear, nor breathe.

said, the country would think the House of Commons had very little to do when it wasted time debating a question of this kind. He was almost ashamed of being a Member of the House which occupied its time in discussing this matter.

said, the ventilation of the Ladies' Gallery was exceedingly bad owing to the obstruction caused by the grating. He would suggest that the grating should be entirely removed, and that in its place there should be a loge grille with light shutters extending half way up the opening, so that in any case ventilation would not be impeded, and the ladies might have them either open or shut at pleasure.

said, that when the subject was brought before the House in 1869 by the hon. Member for Kerry, the principle was then put forward that the accommodation in the Ladies' Gallery was grossly inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. Upon that occasion the accuracy of that statement was admitted, but since that time considerable changes had been made in the gallery, and it was now a very different place from what it had been then. At that time it was considered that the question was not one for hon. Members of this House to decide. It was for the consideration of the ladies themselves, and he recollected that on the occasion referred to, so strong were the statements made by those hon. Members acquainted with the circumstances of the case, that his hon. Friend who had placed the Motion before the House, declined to go a division, the fact being, that bad as the accommodation was, ladies who were consulted upon the point, declined to assent to any change which would enable them to be seen by the whole House. That view, he believed, still prevailed among those ladies who visited the gallery. He believed that if they were consulted not 10 out of 100 would consent to a change being made. In fact, they did not want the gallery made like a box at a theatre. The House ought to consider that the gallery was made for the accommodation of the ladies, and therefore their wishes should be consulted on the subject of its arrangements; and if that consideration prevailed, they would not remove the grating.

said, that having visited the Gallery just now, he found it was very difficult to hear and absolutely impossible to see from the back seats, and he would suggest that the three rows of seats should be raised so that their occupants could see into the House; and if the ventilation were made to go through the cornice, the gallery would be by no means an uncomfortable place. As regarded the dimensions of the seats, he found that in 1858 the present Vice Chancellor Malins said—"He hoped that before hon. Gentlemen expressed any opinion upon the subject they would walk up to the Ladies' Gallery and judge for themselves." That was at the crinoline epoch. When the First Commissioner of Works had recovered from his illness, he (Sir William Fraser) hoped he would take that advice, and that the suggestions which he had now made might be of some practical use.

thought it strange that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Greene), who was so strongly in favour of the removal of convent gratings, should be opposed to the removal of the gratings from the Ladies' Gallery. He was strongly of opinion that if the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend had been confined to the rendering of the Ladies' Gallery more convenient and more commodious it would be unanimously supported by the House. He would therefore suggest that the hon. and learned Member should withdraw his Motion in favour of that suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kidderminster.

said, he was quite sure the House would join him in expressing regret that his noble Friend the First Commissioner of Works was not present to hear and to take the part which now devolved upon him (Lord John Manners). For his own part, not being aware that the question was coming on that evening, he had not made himself acquainted with the details of the subject; but he was aware that some time ago the First Commissioner had had his attention directed to the subject. He would have the opportunity of reading the various views which had been expressed upon it, and probably next Session, if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to renew his Motion, his noble Friend would be in his place to give him a more fitting answer than he (Lord John Manners) could on the present occasion. The hon. and learned Gentleman had given various reasons for the opinion he expressed that if the grating were removed the appearance of ladies need not be a cause of fear or apprehension, so far as their oratorical efforts were concerned, to any hon. Member, be he young, middle-aged, or old. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Member, but he would ask him this question, which he commended to his serious consideration. Did it follow that the ladies would not be frightened by Members of the House of Commons? After all that had been said upon both sides, the practical consideration really was—would the removal of the grating exercise any prejudicial effect upon the attendance of those ladies who were now in the habit of going there? He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would not say that by maintaining the grating in its present state, any single lady had been, or would be, debarred from attending. On the other hand, could it be said that if the grating were removed, no lady would be prevented from attending? He could not take upon himself to say that such would not be the result. At the outside, all the hon. and learned Gentlemen could say was that there were some ladies who wished for a change. Under these circumstances, and quite agreeing that this was a question for the comfort and convience of the ladies themselves, and that the views and wishes of hon. Members ought to be put in the background, he could not, so far as he could form an opinion, see his way to the removal of the grating.

suggested an increase in the number of the mounted police. They were not now numerous, and in case of any tumult they would be very valuable. Upon certain occasions a few men on horseback were worth more than a large number on foot.

said, the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Baronet would receive the consideration of the Government, who would communicate with the Chief Commissioner of Police on the subject. He agreed that the mounted police were a most useful body of men.

asked for an explanation of the large increase in the Vote.

said, the increase was due to the increase in the strength of the force and the pay of the men.

said, in this Vote the increase was £74,000 over last year. That was a great addition, for which he should like to have an explanation.

said, the increase arose in a great measure from the growth of the population in many manufacturing districts, and from the rise in the rate of wages. All applications to the Home Office were scrutinized with the greatest possible care, and the Home Secretary did not believe that the efficiency of the Force could be kept up without certain increases in pay, which had been granted. The contribution from the Imperial Treasury in aid of local rates ought to be known generally throughout the country. The increase shown on the Vote was no doubt large, but it was justified by the circumstances to which he had referred.

said, from his experience of local authorities, he believed they were disposed to be more liberal with money granted from Imperial funds than with money contributed by means of local rates; and, therefore, it was necessary to watch them a little in a matter of this kind.

said, that at present he had no control over the amount of the pay or the number of the police. He was not making any complaint against the boroughs; he thought they managed the matter very carefully. He proposed to ask Parliament for power to enable the Treasury, when it was called upon to pay such a large sum to the police grant, not to pay it except on the certificate of the Secretary of State that the numbers were right, and the pay on a certain scale to be laid down. He did not think that would in the least interfere with local jurisdiction.

asked how far the labour of convicts was remunerative?

said, he was anxious to establish some system by which convicts could supply a good deal of the labour that was required by Government Departments themselves. It would, he thought, be perfectly fair that one Government Department should be supplied by another; and with that view he had already allowed a large contract to be executed, by convicts for clothing for the metropolitan police, and he must say that the work had been most admirably done—better, possibly, than it had been for some years.

said, this was a large and increasing Vote. It had increased £13,131 since last year, and he wanted some explanation.

said, the increase was chiefly due to the pensions to the Constabulary under the Act passed two years ago.

thought the expenses of the Irish Constabulary ought to be reduced to the English level, and that the Irish people should contribute as the English did, to the maintenance of their police. If they did so, it would probably give them a greater interest in the maintenance of peace in the country.

reminded the hon. Member that the Irish Constabulary was a Government force, and not constituted like the English county police.

could assure hon. Members that that was one of those items with a considerable portion of which the Irish people would willingly dispense. The semi-military element of benevolence for Imperial purposes was larger than they required; and although they thought they might be helped with regard to fisheries and other matters of that kind, they would have no objection to dispense with some of the expenses of the Constabulary, which was not a police Force, but a military Force, maintained in Ireland for Imperial military purposes.

:in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he would only trespass on the attention of the House while he stated briefly the nature of its provisions. Although it was called an omnibus Bill, it chiefly contained provision for the amendment of the Poor Laws. The first nine clauses had reference to a proposal which had been frequently brought before the House—namely, that the Local Government Board should have the power of dealing with what were called divided parishes. This proposal was sanctioned, by a Committee of great authority which sat during the Session of 1873, and he did not think it was a change to which there could be any reasonable objection. There were, as the House would be surprised to hear, throughout England and Wales about 1,300 cases of these divided parishes, most of them being in two portions, but some, consisting of three, four, or even five portions isolated from the main body. Every facility was given, in the Bill for objection to the proposed re-arrangement of parishes. Nothing could be done without inquiry, and if a certain proportion of the ratepayers objected, further proceedings must be by Provisional Order. He believed, however, that persons who were interested in this question would be found to acquiesce readily in the re-arrangement which might be found convenient. In Wales, for example, 200 parishes were divided in this way, and in 90 per cent of these cases there would be general acquiescence in the re-arrangement. Another part of the Bill, Clause 10, would authorize the Local Government Board under certain circumstances to dissolve Unions. This power was guarded, as in the last case, by the necessity of proceeding by inquiry, and after notice to all parties, though there would be no procedure by Provisional Order, for the language of the clause ran thus—

"If it shall appear to the Local Government Board that it is expedient for rectifying or simplifying the areas of management, or otherwise for the better relief of the poor …. the said Board may…. issue their order for the dissolution of any such union."

These Unions were only constructed 40 years ago, by the authority of the Poor Law Commissioners; and were so constructed without any power on the part of the Boards of Guardians to object. On the whole, the laying out of the kingdom for Poor Law purposes in 1832 was remarkably well done, but certain inconveniences had since arisen in the areas thus apportioned. Out of 600 and odd Unions, 180 overlapped county boundaries. He did not suggest that it would be practicable or expedient to restrict all those Unions to the limits of county boundaries, but considerable improvements might be made in this respect, and the number of such cases might be reduced by a considerable percentage. The power of dissolving so important an administrative area as a Poor Law Union was, of course, a considerable one, though it was really not much in excess of the power already exercised by the Department in taking away this or that parish from a Union and annexing it to another. That power had been exercised with most satisfactory results, and it was only within the last few days that he had ordered two very important parishes to be severed from one Union and annexed to another. That, however, was not in all cases an adequate mode of dealing with the matter, and therefore it was considered right to give the Local Government Board the power to dissolve Unions and to consolidate two or more into one if considered necessary. He hoped that by means of Clause 10 and Clause 19 they would be able to effect that object. Since these areas had been laid out there had been many changes of population, and many arrangements made in 1832 had become inapplicable. Many small Unions might now, with advantage, be consolidated in one, if there were the power of setting aside the establishments, which now could not be done. Another object of pressing importance was the consolidation of Unions by agreement with each other, thus leading to a considerable economy. In the Eastern counties there were several cases in which it would be convenient that one workhouse should be retained for the use of two Unions. By means of the Bill this object would be effected. The Committee on Boundaries, which recommended that this power should be given, also recommended the extinction of small parishes. He had not, however, thought it right to load the Bill with a power which might provoke controversy. There were some other miscellaneous provisions which, though interesting, were hardly suitable for discussion, except in Committee. As to the Law of Settlement, which had been discussed with interest by recent Poor Law conferences, far be it from him to enter upon a general discussion of that important subject, which had been so often considered in that House. He should only say that he had not seen his way to advise the Government to abolish settlement or to make any considerable change, believing that such changes were premature, and were called for by no public necessity. If the question were raised in Committee, he should be ready to give it his consideration. He had, however, endeavoured to improve the existing law as regarded what were technically known as derivative settlements. Upon the question of the Irish poor removal the Bill proposed something which might be accepted as, at all events, a palliative for the evils which occasionally existed, though, as he had stated last year, those evils were now far fewer than those which used to exist in former days. It was proposed that the Irish immigrant—he would not call him a pauper—should have a special settlement after a three years' residence in an English parish. There were some important provisions with regard to the law relating to the relief of the poor of the metropolis with which he need not trouble the House at that moment, seeing that they were all matters of detail. He might, however, remark that one of those provisions dealt with the exemptions hitherto enjoyed by certain extra-parochial places in London, under which they did not contribute to the relief of the poor. He believed that the time had now comewhen some reasonable settlement of this question would be arrived at, and that these places would in future bear their fair share of the charge for the relief of the poor. In conclusion, he trusted that the House would read the Bill a second time.