asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is intended to extend to the non-commissioned officers and other ranks in the Royal Marines corresponding advantages in pay and pension to those now proposed to be granted to the Army?

In answer, Sir, to the Question of the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the Board of Admiralty, now that they have the scheme of the Secretary of State for War before them for reference and comparison, I do not say for guidance, will at once come to the consideration of the questions relating to the Corps of Royal Marines. There is no need for appointing any more Committees to inquire. The Board has information enough before it to approach the matter with a view to a prompt and practical decision.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware, and, if it be true, that some three or four months ago a large number of the process servers of the county of Donegal resigned office on the ground of intimidation on the part of the Land League; whether their places have as yet been filled up; and, if not, why not; whether at the last Quarter Sessions at Carndonagh, county Donegal, only five processes were served, the usual number being about one hundred and fifty; and, what steps the Government propose to take to provide the means for suitors to recover debts in that district?

, in reply, said, that three process-servers in the barony of Innishowen, in the county of Donegal, had resigned their appointments, the reason of their resignation being that they anticipated danger to themselves in the discharge of their duties, in consequence of the disturbed state of the district. In two cases they had offered themselves for re-appointment; but, as yet, no person had been found willing to take the office of process-server in the district of Carndonagh. There were only 10 processes served last Quarter Sessions. The Government had proclaimed this barony as being in a state of disturbance by a special proclamation under the Coercion Act.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, after the recent decision of the House of Lords in the Hampstead Hospital case, he is prepared, by legislation or otherwise, to secure to the inhabitants of the Metropolis the advantages which were intended to be conferred by the establishment of hospitals for fever and small-pox under the provisions of "The Metropolis Poor Act, 1867?"

Sir, I am desirous of doing what the hon. Member asks; but the matter is one of much complication, and I am not prepared, until I have had more time to review the whole subject, to indicate what steps should, in my opinion, be taken to meet the present difficulty. I may add that the recent decision of the House of Lords has only been given with regard to one of the appeals in the case, and a month has been allowed to the managers to prosecute the second appeal if they think proper to do so.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he cannot mitigate the hardship inflicted on Staff Paymasters, who are to be compulsorily retired on 30th September next, by allowing those whose period of five years' grace (secured by Royal Warrant of 22nd October 1877) expires in 1882, to complete that term of service, and thus, in some cases, to complete 25 years' service, and to become thereby entitled to a higher pension; whether he has considered the hardship suffered by those who were (in terms of Royal Warrant of 1st May 1878) gazetted "Staff Paymasters" (the highest rank then granted to officers of the Army Pay Department, all senior Paymasters who joined the Department being gazetted with that rank, according to seniority), and who were superseded by the establishment on 23rd December 1880 of the higher grade of "Chief Paymaster," to which junior officers were appointed; and, whether it is not in his power to grant to Staff Paymasters similar advantages of extra pension on compulsory retirement which is secured to Chief Paymasters by Paragraph 7, Clause 2, of Royal Warrant of 23rd December 1880?

Sir, the hon. Member is really a little unreasonable. On the 4th instant I answered a Question on this subject, put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Maidstone (Captain Aylmer), and I said that I would look into it. I have every desire to mitigate any real grievance; but this is not a question of the New Warrant giving any officer less retired pay, but of pressure to obtain for certain officers larger boons than those granted in 1877. Considering that these matters involve careful discussion between Departments of the Government, it is really out of the question that, especially at a busy time of the year like this, they can be dealt with in a week. If the hon. Gentleman will repeat his Question some time hence, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is the fact that although some of the Officers of the Naval Reserve have for sixteen years and upwards served in the rank of Lieutenant, there are no Officers of the rank of Commander in the Reserve; and, if so, whether promotion to that rank will be given to any of the Officers in question, as in the other branches of the Navy; and, whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return of the numbers of the Naval Reserve, stating the class of seamen, whether 1st, 2nd, or 3rd?

Sir, promotion to the rank of commander in the Naval Reserve, which is an honorary rank, can only be conferred on officers who have attained the age of 50, and who have distinguished themselves in action, or by their zeal in promoting the efficiency of the Reserve. Hitherto, no cases fulfilling both these conditions have been brought under the notice of the Admiralty; but any application sent through the Board of Trade on behalf of officers whose cases satisfy these requirements would meet with the favourable consideration of their Lordships. In answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's Question, I may say that on the 28th of February last the numbers of the Royal Naval Reserve were—First Class, 12,050; Second Class, 5,496; Third Class, 111; total, 17,657.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If he will place in the Library of the House a map showing the stations, if any, in Beloochistan and Afghanistan at which he proposes that troops should be stationed?

Sir, this question of the stations of the troops in Beloochistan and Afghanistan is entirely or mainly a matter for the consideration and decision of the Indian Government, and we are not sufficiently in possession of their views to give the stations. I should, however, have no objection to put up a map without the stations.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he will be good enough to consider the desirability of meeting the public convenience by an arrangement which would make the existing Penny Postage Stamp available either as a Receipt or a Postage Stamp?

Sir, I have long desired that the public should be relieved from the inconveniences which attend the obtaining of Inland Revenue stamps as compared with the great facilities for obtaining postage stamps, and there is no way that I know of removing those inconveniences except the union of the stamps—that is to say, allowing postage stamps to be used for Inland Revenue purposes. There would be a certain amount of disadvantage for fiscal and statistical purposes in the arrangement; but, on the whole, the convenience would be so great that I think I may say that we propose to carry it into effect.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on Her Majesty's Government giving authority to Sir E. Wood to negotiate for prolongation of the armistice with the Boers, he had any instructions to make it a part of the arrangement for such prolongation that the troops of the enemy should be withdrawn from Natal?

Sir, the case stands thus: The armistice, as it was originally framed, was to expire last night, the 13th, at midnight. On Saturday, the 12th, the Cabinet made a communication to Sir Evelyn Wood, which he was requested to send on to the leaders of the Boers, and which required an answer from the Boers. We could not reasonably expect that that answer could possibly have been received by him in the course of yesterday; and, having previously authorized him to prolong the armistice if necessary, we, on Saturday, instructed him to prolong it, if it were desired by the Boers, for the purpose of giving time for an answer within the limit which we named, which was the 18th—next Friday, but not beyond that, and, perhaps, an earlier day. Under these circumstances we did not instruct Sir Evelyn Wood to make any change in the conditions of the armistice, which would have led to further delay, and been the subject of further communications. I may as well take this opportunity of referring to a Question which was put to me on Friday last with regard to the original armistice. We have telegraphed to Sir Evelyn Wood upon that subject, and have received an answer as respects the communications between Mr. Brand and Sir Evelyn Wood in regard to the original armistice. I have already referred to them in this House, and can revert to them if it should be desired. But Sir Evelyn Wood now gives us information with regard to the communications between President Brand and Joubert, and between Joubert and himself, and he states that—"On the 3rd of March, Brand appealed to Joubert to meet me," for the purpose of making an arrangement for the conclusion of an armistice, "and on the 4th of March, Joubert sent me Brand's message asking how far I would co-operate." That is the important part of the communication made by Sir Evelyn Wood—"how far I would co-operate." Sir Evelyn Wood adds—it is written—"so he wishes;" but we read it "as he wishes to stop his patrols on the 5th of March, I offered to meet him on the 6th."

asked, Whether the armistice had been prolonged?

said, he had no information on the point, but would probably have in the course of a day or two.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangements have been made for the future detention of Cetewayo; what amount of liberty will be granted to him; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will allow him to be joined by such members of his family as he may wish to have with him?

Sir, Cetewayo is now, and has been for more than a month, residing about four miles from Cape Town, on a farm, or small estate, of some 1,600 acres. He and his are free to range over this and the neighbouring location occupied by his neighbour, Langalibalele, from sunrise to sunset, as much as they please, and all the necessaries and comforts of life are supplied to them. Strangers will not be allowed to trespass on the location at their own pleasure; but all proper visitors will be able to obtain orders from the Secretary for Native Affairs. Four or more of Cetewayo's wives and a few followers, the number to be determined by the Cape Government in concurrence with that of Natal, are permitted to reside on the location. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies long ago gave very positive orders as to the spirit in which the detention of Cetewayo was to be carried into effect. I read these to the House in reply to a Question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and I think the House was quite satisfied as to their humanity.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he will give instructions that School Board officials or others authorised by them may have access to the Enumeration Books containing copies of the contents of the schedules in the forthcoming Census, in the hands of the sheriff clerks or town clerks at any time between the period when, by the Registrar General's Instructions, these are to be placed in their hands by the Registrar of the district, viz.: 23rd April, and the time when they fall to be transmitted to the Registrar General, viz.: 4th May, for the purpose of extracting therefrom the names, ages, and other particulars regarding all children of school age, and the names and particulars of the parents or guardians of such children; and, whether, should it be necessary, he will authorise an extension of the time during which the Enumeration Books may remain in the hands of the sheriff clerks or town clerks so as to facilitate the carrying out of the purposes of "The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872?"

I find, on inquiry at the office of the Registrar General for Scotland, that there are serious objections to communicating the Census Returns to school boards. Those Returns are held to be of a confidential character, and we are afraid that if they were to be given to any person outside the Department it might interfere with their accuracy.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the hours of duty of the Surveying Officers of Inland Revenue have been much in- creased by the new duties imposed upon them by the Act 43 and 44 Vic. c. 20; and, if so, whether it would be possible to give them, in compensation, some increase of leave?

Sir, in order to meet the increase of work referred to by the noble Lord, 100 officers have been added to the Staff, and the business has been re-arranged with a view to avoid giving more work to any officer than he is required and able to perform according to the regulations of the Service. It is, of course, impossible to say that in some particular case some officer may not have more to do than formerly, especially as, from the nature of the duties of the Surveyors, their work is not performed at specified hours; but, as I stated the other day in reply to the hon. Member for Queen's County, the present allowance of leave is considered sufficient.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the teachers of the National Schools who have filled the Census Returns are entitled to some remuneration commensurate with the amount of labour which those Returns involve; and, if so, whether the Government can take any steps in the matter?

, in reply, said, that as the National School teachers were only called upon to perform these Census duties once in 10 years, and as he found that no other public officials were remunerated for doing them, he did not see why there should be any exception made in their case to the general rule.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the injuries now being inflicted on the peaceable inhabitants of Armenia, both Christians and Mohammedans, by the Kurds who have been driven back from Persia into Turkish territory, and to the conduct of the Porte in quartering Kurdish nomads upon the Armenian villagers; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has already represented, or will represent, to the Porte the necessity of ceasing this practice of quartering ferocious tribes on its unarmed subjects, and the duty of taking prompt and vigorous action to check the excesses of the Kurds?

Sir, we have heard from Vice Consul Clayton that fugitive Kurds from Persia have been quartered by the Turkish authorities upon the villagers in the country to the south-east of Lake Van, and that the villagers have been ordered to support the fugitives for the winter. Colonel Clayton's Report came through the Embassy at Constantinople; and Her Majesty's Ambassador, who is greatly interested in the condition of the Armenian population, will make representations in regard to the hardship entailed on the villagers by having to maintain these fugitives, if he has a favourable opportunity of doing so, or thinks that such representations are likely to be of use.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a statement appearing in a local paper, that during the last month a patrol of three subconstables were sent from the police barrack of Windgap, in the county of Kilkenny; that the men, instead of going on patrol as directed, retired to a public-house in the locality, and commenced to drink and play at cards; that a row subsequently ensued, when a sub-constable struck a comrade with a tumbler, split his upper lip, knocked out two of his teeth, and fractured the jawbone; that they attempted to shoot one another in the house, and also when they got out; that the constable who struck the first blow was subsequently placed under arrest and removed to Callan; and that the men, when sent on patrol, were in the habit for some time past of resorting to this publichouse; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be instituted into the matter, to prevent repetition of such conduct?

also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, If the publican has not been guilty of a gross breach of the law in allowing the police to remain in his house under such circumstances?

Sir, I have made inquiry into the matter, and I regret to find that it is one of the very rare—almost the only—case since I have been in my present position that has come to my knowledge where members of the Royal Irish Constabulary have been shown to be guilty of gross misconduct. The facts, however, are not quite so bad as they are represented. It was after the men had returned from the performance of their patrol duty that the occurrence took place; no attempt was made by the sub-constables to use their firearms; and I can also give a distinct denial to the allegation that the police when on patrol duty were in the habit of resorting to this public-house. This appears to have been an exceptional case; but though this may be some palliation, yet no excuse can be offered for their conduct. However, a stringent inquiry has been undertaken by the Inspector General into the circumstances of the case, in order that it may be seen what steps should be taken in the matter. In reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I have to say that the publican, as well as the sub-constables, was brought before the magistrate and fined for a breach of the Licensing Act.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the medical officers of Her Majesty's Prisons are required by the regulations to vaccinate all children born in the prisons before they are allowed to go out; and, if so, whether such regulations are strictly enforced, especially in the case of the female prison at Westminster?

Sir, there is no absolute rule on the subject, nor could there be. It is uncertain at what age a child may be at the time it is discharged. As a general rule, a child is vaccinated in prison when it is old enough, and the mother makes no objection. The answer I have received to a question is, that all the children born in Westminster Prison are vaccinated if they are old enough and not too delicate.

asked Mr. Attorney General, What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking in order to secure the presentation of the Reports of the Election Commissioners who have not as yet reported before the close of the time specified in the Act for the commencement of a prosecution for corrupt practices; and, in the event of any of the Election Commissioners not reporting in time to prosecute any of those who may be scheduled in these Reports, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take in order that there may be no miscarriage of justice?

Sir, at one time there were apprehensions entertained that these Reports would not be presented in time for the purpose stated in the Question; but a practical method was found of getting over the difficulty. It was pointed out that if the labours of the Commissioners were not brought to a close to enable certain steps to be taken by the 31st of March, great inconvenience would result to the public interest; and the Commissioners came to the conclusion that the business was urgent, and they also came to the conclusion that it was of importance to the public interests that the business should be proceeded with without delay. Their doing so was the best way of getting rid of the difficulty; and the proof of it is that their having done so has rendered it unnecessary to answer the second part of the Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the report of the proceedings of the Oxford Election Commissioners, by which it appears that on the 30th of October the Chief Commissioner stated that they had notice to conclude the local inquiry in the long vacation, but having been unable to do so, it was adjourned to the 22nd of December; whether that adjournment had his sanction, and whether the professional engagements of the Commissioners had anything to do with the arrangement; and, whether it has not followed that the inquiry is still incomplete?

Sir, the Oxford Commissioners and the other Commissioners did, from time to time, apply for power to adjourn, and that power I granted, at the same time giving instructions that it was desirable and important that the Reports should be made as soon as possible. It is quite true that the Oxford Commissioners had hoped to have concluded their Report in October; but at the end of October they stated that, with every desire to have concluded the inquiry during the course of the Long Vacation, they had been unable to do so, owing in great measure to the fact that the vouchers presented by Mr. Walsh, the Conservative agent, who had destroyed his accounts, had been found to be unreliable, and they had been engaged during the greater portion of the inquiry in procuring from those who had the management of the different districts their accounts, which they had to render in some cases from memory, and in others from imperfect memoranda. The inquiry has now nearly reached its end. As to the other part of the Question, I am unable to give information.

said, that the main question was, whether there was an adjournment from October to December?

I believe that was so. The Commissioners wrote to me that it was an adjournment of their sittings in Oxford; but they held sittings in London during the interval. I may say that it has been rather the business of the Oxford Commissioners to examine me, than my business to examine the Oxford Commissioners.

said, the main point of the Question was, whether the long adjournment had anything to do with the professional engagements of the Commissioners?

I do not know. I think it is very likely.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to a letter, on the subject of "soldiers' families," in the "Times" of the 9th instant; whe- ther it is true, as therein stated, that from the

"allowance of 9d. a day to each non-commissioned officer's wife, 7d. to each private's wife, and 3d. for each child,"

"6d. a day would be recovered from each non-commissioned officer's pay, 4d. from each private's, and 1½d. in respect of each child,"—"so that it would appear that the exact allowance this wealthy Country is making to these poor women amounts, besides a little coal, to exactly 3d. a day for themselves, and 1½d. a day for each of their children;"

Sir, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I must appeal to him whether it is reasonable that I should be asked to reply to a letter in a newspaper written by a Member of Parliament, whose Question on the same subject I had fully answered, and with great detail, a few days before. What is called the "separation allowance for soldiers' wives and children" has been in force for many years, and I find has been the subject of full inquiry by my right hon. and gallant Friend and Predecessor, who declined to increase it. I have, however, out of consideration for the women and children who came home in the Jumna, their husbands having been hurriedly separated from them, advanced them a further daily allowance, instead of keeping them waiting for the remittance from their husbands, and I have undertaken to look into the whole question. It would be unreasonable to ask me to decide it in a hurry, after the positive refusal of my Predecessor and the late Government to make any change.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the report which has appeared in several newspapers to the effect that the United States Minister has made representations to Her Majesty's Government on the subject of the arrest of Michael Boyton, on the ground that he is an American citizen; and, whether any information can be given to the House, as to the course to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government on this and other similar cases?

No, Sir. No representation has been received from the United States Government upon the subject.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is correctly reported to have said at Oxford, that the proposal for an armistice after the defeat at Lang's Nek came from the Boer side?

Yes, Sir; the report seems substantially correct. What I actually said was this—that we had been obliged to give rather cautious answers in Parliament to Questions about the armistice, because Ministers replying to Questions in Parliament are expected to be rigidly accurate, and not to go one inch beyond the documents which they have in their hands; that, however, at a festive gathering, one was not bound to be so rigidly accurate, and that I had no hesitation in saying there what I do not think I should have been justified in saying in the House of Commons, that, as far as my opinion went, based on the best study I could give to the telegrams, I had no doubt that the first suggestion of the armistice came from the Boers.

asked the Secretary of State for War, to be so good as to inform the House, Whether the late Sir George Colley advanced towards the Transvaal with the force at his disposal by the Newcastle and Lang's Nek route in full telegraphic communication with England; whether the disadvantages and dangers of that route, in comparison with an alternative route, were fully pointed out to and admitted by the Intelligence Department in England, by an officer lately returned from the Transvaal; and, whether such information was telegraphed to Sir George Colley; or, if not, why it was withheld from him?

In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to state that Sir George Colley was in tele- graphic communication with England when he advanced by the Newcastle and Lang's Nek route. It is also true that a gentleman who had formerly been a lieutenant in the Army suggested to the Intelligence Department a different route for an advance on the Transvaal. But it is further true that Sir George Colley was fully aware of this route, and of its disadvantages and advantages. I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, under these circumstances, not to include in any Question he may address to me indications of a route for military operations which is perfectly well known to us, but which had better not be made known to others.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in any settlement of the Transvaal Question, Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the question of providing not only for the protection of the loyal inhabitants of the Transvaal of European origin, but also in respect of the lives, liberties, and property of the native inhabitants of that country?

I really think I need only refer to what has been said by myself and by other Members of the Government upon the subject to show that the position of the Native population in the Transvaal was one of the most important matters present to our minds in view of any practicable settlement of the question.

asked the Lord Advocate, If he will arrange to supply the House with as full information about the roads and highways of Scotland, as that promised to be supplied about the English and Welsh roads and highways by the President of the Local Government Board of England and Wales?

, in reply, said he thought that the Returns regarding the highways and roads in England were not in a form that could be given for Scotland; but he should be very glad to consider, along with his hon. and gallant Friend, in what form the Returns could be given in order to secure the specific information he desired.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the following paragraph in the "Times" of 9th March correctly represents the views of the Government; and, if so, whether they will give effect to these views in the present year:—

"Last night a deputation from the Parochial Boards of Scotland waited upon Mr. Gladstone to ask for an increase in the Medical Poor Law grants. Mr. Gladstone told the deputation that he was under a mistake as to the nature of their application, and he must refer them to Lord Frederick Cavendish, who, after hearing their statement, gave an undertaking that he would grant an increase if the Parochial Boards were willing to allow the Poor Law supervision to exercise some control over the appointment and dismissal of their Medical Officers?"

Sir, I have to thank my hon. Friend for giving me an opportunity of removing a misapprehension which could not, I think, be shared in by any member of the deputation referred to in the Question. The facts are as follows:—In reply to an observation made by a member of the deputation that there was no necessity for legislation, and that all that was needed to secure equality between England and Scotland was to place an increased sum in the Estimates for medical relief in Scotland, I pointed out that, to place England and Scotland on an equality, it would be necessary to make the condition of the grant the same as well as its proportions, and that that could not be done without legislation. I added that, to secure the desired equality, we must not look at this particular grant in aid alone, but include in our survey other grants in aid, such as that for pauper lunatics. I then as nearly as possible repeated the statement which I made a short time ago in this House in reply to a Question, that the Government was considering the subject of grants in aid at large, with the view, if possible, of devising some better method of regulating the appropriation of public money for local purposes, and that, in the meanwhile, we did not consider it desirable to insert an additional sum in the Estimates for medical relief.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to a statement in a local newspaper, purporting to be a report of a deputation respecting the school of Lowton, in Lancashire; and whether the same is a true report? He would not have troubled the right hon. Gentleman with the Question, if the reported speeches had not contained serious charges against a gentleman concerned.

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to a statement which filled nearly two columns of the newspaper. The deputation consisted of a very few persons, and he did not know how such a report of what was stated to have taken place could have been made, as no speeches were made. Instead of making speeches to the Education Department, the deputation must have sent them to the local newspaper.

said, he desired to ask the Prime Minister some Questions of which he had given him private Notice. They were:—Firstly, Whether it was correct to say that the demand for "urgency" was partly made because the Government wished to preserve the time between Easter and Whitsuntide for legislation? Secondly, whether, if the Supplementary Estimates were not passed between the 24th and 31st March, the House would have no security that the law would be observed with regard to them? Thirdly, whether it was usual to postpone the first Votes of the Estimates? Fourthly, whether the original Estimates which were now followed by these Supplementary Estimates were framed by the present Government, or their Predecessors? Fifthly, and lastly, whether at the time of the Supplementary Budget of 1880, the Government were possessed of a trustworthy Estimate of the expenses of the Afghan War?

I rise to Order, Sir. Is it not a Rule of the House that the Motion of "Urgency" shall be put without discussion or delay? If it is so, I wish to ask, whether it is not an inva- sion of the Order of this House if the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillwyn) puts a Question to the Prime Minister which will enable the Prime Minister to state his reasons for the Motion of "Urgency" he is about to make?

The hon. Member for Swansea having risen in his place and put certain Questions to the Prime Minister on certain points, I am not in a position to interpose.

Will the hon. Member for Swansea say at whose request he has put these Questions?

I will take care, Sir, to obviate the reasonable apprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), by confining myself in the strictest manner to matters of fact. It is not the case that the present demand for "urgency" is made, either wholly or partly, because the Government wish to reserve the time from Easter to Whitsuntide for legislation. It would be their duty to make the demand, if they had no wish on the subject of legislation, although we do desire to use some of the time in question for legislation. The change which we have made, which led to my reference to the subject, is that, in consequence of this desire, the Government have to ask for a Vote on Account for the Civil Service of 1881–2 for a longer period than we should otherwise have asked for it. I am asked, secondly, whether, if the Supplementary Estimates were passed on the 24th of March, the House would have any security that the law could be observed with regard to them, and I must say, in reply, that in the conviction of the Government the House can have no such security. I will not enter into details, which would be of a technical character; but I may be permitted to say, as a matter of fact, that during 20 years past the Votes for Supplementary Estimates have never been granted later than the 21st of March, and never but once so late as March 21—namely, in the year when the Government had very recently assumed Office. With regard to the third Question, I have to say that it is not usual to postpone the first Votes for the coming year, and the Ways and Means Act relating to them, until after the 31st of March. That Act has always been passed before March 31st, since the Exchequer and Audit Act was passed, and the stricter Rules came into practice. As to the fourth Question, I have to say that the original Estimates, of which the Supplementary Estimates represent the consequent result, were framed by the late Government, and were presented anew by the present Government, with, I think, one or two changes in some matters of detail. With regard to the last Question, whether, at the time of the Supplementary Budget of 1880, the Government were possessed of a trustworthy estimate of the expense of the Afghan War, the matter stands thus:—On the 5th of February, 1880, those expenses were estimated by the Indian Government at £5,500,000. On the 4th of May, 1880, they were estimated at a sum which it was stated would be nearly £10,000,000, and on the 1st of June the Government received a telegram from the Viceroy of India stating that the expenses would largely exceed £10,000,000.

I certainly do not rise, Sir, to attempt anything like a discussion; but I wish to put a Question upon one of the statements of the Prime Minister which is simply a matter of fact, upon which I do not think his answer was quite full. The right hon. Gentleman said he would not go into details as to the possibility of passing the Ways and Means Act on the 31st of March if the last Vote was taken in Supply on the 24th. I wish to ask him whether that is a correct statement as to what the course of Business might be if the last Vote was taken on the 24th? Assuming the last Vote to be taken on that day, and the Resolution in Ways and Means also taken on that day, would not the Supply Votes be reported on Friday, the 25th, and the Resolutions on Ways and Means be also reported on that day, and the Bill be brought in and read the first time? Would it not then be possible by sitting on Saturday—["Oh, oh!"]—well, I am suggesting it as a choice of evils—to read the Bill a second time? The Committee might then be taken on Monday, the 28th, the Bill be read a third time on the 29th, and be sent to the House of Lords and read a first time there; whether the House of Lords would not on the 30th pass the Bill through its remaining stage, so that it might receive the Royal Assent on Thursday, the 31st?

Sir, I will answer the Question of the right hon. Gentleman in detail. It is correct to say that we could take the stages mentioned on Thursday, the 24th, and Friday, the 25th. It is not, however, usual at this period of the year to sit on a Saturday, especially when Her Majesty's Cabinet were occupied in considering questions of peace and war of the utmost delicacy and anxiety, which are not of their seeking. No doubt, as regards the House, it is a matter of convenience or inconvenience; but the Government have to contemplate another state of things, in which the Ways and Means Bill might be made the subject of debate, occupying the day on Saturday; and certainly it would not be possible for Her Majesty's Government to discharge their duty at any meeting of the Cabinet that day. But, overlooking that, let us assume that the second reading of the Bill would take place on Saturday, the 26th. On Monday, the 28th, we might have the Committee on the Bill. On Tuesday, the 29th, we might have the third reading of the Bill; but the Government have no command of Tuesday, and we have no means of insuring that we should read the Bill a third time on Tuesday, the 29th, so as to send it to the House of Lords, that it may go through its first stage on that day. The next Question is, whether it should not be read a second time and passed through its remaining stages in the House of Lords on Wednesday, the 30th. Sir, I presume it might; but I know very well the practice of the House of Lords is not to sit on Wednesday. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: They sat to pass the Coercion Bill on a Wednesday.] At any rate, the Government have no right whatever to calculate upon any change being made in the practice of the House of Lords to suit the convenience of the House of Commons. ["Oh!"] The hon. Member who interrupts me will be pleased to allow me to finish my statement. We have no right whatever to calculate, and it would be most imprudent in us to calculate, on such changes in the practice of the House of Lords to meet the immediate difficulties which it might be said the House of Commons had the means of averting. But let me pass that over. The right hon. Gentleman then asks whether the Bill, having passed on the 30th, might not receive the Royal Assent on the 31st? What I have to say in reply is, that if it did not receive the Royal Assent on the 31st, the law could not be fulfilled, and the necessary transactions and communications between the Government and the Departments and the Banks of England and Ireland could not be carried out. That is my answer; and I hope it will be considered sufficiently clear by the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether he has received any report from South Africa confirming the telegram in the "Standard" of that day, to the effect that—

"The abolition of corporal punishment in the field is placing the military authorities in Natal in a very grave difficulty?"

Sir, I must appeal to the House whether the sending of a note to a Minister on this Bench, as to whether a telegram published in a newspaper is confirmed by information received by him, is not an extremely inconvenient course to adopt. The Question put to me is, whether the military authorities in South Africa are not placed in a certain difficulty by the abolition of corporal punishment? I presume the hon. Member, in his allusion to the abolition of corporal punishment, refers to the Act passed in 1879, which took away corporal punishment in certain cases. All I have to say is that I have read the telegram in The Standard, and we have received no similar telegram whatever.

, who had a Motion on the Paper—

"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Northampton, in the room of Charles Bradlaugh, esquire, who, since his election for the said Borough, has voted as a Member in the House of Commons in the said House, and has sat during a debate after the Speaker had been chosen without having made and subscribed the oath by Law appointed,"

I rise to declare, in my place, as a Minister of the Crown, That the Votes in Committee of Supply for Excesses for the service of the year 1879–80; for the several Supplementary and other Estimates for the service of the year 1880–81: Votes A and 1 for the Army, Vote 1 for the Navy, and the Vote on Account of the Civil Services, and Revenue Departments, for the service of the year 1881–2, now before the House are urgent; and that it is of importance to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay.

The Question not having been affirmed by a majority of three to one, as required by the Resolution of the 3rd February, I have to declare that the Question has not been resolved in the affirmative.

Sir, with regard to my second Notice—

"That, unless the House shall otherwise order, the Committee of Supply have precedence of all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motions, from day to day until the Votes declared urgent have been disposed of,"

I move, Sir, that you now leave the Chair, and in doing so I will only say that, the House having, for strong reasons, thought fit, with regard to the question of "urgency," to place the direction of its proceedings in the hands of the minority of the House, I, of course, accept and acquiesce in that decision. We shall now, Sir, allow the Motion to be made in the ordinary course, and I hope that hon. Gentleman in all quarters of the House will feel a disposition to expedite as far as they can the proceedings in and connected with Supply. As far as the Government are concerned, it will be our duty, of course, to watch the progress that may be made, only reserving our own discretion and liberty to make hereafter whatever proposals we may think may be required by the honour and dignity of the House, and by the convenience and necessity of Public Business.

, who had on the Paper a Notice of Motion—

"That a Select Committee of this House be appointed to consider the working of 'The Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Improvement Act, 1875,' and the amending Act of 1879, with a view of considering how the expense of carrying out these Acts may be reduced, and also of inquiring into any causes which may have prevented the reconstruction of dwellings for the Artisan Class to the full extent contemplated and authorised by these Acts, and of recommending such Amendments as may be most expedient for carrying out the full intention of these Acts, and also to consider the working of the Metropolitan Streets Improvement Acts, 1872 and 1877, with the same objects,"

, who had given Notice that he would call attention to proceedings in Committee on the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill on Tuesday, March 8th, with regard to Order, and move—

"That Mr. Chairman of Committees was under an erroneous impression in informing the Committee that the Member for Dungarvan was disregarding the authority of the Chair,"