asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the fact that the Warrington magistrates recently fined six persons £1 16s. 6d. each (including costs) under section 29 of the Vaccination Act, which section applies only to children under twelve months' old, whereas the children in question were from three to six years old; whether this is not illegal and, whether he will direct that the fines be remitted?

, in reply, said, he only received this morning the facts of the case. It appeared that, as his hon. Friend stated, the conviction took place under the 29th section of the Vaccination Act, instead of the 31st, and the conviction, considering the age of the children, was, therefore, irregular. He would inquire into the matter, and see what was to be done with reference to the fines.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the attendance of paid officials of the Government at meetings of the Landlords' Property Defence Association or Emergency Committee has the sanction and approval of the Irish Executive; and, if not, what notice has been taken of the presence at such meeting of Mr. Eaton, Resident Magistrate, Mr. Rice, Crown Prosecutor, and Mr. Fleming, Sub-inspector, at Fermoy, county Cork, on the 7th instant?

, in reply, said, he understood that neither Mr. Eaton, Resident Magistrate, nor Mr. Fleming, Sub-inspector, attended any such meeting as the hon. Member alluded to. Mr. Rice, Crown Prosecutor, informed him that, as a private individual, he attended a private meeting of gentlemen interested in the Property Defence Association. He did not think the matter called for the attention of the Government.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the course of an inquiry now being held on "Inland Navigation and Drainage in Ireland," it has been found that the powers of the Commissioners do not enable them sufficiently to investigate the complaint laid before them, in regard to the serious damage caused by the flooding of the Valley of the Upper Bann, and the lands adjoining Lough Neah and its tributaries; and, whether he will advise Her Majesty to enlarge the scope and powers of the Commissioners, and provide the Commissioners with the assistance of a competent hydraulic engineer for the purpose of reporting on a proposal placed before them, to discharge the surplus water by way of Newry?

The Commission referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend was appointed to inquire into the Northern inland navigations of Ireland and their effect upon the drainage of the country. In a preliminary Report, the Commissioners asked for fresh powers to examine into the practicability and expense of a new plan for improving the drainage of the Valley of the Upper Bann entirely independent of the navigations. This proposal appeared to the Treasury to be outside the scope of the inquiry intrusted to the Commission, which, in itself, is large enough to be likely to occupy much time. It further appeared that the proposal was one which should rather be dealt with under the General Drainage Acts. It was, therefore, decided not to extend the scope of the inquiry intrusted to the Commission.

asked the Secretary of State for India, If it is true that the permission given in 1878 by the India Office to the Indian Government to obtain by open tender in India the necessary stores for the Stationery Office for the Bengal Presidency have been suddenly cancelled from England; and, if so, upon what grounds?

The permission which the noble Lord probably refers to was intended to encourage the purchase in India of articles manufactured in that country, or usually procurable in the local market, of satisfactory quality and price. But when stores are of such a nature that they have to be purchased in England, the demand should be forwarded to and dealt with by the India Office. More precise instructions to this effect were sent to India in May, 1880, and were adopted by the Government of India in a Resolution dated November, 1880. No other instructions on this subject have recently been sent to India.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a man named Clarke was on Thursday May 12th arrested without warrant at Mullingar on a charge of carrying an alleged illegal placard; if four magistrates at once proceeded to sentence the man to a month's imprisonment unless he found bail for good behaviour for six months; if it was only on the protest of Mr. Downes, prisoner's solicitor, that the magistrates consented to remand the charge to petty sessions; if the magistrates had power to adjudicate as they proposed out of sessions; and, if they they had not, will he take steps to insure that justice shall be done in similar cases in which prisoners may not be able to provide themselves with legal defence?

I am informed that this case was disposed of at the Petty Sessions. I am also informed that the magistrates have jurisdiction to ask for sureties for good behaviour; but, as this is a legal point, perhaps the hon. Member, if he wishes for further information, will ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland.

I will do so.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the present Governor of the County Limerick Prison is the same Governor whose conduct was brought before this House in 1869 (by the late George Henry Moore) for insulting and persecuting political prisoners under his charge; and, if so, why the County Limerick Prison was selected for the same purpose on the present occasion?

The Governor of the Limerick County Prison has held that office since 1862; therefore I imagine that he was Governor when the late Mr. Moore brought forward his Motion in 1869. The prison was selected-firstly, on the ground of the general convenience of the situation; and, secondly, because of its suitability in the way of internal accommodation.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the present Governor was not the same person who was Governor when the hon. Member for the county of Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan) underwent atrocious treatment in the prison?

requested the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of his Question.

said, the right hon. Gentleman knew very well that it was the same person. ["Order!"]

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, as it is not denied that Colonel Valentine Baker after his conviction of a far graver offence than any which the Irish coercion prisoners are merely suspected of, was not prevented from receiving such English, Irish, Colonial, and Foreign newspapers, illustrated or otherwise, as he chose to pay for; and further, as it is not denied that English prisoners charged with offences however grave are while awaiting trial allowed to receive such papers as are sent to them, the Irish prison officials will in future be instructed not to stop such publications as the "Echo," the "Newcastle Chronicle," the "Graphic," the "Illustrated London News," the "Nation," the "Irishman," when they are forwarded by friends to the political prisoners in Irish goals who are merely detained on suspicion; and, if he will state by whose orders these papers have hitherto been stopped?

I can only repeat what I have before stated in answer to this Question—namely, that the Irish Government have given orders that prisoners detained under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act shall be allowed to receive the Dublin daily papers and the papers sent them from their own localities. I do not think there is any necessity for modifying that rule.

Perhaps the right lion. Gentleman will answer the latter part of the Question.

I really have answered it. Of course, my answer implies that it is by our sanction. In fact, I am quite willing to state that it is done by our orders.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government regard the Treaty extorted by General Bréard from the Bey of Tunis on the 13th instant as consistent with the declarations of M. Saint Hilaire previously reported to this House as to the intended object and limits of the French Expedition to Tunis; and, if not, whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to protest against so grave a violation of International Law as this forcible imposition of a French Suzerainty on the Regency indisputably constitutes; and, whether the said Treaty, so extorted, will in any way, and to what extent, affect the rights and privileges secured to Foreigners residing in, or trading to, Tunis, under the existing capitulations and Treaties between the Sublime Porte and the European Powers? The following Question on the same subject also stood on the Notice Paper in the name of the Earl of BECTIVE:—To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, seeing that if Her Majesty's Government considered Tunis to be under the suzerainty of the Sultan, and no final Treaty could therefore be entered into by the Bey without ratification by the Sublime Porte, Her Majesty's Government, in accord with the terms of the Berlin Treaty and the Anglo-Turkish Convention, would prevent the insertion of clauses in any French Treaty with the Bey which might undermine the authority of the Sultan, or interfere with the rights of other nations under Treaties with the Ottoman Porte, or its suzerain the Bey; also to ask, if Her Majesty's Government will protest against the permanent occupation by the French of the Ports of Bizerta, Susa, and Gabes, inasmuch as such occupation would menace our communications with the East; if Her Majesty's Government will protest against any terms being forced upon the Bey winch would interfere with the proper representation of British and Italian interests in the composition of the International Financial Commission which at present exists at Tunis; and, if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to prevent the imposition of a protective tariff in Tunis against the introduction of British manufactures which at present constitute the principle European import trade in that Country?

I conclude that the Questions of the hon. Member for Wicklow County and the noble Lord the Member for 'Westmoreland were put on the Paper before the conversation yesterday on the affairs of Tunis. I then stated that it appeared the more convenient course to defer any discussion of particular points until the whole of the case was submitted to this House in the Papers which will shortly be laid before Parliament, and in this view the majority of the House will no doubt agree. If hon. Members are not satisfied with those Papers, they will then have the opportunity of submitting a Motion upon the subject. With regard to the noble Lord's Questions, I would point out that the Anglo-Turkish Convention contained no reference to the dominion of Turkey in Africa, and we have not heard that the French troops are in the neighbourhood of Susa or Gabes.

asked how far the existing Treaties would be operative?

I do not wish to be drawn into further answers by further Questions. We have not yet got an official communication of the text of the Treaty; but we have been informed by the French Government that they have exercised the utmost care that the rights and privileges secured to foreigners under existing Treaties shall continue to exist.

asked for an answer to the third paragraph of ins second Question with regard to preventing the imposition of a protective tariff in Tunis against the introduction of British manufactures?

That paragraph is partly covered by the answer I gave. The existing Treaties with Tunis will undoubtedly continue in force.

asked whether the Capitulations would continuo in force?

I must ask the hon. Member to give Notice of his Question.

I will put the Question on Thursday.

May I ask on what footing the Treaty with Tunis stands?

Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

Perhaps the hon. Baronet will inform the House whether there is any truth in the statement that General Bréard on the 15th instant occupied the city of Tunis with a large body of troops under the direct orders of the French Government that he was to remain there until His Highness the Bey had distinctly stated that his protest to the Porte, to the effect that he signed the Treaty under protest, was revoked?

We have not heard of any occupation of the city of Tunis by French troops; but they are just outside.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the officers of the Coast Brigade Royal Artillery, by the abolition of the lieutenant-colonelcy of the brigade, have been debarred. from rising in the regiment beyond the rank of captain; if, on the recommendation of Lord Morley's Committee, one majority only is proposed to be granted to the whole of the brigade; and, whether, taking into consideration the fact that the Coast Brigade is the only opening for master gunners and superior noncommissioned officers to the combatant commissioned ranks in a regiment numbering 34,000 men, he would, before the publication of the new warrant, be prepared to consider the concessions sought by the officers of the Coast Brigade, viz.:—The granting of four majorities, inclusive of present establishment (the proportion granted to the Royal Marine Artillery); and the revival of the lieutenant-colonelcy?

In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I really must appeal to him to consider whether it is desirable that specific proposals for increase of establishments, involving large additional expenditure, should be pressed on me by an independent Member in the House of Commons. I should not so much deprecate a general Question asking me if I had inquired into the organization of any particular corps; but it is very difficult to exercise economical control in these matters in the face of elaborate claims of this kind put forward in Questions to Ministers. As to the particular case of the Coast Brigade, I have to remind my hon. Friend that the officers and men are under the orders of the officers commanding the Artillery of their respective districts; and I can see no reason for granting to these particular officers, who have not received a scientific education, like the other officers of Artillery, higher ranks than that now enjoyed. We are, as my hon. Friend's Question shows that he is aware, adding one majority to the establishment, which, since 1872, has consisted of captains and lieutenants.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will cause inquiries to be made as to the sufficiency of the boat and life-saving accommodation supplied to emigrant ships sailing from Queenstown and other ports for America and Canada?

I have made inquiries on the subject of the Question, and I find that the size and number of life-boats and the character of the lifesaving apparatus in emigrant ships are already prescribed by statute. I have no doubt that the provisions of the statute are strictly observed in every case, and I believe that no emigrant ship leaves port until after inspection by an emigrant agent, as well as by a representative of the Board of Trade. As to the sufficiency of the statutory provisions, I can only say that, so far as I am informed, they are sufficient and, in fact, as extensive as would be practicable or desirable in all circumstances.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he has had his attention called to that portion of Mr. Wright's Report on the Pen-y-Graig Explosion, in which he states the following with respect to Moses Rowlands, the manager of that colliery, viz.:—

"The nominal manager of the colliery is Moses Rowlands, a nephew of one of the proprietors. He has had no experience in the working of steam coal, except for a short time as a boy of 10 or 12 years of age. The following is his history:—Born in 1843, he from 10 to 12 years of his age cut coal at Aberdare and Rhondda; then he did clerk's work at Gwendraeth Colliery for about five years (18:55 to 1860). He was then at a national school for some time. He was then at a house coal (not steam coal) colliery at Pen-y-Graig belonging to his uncle for 13 or 14 years (1861 to 1873) as a clerk, storekeeper, and measurer, principally at book work, and, as he expressly stated, not engaged in the practical duties of mine managing. In 1873 he went to assist his father, the certificated manager of another house coal colliery at Pen-y-Graig. He remained there five years, holding no regular office as manager, overman, fireman, or otherwise. In 1878 he came to the Naval Steam Coal Colliery (where the explosion now in question occurred), of which his uncle was and is a proprietor; and he has been the certificated manager from then till now. He obtained his certificate, not by examination, but by a certificate under section 31 of the Act, signed by the Secretary of State, to the effect that he had within five years before the passing of this Act (the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872) acted for not less than 12 months in the capacity of a manager of a mine.' This certificate, if the foregoing history as told by him is true, was entirely false, and he must have known it to be false, inasmuch as according to his own showing he did not begin to act in any capacity as manager of a mine, even as his father's assistant, until 1873; and the proprietors of the colliery, or some of them, must have known it to be false. This manager appears to have brought himself within the provisions of section 38 of the Coal Mines Regulation Act, by which the use of a false certificate with knowledge of its falsity is a misdemeanour punishable with two years' hard labour. The proprietors of the colliery are equally liable to punishment if they were accessory to the nephew's offence. One at least of the proprietors (the manager's uncle) took an active part in the affairs of the colliery;"

and, whether, considering that the Commissioner charges him with fraudulently obtaining his certificate, and for such offence he is liable to two years' hard labour, he will direct that his certificate be at once withdrawn, or he be tried for an offence in the ordinary course of Law?

, in reply, said, that he had been in communication with Mr. Wright on this subject, and the hon. Member was aware that the Government had carefully considered what course should be taken in regard to it. A prosecution had been instituted against the manager with a view to revoke his certificate for misconduct and negligence. The prosecution failed, and he was absolved. In those circumstances, considering the whole character of that case, he did not think it would be right to go back to anterior proceedings six or seven years ago, and institute another prosecution, which he did not think was likely to succeed. The Government could not undertake a second prosecution in that case. He had, however, given instructions that a special inspection of that mine should be made, and a particular Report be made to him as to the present management.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For what reason the Queen's County has been proclaimed under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act; and, if it be true that Patrick Meehan, Patrick Doran, and John Redington, of Maryborough, in the Queen's County, have been arrested under the provisions of the said Act; and, if so, on what reasonable suspicion?

, in reply, said, the only answer he could give to that Question was that, after very careful consideration, the Government had acted on their responsibility, and had thought it necessary to proclaim that county for the prevention of outrages. The hon. Member asked him on what reasonable suspicion certain persons had been arrested. He could not give the precise words of the arrest, and he would not like to make any mistake. Of course, the Papers would be laid on the Table in the usual form; and if the hon. Gentleman wished him to read the warrant, of course he should do so.

said, that he wished to make a few remarks on this subject, and would therefore conclude with a Motion. He was well acquainted with the inconvenience of these Motions of Adjournment; but he was compelled to take the course which he was now doing in consequence of the Chief Secretary having; refused to state the grounds on which the Queen's County had been proclaimed. He had a Return in his hand from which it appeared that within the last four months there had only been six agrarian crimes in the Queen's County. There was no other county in the British Empire where there had been less crime committed than during the last four months in the Queen's County. To show the manner in which the Coercion Act was now worked, he would only refer to one case, that of a burning which took place in his own neighbourhood a short time since. For that a man named Lalor was arrested on suspicion, although there was not the slightest evidence against him to go before a Court. The very fact of this man's arrest would establish the fact that the burning was a malicious one, and would thus play into the hands—

rose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in debating a question on a Motion for Adjournment, when he had raised the same point on a similar Motion two or three days ago?

When the hon. Member spoke on this question, the Motion before the House was that the House do now adjourn. That Question was disposed of, and I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member is, strictly speaking, out of Order now, although, as I have often said, this is a most inconvenient course to pursue.

said, that the proclamation of the Queen's County was playing into the hands of the landlords. He was very well aware—and in the Queen's County they were very well aware—on whose recommendation the Queen's County had been proclaimed. It was on the recommendation of the magistrates, and he would give the House a sample of those gentlemen. In January last, six respectable young men who were collecting subscriptions for the Land League were summoned before the magistrates at Petty Sessions, and although the persons whom they had solicited swore that they had not been intimidated, the magistrates disregarded the evidence, and convicted the accused. The assistant barrister reversed the decision on appeal, and now two of those men had been arrested merely to vindicate the magistrates' unjust decision. These men were respectable merchants in Maryborough, and yet the police went to their houses at 2 o'clock in the morning, broke in their doors, and only gave them five minutes to dress before they took them to gaol. One of them had a large sum of money in the house, and he had no time to secure it before he was taken to the station and conveyed to gaol. He asked was that right or honourable treatment for respectable men? He said it was unjust and cruel. On what grounds were these men arrested? The right hon. Gentleman bad refused to answer that question; but he would tell them he had a copy of the Warrant, which he would read.

I submit, Sir, that the matter which the hon Member is placing before the House has nothing to do with the Motion for Adjournment; and I hope the House will not allow any important matter such as this may be to be introduced when the House itself has no opportunity of expressing an opinion thereon.

May I ask, Sir, is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Montague Guest) moved the adjournment of the House yesterday on the question of Tunis, which was a much more important matter than that now under consideration? I would also ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member for London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) is entitled persistently to interrupt the hon. Member, at the same time skilfully endeavouring to conceal the fact by putting his Notice Paper before his mouth?

having made no reply,

, resuming, denied that these three gentleman bad ever committed a breach of the peace of the kind alleged against them. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman to go down to that place and hear the case, even from the policemen and magistrates from whom he was getting his instructions in this matter. He challenged him to bring the matter to trial, and he would find that he was thoroughly deceived by the local authorities in Maryborough. He believed the arrest of these men was intended by the right hon. Gentleman as a blow at the Land League; but the best weapon the right hon. Gentleman could make use of against the Land League would be the introduction of a good Land Bill, which the Bill at present before the House was not. ["Order!"]

The hon. Member is not entitled to refer to the Land Bill, which is not now before the House.

said, he did not intend to refer to it any further; but he would advise the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to be cautious. There were men in Ireland connected with the Land League who were anxiously waiting for the time when the present leaders should be removed. These men were not the friends of the landlords or the friends of the Government; but they were men who thought the present leaders were not sufficiently advanced, and who would be more likely to give trouble to the right hon. Gentleman than the men who now guided the movement. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman, before he made further arrests in the Queen's County, to go down there and inquire, not from the landlord side of the question, nor from the officials from whom he was getting information, but to hold an inquiry in public, where he could have the members of the Land League and their accusers face to face. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.

, in seconding the Motion, wished to bear testimony to the fact that there was not a particle of evidence against the men who had been arrested to sustain the charge of intimidation. The case had come before him and his brother magistrates on appeal, and was investigated with the greatest care. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— (Mr. Lalor.)

wished to state his belief that the number of arrests which had taken place in Ireland, and the character of those arrests, were creating not merely irritation, but exasperation in that country. He wished to tell the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Forster) that if he went on in this line of action he and the Irish landlords would produce an insurrection in Ireland. Question put. The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 317: Majority 294.—(Div. List, No. 204.)

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If he was aware on March 14th that the consideration of a Motion involving the Whole question of Ministerial policy in Central Asia was fixed for the 24th of that month; if so, if he can explain the reason of the delay from March 14 to March 17 in requesting the assent of the Russian Government to the publication of the important papers contained in Parliamentary Paper (Central Asia, No. 3, 1881); if he can explain the delay between March 21st and 24th in communicating the Russian assent to such publication to the Under Secretary of State directly responsible to Parliament for the conduct of Foreign Affairs; and, if he can state to the House the reasons, if any, which precluded the communica- tion to Parliament of the intelligence conveyed in the last two Despatches of that Parliamentary Paper in time to place the House in possession of the information used by Her Majesty's Government in the discussion of the Motion relative to the retention of Candahar?

I gave very full information upon this subject yesterday to the House. My answer must be that there was no such delay as that with regard to which the hon. Member asks. I stated yesterday that the document reached the Foreign Office on the night of the 21st, and that it was seen and the immediate publication of the Paper ordered on the morning of the 22nd. It then, as I explained, had to start on its usual round before it came to me. When he asks me the reason which prevented communication to Parliament of the last two despatches, I must reply once more that no reason whatever prevented it, that every possible haste was shown, and that no haste would have produced the last despatch in time, as it was only written after the debate was over.

asked whether any further news had been received from Basutoland?

In reply to the hon. Member for the City, who has always taken so strong an interest in the, Basutos, I am happy to say that Hercules Robinson has now telegraphed that Letsea, Lerothodi, and 10 others have accepted his award. Masupha did not sign the letter; but we do not know that he has declined to accept the award.

asked if it was the intention of the Government to press forward this Bill to-night, and why it was placed on the Paper every day, including those of private Members, which was a most inconvenient course?

considered the course referred to an inconvenient one; but it had appeared to hint necessary in the circumstances of the case. The Bill had first been introduced as a Private Bill, in the hope of saving the time of the House. In deference to opinions expressed by lion. Members on both sides of the House, it subsequently was introduced as a public measure. The re-introduction of the Bill was, however, deferred for three weeks in consequence of the Notices of opposition of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton); but having managed to catch the hon. and learned Member napping, he at last succeeded in introducing the measure. The second reading might have been taken on Friday; but in deference to the wishes of hon. Members opposite he undertook not to begin the discussion after 12 30. The Bill was then put down for Monday, and Notices of opposition were at once given by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence). There was, therefore, no other course for him to pursue than to put down the Bill in the Order Paper day after day. If the opposition to the House being called upon to give a verdict on the measure could be overcome, he would put the Bill down for an evening that would be convenient to those interested.

Under the circumstances stated by the President of the, Board of Trade, I will agree to remove my block to the Bill.

said, He wished to ask the Speaker a Question respecting the privileges of an hon. Member of the House. The Speaker had ruled that Mr. Bradlaugh's expulsion—notwithstanding the Resolution that was arrived at on the 26th of April, declaring that he could not take an oath, and notwithstanding also the Resolution based on the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) that he must be prevented entering the House—could be made, a question of Privilege. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) had raised the point, and it had been held that he had a right to do so. Now, Mr. Dillon was a duly qualified Member of the Legislature. He had committed no offence. He had not been put upon his trial; he had not been con- demned: he had simply been arrested on suspicion. He was apprehended, too, while on his way to take his seat in Parliament. What he wanted to know from the Speaker was, whether Mr. Dillon's case stood in the same category as Mr. Bradlaugh's, and could be treated as a question of Privilege? He knew the Speaker had ruled that the essence of Privilege consisted in its urgency; but he begged to remind him that immediately the fact of Mr. Dillon's arrest was made known to the House, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and other Irish Gentlemen started a discussion on the subject, and they only abandoned it when the Government gave an undertaking that there should be an opportunity for debating the whole question. That opportunity had not been afforded; and what he wished to know was, whether the matter could be recurred to in the way that Mr. Bradlaugh's case had been recurred to, and be brought up as a question of Privilege?

With regard to this question of the arrest of Mr. Dillon, the Government has been guilty of a distinct breach of their own promises. On Notice being given by an hon. Member, calling attention to the arrest, the Government declined to give us any opportunity of bringing it forward. ["Order!"] I think I am speaking to the point raised by my hon. Friend—namely, that this remains a question of urgency to us because of the action of the Government, for when we brought the matter forward in an irregular manner the Government challenged us to bring it to the test of a Motion. Yet the very day after that distinct statement of the Government, when my hon. Friend asked for facilities, the Government took advantage of the Forms of the House again. Accordingly, if we have not been able to bring it forward as a matter of urgency, the responsibility is on the Government, not us.

I also wish to ask whether it would not be greatly for the convenience of the House that the Government should afford some opportunity to the Irish Members of discussing the question of the arrests made under the Coercion Act? I certainly regret very much that the question should have been raised in an irregular way, as it was yesterday, and again to- day, but I cannot wonder that this should have happened; and I would ask you for smite expression of opinion as to whether it would not be a desirable step to take, with the view of preventing irregular debates from springing up, which it was natural should spring up in the absence of any means of bringing these very important matters before the House, for the Government to give once for all one day to the Irish Members, for the purpose of bringing up the whole question of the 100 or so arrests made under the Coercion Act?

The hon. Member for the City of Cork has put to me a Question in reference to my opinion upon a matter not now before the House. The hon. Member must be aware that it is not for the Chair to express an opinion except upon points of Order. With regard to the Question of Order put to me by the hon. Member for Newcastle, I have to say this—that Mr. Dillon, one of the Members for the county of Tipperary, has been committed to prison for some time under an Act of Parliament passed this Session, and I am asked whether any Motion on that matter would be treated as a question of Privilege? I have no hesitation in saying that any Motion bearing on Mr. Dillon's arrest, seeing that he has been for some time in prison, and that urgency does not apply, could not, according to the practice of the House, be treated as a question of Privilege. Any Motion brought forward on that matter must be brought forward in the ordinary way.

said, he would on Thursday next ask the Prime Minister, Whether, seeing that Acts of Parliament had been passed for the purpose of relieving two noble Lords from the penalty which they had incurred last Session for having sat in the House of Lords without having taken the usual Oath, it was the intention of the Government to propose a similar measure of relief in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh?

wished to put a Question to the Speaker with reference to the proceedings of the House. He desired to know, Whether, acting on the precedent which had been set by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, it would be competent for any hon. Member to make a similar Motion for the purpose of ascertaining the orthodoxy of the theological views of Mr. Thomas Collins when he presented himself at the Table to take the Oath?

The Question put to me is on a point of Order which has not arisen, and, therefore, I decline to answer it.

rose to move the following Resolutions:—

"That the present Standing Orders be abrogated, altered, or amended, in so far as they may be inconsistent with the following New Orders:—

1. That Debate on a Bill shall be confined to the following stages: second Reading: Committee; Consideration of Report; Third Reading.

2. In the course of any Debate it shall be competent for any Member, the consent of Mr. Speaker having been first had and obtained, to move that the Question be put forthwith, and the decision of the House shall be at once taken without further Debate: if resolved in the affirmative, the Question before the House shall be put forthwith; if resolved in the negative, no similar Motion shall be allowed on the same Question before two hours have elapsed. Provided always that not less than 150 Members shall vote in the majority.

3. It during any Debate a Motion be made for Adjournment, Mr. Speaker may decline to put the Question thereupon, if in his judgment the Motion is made for purposes of obstruction: or if he think fit to put such Question, he may put it from the Chair forthwith.

4. When a Motion is made for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House during any Debate, the Debate thereupon shall be strictly confined to the matter of such Motion.

5. Mr. Speaker may call the attention of the House to continued irrevelance or tedious repetition on the part of a Member, and may direct the Member to discontinue his Speech.

6. On Motion made, the House may decide that any Bill shall be resumed in the ensuing Session of the same Parliament at the same stage at which it stands at the end of the current Session.

7. Any Member suspended from the service of the House, in accordance with the Order of February 28th, 1880, shall be suspended from Moving and Speaking for a week at the first offence, and for the remainder of the Session at the second, but shall retain the power of voting. It shall nevertheless he in the power of the House upon Motion made to reinstate such Member in the full service of the House, but such Motion in respect of any Member shall be made only once in the course of the Session.

Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5, shall apply, mutatis mutandis, to proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

In Committee.

S. Amendments not on the Notice Paper shall only be moved by a Member in charge of the the Bill."

In commending the Resolutions to the House, the hon. Member said, that there was an impression abroad, and even among Members, that year after year the House of Commons was growing less and less able to grapple with the accumulation of Business upon it, and a feeling was getting up in the country that the House of Commons was becoming incompetent for the work put upon it. He regretted that feeling should exist with regard to this Legislative Chamber, in which he had spent the best part of his life. Various suggestions had been made with the object of affording the House some relief in the discharge of its duties. Among other proposals that had been made was one by which the Business was to be apportioned under certain heads and handed over to Special Committees; but that was an objectionable course, in his opinion, because he thought that the Business of the country should be done by the Representatives of the nation, and not by mere Committees. He was satisfied that by a mere alteration in the old Standing Orders of the House, which had remained unchanged for years, they would be able to get through their Business easily. The hindrances to satisfactory legislative progress arose, in his opinion, from three main causes—first of all, that they had too many unnecessary Forms in which they allowed questions brought before the House to be debated; second, useless and unnecessary discussion, due perhaps to the increased interest taken in Parliamentary proceedings by the constituencies, and Members being anxious to show that they were "somebody" in the House; and, third, and paramount of all, the abuse of the Rules instituted for the purpose of protecting the rights of private Members. Instead, however, of those Rules being used to enable the minority to protect their own rights, they had enabled the minority to prevent the majority carrying out measures which they deemed to be necessary, and, in fact, to wage war with the country through the Forms of the House. He admitted that he had on occasions taken part in obstructive tactics; but that was at the end and not at the beginning of the Session, because, in his opinion, that which was Obstruction at the beginning and at the middle of a Session sometimes became a duty at its end, when Bills could not be properly considered. Tracing the recent development of Obstruction, he referred to the "All-night" Sitting in 1877 over that very important question, the Confederation of South Africa—a measure which his hon. Friends the present Under Secretary for the Home Department (Mr. Courtney), the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain), did their best in assisting the Irish to obstruct. If they had succeeded in throwing out that Bill, he believed that many of the evils which had since arisen in South Africa would have been prevented. He and they, however, did not then carry Obstruction to the extent of going on with it all night; and he believed that the angry feeling engendered by the obstruction of certain Members who persevered in it prevented the fair consideration being given to the objections urged against that measure which they would otherwise have received. The course of procedure which was adopted in that Session resulted in the appointment of a Committee to reconsider the Rules which regulated the procedure of the House. This Committee made several suggestions, some of which were adopted; but they had not proved sufficient to restore perfect order to the debates in that House. Notwithstanding the fact that the House in the present Session had been sitting since early in the month of January, hardly anything had been done in the interest of the country; indeed, no measures had been passed except such as were, speaking in general terms, thoroughly and heartily disliked. The Government had proposed certain measures in reference to the state of Ireland, and he had great faith in the wisdom of the Government; but he saw little chance of their measures passing at an early period as long as the present method of conduct- ing the Business of the House was maintained. For the reasons which he had stated he asked the House to pass a series of Resolutions, the first of which would have the effect of limiting the occasions on which any measure could be discussed and, if any hon. Member thought fit, obstructed by the methods with which the House had become acquainted. The second Resolution was an important one. If passed, it would enable any hon. Member, with the assent of the Speaker, to move that the question should be forthwith put and the decision of the House be forthwith taken; and it provided that, if resolved in the affirmative, the question should be then put, provided that not less than 150 Members should vote in the majority. He put the number at 150 with a view to prevent a small majority at the end of the Session, when the House was weary and few Members were in town, being possessed of undue power. The requirement, however, that 150 at least should vote in the majority would, he thought, secure a sufficient expression of opinion to justify the carrying out of the Rule. The next three Resolutions had already been in operation. They had been framed by Mr. Speaker as "Urgency" Rules, and he thought they might well be incorporated with the Standing Orders of the House. The sixth Resolution might be regarded as an innovation; but he thought its adoption would load to a practical and important improvement in their procedure. His principal object in framing that Resolution was to enable Bills to be passed which never could be carried in any other way, at least as perfect measures—he alluded to Bills relating to Law Reform, to Merchant Shipping, and such like. Measures such as these were either dropped altogether, or were hurried through the House at the end of the Session without much consideration. The House would, he thought, agree with him that it would be far better that such measures should receive full and free discussion before they were passed, and that could not be secured without some such provision as he suggested in his Resolution. It would, he was sure, lead to better legislation than they were able to secure under the present system. The seventh Resolution provided that a Member suspended from the service of the House should be suspended from moving and speaking for a week at the first offence, and for the remainder of the Session at the second, but should retain the power of voting. It was, he considered, unfair to his constituents to deprive an offending Member of the power of voting. The Resolution then provided for the re-instatement of the Member in the full service of the House upon Motion made and carried, such Motion, however, in reference to the same Member to be made once only in the course of the Session. The eighth and last Resolution provided that Amendments in Committee which did not appear on the Paper could only be moved by a Member in charge of the Bill. Its adoption would prevent the passing hurriedly and without due consideration of Amendments in Committee. There would he some guarantee obtained that the Amendments of which no Notice had been given were really improvements of the Bill if the hon. Member who had the Bill in charge approved of them. Such were the Resolutions he proposed; and he did not doubt that the result of their being agreed to would restore to the House the power of prosecuting the Business of the country which they had, he might say, lost. They were now, practically, unable to carry out the views of the majority in the country, because it was in the power of a small minority to thwart their efforts to do so. He trusted the Government would accept the proposals he made. They had the power in their own hands of doing so. He did not say that the Resolutions were perfect; but this he could assert—that he had heard far more objections to their not going far enough than he had to their going too far. He was convinced that if they could restore to the House the power it formerly exercised over its own Business, they would have done a good and an important work. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That Debate on a Bill shall be confined to the following occasions: Second Reading; Committee; Consideration of Report: Third Reading."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)

, in rising to move the adjournment of the debate, said, the House would no doubt be of opinion that the subject of the alteration of their Rules was one of serious consequence, and ought not to be agreed to without very grave consideration. He had al- ways been of opinion that any alteration of the Rules of the House should be the subject of careful inquiry by a strong Select Committee, or that Her Majesty's Government should take upon themselves the responsibility of recommending alterations of the Rules to the House. He moved the adjournment of the debate for this reason—that he thought the Government in such a case as the present might reasonably and properly be looked to to guide the House; and that, if they saw the necessity for alteration, it was for them, after due consideration, to propose to the House such Rules as they thought were required for the better conduct of their proceedings. A short time ago, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell), the Prime Minister truly said that there had been a number of Committees on the subject, and that in their Reports and the Evidence they had taken there was all the information that was required for dealing with it. He gathered from the answer that, when the pressure of Business was somewhat diminished, the Government were prepared to submit some proposals; and he therefore moved the adjournment of the debate, in order that they might wait to hear what the proposals of the Government were. He was, however, surprised at the transformation exhibited by the hon. Member for Swansea, recollecting the course he pursued on this subject when sitting on the opposite Benches. He was disappointed that the virtue of the hon. Member had not been sufficient to resist the disposition to give to a Liberal Government and majority powers he refused to concede to a Conservative Government. For himself, he did not look at the question at all in that light. It was a curious psychological study to watch the hon. Member coming forward as the apostle of Rules far more stringent than had been proposed before, bat occasionally betraying that leaven of sympathy which still existed in his mind with the usages of an active minority in Opposition. In his Resolutions he had taken a course entirely different from what might have been expected of him. It might have been. supposed that he would have based his Resolution on the Report of the last Select Committee, which had only one fault, and that was that it was too representative of the Front Benches. But they had the advantage of hearing the views of the Speaker and of the Clerk at the Table, and they recommended various modes of improving the Business arrangements of the House. The hon. Member had adopted the recommendations they did not make, and had ignored those they did make. Therefore, to adopt his proposals would be to vote want of confidence in the Committee and in preceding Committees. Immediately after the inquiry of the Select Committee of 1878, the Leader of the present Opposition submitted several Resolutions which, for the most part, followed the recommendations of the Committee, and exhibited patience under criticism and Obstruction, one of the main Obstructionists being the hon. Member for Swansea. He said he would not offer Obstruction at the beginning of the Session, but it was justifiable at the end. But the right hon. Gentleman submitted his Resolutions at the commencement of the Session. The object of one of them was to prevent Motions on going into Committee of Supply, which often interfered with the progress of Public Business; but the hon. Member for Swansea objected strongly to it, and he had not included it among his proposals. The hon. Member, however, had submitted what he called a qualified clôture; but, if it were a qualified clôture, he should like to know what an unqualified clôture was. In the Committee of 1878 it received the support of two Members against 13, the two being Mr. Knatchbull - Hugessen and Mr. Sampson Lloyd. If it had been proposed in the last Parliament, he would answer for it that the hon. Member for Swansea would have sat up all night opposing it; and he would have done the same, but he had not altered his opinion because he sat on the other side of the House. He could not understand such a change of opinion on the part of Members who appreciated the fact that great questions had to be fought out by minorities—[Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!]—and that the public mind had to be educated by discussions, often of interminable length, such as occurred in the struggle for Free Trade. His hon. Friend asked the House to pass a Resolution which would, in fact, strangle minorities. Now, why did his hon. Friend propose these Rules? Because they had in their midst Mem- bers who were amongst them, but not of them. So long as the Forms of the House were used by Members representing English and Scotch constituencies, subject to the public opinion of this country, there was no danger of those Forms being pressed beyond the point which could be considered as justifiable; but there were on the Benches opposite a number of Members who did not represent the public opinion of England. They represented the public opinion of Ireland; they came here as a hostile body; they were prepared to stretch the Forms of the House because they were not concerned in maintaining its reputation and arrangements; it was a House they had no sympathy with, and, therefore, they were prepared to abuse its Forms as far as they could. A great part of this Session had been spent in withdrawing the liberties of the people of Ireland and in accordance with the desires of the Opposition. Could it be wondered at that a minority of Irish Members, representing a people uncontrolled by English public opinion, had strained the Forms of the House to resist what they considered an attack on their liberties? As coercive measures went on, we should have still further evidence of the fact that we had exasperated a hostile class in Ireland. But let the House be careful lest to meet a temporary emergency they sacrificed arrangements and Forms which had been shown by years of experience to be the safeguards of the rights and liberties of minorities. His hon. Friend urged that the Business of the House was increasing; but was it not worthy consideration whether it was not increasing in a way which could be remedied? Centralization had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. It was telling materially upon the time of the House, and he should be glad when they had the opportunity of considering a definite means of decentralization, so as to relieve their shoulders of a large amount of the work at present cast upon them. His hon. Friend seemed to think that the House had lost the respect of the people; but there never was a greater mistake. The greatest attention was paid to their proceedings. There were even, in some towns, mimic Parliaments held, in which those who took part in the debates assumed the names of favourite Members of that House. One was known, for instance, as the Member for Woodstock, and, no doubt, some sturdy, independent representative would call himself Member for Swansea; but after his present proposals he feared he would have to call himself by some other constituency. The proposals of his hon. Friend wore not the only alternatives to be considered by the Government. There was the proposal of Grand Committees. A large Committee would, no doubt, much abridge the time devoted to the Civil Service Estimates, and be of great advantage to the country. He also thought the American rule as to the length of speeches might be usefully adopted. In great debates there might very well be some limitation as to the length of speeches. Though he was willing to consider any proposal for saving the time of the House which would not unfairly press upon the rights of minorities, he hoped that the House would resist any means intended to meet a temporary emergency which would have the effect of removing the security of those rights. He moved the adjournment of the debate.

, in seconding the Motion, observed that the House had just witnessed a painful scene. The hon. Members for Swansea and Burnley had formerly long stood shoulder to shoulder in defending the rights of private Members, and carried on in more than one hard-fought battle the work of scientific Obstruction; but their long political union appeared at length to have ended. The nearest parallel he could find to this tragic breach of friendship was when, in the House of Commons, Mr. Fox and Mr. Burke finally separated in regard to a great question of public policy. On this occasion he was bound to say that his sympathies were entirely with the hon. Member for Burnley. He had kept in a straight path, and the hon. Member for Swansea had been the back-slider. He had been a little puzzled during part of the speech of the hon. Member for Swansea to know whether he was attacking or defending Obstruction. He dwelt with obvious gusto on all the means of Obstruction, and he specially recommended Obstruction at the end of a Session. But he remembered that no longer ago than the end of last Session they looked in vain for the assistance of his hon. Friend to put some term to the efforts of the Government to pass legislation, at a time when, by his own admission, no legislation should have been allowed. With reference to the Resolutions themselves, his main objection to them was that they threw too great a burden upon the shoulders of the Speaker. The responsibility of closing the debate was too great to be thrown on the Speaker. The experience of last Session showed that even the duty of naming a Member was difficult to exercise. The modified clôture would practically rest entirely with the Speaker and the time might come when the minority, however much in the wrong, might accuse the Speaker of lacking in that impartiality which had always distinguished the Chair. No doubt, the power of moving adjournments at Question time was greatly abused; but could any one doubt that in a great public emergency it was most important that it should be exercised? it was not always sound policy to remove a right because it was abused, or was liable to abuse. These Rules, whether good or bad, ought not to be entertained by the House unless they were brought forward by the Government of the country. He therefore deprecated coming to any decision upon them at present, and begged to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Rylands.)

Whatever may be the opinion of the House as to the consistency of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), who has been so severely attacked, but who is quite capable of defending himself, and whatever the opinion of the House as to the Rules which have been moved by my hon. Friend tile Member for Swansea, I think there can be no doubt that he is entitled to the thanks of the House for the care and attention he has given to the subject. I do not desire, for reasons I will shortly state, to discuss the Resolutions of my hon. Friend in great detail. I think, perhaps, my hon. Friend, if he wished to introduce an effective change in our proceedings, would have done better if he travelled over a less wide field, and had confined himself to one or, at most, two or three, important alterations, instead of presenting what really amounts to a whole new code of proce- dure. As to the 1st Resolution, it seems to me that, practically, it would make very little difference in the existing state of things if it were adopted as it stands on the Paper. But my hon. Friend has explained that he proposes to alter the Resolution in such a way as to exclude discussion on the bringing in of a Bill. Though, like other things, the right of debate on the introduction of a Bill is very often abused, it would, in my opinion, require a great deal of consideration before the House should adopt the Resolution. There may be occasions when the most legitimate mode of dealing with a Bill, the character of which the House is perfectly acquainted with, is upon its introduction in the early part of the Session, when the House has not much Business before it, instead of waiting until the second reading at a later period, when the House may be very fully occupied. Besides, legislation may be proposed which ought not to be embodied in a Bill at all. I will pass over, for a moment, the second and most important of the Resolutions—that which deals with the power of closing a debate. Upon the 3rd and 4th Resolutions I only wish to say that I think they are entirely in the right direction; and when the House has time to take up this question it will probably be disposed to adopt some proposals of the nature pointed out by my hon. Friend. As to the 5th Resolution, I also entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the power possessed by the Speaker under the Rules of Urgency was not attended by any inconvenience; and I think, after some further experience of its working, the House may very properly be asked to consider the adoption of the Rule. The 6th Resolution seems to me to open a rather wider question—a question which appears to go beyond the scope of the proceedings of the House with which my hon. Friend proposes to deal. It is hardly a question of procedure with which it deals, but with some more vital principles which affect our legislation. As to the extension of the Order of the 28th of February, 1880, several of my hon. Friends near me and I myself expressed our opinions, when the Order was passed, that if anything was to be done at all the Resolution should be made more effective. We did express our opinion that the Resolution as proposed was not sufficiently strong, and would fail of any satisfactory result. I am, therefore, entirely in. agreement with my hon. Friend as to the principle of the Rule which he proposes. But the most important of the Resolutions is, no doubt, the second, which gives the majority of the House the power of closing a debate. It is a question entirely open to doubt whether, as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, any alteration of a restrictive character, such as is now proposed, would really meet the evil of which we have complained during the last few years. The inconvenience to which the House may be subjected, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Burnley, does not rise altogether, or even mainly, from the deliberate Obstruction to which the House is sometimes exposed. Besides the inconvenience from that cause, it does sometimes suffer from having a great deal more work to do than under the present regulations it can perform. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley that we ought not to look only to legislation of a restrictive character; we should also see whether some proposals with regard to Grand Committees and other proposals of that kind which would assist the House could not be made, and whether the House could not be relieved of some of the Business which it now takes up. But, while I entirely agree with my hon. Friend in that proposition, speaking for myself personally and not as representing the Government, I hold with equal conviction that the converse proposition is true, and that whatever proposals we may make they will not be sufficient until the House does take into its own hands a greater control over its own proceedings and its proceedings in debate than it now possesses. My hon. Friend referred to the proceedings of the Committee which sat upstairs on the Business of the House, and stated, I think, somewhat too broadly that the question. of the clôture was considered and altogether rejected by that Committee. My hon. Friend ought to have mentioned that the decision of the Committee was couched in very guarded terms, and certainly did not amount to a rejection of the principle of the clôture. A Resolution was proposed by Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen that the power of formally closing the debate was one which, with certain restrictions, might be beneficially exercised by the House. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) who sits near me moved as an Amendment that the proposal of formally closing a debate is one which the Committee is not prepared to recommend for present adoption by the House. A division was taken on the word "present," and the word was adopted. The Resolution as finally passed was that the power of closing a debate was one which the Committee was not prepared to recommend for the present adoption of the House. That is a Resolution which could not be fairly said to amount to an absolute rejection of the proposal for closing a debate. Speaking my own opinion on this question, I have held for some time very strongly that the arguments in favour of some such power are, on the whole, convincing and conclusive. Such power, no doubt, may be open to abuse; but I should like to know what power the House can assume which, in certain circumstances, may not be liable to abuse. No doubt it is conceivable that an intolerant majority might make use of such a power to suppress the rights of a minority. But, in the circumstances in which on now find ourselves, an intolerant minority is practically able, not only to prevent the House from discussing particular questions, but to prevent the majority of the House from discussing a great number of questions at all. By absorbing the whole time of the House in discussions upon one or two subjects, it is quite possible for a minority abusing its powers to prevent the majority from discussing any question whatever except those immediately before it at the moment; and if a tyrannical use is to be made of the Forms of the House I must say that it is more reasonable and the evil would he less if arbitrary power should be exercised by the majority who might be assembled at the time, and who probably represent the majority of the people, than that such intolerance should be practised by a minority. These are my own opinions; and I have no doubt that, sooner or later, the House will be compelled, in some form or another, to adopt this power. Almost every Legislative Assembly in the world has been compelled to adopt it; and I do not know why we, who have at least as great an inclination as other Assemblies fully to discuss Public Business, should alone be able to dispense with it. It think that, sooner or later, the great power of the cloture will have to be placed in the hands of a simple majority; and I believe that, with one exception, no restrictions will have any practical value. The only restriction required is that the power shall be exercised by a certain quorum of the House; and it must be borne in mind that in placing this power in the hands of a majority you place upon them at the same time a great responsibility, the sense of which will make the abuse of power exceedingly rare. I have thought it possible to express my own opinions on this subject, but I am not prepared to commit my Colleagues to the adoption of this principle; and I must point out that all proposals affecting the conduct of the Business of the House are shown by experience to be measures of a very important character—measures which the House has never been disposed to adopt without very full discussion, and which have always demanded far greater consideration than we can give to them tonight. Such proposals naturally involve much debate; but it has often struck me that they have generally produced more discussion than was absolutely necessary. The fact is that some hon. Members interest themselves in one subject, and some in another; but every hon. Member who takes a prominent part in the Business of the House thinks himself a great authority on the subject of our procedure; and it is quite true that there are many hon. Members whose experience does make it desirable that we should hear their opinions. This circumstance alone makes it quite impossible that any change should be effected without the most careful deliberation. We may assume, then, that these proposals of my hon. Friend require for their consideration much more time than he has at his command. Speaking for the Government, I have to say that they cannot find time for the discussion of these questions, and that, if they promised their support to the Resolution of my hon. Friend, the only practical result would be to aggravate the pressure of the Business of the House. Still, both we and the House generally must feel grateful to my hon. Friend for the attention he has paid to this subject, and must sympathize with him in his endeavour to facilitate the progress of Business, and to improve the pro- cedure of the House. Personally, I agree with many of his conclusions, and hope that some of the changes he advocates limy some day be carried into effect; but the Government cannot, in the present state of Public Business, undertake a task that is too considerable to be successfully accomplished in the course of this Session. 1 should be inclined to vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), which is in some respects preferable to the Previous Question as a way of disposing of a subject. I am glad that my hon. Friend has called attention to this matter, and I hope that the House may have another opportunity of resuming the discussion before the end of the Session; but at this moment I must support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he had always considered that this question ought to have been brought forward by the Government; but he had thought it his duty to prevent it being lost sight of. Thanking the noble Marquess for the kind reception he had given to his proposals, and hoping that the Government would be able to bring the subject before the House themselves, he would ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

observed, that the Irish Members could hardly overlook the pointed reference that had been made to them in the course of the discussion. Arguments had been used in favour of the clôture; but the Papers on the subject that were in the possession of the Government had not been laid on the Table, because they showed that outside the British Empire countries in the position of Ireland had separate Assemblies of their own, and the Imperial Assemblies had not under their consideration a vast mass of topics to make confusion worse confounded. Ours was the only Assembly that had to deal with so incongruous a collection of subjects as Ireland and India, Tunis and Telegraphy, Bradlaugh and Basutos. Home Rule was the real remedy for this state of things; and he could only recommend the noble Marquess to consider whether a better way could be found out of the difficulty. Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

, in rising to move

"That, in the opinion of this House, the recent increase in the National Expenditure demands the earnest and immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with the view of effecting such reductions as may be consistent with the efficiency of the Public Service,"

said: On the night that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Financial Statement I ventured to call the attention of the House to the omission in that Statement of the subject of this Motion; but the right hon. Gentleman then pointed out to me that I had made my remarks at the wrong time, for in Committee of Ways and Means was not supposed to be an occasion for settling the National Expenditure. However, the right hon. Gentleman stated at the same time that this was a question of grave importance and interest, and one which ought to be brought before the country; and, therefore, I have felt no hesitation in taking the earliest opportunity in my power for submitting the matter to the judgment of the House. The last time that a Resolution of this sort was brought forward was something like 20 years ago—I think it was in the year 1862 that my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) submitted a similar Resolution for the consideration of the House of Commons. On that occasion the Resolution was met by an Amendment, moved by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Spencer Walpole), and Lord Palmerston very adroitly defeated his opponents by making it a question of confidence or no confidence in the Government. On that occasion the House of Commons did vote an abstract Resolution, which was not so strong as that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, though I think that almost every Member of the present Government voted in favour of the stronger Resolution. They, however, were beaten, and a very mild Resolution was agreed to by the Government, and from that hour to this the question has gone on without general attention being called to it; and the National Expenditure has been steadily increasing. It seems to me that we who sit on these (the Ministerial) Benches occupy a peculiar position in reference to this question. At the last General Election we went to the country upon two distinct issues—namely, the Foreign Policy of the late Government and the Expenditure of the late Government; and if we are consistent in what we said when we addressed our constituents in reference to the extravagant expenditure of the late Administration, we are bound to say the same here; and we are bound to carry out the pledges which we gave to our constituents on the hustings, or else, if we are not prepared to do that, we are bound in common justice to tell hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that we were wrong, that we misled the country, and that the expenditure of the late Government was necessary. I, for one, am not prepared to do that. I believe the expenditure which was sanctioned by the late Administration was an extravagant one; and it is because I believe that the National Expenditure has been still further increasing that I purpose to call the attention of the House to the matter. I see that the Expenditure of the year 1881, which closed on the 31st of March, 1881, the gross Expenditure was £83,107,000. That, of course, appears to be a very enormous sum; but it would be unfair to represent that that amount was the real Expenditure of the country. It would be unfair to do so for this reason—that out of this £83,000,000 a large amount of work is done for the public, for which the public pays, and gets its money's worth for its money. In order to ascertain the true amount of the Expenditure of the country you must, in the first place, deduct the amounts for the Post Office and the Telegraphs, as that is work for which the Government receives payment from the public. You must also deduct the cost of collecting the Revenue, and you must also deduct the interest on Local Loans—that is, loans which the Government lend to the Local Authorities, and in respect of which the Local Authorities pay interest. You must also deduct the payment for the specific loan for the Suez Canal Shares, in respect of which the Government receive interest. These sums amount, in the aggregate, to £8,877,661, which leaves the Expenditure of the country at £74,230,000. Now, that £74,230,000 is made up of three or four different items. There is our Debt, which is a charge of £28,920,000; Civil Fund Charges, which amount to £1,669,000; the Army, £16,658,000; the Navy, £10,702,000; the Civil Service, £15,700,000; and a grant to India of £500,000. In round figures, the Debt costs £29,000,000; the Military and Naval expenditure, £27,750,000; and the Civil Service, £17,500,000. Those are the great items of expenditure, and the House of Commons has the means of exercising power of retrenchment over only two of them. The first thing which I ask the House to affirm by this Resolution is that there has been a considerable recent increase in the National Expenditure, and in doing so I shall call attention to four periods extending over two decades. The years which I will take are the years 1865, 1870, 1875, and 1880; and I think the periods that I have selected have this advantage—that in 1865 and 1870 we had a Liberal Administration in power, and in 1875 and 1880 we had a Conservative Administration in power, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer during the first of those periods is happily still with us, and now occupies the same position, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the two last periods is also happily still with us. Therefore, I am dealing with an expenditure which Members of both the late and the present Governments carried on. Taking those four periods, I find that in 1865 the net Expenditure was £60,900,000; in 1879 it had grown to £62,700,000; in 1875 it grew to £66,500,000; and in 1880 it had reached £76,100,000. If I were to sit down here, without saying another word, I think I should have established my charge that the National Expenditure has recently very heavily increased. Now, Sir, with respect to the details, I find that the greatest items of increase are the Army and Civil Service. In 1865 the Civil Service expenditure was £9,300,000; in 1870 it was £11,000,000; in 1875 it was £13,500,000; and in 1880 it was £16,900,000. Our Naval and Military expenditure in 1865 was £25,280,000; and in 1880 it has reached £30,422,000. The rate of taxation per head during those periods was, in 1865, £2 5s.; in 1870 it was £2 4s.; in 1875 it was £2 5s.; and in 1880 it was £2 9s. It cannot be said that we are at a time when the national prosperity goes by leaps and bounds; because at the present we have had a period of the most unexampled agricultural and manufacturing depression. Every industry in the country is at a disadvantage compared with what it was five or six years ago; and it appears that ld. on the Income Tax this year produces considerably less than last year—a striking indication of the decrease in the earning and saving power of the country. Yet not only do we find in these circumstances an increase in the National Expenditure, but an increase in local taxation. The pure local taxation levied in this country last year, independently of gas rates, water rates, and every rate for which service was directly rendered, was £21,000,000 sterling; and local loans, which were also increasing, amounted in the last two years to upwards of £30,000,000—a fact which surely proves the necessity of placing some check upon local expenditure. Well, the question arises, in what direction is relief to be looked for? My answer is, in two quarters—the Civil Service and the Military and Naval expenditure. The first thing that I shall deal with in the Civil Service expenditure is the great increase in our educational expenditure. I am the last man to deprecate the expenditure of money on National Education; but I think that the guardians of the public purse are bound to see that we get our money's worth for our money. There is such a thing as educational expenditure and extravagant educational expenditure. I rejoice to see an increasing number of children receiving the grant for education; but the increase of late has been owing not only to an increase in number, but to an increase in the grant per head. In 1865 the grant per child was 9s. 4d.; in 1870 it was I 0s. 1d.; in 1875 it was 13s. 3d.; and in 1880 it had reached 15s. 6d. Not 50,000 were presented in Standard VI., and only a percentage had passed in that Standard, which cannot be considered at all satisfactory; so that both as to efficiency and economy very strict supervision is required. I now come to what, after all, is the great source of the expense of this country—a source which is a question of policy—a source which we, as Liberals, invariably attack in the country, and which we ought to be consistent in attacking in this House—the expense for Naval and Military purposes. I am one of those who hold the opinion of Mr. Cobden that our Navy should be supreme above all other Navies in the world. Our Navy is our first and last line of defence, and no Englishman would grudge expenditure to make the Navy efficient in all parts of the world; but our Army is not so much an expenditure for defence as an expenditure regulated by policy; and if we attempt to become a rival of any of the Continental Military Powers, we at once embark upon a great increase of our Military expenditure. Let me draw attention to the increase in our Army expenditure. I exclude the Indian Army. In 1865 the number of men voted was 78,410; in 1870 it increased to 84,361; in 1875, when we had the first dawn of the Imperial policy, the number increased to 92,386; and in 1880 it increased to 108,287.

When my bon. Friend speaks of 1865, does he mean 1864–5, or 1865–6?

1864–5.

Then 1880 means 1879–80?

Yes. We have, in addition, created a magnificent Reserve of 450,000 of Militia, Yeomanry, Volunteers, and Army Reserve. I am passing no censure upon the present Government, as they have at present hardly found themselves masters of the situation; but I think the time has now arrived when some serious steps should be taken to diminish the outlay. Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I have said this question of expenditure is, after all, a question of policy. Nothing is so easy as to sneer at those who advocated a reduction in the Military expenditure as the "Peace-at-any price Party." Well, I am not ashamed to say in this House that I believe all war, except a purely defensive war, is a crime; and as a Christian nation we ought not to engage in any war except in defence. And if we adopt a policy of peace, of non-intervention, of attending to our own interests, of not posing as arbiters of the whole civilized world, of not maintaining that no shot shall be fired in Europe except with our consent, we can adopt one scale of expenditure; but if we adopt an aggressive, interfering policy, we must pay for it. I want to call the attention of the House to the pressure this expenditure has upon the working classes of this country. There is a general opinion that our expenditure is a matter of very little import whether it rises or falls. A penny off or on the Income Tax is a matter of very trifling moment, and so it is to people of large accumulated fortune; but if we would realize how our taxation presses upon the working classes, and upon the class above the working classes, and how unfair and unequal it is in its incidence, you would see that there are other reasons, besides those of economy, in favour of a reduction. Our taxation is not only heavy, but it presses unfairly. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget, proposes to place 3 per cent Probate Duty. Now, suppose a man dies worth £10,000. That is a largo sum to be made, say, by a professional man by the exercise of his brain and the sweat of his brow. He is taxed at once £300. Another man dies worth £1,000,000, and you tax him £30,000. Do you mean to tell mo the incidence is the same? But where do you levy the bulk of the taxation? You do so upon articles of daily consumption. You levy it upon the pennies; and those pennies are a serious item in the weekly income of the working classes. You levy it upon tea, coffee, tobacco, and beer, and these are the necessities of every working man's daily life. The tax upon tea is from 20 to 25 per cent; tobacco is taxed between 300 to 400 per cent. The tax upon beer is something like a farthing a pint. These are considerable taxes; and if the working classes of this country ever realize—and the day will come when they will realize—the amount they pay out of their weekly earnings for the taxation of this country, they will, as Sir James Graham said about another tax, want to know the reason why. The average earnings of the artizan class are from £2 per week to £1 per week, and with a tax of 25 per cent for one necessity, and 300 or 400 for another, you are subjecting them not only to a heavy pressure of taxation, but to an unequal pressure which no other class suffers. I hope the day will soon come when the working classes will ask to be relieved of this burden; and it is wise on the part of those who manage our financial affairs to make ready for a rainy day by the reduction of the extravagant expenditure of this country. I had intended to call attention to what the Prime Minister uttered during his memorable campaign in Mid Lothian. No one spoke in stronger terms, or denounced in severer language, the extravagance of the late Administration, and we as Liberals are bound to strengthen his hands. I do not believe he has changed. I believe he is the most economical Chancellor of the Exchequer that ever held the reins; and if the House of Commons will back him, he will be prepared to carry out practically and to good effect those principles which have been the principles of his financial administration, and upon which he took Office. I ask the House to pass no censure on this Government or on that Government; but I do ask you to affirm the fact that the expenditure of this country has gone on recently and rapidly increasing, and to express your opinion that it is the duty—I think it is the first duty of Her Majesty's Government to take immediate steps to diminish that expenditure. Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, in the opinion of this House, the recent increase in the National Expenditure demands the earnest and immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government with the view of effecting such reductions as may be consistent with the efficiency of the Public Service."—(Mr. Henry H. Fowler.) Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock.