rose to ask a Question of the Speaker with reference to the Privilege of Members. He had lately received no fewer than 10 printed Circulars headed "Laymen's Association." He would read one of them—

"Sir,—As one of your constituents, I beg to address you as to the Public Worship Regulation Act, 1874. The passing of that Act was so notoriously partizan, and the confusion and injustice consequent on its working have been so prejudicial to the work of the Church in many parishes, that I am compelled as a matter of duty to ask you whether you will vote for its repeal. I beg very courteously, but still firmly, to inform you that the next Election I shall, apart from all questions of politics, feel it my duty to withhold my vote from any candidate who will not pledge himself to the repeal of this Act."

The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone has handed to me a copy of the Circular which he has now read. I cannot say that the offence contained in it is of so grave a character as to constitute it a breach of Privilege. At the same time, I am bound to observe that expressions such as those contained in that Circular are calculated to influence the independent judgment of Members, and as such are highly reprehensible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the decision of the magistrates at the Lanchester Petty Sessions, county Durham, on the 5th instant, in fining a miner named Fletcher for making cartridges with blasting powder in his own house, which cartridge he was going to use in his occupation in the Stanley Colliery, county Durham; and, whether, considering the decision is one that affects the whole mining interest of the Country, there are any means of ascertaining if the decision of the magistrates is in conformity with the provisions of the Explosive Act under which Fletcher was tried and convicted?

I am informed that this case will be brought before a superior Court; and, if so, the case will be decided; and I do not think that I should be justified in giving an opinion as to a question of law in a matter which is sub judice.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, When Mr. Rowsell's Report in reference to the Food Taxes in Malta will be laid upon the Table of the House; and, when the decision of the Government on the subject will be made known?

Mr. Rowsell's Report has only been recently received, and before any decision can be arrived at, it will be necessary that communications should be made with the Local Government as well as that the subject shall be very fully considered by Her Majesty's Government. Meanwhile it would be unadvisable to lay the Report upon the Table until the decision arrived at can be communicated to the House.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that under the powers of the Defence Act the War Office has given notice of its intention to acquire compulsorily the open land known as "Chobham Ridges," with the view of inclosing such land?

in reply, said, there was no necessity for giving notice under the Defence Act, because the War Office had already completed the purchase—from the lords of the manor in May last, and from the commoners in July last. There was no intention whatever of inclosing the land.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the present inquiry into Christ's Hospital will be extended to the School where the junior boys are educated at Hertford; and, whether it is intended that the proceedings of the Committee shall continue to be conducted in private?

Sir, I have placed myself in communication with the gentlemen who have undertaken the inquiry, as to whether any good is to be gained by extending it to Hertford School. With regard to the publicity of the Inquiry, I believe the gentlemen who form the Committee are unanimously of opinion that they will attain the object of the Inquiry best by having the Inquiry private, although the Report which they will make will, of course, be laid on the Table of the House.

I beg to give Notice that on Monday I will ask, Whether the result of the answers to the Home Secretary's inquiry as to Hertford School will be laid before the House; and that on going into Committee of Supply I shall move a Resolution that any Report founded upon a private Inquiry will not be satisfactory to the public.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can now say whether the new scheme of Army Retirement will include provision to make the services of retired Officers available, in case of need, with the Reserved and Auxiliary Forces?

Without going into details, I think there will be some provisions which will meet, to a certain extent, the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I have every hope of being able in a few days to lay that scheme before the House.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, To state the nature and cost of the intended alterations and repairs of H.M.S. "Monarch," and probable time that will be required for her completion; if she is to be furnished with compound machinery and increased power of speed; whether her capacity for fuel is to be enlarged; if so, for how many days; and, further, to inquire the intended speed and capacity for fuel of the gun boats ordered to be built during the present financial year?

in reply, said, that the Monarch was to have new boilers, her machinery was to be overhauled by her makers, and other repairs were to be done. The estimated cost was about £50,000. No date was fixed for the completion of the work, but it would probably be about the end of this year. The machinery would not be compound, nor would her speed—which was 14 knots an hour—be increased. Her capacity for fuel would not be enlarged. He knew of no new gunboats to be built during the present financial year.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the report in the "Daily Telegraph" (July 16th) of frightful cruelties and tortures alleged to have been inflicted upon the non-combatant Bulgarian Turks by Bulgarian Christians and Russian soldiers; and, if Her Majesty's Government have received any information concerning these outrages?

Besides the Question which has just been asked by my hon. Friend, there are two other Questions upon the Paper—one by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Mr. Hanbury), and the other by my hon. Friend the Member for Cricklade (Mr. Goddard). I think I can answer them all at the same time. Telegraphic Reports of these different transactions have been received by Her Majesty's Government from various sources, from our Consuls in Turkey, and from the Turkish authorities. A collection of these Reports is now being made in the Foreign Office, and will be presented to the House in a special Paper, in the same way as the Papers on the transactions in Bosnia and Bulgaria. Everyone will then be in a position to judge for himself of the nature of the occurrences, and of the amount of authenticity to be attributed to the statements.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is in- tended to change the uniform of any of the Rifle Militia Regiments to red; and, whether, in case of any such alteration being carried out, an allowance will be made to the officers towards the expense incurred?

in reply, said, that though he could have wished that some of the Rifle Militia Regiments were dressed in red, he did not intend to exercise any compulsion upon them to change their uniforms.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, having regard to the great interest generally felt in the selection of a site for the new Naval College, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give this House as early an opportunity as possible of expressing an opinion on the proposal to purchase the Mount Boone site?

in reply, said, he thought the most convenient opportunity for discussing the question of the site of the new Naval College would be when the Vote was proposed. That would be when the Navy Estimates were again brought forward. He was not able to say now on what day they would be taken, but there would be no unnecessary delay in bringing them forward.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a report in the "Times" of the 22nd June, of observations by the Lord Chief Justice in the High Court of Justice, to the following effect:—

"So long as the Government has not that which is essential to the administration of justice—a public prosecutor—so long every individual, however rash or ill advised, has a right to put the Criminal Law in motion;"

in reply, said, his attention had been called to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice, who felt strongly on this matter. The question of a Public Prosecutor had formed a subject of consideration, not only to the present, but to the late Government. He must, however, warn the hon. Member and the House that the appointment of a Public Prosecutor, though necessary, would be found to be a very expensive luxury when carried out, not only with regard to the Staff to be appointed, but in the prosecution expenses, which would be heavier than at present. He was prepared, whenever an opportunity offered, to bring in a Bill on the subject; and with regard to the suggestion of the hon. Member that magistrates' clerks should be authorized to act as public prosecutors, he would refer him to the remarks of the Lord Chief Justice in the Report of the Judicature Commission, where his Lordship observed that they would not get better duties from the same men by paying them higher salaries and calling them by a different name.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in view of the continually increasing charges thrown upon the rates of rural districts by the abolition of turnpikes, and the unequal incidence of these burthens, Her Majesty's Government have any intention of introducing a Highway Bill during the next Session of Parliament, and of pressing its adoption?

in reply, said, the Government were very well aware that in several of the rural districts a growing feeling had for some time past found expression as to the charges thrown on the local rates in consequence of the abolition of turnpike tolls. The complaint on the subject would have been met by a measure which he had introduced last Session and which was prepared with a view to be re-introduced this year. He did not feel in a position to speak as to future legislation, but he hoped to do something next Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to a memorial signed by nine hundred medical practitioners, published in a recent number of the "Lancet," setting forth the evils resulting in their opinion, especially to women, from the purchase under the guise of necessaries of spirituous liquors from licensed grocers; and, whether he will bring that memorial under the notice of the Commission about to take evidence on that subject?

My attention was not called to this matter until the Notice of the hon. Member appeared on the Paper; but I made inquiries this morning, and I do not find that any memorial has been presented at the Secretary of State's Department. The Lord Advocate is about to nominate the Commission to take evidence, and if the memorial in question comes before me or the Lord Advocate, it will receive full consideration.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Irish Constabulary, serving at the Phoenix Park Depot, Dublin, are obliged to pay all compliments to Her Majesty's Military Forces, a courtesy which the latter refuse to extend to the Royal Irish Constabulary when passing, under arms, military barracks and guards; and, if so, whether it is intended to issue orders to the Royal Irish Constabulary to discontinue the practices of paying the compliments alluded to; or to concert measures to ensure that Her Majesty's Military Forces shall, on all similar occasions, pay to the Royal Irish Constabulary similar compliments and salutes?

There is no regulation of the Royal Irish Constabulary making it imperative that the members of the Force serving at the depot in the Phoenix Park should pay compliments to the military. It has been customary for them to do so, and for the military to return the compliment. It may possibly have happened that in a few instances the military have failed to return them; but I do not see that there is an occasion for me to take action in the matter.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he will cause to be laid upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Instructions given by the Government to the Committee appointed to inquire into the question of the sta- bility of H.M.S. "Inflexible;" and, if so, bow soon Copies can be distributed to honourable Members?

I do not think it would be convenient to lay the Instructions upon the Table. They have been settled by my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and by the Board of Admiralty. They are now in the hands of the Committee, who are about to commence their sittings next week. As soon as possible the Report will be presented, and the Instructions with it.

asked the Senior Member for Chelsea, Whether it is his intention to take any other step for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the House the course pursued by the Metropolitan Board of Works with reference to the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill, having regard to the opposition offered to his Motion on the subject by the Chairman of that Board?

in reply, said, it was quite true, as implied in the Question of his hon. Friend and Colleague, that the opposition of the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel Hogg) had prevented, owing to the operation of the half-past 12 o'clock Rule, his bringing forward his Motion in favour of altering and proceeding with the Thames River (Prevention of Floods) Bill. The hon. and gallant Member had refused to proceed with the Bill, and nothing would now be done to prevent the continuance of these floods, the responsibility for which would lie at the door of the majority of the Metropolitan Board. He might, however, possibly find an opportunity for making some remarks upon the subject upon the second reading of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) Bill, which stood for second reading 28th upon the Orders of the Day, although it had not been printed.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the deficiency of transport for the troops marching from Aldershot to Windsor for the late Review was so great as to necessitate the dismounting of two batteries of Artillery, and some of the Engineer Train, to supply horses; and, whether, even with that assistance, the blankets and waterproof sheeting for the men had to be left behind, contrary to the recommendations of the Medical Staff?

in reply, said, the facts stated in the Question were, he believed, correct. The fact was that the transport was not increased for this purpose at all. The transport for the summer drills at Aldershot had been very hardly worked, and no increase was made for the march to Windsor, but every effort was taken to secure the comfort of the troops. Of course, the transport borrowed from the batteries and Engineer train was only owing to the special circumstances of the ease. It was true that the blankets and waterproof sheeting were not taken.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state to the House the circumstances under which Mr. Albert Grant was asked, by the Treasury, to pay the cost of the erection of a new Superintendent's Lodge in Hyde Park?

When his own house was in course of erection, Mr. Grant applied to the First Commissioner of Works for the removal of the brick wall of Kensington Gardens and a Lodge which were immediately opposite the new house, undertaking to replace the wall by an iron railing, and to pay the cost of the erection of a Lodge in any spot that might be deemed suitable for the residence of the Park Superintendent. The First Commissioner of Works agreed to the proposals of Mr. Grant, as they were calculated to improve that portion of Kensington Gardens which was affected by them without involving any charge upon the public purse.

asked the honourable Member for Dumbartonshire, Whether, with the view of facilitating the passing of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) (recommitted) Bill, he will withdraw the 190 Notices of Amendments, which he has placed on the paper, to be moved when that Bill is in Committee?

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had spent as much time in reading my Amendments as he has done in counting them, he would have discovered that I had only two Amendments upon the Paper, and that the other alterations were verbal ones, consequent on those two Amendments. I am as anxious as the hon. Member that the present system of maintaining roads and bridges by tolls and pontages should be abolished; but when making this change, I desire that between county and burgh the mode adopted should be equitable, simple, and definite, and without the intervention of Provisional Orders, which, when opposed, are as expensive as Private Bills. ["Order, order!"] I believe that my Amendments—

The hon. Member must not anticipate the discussion upon the Bill.

I was only giving my reasons for not being able to comply with the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the Russians have commenced to block up one of the principal mouths of the Danube by sinking stones and ships in opposition to the remonstrance of the International Commission; and, whether it is intended to direct the attention of the Government of Russia to such a breach of the public law of Europe, as declared by the Treaties of 1856 and 1871?

In answer to my hon. Friend I have to state that the British Danube Commissioner has reported that four vessels of the nature described in the Question have been sunk in the Sulina mouth of the Danube, and that, consequently, only a depth of four feet is left now for the navigation. When this came to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg, he immediately expressed a wish and hope to the Russian Government that measures would be taken to prevent the obstruction of the navigation of the Danube. Papers on the subject will be laid on the Table of the House. I may also mention that the British Commissioner at the Danube has been authorized to join in any protest that may be made by his Colleagues, the other Commissioners, which they think it right to make on the subject. He had also been instructed to make detailed reports, and the matter will receive the serious consideration of the Government from time to time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is contemplated that the whole debt of the Transvaal Territory, estimated by Lord Carnarvon at about £300,000, should be eventually met by the Imperial Treasury; whether the £100,000, placed on the Supplementary Estimate, represents the total amount to be asked from Parliament; and, whether there are any other grounds, besides the alleged fertility of the Transvaal, for anticipating the repayment of Imperial advances?

It is not intended to ask the Imperial Treasury to discharge the debt of the Transvaal State, nor do we propose to ask Parliament for any further sum than the £100,000 of which Notice has been already given. With regard to the Debt, I should mention that while the Estimate must of necessity be only approximate, so far as can be ascertained, the total Debt—previous to the sum now asked for in the Supplementary Estimate—was about £220,000. The grounds for anticipating repayment of the advance, though they appear to be regarded by my hon. Friend as somewhat problematical, are, in addition to the great fertility of the country—which I may observe is not merely alleged, but thoroughly ascertained—its extensive mineral resources.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is true that a Lieutenant in the 94th Regiment, when charged early in the present year with gross misconduct, amounting to the most serious criminal offence, was placed under arrest merely on parole, and not in close custody, or handed over to the civil authorities, whilst the complainant was closely confined to the guard-room; that in the course of the night the Lieutenant broke his parole and absconded; and, if so, what steps, if any, have been taken by the military authorities to secure the arrest of the Lieutenant; whether the in formations on which the Lieutenant in question was so arrested have been handed over to the proper civil authorities so as to secure his being made amenable to justice; whether the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been directed to a letter which appeared in the "Broad Arrow" of May 26, in which it is stated that—

"Whilst the 94th Regiment was at Rush-more, a Cavalry Officer, accompanied by a friend, came into the mess-room and loudly declared his intention to horsewhip a Captain of the 94th, whom he denounced as a blackguard and a scoundrel, for having, as he alleged, insulted his wife in a Railway carriage after he had confided her to his charge for the journey; the Commanding Officer (Lord John Taylour), who is a great friend of the insulted Captain, was content with receiving an apology from the Cavalryman for having disturbed the harmony of the mess, but no apology has been made to the Officer on whom the insulting epithets were bestowed, and who remains therefore under the stigma, content without apology or satisfaction of any kind, and thereby tacitly acknowledges the truth of the epithets in their application to him;"

I would inform the hon. Member that on June 11, in answer to a Question from the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. E. Jenkins), I stated that an officer of the 94th Regiment, on being accused of an offence, was placed under arrest, that he broke that arrest, and absented himself. Officers under arrest are, except under extraordinary circumstances, considered on parole, and in this case no departure was made from the usual custom. The officer in question was gazetted out of the Service, and no further steps have been taken regarding him. I have no knowledge whatever of the occurrence said to have taken place at Rushmore, and, as the 94th Regiment has not been stationed at that place since 1870, it is not considered necessary after this lapse of time to take any further action in the matter. His Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief is fully acquainted with the morale and discipline of every regiment in Her Majesty's Service, and does not think it requisite to have any special inquiry into the state of the 94th Regiment, in which opinion I entirely agree with his Royal Highness.

Sir, I rise to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is able to give the House any information as to the intentions of the Government with regard to Public Business, and the measures now before the House. I hold in my hand a list of measures which have been introduced by Members of the Government, many of which were mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech at the opening of the Session; but which, although introduced comparatively early, have made up to the present time very little progress. I do not think I need trouble the House by reading that list, or by pointing out the stages at which the measures have arrived, for the right hon. Gentleman will probably refer in detail to the principal Bills. It is quite evident that, unless the duration of the Session be prolonged considerably beyond the usual limits, it will be quite impossible that all, or nearly all, of those measures which up to the present time have made but little progress can be considered by the House. The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps also be able to take this opportunity of informing the House whether he proposes to ask for any further sacrifice of the time which is still at the disposal of unofficial Members of the House; if so, at what time he will make that request. It may also be in his power, having fully considered the state of Public Business, to give some intimation to the House as to the time when he thinks it possible that our labours may be concluded. Perhaps the House will permit me to take this opportunity of making an explanation in regard to some misapprehension that I think has arisen—no doubt from some want of clearness of expression on my part. The other day, in the course of a discussion upon the conduct of the Government with regard to the Irish Sunday Closing Bill, in one or two observations I made, I intended to point out that the introduction of the Appropriation Bill, which I hoped would not long be delayed, would give a more appropriate opportunity of discussing a question of that sort relating to the conduct of the Government with regard to the measures that have been before the House. I find it has been understood in some quarters that the observations I made amounted to a Notice that it was my intention to take the opportunity of the introduction of the Appropriation Bill to make some general observations upon the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. It is quite impossible for me to know what may occur before the end of the Session; and I have not come to any formal and definite resolution in my own mind as to the course it will be my duty to take when the Appropriation Bill is introduced. I wish to say that nothing was further from my mind than to give formal Notice that I had any such intention, on that occasion, to comment on the conduct of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir, I may in the first place, perhaps, say, with reference to the closing observations of the noble Lord, that I quite understood the remark that he made on the occasion to which he re- ferred in the same sense as that in which he explains it. Of course, it is quite obvious that the stages of the Appropriation Bill always furnish very appropriate occasions for any critical remarks that may be thought necessary. I did not understand there was any special Notice given on the subject. With regard to the state of Business, I do not understand that the noble Lord at present desires that we should enter into any discussion as to the progress of Business, or as to any of the causes which may have interfered with the progress of some of the measures introduced by the Government. I understand the question is simply put for the convenience of the House, in order that we may know as well as we can how we stand, and may endeavour to make our arrangements accordingly. I am prepared to give such an answer as I can in the same spirit as that in which the noble Lord asks the Question. It is quite true there are a considerable number of Bills that have been introduced by Members of the Government which are still upon the Paper, and some of them are still down for rather early stages of progress. Of course, it would be impossible, without unduly prolonging the Session, to pass them all. At the same time, I feel some little difficulty in saying, with regard to particular Bills, that we intend to lay aside this or the other Bill, because the progress of Business is not altogether under our control, and it may happen, in the course of the time that remains, that we may find ourselves able to make more progress with some Bill than we expect, or that we may meet with unexpected obstacles with regard to another. I therefore do not wish that what I say now should be regarded as a complete and final programme of all that is or is not to be done in the course of the remainder of the Session. I may mention one or two Bills with which I feel it would not be possible for us, or convenient to the House, that we should proceed this Session, and as to which it is therefore desirable we should at once state why we do not intend to take up the time of the House with regard to them. Of these Bills the most important is the Valuation of Property Bill. The House will easily understand that this is a Bill which could not be proceeded with without fair and full discussion, and that, taken by itself, it would occupy some considerable— though I think not at all an unreasonable—time in Committee. But although, if the Bill stood alone, I think it might be possible that we might proceed with it, and pass it this Session, we find that the question of going on with it has been complicated by Notices given by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), and I think also there is a Notice given by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), and in connection with that Bill there has been raised the large question of representative councils and general questions of local government. Seeing that these questions would have to be discussed in connection with the Valuation Bill, we think it is not desirable or convenient to proceed with it. Then there is also the Irish Valuation Bill. That is a subject which I think the House will hardly have time to take into consideration. I may also say with regard to the Bishoprics Bill, the Patents for Inventions Bill, and the Poor Law (Scotland) Bill, we do not at present see our way to trouble the House with these Bills. The Bills that are immediately before us, and with which we think it is important the House should proceed, I will mention in this order:—There is the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Bill, which stands for to-night going into Committee, and which, perhaps, I am not over sanguine in hoping we may get through Committee to-night. There is the South Africa Bill, which we propose to take on Monday next, and there are the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills, which we are anxious to proceed with as rapidly as possible. Now, the noble Lord asks at what time we thought of asking the House to give the Government more days for Business than we have at present. I hope we shall not be thought unreasonable in asking that from next week we may take Tuesdays and Wednesdays. In that case, if that should be given, we shall propose to take on Tuesday the Irish and Scotch Prison Bills. That would be in the Evening Sittings, so that there would be the whole evening for going on with those Bills. I would not mention any particular Business for Wednesday; we shall see before that day what it may be convenient to take. But on Thursday the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt) has an engagement with the Government that we should give him that day for the discussion of his University Education Bill. That is the result of an engagement entered into with him, which he and his Friends have faithfully, and honourably, and loyally fulfilled, that they would not raise the question of University education on the Estimates provided a day was given for it. In addition to these Bills, we are anxious to proceed with the County Courts (Ireland) Bill, the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, and the Sheriffs Courts (Scotland) Bill, and there will be a question about the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Bill. Now, with regard to the Roads and Bridges Bill, I am in some little difficulty in giving a definite answer, because I really am puzzled whether there are 190 Amendments or only two. That is one of the Bills I would not at present propose to discharge, but as to which I would wish to take further time to see what progress it may make. I would say the same of the Bankruptcy Bill and Factories and Workshops Bill. We should be glad to proceed with them, and it is not necessary to abandon the hope of doing so, and I would rather not give any definite promise as to those two Bills. I believe my right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board wishes to make a statement with regard to a Bill in his charge— the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill. There is, I think, very little Supply left to be got through. To-morrow morning we take the remainder of the Civil Service and Revenue Estimates; and I hope it will be in our power to get through them at that sitting. There will then remain only a certain number of postponed Votes and Supplementary Estimates, such as are usual at the close of the Session, and which, I think, on the present occasion are not likely to be very material. There will, however, be the Transvaal Vote of a large amount, and one or two questions arising out of the Navy Estimates. I suppose also that an opportunity will be taken, and is probably desired by some hon. Members, for some discussion on the subject of the Army Warrant, which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Hardy) will lay on the Table before long. I do not think it would be convenient for me to make too definite arrangements with regard to these matters; but if the House is kind enough to give us the days we ask for, and if we have a fair amount of assistance from the House, I see no reason to doubt that we shall be able to get through the greater part, at all events, of what I have mentioned, and to close the Session about the usual day—that is, somewhere about the 10th of August.

wished to know from the right hon. Gentlemen whether it was intended to take the Colonies Vote to-morrow?

No, not to-morrow?

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had stated that one of his Colleagues wished to make a statement as to the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill, or was it to be understood that after that statement they would learn from the Government whether they intended to proceed with the Bill?

said, that the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had given Notice that he intended on Monday to ask whether the Government would proceed with the Public Health (Metropolis) Bill, and he had promised on Monday to make a statement, which, however, he was ready to make at once. This Bill was prepared last year, at the instance of the Statute Law Revision Commissioners, in order to supplement the work done by the Public Health Act of 1875, which put together the substance of 30 Acts of Parliament, so far as they applied to the country at large. Many of those Acts, however, affected the Metropolis, and it was desirable that they should be consolidated in a similar way. The Bill was, therefore, mainly one of consolidation, but certain provisions had been added that experience had shown to be desirable. It was not supposed that such a measure would encounter any opposition, but great objection was taken to the consolidation of the existing law by many of the local authorities. It was evident that a Bill of 100 clauses, if they involved any contentious matter, could not be introduced after Whitsuntide with any prospect of becoming law. Finding that Members were not satisfied to allow the Bill to proceed as a measure of consolidation, he had come to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw it for the present Session. If he re-introduced it, it would be his duty to amend the sanitary law of the Metropolis more than could properly be done in a mere Consolidation Bill. In withdrawing the present measure, therefore, he would not bind himself to introduce the same Bill next Session, although he trusted it would be possible to introduce it in an amended state.

Sir, I understand the right hon. Gentleman that the Warrant which is to be laid upon the Table is a Warrant relating to retirement and promotion of officers in the Army. If so, I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that it may lead to considerable discussion. It is of no use, of course, at this moment to press the Government to make any further announcement of their intentions. But, as usual, I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken a somewhat sanguine view of the course of affairs for the remainder of the Session. I have made a list of the nine measures which he seems to have some hope of proceeding with in the remaining three weeks. There is, for instance, the Factories and Workshops Bill, and I really think the right hon. Gentleman will do well to devote himself to a further revision of this list. It will not impede the progress which he may make with a few Bills if he will withdraw from the Paper those which it is quite impossible to proceed with.

who had on the Paper the First Order of the Day for Tuesday next, inquired whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not allow the ordinary Business to proceed on that day?

hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re-consider the order in which Scotch Bills were to be proceeded with. The Roads and Bridges Bill was a more valuable measure than all the other Scotch Bills put together, and he hoped it would be taken first, especially as it was one of the measures promised in the Queen's Speech.

said, he had no doubt the hon. and learned Member for Kildare was only anxious to facilitate Business; and it was hoped he would see, with the Government, the importance of taking the Irish and Scotch Prisons Bills first, and would make his arrangements accordingly. He would, however, be glad to speak to the hon. Member on the subject.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman proposed to proceed with the Irish and Scotch Bills on Tuesday, in the event of the Judicature Bill for Ireland not having passed through Committee by that day?

said, all the arrangements depended very much upon getting through one Bill before taking up another. As Tuesday was not very close at hand he need not give a definite answer now.

moved, in page 25, to leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert in lieu thereof:—

"The Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer Divisions shall consist of the number of Judges following and no more, viz.: the Queen's Bench Division of four Judges, the Common Pleas Division of three Judges, and the Exchequer Division (from and after the next vacancy in the office of one of the Junior Barons) of three Judges."

moved, in page 29, lines 42 and 43, to leave out "or any Judge of the Court of Bankruptcy."

(Mr. Gibson) assented to the omission of the words, which he thought was desirable.

(Mr. Gibson) moved, in page 32, line 29, to leave out the words "or of the Court of Appeal," which, he thought, would lead to complication, and their retention would render the clause inconsistent with other parts of the Bill.

moved, in page 33, line 24, after "shall," insert "not." The object of the Amendment of his hon. Friend was to remove an admitted grievance in Irish legal procedure.

said, that when the Bill was introduced it did not contain the appeal sub-section, which gave the Court of Appeal jurisdiction on a Writ of Error, in criminal cases, from the Queen's Bench Division. The intention was to assist the requirements of the humble classes of suitors, who could not afford the cost of carrying their appeals to the House of Lords, and it did that by preserving the operation of 11 & 12 Vict., c. 78, which had worked extremely well. By that provision, if the Judge found that a legal point of unexpected difficulty had arisen in the course of the proceedings in a criminal case, he had the power of reserving the point for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved sitting in Dublin. That proceeding this clause sought to preserve, and it went further than the Amendment now proposed.

moved, in page 34, line 15, after "that" to insert—

("subject to all existing enactments limiting) regulating, or affecting the costs payable in any action by reference to the amount recovered therein.")

desired an Amendment in the clause. He said the principle of the clause was a most vexatious one, and had been introduced into the English Judicature Act, and he certainly did not like giving Judges a discretion as to awarding costs. The rule was that a successful party was entitled to his costs, and to allow a Judge to adjudicate upon the costs, no matter what was the result of the trial. But he feared that he would be unsuccessful. He proposed that a Judge should only have discretion "under special circumstances," and for good cause shown.

said, if a Judge exercised his discretion as to the costs against the verdict of the jury he must state the "good cause," and there upon the Court of Appeal could review that decision. That course worked satisfactorily in the English Bill. He thought the words proposed by the hon. and learned Member unnecessary.

was afraid that the hon. and learned Member for Kildaro did not give sufficient weight to the words '' good cause shown."

opposed the Amendment.

supported the Amendment.

pointed out that the words "for good cause shown," were not necessary to be stated by the Judge, and he had never known it done, and he had had some experience of the practice.

said, that the Judges had to show good cause in order that their decision might be reviewed in the Court above.

said, the learned Judge could only give costs apart from the verdict for good and sufficient reason. The clause was an exact transcript of the clause of 1855, placed in the Bill of 1875, and now inserted here.

suggested that the Judge should be bound, if he refused to grant costs to the successful suitor, to state in the order he made the reasons he had for withholding costs. This would be a safeguard against a capricious exercise of the discretion proposed to be given, and in case of an appeal would facilitate the revision of any order made without good cause in the Appellate Tribunal. In the Act which constituted in Ireland the Landed Estates Court it was expressly provided that if the Judge did not order costs to be paid by a party unsuccessfully making or resisting an application he was bound to state his reasons on the face of the order. The clause of the present Act ought to be amended by the insertion of a similar provision.

said, when the Amendment was disposed of he would be inclined to consider it.

said, he was decidedly against the clause. If the Judges could use this discretion they would destroy trial by jury altogether. If the Judge charged the jury in one way, and the jury decided against him, the learned Judge might, from irritation, do an injustice, by giving or withholding costs. It would be better to set out the reasons in the order.

accepted the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member, and agreed that the statement of the "good cause" on the face of the order might be worked without inconvenience.

did not think that his words, "under special circumstances," made the discretion more general, for he left the words for "good cause" still standing.

would accept the alteration suggested, and alter the clause by striking out the word "good," and leave it for "special cause shown and mentioned in the order."

moved, in page 34, line 19, after "Divisional Court," to insert—

"And Provided also, That in all actions for libel where the jury shall give damages under forty shillings, the plaintiff shall not he entitled to more costs than damages."

had no objection to the Proviso on principle, but he suggested that his right hon. and learned Friend should add the words—

"Unless the Judge who tried the case should order that, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, he should obtain the costs of the action."

said, this would not meet the object of the Amendment, which was to ensure that where a jury said a plaintiff was not entitled to more than 40s., then a Judge shall not override the opinion of the jury by a decision as to costs.

also objected, stating that it would be placing a discretion with the Judge which the law never intended he should have.

consented to the Amendment, reserving to himself the opportunity of making a further Amendment on the Report.

said, he proposed to omit this and the two succeeding clauses. The clause had reference to the appointment of Referees, and he was anxious that there should not be applied to Ireland a most mischievous piece of legislation—the appointment of Referees to discharge the duties of Judges. These Referees were introduced into the English Judicature Bill from the necessity of providing relief to the overwork of the Judges; but in Ireland no such necessity existed, and the number of Judges were being reduced because they were not sufficiently employed. He admitted that in these clauses the consent of the parties was to be required to a reference, but the suggestion of a Judge was practically irresistible, so that the discretion of suitors would be nominal. It was open to suitors now to refer a dispute to arbitration of their own motion, but it ought not to be done at the suggestion of a Judge; and he resisted this as an unconstitutional innovation. He, therefore, moved the omission of the clause.

admitted that there was a strong feeling amongst the Irish people in favour of having their causes tried before what they called "a real Judge and a real jury;" but he considered that the clause did not go much beyond the power which the Judges had at present of referring cases to arbitrators. It was not proposed to establish Special Referees to be paid by the State, but merely to enable a Judge, if the parties consented, to refer the matter to a Referee, to be appointed by arrangement between the parties themselves.

said, it was sought to maintain the skeleton of the English clauses when it was found that they could not be maintained in their integrity. He would support the Motion to omit the clause.

concurred in wishing the clauses omitted.

said, he was aware that these clauses were unpopular in Ireland, and after the appeal just made to him he would not press them.

moved an Amendment to make the procedure and the rules as to costs the same in Ireland as in England. The hon. Member observed that no reason could be assigned for not having the law uniform on the points in the two countries.

said, that the real object of the clause was to make the scale of fees in Ireland the same as the scale in England; but Ireland was a much poorer country than England, and could not afford to pay them.

opposed the Amendment, on the ground that the circumstances and conditions of the two countries were essentially different.

said, that the whole system of fees was bad, and that the relations of leaders and juniors levelled and, so to speak, "macadamized" the Bar.

opposed the Amendment.

moved, in page 38, at end, to add—

"This Clause shall not come into operation, and no part of it to he operative, till it had been affirmed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament."

pointed out that an Act could not become an Act till it had been passed by both Houses of Parliament.

moved the omission of the clause, on the ground that it would not be advisable to entrust the Irish Executive with the absolute power of altering or re-arranging the Circuits of the Judges.

said, he would endeavour to meet the views of his hon. and learned Friend by introducing into the clause on the Report words to provide that all Orders in Council making alterations should be submitted to Parliament for approval before they came in force.

said, he had a Bill now before the House to constitute winter assizes for Ireland. He had obtained some Returns from which it appeared that on the 1st September last year there were 160 prisoners who would not be tried till next March, and 28 of them were charged with murder. He would with- draw his Bill if the Government would have a winter assize this year.

said, the Irish Judges were now going to deal with empty gaols, and the right hon. and learned Member was therefore premature with his Bill.

said, that the necessity for winter assizes in Ireland was not nearly so serious as in England, because the County Court Judges having criminal jurisdiction, there were practically six gaol deliveries in the year in every Irish county.

moved, in page 40, line 14, to leave out from "Session," to end of clause, and insert—

"and come into operation as soon as they have been affirmed by a vote of both Houses of Parliament."

pointed out that the Bill followed almost word for word the precedent in the English Acts of 1873 and 1875, and that it was impossible for Parliament to go into all the minute and special matters of the Court, even if Parliament had the time, which it had not. The rules would be framed by the Judges under the presidency of the Lord Chancellor, and the Bill provided that they should lie on the Table of the House for 40 days. In the Bill, therefore, was a Parliamentary control which, true, was rarely exercised in the case of the English Act, but which could be exercised if any broad principle were assailed, but it was not the function of Parliament to discuss every technical point.

was of opinion that Parliament could not well frame rules of legal practice, and that there would be in the Press, the Profession, and in Parliament a sufficient safeguard against improper rules being framed and acted upon.

denied that the clause afforded sufficient control; an objection to the rules to be operative was to be made within 40 days, but any hon. Member would have to put his objection into a Motion on the Paper, and take his chance of bringing on his Motion within that period. He would suggest to the hon. Member for Cavan to withdraw his Amendment in order to allow him to propose to insert the words, "and shall be submitted to a resolution of both Houses of Parliament."

congratulated the Attorney General for Ireland on a Home Rule speech. He pointed out how the House of Commons was overloaded with work; but if this matter could be submitted to a Committee of Irish Members it might be satisfactorily settled. The Bill proposed to delegate to the Irish Judges legislative powers. It was the duty of that House to see that no rules were made to prevent the approach of the suitor to the tribunal which had to decide upon his rights. It was an utter sham to say that the proposal of the Government gave the House any real control over these rules. What power had he or any other Member of moving a negative of these rules within 40 days? If it were made a matter of "privilege," the control might be real and not a mockery. It was idle to quote the precedent of the English Bill, for that was the occasion of general complaint. The fusion of Law and Equity was more like a confusion of Law and Equity. As to the Bill itself, the people of Ireland did not want it, it was a Bill of crotchet; but if Parliament did change our ancient judicature it should take all the responsibility.

thought that 40 days did not constitute a sufficient time for the consideration of rules which were to govern cases of such grave importance as those which came before the Superior Courts. If some means were not found by which the rules might be supervised by the House, he doubted whether the Bill would pass this Session.

pointed out that the Bill, if passed, was to come into force on the 1st of January next, and that if the Courts were left without rules till the end of next Session it would be practically inoperative during that period.

said, that 40 days was too short a period to enable them to protect themselves from the lawyers.

thought that the period within which it should be competent for Parliament to take exception to the rules should be the whole Session.

said, he adhered to the opinion that it would be practically impossible for Parliament to deal with the rules as it would do with a Bill; but as to the period of time during which they should lie on the Table, he saw no reason why it should be limited to 40 days, or why they should not remain on the Table till the end of the Session, or some equivalent period.

moved that instead of "within the next subsequent 40 days," the words "during the next Session of Parliament" should be inserted.

feared that that Amendment would do more harm than good. Although it was desirable that Parliament should retain a power of control, it was not likely that the rules framed by the Judges would actually be altered, and it would be a great mistake to put off the approval of them from Session to Session.

thought the understanding at which the Committee had arrived was that the time should be extended till the end of the current Session and not till a future Session.

pointed out that there would be a difficulty in case the rules were sent up at a late period of the Session. If that happened, they might actually lie on the Table for less than 40 days, and it was for this case he wished to provide.

was glad to find the Committee realized the fact that there was no use in providing that the veto of Parliament must be exercised within the stereotyped period of 40 day.

expressed a similar opinion, and thought the case might be met by leaving the rules on the Table to be challenged at any time.

opposed the Amendment.

moved the omission of that part of the clause which empowered the Lord Chancellor, with the consent of the Treasury, to increase the salary of any officer whose duties may be increased by reason of the passing of the Act.

objected to the Amendment.

moved, in page 45, line 16, after "office," to insert—

"Except in the case of any officer who shall, at the time of the passing of this Act, have served forty years, in which case the annual sum so to be awarded may be equal to the entire of the salary and emoluments to which at the time of his release such officer shall have been entitled."

said, that the matter must be considered on broader grounds. It was not a case of abolition of office, and the Act really added to the pension to which he was entitled.

moved, in page 46, line 11, to leave out from beginning, to "increase."

said, that this Amendment would prevent any addition to the duties of the officers.

moved, in page 46, line 22, to leave out from "thereto," to end of line.

opposed the Amendment, thinking that the object in view was already sufficiently met by the Bill as it stood.

moved, in page 46, line 33, after "following," to insert—

"All officers attached to the Supreme Court of Judicature, or to the High Court, or to any Division or Judge thereof, who have been heretofore appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, shall continue to be appointed by the Lord Lieutenant in the same manner as heretofore."

said, the Amendment was a very important one that required discussion, and as it was then too late to discuss it he moved that the Chairman report Progress.

admitted that the question was a very important one, and agreed that it appeared desirable to report Progress, with the understanding that the Committee would resume to-morrow at 2 o'clock, and continue the consideration of the remaining clauses of the Bill.

called attention, on the Vote for the Railway Commission, to the fact that there was no such Commission for Ireland, and complained that the Commissioners had declined, when applied to, to go to Ireland to hear an Irish case, as they were bound to do.

said, the Act establishing the Commission reserved discretion to the Commissioners as to where they should hear cases. In the one case in which an application had been made for them to go to Ireland, the other side opposed the application on the ground that counsel had already been engaged in England; and the Commissioners decided not to go to Ireland, on the ground that the public convenience would best be consulted by their hearing the case in London. They were, however, prepared to hear cases in Dublin whenever it was shown that it would be for the public convenience that they should do so.

said, that what was wanted was that the Commissioners should make rules to hear all Irish cases in Ireland, and Government should, if necessary, bring in a Bill to compel this. If the Government would do so, he could promise there should be no obstruction; or perhaps the Government would give him their support and an opportunity to bring in such a Bill himself.

moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that the Votes upon which he desired to raise the question of the Phœnix Park riots and the Irish Constabulary might be brought on at a reasonable hour for discussion.

offered to postpone the Votes in question, and to endeavour to bring them on at such a time as would afford an opportunity for their discussion; but in the present state of business he would not undertake to enter into any engagement as to the precise time.

said, that he hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) would persevere with his Motion. If he did not obtain a distinct pledge let him oppose every Vote brought forward, and very likely the Government would find it convenient to give way.

said, it would be reasonable to agree to the proposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Smith) and pass the Votes not questioned.

asked for an explanation of the Scotch Vote.

said, he would not object to postpone the Vote.

said, the challenge for the division had not come from any Irish Member. It had come from the hon. Member for Glasgow.

said, it was fortunate for the Government that the hon. and learned Member for Limerick was present, for had it not been for his declared wish he (Mr. Parnell) should have divided the House on every one of the 32 Votes.

said, they were anxious to make an arrangement, but it really was hard to ask the Government to do more than it had done.