I venture with great respect to suggest to the House that they would do well not to adopt the somewhat precipitate course recommended by the hon. Member for Northampton. The House is well aware that, so far, there has been no authoritative statement from the Leader of the House or the Law Officers of the Crown; but there is a general knowledge that the proceedings of yesterday afternoon will form the subject of inquiry before a Court of Law, and I think there can be also no doubt that Her Majesty's Attorney General will be instructed by the Government, and perhaps by Parliament, to commence a more or less friendly and collusive suit against Mr. Bradlaugh for what he did yesterday afternoon. All these proceedings will require careful consideration; and the House will have to consider at its leisure and in a dignified manner what course it should take to protect its proceedings from disorder and further assaults by Mr. Bradlaugh. It seems to me that if we agree to this Motion Mr. Bradlaugh may be re-elected for Northampton, and the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, which was agreed to yesterday, will become a dead letter, leading to a repetition of the extremely unpleasant and unbecoming scenes which I am sure everybody in this House regrets. Legal proceedings of the highest importance are going to be taken against Mr. Bradlaugh, and the House must be protected against a repetition of disorderly scones. In order to give time for due consideration, I move the debate be now adjourned.

urged that under the decision of the House of Lords the duty was incumbent upon the Law Officers of the Crown to take proceedings to recover the penalties that had been incurred by Mr. Bradlaugh in voting without having taken the Oath or its equivalent Affirmation in a manner satisfactory to the House. There was no option as to whether the Attorney General should proceed or not——

I must remind the hon. Member that the noble Lord has moved the adjournment of the debate. It is not competent for the hon. Member, therefore, to discuss the Main Question.

I beg your pardon. I have known, under other circumstances, that the subject-matter that led to the Motion for Adjournment has been debated; but I bow to your decision. I apologise, Mr. Speaker.

I think, before we vote on the question which has been raised by my noble Friend, it would be not altogether unreasonable to expect some explanation of the circumstance which has led to this Writ being moved. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is the only person who has the power of granting the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. I believe that a discretion is exercised in the case of a Member against whom a Petition is pending, or against whom any corrupt practices are alleged. That is not the case in this instance; but I think that in the case of one whose status as a Member has been a matter of discussion in this House, and who has broken the regulations of this House, it would be well that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should state to the House the reasons which led him to give Mr. Bradlaugh the opportunity of evading the Rosolution passed by the House yesterday.

I really am very much surprised at the course taken by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Bradlaugh has ceased to be a Member of this House, and Northampton, which has a right to send two Members to Parliament, at the present time has only one. When a constituency is not charged with any species of corruption or wrongdoing, a Writ is always issued without question under such circumstances. Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not even know whether Mr. Bradlaugh will stand again or not. But I may point out this difficulty. If they contend that a new Writ ought not to be issued, they ought not to allow a new Writ for any single constituency to be moved. What is to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from going to County Heath or the City of Cork as a candidate?

I would ask you, Sir, whether the hon. Member is not now speaking to the Main Question?

The hon. Member is certainly arguing the Main Question, and is out of Order. In fact, the Main Question cannot now be discussed.

On the point of Order, Sir, I would ask you whether the hon. Member for Northampton is not perfectly in Order in showing reasons why the debate should not be adjourned? If he keeps to that subject—["Order! Oh, oh!"]——

I have already decided that the hon. Member is not in Order.

Of course, I bow to your decision, Sir. Really, I have nothing more to say.

I have been appealed to on a subject which clearly appertains to the Main Question. I am not going to put myself out of Order in referring to it now, when the question of adjournment only is before us.

I do not feel at all sure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is right in saying that the question put to him entirely relates to the Main Question. The Question before the House is, whether the House shall forthwith proceed to issue a new Writ for Northampton; or whether it shall take time to consider what has taken place. Under ordinary circumstances, when new Writs are moved——

"Order, order! Question!" [Cries of "Name, name!"]

The conduct of the hon. Member for Monaghan is quite disorderly.

I apprehend, Sir, you will stop me if I say anything irregular. As a matter of custom, new Writs are issued immediately the Motion is made; but there are cases in which more time is taken by the House, and we have now to decide not whether the Writ should be issued or not, but whether at this moment we should adjourn the question. Before deciding it, we wish to know what course the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken, and on what grounds that action has been taken? That is a very material question, and, I think, is material for our consideration at this moment.

said, it was perfectly plain that the Government intended to shirk out of that discussion, as they had done out of others. It was perfectly plain that their silence was owing to collusion with Mr. Brad-laugh. His reason for believing that the debate should be adjourned was that he did not think the wording of the Motion was in consonance with the law of the country. He thought, before they proceeded to discuss the Main Question, they should know whether it was a legal one, to be put or not. On that subject he thought they ought to be enlightened by the Attorney General. Mr. Bradlaugh had probably vacated his seat by reason of his sitting and voting in the House without being properly sworn.

The hon. Member is not addressing himself to the Question before the House.

said, he bowed to the decision of the Chair. It appeared to him that the form of the Motion was not one that they could accept without an opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown. He, therefore, wished the debate to be adjourned, in order to enable the House to have a distinct opinion from the Law Officers of the Crown as to the real bearing of the Motion made. He thought, therefore, subject to the ruling of the Chair, and without infringing the Rule laid down by the Speaker, the House was entitled to ask the Law Officers of the Crown to give an opinion as to the legality of the form in which the Motion was made.

On the Main Question I should like to call the attention of the House to the position in which the action of Her Majesty's Government have placed the House. Last night Mr. Bradlaugh voted, and in one view of the case—I am not at all assuming it to be the right view, but it is held by a very large number of Members—Mr. Bradlaugh thereby, and ipso facto, vacated his seat. I shall hope to hear whether the Attorney General intends to take proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh for having voted in the Division Lobby? The inducement for the issue of this Writ is, that Mr. Bradlaugh, having accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, has vacated his seat; and the House will at once perceive that the action of Her Majesty's Government has induced a vote of this House, which, in terms, decides the question against the contention of the majority; because, if the seat were already ipso facto vacated, Mr. Bradlaugh could not have vacated his seat by accepting to-day the Chiltern Hundreds. It is desirable that it should be understood what inducements have led Her Majesty's Government to take this action, which, in terms, sets at naught the decision of the majority of the House.

With the evident approval of the majority of the House, I declined to violate the Standing Orders in order to answer the question of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes), a few minutes ago; but I will answer the question now. Mr. Bradlaugh applied to me this morning for the Chiltern Hundreds. I am not aware of any instance in which the Chiltern Hundreds have been refused, except in the case of corruption being, under certain circumstances, charged against an hon. Member. As, therefore, it was in my power to grant the Chiltern Hundreds, and as it was not my duty to solve the question to which the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Hardinge Giffard) has just referred, I conceived I was using a wise discretion in granting the application.

said, he was informed that, under the recent decision of the House of Lords, which abrogated the action of the public in the case of any man who failed to take the Oath, and thereby incurred penalties, the Law Officer of the Crown had no option but to proceed against any such man? He wished to know from the Attorney General whether this was the case?

asked the House to consider the aspect of this question on the Motion for a new Writ for Northampton, and to observe upon how entirely different a footing they stood from that of the discussion which they had had with respect to the personality of Mr. Bradlaugh. They had now to discuss, not the rights or the duties of Mr. Bradlaugh, but the right of the constituency of Northampton. The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) had said that, from the point of view of Gentlemen opposite, the seat had been vacated by the conduct of Mr. Bradlaugh in voting without having taken the Oath. That was contended last night by the Leader of the Opposition, and someone from this side said—"Will you move the Writ, then?" and the right hon. Gentleman said—"No; I will not move the Writ." Well, the people who contended that Mr. Bradlaugh did what was illegal and vacated his seat would not take the course which, from their point of view, would have given Northampton the right to elect a new Member. They could, by another course, give Northampton the right to elect a Member, and that was by giving Mr. Bradlaugh the Chiltern Hundreds. Could any man in the House, no matter on what side he sat, desire to deprive Northampton of one of its Members, putting Mr. Bradlaugh out of the question altogether? That was the course that hon. Gentlemen did take, if they refused to issue a new Writ. They took advantage of a doubtful question to hang up, not Mr. Bradlaugh, but the constituency. It might be that Northampton would choose another Member, not Mr. Bradlaugh, and why should it not have the right to do so? The question being undoubtedly a difficult and complicated one, here was a course which was quite clear of the personality of Mr. Bradlaugh. It did not in the least affect the penalties. If Mr. Bradlaugh had incurred the penalties, his taking the Chiltern Hundreds would not affect them at all. Therefore, that question was not before the House. There was only one single question—whether they would give Northampton the right which, he would venture to say, belonged to it by the Constitution of this country, to say whether it would elect another Member or not? However warmly they had differed on other points, this was a point on which they could all agree, and he hoped, therefore, the House would grant the Writ.

I can agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there is no answer to the application of the hon. Gentleman who desires that a Writ shall be issued to enable Northampton to elect a new Member. I think, however, it would have been reasonable under the circumstances that we should have had time to consider the matter, and that we should have been favoured with the view of Her Majesty's Government after the peculiar proceedings of yesterday, which had, I think, more to do with the vacating of the seat than the granting of the Chiltern Hundreds. It would have been more reasonable and decorous that we should have had a special intimation from the Government in regard to the matter before we came to a decision. But the House has decided that the Writ shall issue at once, and I think there is no reason for refusing to accede to the issue of the Writ.

observed, that the Motion appeared to imply that Mr. Bradlaugh had only forfeited his seat by accepting office; whereas the majority of the House considered that he had forfeited his seat before he applied for office. Unless, therefore, words were inserted in the Motion, or other notice taken, making it clear that one side of the House maintained that the seat was already forfeited, a Court of Law might be misled as to the true sense of the House on the subject.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether Mr. Duncan Blair, in November last, lodged with the Procurator-Fiscal of Lochgoilhead a complaint of gross ill-treatment of his children by the master of the public school of the district; and, whether the Fiscal has taken any proceedings in the case, or has forwarded his precognitions to the Crown Office; and, if not, whether he would call for the precognitions in question?

In November last Mr. Duncan Blair made a complaint to the Procurator Fiscal that his son had been severely caned on one occasion by the schoolmaster. A full precognition was taken in the case, which was reported to the Crown Office, and considered by Crown Counsel. No complaint was made to the Fiscal as to the administration of castor oil to the children as a punishment; but statements were made in the course of the investigation that such a practice prevailed—a practice, I may say, which appears to me to he deserving of severe condemnation. The decision of the Crown Counsel was that, while the chastisement of the boy may possibly have been excessive, there were not adequate grounds for criminal proceedings against the schoolmaster.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to consider and report upon the pay and allowances of Officers and Seamen of the Royal Navy?

, in reply, said, it would be an unusual proceeding to refer such a question to a Select Committee, and the Government could not agree to adopt such a course.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty have considered the sentences of courts martial for breaches of Naval discipline, and whether they contemplate bringing forward any amendment of the Naval Discipline Act, with the view of preventing the passing of sentences of penal servitude, except in very aggravated cases; and, whether the Admiralty is willing to reconsider the case of the seaman Endenby, of Her Majesty's troopship "Assistance," who was sentenced to penal servitude for an assault on a ship's corporal, and of Quinn, in whose favour a memorial has been presented to the Admiralty?

It is our intention to introduce a Bill amending the Naval Discipline Act, and its introduction will supply an opportunity for stating the opinion of the Admiralty on the question referred to by my hon. Friend. As to the two cases stated in the Question, the Admiralty have considered them, and have remitted two years of the sentence in each case.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board, Whether he has received a Report of the result of the inquiry instituted by the Local Government Board in regard to a series of cases in which erysipelas had followed vaccination at Cardiff?

The Local Government Board are aware, from a brief report in The British Medical Journal, that at a branch meeting of the British Medical Association in December last, a statement was made by a private medical practitioner as to certain cases in which erysipelas had followed vaccination. No particulars as to the names, &c, of the children vaccinated are given. It is not alleged that the children were vaccinated by a public vaccinator, nor is there any suggestion that the lymph was obtained from the National Vaccine Establishment. The Board have not received any communication on the subject of these cases from the medical practitioner by whom the vaccinations were performed, from any of the parents or relatives of the children who are stated to have suffered from erysipelas, or from any person residing in the locality. The Board, under these circumstances, have not directed any inquiry by one of their Inspectors. The gentleman by whom the statement was made at the meeting is not in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the Board, and the Board have no right to require him to give information as to his private patients.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been directed to the recent negotiations between the Waterford and Central (Ireland) Railway Company and the Kilkenny Junction Railway Company with regard to the working of the line from Kilkenny to Maryborough, and the inconvenience and loss which the people of the Queen's and Kilkenny counties will suffer in the event of the discontinuance of the traffic from November next, failing the completion of the line to Mountmellick; and, whether he will consider the possibility of protecting the public against the ruinous consequences of the disagreements of the Companies?

, in reply, said, his attention had been called to the circumstances set forth in this Question in September last, by the gentlemen residing in the neighbourhood. Although the Board of Trade had no legal power to interfere in the matter, they communicated with the two Railways, for the purpose of bringing about an agreement. Eventually the two Boards of Directors did enter into an agreement, and the Board of Trade hoped that the matter was satisfactorily settled. Since that time they had no official knowledge of what had taken place; but he believed the arrangement had fallen through, in consequence of some difficulty interposed by a Financial Company interested in one of the Railways. The Board of Trade was anxious to do everything that was reasonable to protect the public; but he did not see how circumstances of this kind could be provided against by legislation. Although the Board of Trade had no statutory power to act in the matter, he should, however, be willing to undertake the duty of arbitrator between the two Companies, if they agreed to abide by his decision.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the case, as re- ported in the local newspapers, that at the Petty Sessions at Enniskillen, on Monday, 28th January, Captain M'Ternan, resident magistrate of the district, used the following expressions from the Bench:—

"I think it worse to curse the Tope than to curse the Queen. It is provocative of a breach of the Peace, and loads to a disorderly condition of the town;"

Before the Question is answered, I would like to ask whether it is not a fact that the Resident Magistrate referred to is the only Catholic magistrate in Enniskillen, and that, since the Rossmore incident, he has been publicly insulted and "Boycotted" by the unpaid magistrates of the district?

In reply to the first Question, I have to say that Captain M'Ternan has sent me a Report of what occurred, taken from one of the newspapers, which he says is correct. There had been a riot in Enniskillen, and a man named Rankin had been charged before a Bench of eight magistrates, the Rev. Mr. Frith being in the chair, with being drunk and disorderly, and using Party expressions.

"Constable Quinn states that the defendant was drunk and disorderly, and witness heard him cursing the Pope."

"The witness was cross-examined by the counsel for the defendant—Were there other people cursed besides the Pope? I heard a lot cursed besides. Did you hear the Queen cursed? I did not. If you had heard any person cursing the Queen would you have arrested him? I would."

"Captain Collum observed that there was a great difference between the Queen and the Pope."

"Cursing the Pope, the Queen, King William, or anybody else, should be put down with a firm hand;"

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can state to the House why the Resident Magistrate did not explain the language attributed to him in my Question; and, whether he is aware that a large body of witnesses, including the other magistrates, have deposed to the words in question? I would also ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether this is the magistrate upon whose Report Lord Rossmore was suspended?

The observations of the Bench are set forth in the newspaper report which the Resident Magistrate sent me, and which he is willing to abide by. There was a great deal of unseemly conduct on the part of the magistrate; but it was not of a sufficiently serious character to bring it before the Lord Chancellor. I cannot say that I think Captain M'Ternan's language calls for any notice.

I would ask the Chief Secretary whether he has received any Report from Captain M'Ternan as to the conduct of the unpaid magistrates in connection with the riots at Enniskillen; whether Captain M'Ternan reported to the Castle that, in the case of every Orangeman who was proved by the police to have broken the windows of Catholics, the majority of the magistrates dismissed the summons, while in the case of every Catholic a conviction was recorded upon the same evidence; and if he can state whether he proposes to take any steps with regard to these unpaid magistrates?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give Notice of that Question.

Would the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question?

Undoubtedly, Captain M'Ternan is the magistrate who reported upon the proceedings at Rosslea; and I may say that he likewise is the magistrate whose great courage and discretion were the means of bringing to justice the first person who suffered capital punishment during the late agitation in Ireland, and he suffered very severely in the South of Ireland from the treatment of the neighbours of this man.

What paper does the right hon. Gentleman quote from?

From The Fermanagh Reporter.

asked the Postmaster General, If he can state why a telephone exchange licence cannot be granted to the United Telephone Company, on payment of the usual royalty, for Portsmouth, on the same terms as to Bristol and other large towns; and, whether he will consent to receive a deputation on the subject from the Town Council and Chamber of Commerce of the Borough?

I fear I could not, without unduly occupying the time of the House, explain the reasons which have led to some conditions being inserted in the telephone licences recently granted which were not in the licences first given. There is the less occasion to enter into such an explanation, as I shall have no objection to receive the deputation from Portsmouth referred to by my hon. Friend; and if be will communicate with me I will arrange a day convenient to those who wish to see me.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is in his power to lay upon the Table of the House any extracts of the number of the houses pulled down, and of the population compelled to seek new dwellings, since the year 1815, in consequence of the compulsory purchase in the Metropolis of land for the construction of docks, railways, new streets, public buildings, or other similar purposes?

I am unable to lay upon the Table the information referred to in the Question, and I know no means by which the particulars alluded to could now be obtained. As the hon. Member is aware, there are Standing Orders of both Houses of Parliament, which require that when, by a Bill, power is sought to take in any town or parish more than 15 houses occupied wholly or partially by persons belonging to the labouring classes as tenants or lodgers, the promoters shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a statement of the number, description, and situation of such houses, the number of persons to be displaced, and whether any and what provision is made in the Bill for remedying any inconvenience likely to arise from such displacement. But this statement was first required by a Standing Order of the Lords in the year 1853. There was no similar Standing Order of the Commons till 1874. A Return could, no doubt, be made in respect of the period subsequent to those dates by the officers of the two Houses as to the number of dwelling-houses and persons who, according to the statements deposited in pursuance of the Standing Orders, would be affected by schemes embodied in Bills. Such a Return would, however, involve much labour in its preparation, and when completed it could not be regarded as satisfactory, as it would show what was proposed rather than what was actually done, even in cases where the Bills were passed without modification of the provisions bearing on this subject.

asked the Postmaster General, If he can explain why the Indian Mail of the 11th of January, which was due in London on Tuesday the 29th, was not delivered until Friday the 1st of February; if it is a fact that the steamship "Lombardy," with the Mail on board, was detained at anchor at Suez for twenty-four hours, nine hours at Port Said, taking in cargo, and that the Mails were further delayed for some hours at Brindisi after they reached that port; and, if he will call upon the Company holding the contract for the carrying of the Mails to explain the cause of these delays?

I must explain to the hon. Member that although, according to the time table he refers to, the mail was due in London on the 29th of January, that date was based on the anticipated resumption of the transit of the mails through Egypt by railway and by steamer from Alexandria to Brindisi; whereas, in fact, the mails had to be brought through the Suez Canal, and from Port Said to Brindisi. So that, in reality, they could not be expected in London before the 31st, and they would have been delivered on that date but for untoward delays arising from the Italian quarantine regulations and the heavy weather experienced at Brindisi, which prevented the mails being landed there for 24 hours after the packet arrived. It is satisfactory to me to be able to state that the regular mail service is about to be resumed early in March.

I will put a further Question to the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the Lombardy. I was a passenger on board of her.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would have any objection to state how the Government propose to give effect to the unanimous Resolution of 12th June 1883, that the purchase clauses of the Land Act of 1881 should be revised and expanded?

Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question, I would like to ask him whether a Resolution calling upon the Government, in practically the same terms as the Resolution of the noble Lord last Session, to revise and extend the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act, was one of the Resolutions passed at a meeting held in the North of Ireland, which was denounced by the noble Lord himself as seditious, and dangerous to the peace of the country?

Perhaps the hon. Member would quote my words. I said nothing of the kind.

In reply to the noble Lord, I am not prepared at present to make any statement on this Question. The first Notice referring to it which appears on the Paper of the House is a Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. Dickson) for the 30th of April.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any reply has been given to the Memorial of the mother of the murdered man, Philip Maguire, who applied for an inquiry into the outrage under the Crimes Act; and, what has been the average length of time His Excellency has taken, in previous applications of a similar kind, to give a reply?

A reply to this Memorial is sent to-day. It is impossible to fix an average length of time which such applications have been under consideration. Each case is dealt with on its own merits, and the time must depend upon the nature of the case and the preliminary inquiries necessary, and also upon the general pressure of business.

Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to state whether an inquiry is to be granted?

I cannot say.

I beg to give Notice that on an early day I will call attention to the fact that, in every case in which landlords' bailiffs and others have lost their lives, the Lord Lieutenant has granted an inquiry; while in every case in which a Catholic has been murdered he refused to grant an inquiry.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Upon whose recommendation was Mr. Blake appointed Governor of the Bahamas?

The hon. Gentleman asks me upon whose recommendation Mr. Blake was appointed Governor of the Bahamas? My answer is that Mr. Blake was appointed Governor of the Bahamas by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Might I ask the hon. Gentleman who recommended Mr. Blake to the Secretary of State for the Colonies?

In answer to the hon. Member, I apprehend that the hon. Member can, if he chooses, challenge Mr. Blake's appointment upon a regular Motion to that effect; but I decline, and think it would be inconvenient, to enter into the particulars of his appointment in answer to a Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Upon whose recommendation was Mr. Clifford Lloyd sent to Egypt?

Sir, Mr. Clifford Lloyd was appointed on the recommendation of Lord Granville, and I have his permission to state that he acted on the recommendation of Lord Spencer and Lord Dufferin.

Did any recommendation come to Lord Granville from the people of Egypt?

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain why the detectives have been withdrawn from the doors of the offices of the Irish National League, Dublin?

Sir, the police have received no instructions such as those suggested in the Question. Detectives may, in the discharge of their duty, have been brought into the vicinity of the office named; but they were not told to be there.

I may state, for the information of the right hon. Gentleman, that they were posted there for the last six months, and when Parliament opened they were withdrawn.

, in putting a Question as to the relief of Tokar, hoped that the Government would give such a reply—["Order!"]

The hon. Member is not entitled to enter into debate.

then asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any body of insurgents between Tokar and the Coast capable of barring the way to a disciplined European Force; whether the distance is less than fifteen miles; whether, therefore, it is included in the Red Sea littoral which Her Majesty's Government have undertaken to preserve to Egypt; and, whether, in the event of there being a sufficient force of soldiers, marines, and blue jackets available at Aden, or within easy reach of Suez, Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to relieve the gallant but starving garrison of Tokar?

, in reply, said, the force was about 3,000; the distance was rather over 15 miles. In regard to the third and fourth heads of the Question, he could not anticipate the statement of the Premier.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to ask for a Vote of Credit on account of the expenses incurred for the reinforcements being sent to the Red Sea?

In reply, I have to say that I am in communication with the Secretary of State for War and the Secretary to the Admiralty on this matter, and if an Estimate is required it will be presented in due course without any delay.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any money will be required?

This is altogether a premature Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will inquire of Sir Edward Malet and Sir Evelyn Baring whether any telegrams or other communications were addressed by them, while employed on Her Majesty's service in Egypt, to any Egyptian officials in the Soudan besides those mentioned by him in his reply in this House on the 11th February, and will lay upon the Table any such communications without delay?

There will be no objection to make this inquiry.

In reference to this Question, I would like to ask the noble Lord whether he has read the Blue Book Egypt No. 22; and, if so, whether he has observed on page 22 that General Hicks alludes to a telegram to Sir Edward Malet on June 20, inquiring for information from General Hicks, and whether that telegram has been withheld by the Foreign Office? Secondly, Sir, I would ask the noble Lord whether his attention has been drawn in the Blue Book No. 22 to a despatch from General Hicks to Sir Edward Malet, in which General Hicks referred to a telegram of the 31st of May, and also another telegram asking for much information on many important points, and why that and the other telegrams were not laid before the House?

I can only say I must ask the noble Lord to give Notice of that Question.

Will inquiry be made by telegraph?

I shall make it immediately. Of course, when I say immediately, I shall make it in whatever way I consider best, in order to obtain full information.

This information will be required, and will be of great importance in the debate. Will the inquiry be made this evening by telegraph?

Does the noble Lord require Notice of a Question relating to a telegram, copies of which must be in the Foreign Office at the present moment? I wish also to know whether the noble Lord wishes the House to understand that Her Majesty's Government deliberately conceals the information?

Will the noble Lord make inquiry by telegraph or not?

I have no objection whatever to make the inquiry by telegram; but I must be guided by the instructions given by the Secretary of State in the matter.

asked whether or not those two telegrams were in the Foreign Office; or whether it was intended to pursue the policy hitherto pursued by Her Majesty's Government of concealing information?

On the part of my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State, I distinctly decline to answer such Questions. The noble Lord has used words which, I am sorry to say, convey what between Member and Member of Parliament is an insult. The statement I am making on behalf of my noble Friend does not refer to matters of fact embraced in the former portion of the Question, with respect to which it is not possible for me to give information, but to the imputation contained in his closing words.

I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in imputing to an hon. Member a deliberate insult to himself and his Colleagues? I wish to ask the First Minister of the Crown whether he did not frequently charge the late Government with deliberately suppressing information?

It is desirable to recall to the recollection of the noble Lord and the House the position in which matters stand. I understood the noble Lord to ask a Question of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and the Under Secretary, acting entirely within his own right and discretion, stated his desire to have Notice of the Question. Upon that, it seems to me, the matter should drop.

I only rose as a matter of courtesy to the noble Lord.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Correspondence which had taken place during the past year between Sir Evelyn Wood and General Hicks would be laid before Parliament; and whether Sir Evelyn Wood had made any communication to Her Majesty's Government with respect to the affairs of the Soudan; and, if so, whether this communication could be laid before Parliament?

, in reply, said, that Her Majesty's Government were in possession of no Correspondence between General Hicks and Sir Evelyn Wood, neither of whom were in the service of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Evelyn Wood had made no written communication on the subject of the Soudan to Her Majesty's Government; but he had been consulted by Sir Evelyn Baring, and his views were contained in the telegrams and despatches laid before Parliament.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When he proposes to introduce the Sunday Closing Bill for Ireland referred to in the Speech from the Throne?

I propose tomorrow to ask leave of the House to introduce this Bill.

said, that, as a matter of fact, the Education Bill preceded the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill in the Queen's Speech, and why should not the same order and priority be maintained?

said, he was not aware that the order in which the Bills were mentioned in the Queen's Speech was any guidance or rule for the introduction of measures to the House. Over and over again he had stated that the order he now proposed to adopt would be the order in which the measures would he introduced to the House.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state whether the preliminary inquiry by the Board of Works in reference to the question of the Barrow Drainage has been completed, and generally how the matter now stands?

, in reply, said, he would answer this Question as far as he could, no Notice having been given of it. He understood that about 10 days ago the work of the valuator and engineer was well advanced.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If it is the intention of the Government to supply the Volunteer Forces with the Martini-Henry rifle; and, if so, if he can state how soon it will be done?

, in reply, said, although very anxious on the subject, he was afraid he could not promise that the Volunteers could be supplied with the Martini-Henry rifles this year.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will call the attention of the Irish Executive to the following extract from the "Kerry Weekly Reporter" (a Conservative organ):—

"Ejectments in Kerry. The number of ejectments is becoming alarming in Kerry. Every Quarter Sessions Mr. Bland, Mr. Blennerhassett, Mrs. Drummond, Miss Busteed, and a host of other proprietors are proceeding against tenants. One attorney made over £300 last year law costs, by one estate alone. A sickly poor man, who never joined the Land League, never combined against paying his rent, was served with an ejectment. The priest wrote that the poor man was, very likely, on his death bed, offering one gale and costs, and offered to become security for the second gale, but was refused. Many of the other cases are of a class with the above;"

As this Question may be supposed to refer to me, perhaps the House will permit me to say that, as far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no foundation whatever for the statement it contains.

I never supposed for a moment that this Question referred to the hon. Member. There are a score of Blennerhassetts in Kerry, and my Question refers to one of them who lives at Ballyseedy.

I have no information from Dublin about this Question. It is rather difficult to say in what respect it could properly be put to me; and I am not quite certain that I would be doing any public service in giving the House any information as to the truth or want of accuracy of this newspaper. With regard to the last paragraph, I may say that no change will be made in the administration of the law.

said, the publication of the list of dormant funds in Chancery would be published in a very few weeks.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, What was the date of the last general stocktaking at the Royal Arsenal, Woolwich; whether there has been any stocktaking or "remain" of the stores in the Carriage Department within the last ten years; and, if so, whether the result was compared with the "remain" as shown by the Carriage Department ledgers; whether it is the intention of the Government to direct any "remain" to be taken of the large accumulation of either obsolete or unserviceable stores now at the Royal Arsenal and Dockyard at Woolwich; and, whether there would be any objection to the furnishing of a Return of all the obsolete and unserviceable stores now in the Departments above referred to?

The date of the last general stocktaking at the Royal Arsenal was 1859. If the hon. Member refers to the Carriage Manufacturing Department, a yearly "remain" is taken and compared with the ledger. If, however, his Question has reference to the store of carriages, no "remain" has been taken since 1859. Last year the Secretary of State decided to take a general "remain" at Woolwich Arsenal, and this is now being proceeded with. There is a large quantity of obsolete and unserviceable stores at Woolwich, which are periodically sold by the Director of Contracts, and the produce of the sales is credited to Vote 12. It does not appear to the Secretary of State that any useful purpose would be served by giving a Return of these stores, which form a constantly shifting quantity. A Return, moreover, would involve considerable clerical labour.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Papers recently issued with regard to the commercial arrangements with Spain that are referred to in the Queen's Speech, and which contain no reference to any endeavours to procure equal treatment for British ships, are a complete statement of the present position of the negotiations?

Further Correspondence is about to be laid on the Table.

said, he wished also to know whether it was the intention of the Government to take steps for procuring the equal treatment in Spanish ports of British vessels?

replied, that that was not the Question of which the hon. Member had given No- tice. The Correspondence he had referred to would be laid on the Table in the course of two or three weeks.

said, that he should put down all the Questions he had asked on next Thursday's Paper, and he trusted he would then obtain a satisfactory reply.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the charge of Mr. Justice Butt at the Liverpool Assizes on the 5th February, who directed the attention of the Grand Jury to the preponderance of Irish names on the calendar; whether the calendar contained the following names, viz. Gee, for murder; Clifford, for attempt to wreck a train; Vaughan, Price, and Hadfield, for the murder of a boy named Burns; White, for stabbing; M'Lean, Campbell, and Ballantyne, for murder; and M'Comb, for manslaughter; and, whether only four names, Flanagan, Higgins, Duggan, and Dempsey were Irish, or what other names were on the calendar? In putting this Question, I would ask whether it is probable that the female prisoners convicted may not be married women who may have borne previously non-Irish names?

, in reply, said, he had no means of being able to answer the Question. The Assize Calendars were in due course sent in to the Home Office; but this particular one had not yet been received, and if it had, it was not possible with certainty to fix the nationality of the prisoners merely by reading their names.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not answer the Question. I ask as to the correctness of the preponderance of the names on the Paper.

I have no means of answering the Question.

Did not the Judge name the nationality of the prisoners to the predjudice of those who happened to bear Irish names?

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether orders have been given to Admiral Sir William Hewett, now commanding Suakim, to attempt the relief of the starving garrison of Sinkat? The hon. Member also asked, whether Her Majesty's Government had received any confirmation of the rumoured massacre of the garrison of Sinkat, which had been so long neglected by them?

I do not think that any public end would be gained by my taking any notice of the statement which the hon. Member has interpolated into his Question, that the garrison has been long neglected by Her Majesty's Government, nor do I think it a fair and equitable method of proceeding that such statements should be insinuated into Questions. There is no doubt it is unhappily the fact that the garrison of Sinkat has been "cut off," or, as another telegram expresses it, "cut to pieces." When I have an opportunity afforded me of addressing the House I shall state fully the instructions which have been given to Sir William Hewett, and shall also state fully all the difficult circumstances having reference to the business.

said, the House having last night approved the principle of the Bill for the extension of the hours of polling in certain boroughs, he proposed to commit it pro formâ on Monday next, in order that it might then be reprinted with some necessary corrections. He should then be quite willing to postpone for a few weeks the consideration of the clauses in Committee, in order that the Bill might be discussed in the constituencies.

inquired what Business the Prime Minister proposed to put down for to-morrow?

said, that the adjourned debate on the Address would naturally be put down on the Paper for Wednesday; but if the debate on the Vote of Censure should be adjourned—as it probably would be—it would be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman who moved it to take the adjourned debate on Wednesday, and it would then take precedence of the debate on the Address. In the event of his not doing so, the Government proposed to proceed with the debate on the Address, in the event of the only Order of the Day—the Middlesex Land Registry Bill—only taking up a short time.

Sir, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I rise to make the Motion which stands in his name for the revival of the Resolutions of the House of the 1st of December, 1882, relating to the constitution and proceedings of Standing Committees. The House will remember that at the close of last Session my right hon. Friend did not, as was intended, propose to make the Standing Order a Sessional Order, because, as I think was stated, it would be more convenient that this course should be taken when the Government were in a position to say what Bills would be referred to the Committees if re-appointed. I am, of course, unable to state positively at the present moment what Bills will be so referred, because the stage of second reading had not been reached. I may, however, state that, in the event of the Standing Committees on Law and Trade being re-appointed in the present Session, it would be proposed by the Government to refer to the Committee on Trade a measure dealing with the preservation of Life and Property at Sea, and another measure dealing with the powers of the Railway Commission; and to the Committee on Law it would be proposed to refer a Bill dealing with Corrupt Practices at Municipal Elections, and another Bill relating to the Law on Stolen Goods. It was, I believe, understood last Session that no measures except Government measures should he referred to these Committees. That was an engagement which the Government would be quite willing to renew, if it were desired by the House; but, in the event of any measures introduced by private Members being passed at the second reading, and if it be the general wish of Members that they should be considered by either of the Standing Committees, the Government would not think it necessary to interpose any objection to their being so considered. There are two measures, introduced by private Members, which it might be desirable to refer to the Committee on Law—one of them being a Bill which deals with Copyhold Enfranchisement, and the other, introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard), and which, I believe, will come on for the second reading tomorrow, dealing with the Registration of Deeds in Middlesex. Those, and any other Bills on similar subjects might, perhaps, in the opinion of the Government, be referred to the Standing Committee on Law; and they would not think it necessary to present any objection to that course being adopted, unless it should be contrary to the desire of the House.

said, as he had last Session the honour of serving on the Standing Committee on Law, he would like to address to the House some remarks founded upon his experience of that Committee, and he was quite sure his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) had the same intention. He was bound to say that the results of his experience were by no means as favourable to these Standing Committees as the experience of some hon. Members who served on the Committee on Trade and Commerce appeared to have been; and, therefore, he desired to submit to the House some reasons against the renewal of the Standing Order, as moved by the noble Marquess opposite. But, taken as they were by surprise, he could not but feel that it was impossible adequately to discuss the question at the present moment. There had been no apparent intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make the Motion that night. If he remembered aright, it was distinctly stated by the Prime Minister, on a former occasion, that when the Motion was made full opportunity would be afforded for its discussion. But this evening the Notice of the Motion on the Paper had actually been passed over by Mr. Speaker, and subsequent Notices had been called on, before the Motion was moved by the noble Marquess. He protested against the discussion being taken at that Sitting. He did not think it fair to the House to continue the debate in the present circumstances, especially as the noble Marquess had stated that Her Majesty's Government contemplated a distinct addition to the powers of the Standing Committees. The Government, according to the speech of the noble Marquess, contemplated that Bills introduced by private Members, and which it was well known were almost invariably unripe schemes, should be referred to those Committees as well as the Bills of the Government. That appeared to him a question too serious to be settled on that occasion, and he, therefore, begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

said, he was very much surprised at the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman. He would like to ask for what purpose the Notice Paper was printed that was placed in the hands of hon. Members? Night after night the House was told that Motions deliberately put upon the Notice Paper, and reached in the due course of Business, came upon them as a matter of surprise, and that the debates could not go on. He did not understand that assertion at all. It was not a matter of surprise to anybody that any Motion on the Notice Paper should be brought on before half-past 12 o'clock; the half-past 12 o'clock Rule meant nothing else than that every Motion on the Paper should be dealt with, if there were an opportunity for so doing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) said he was taken by surprise last night. Was it 11 or 12 o'clock, or what hour was it, that surprise should be felt that a Motion on the Notice Paper should be taken? They all knew the difficulty there was in getting through the Business of the House, which was not likely to be lessened by hon. Gentlemen making an arbitrary rule for themselves, and then postponing discussion on the ground that they had been taken by surprise; indeed, he did not see how the Government were to get through Business at all, unless hon. Members were prepared to take all Motions on the Paper, if there should be time to make them before half-past 12 o'clock. That was the practice and the rule of the House, and he could not understand the objection to take the Motion of his noble Friend. The House was aware of the pressure now upon the Government. There was the Vote of Censure; and the debate on the Address was unfinished. How, then, could the Government throw away these opportunities of dealing with other matters in their regular order? The right hon. Gentleman opposite had put down a block to the Motion, and then, because in the proper course of Business it was reached before half-past 12 o'clock, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said that the House was taken by surprise. To avoid such surprises, hon. Gentlemen need do no more than understand that Business on the Notice Paper, which could be taken before half-past 12 o'clock, would be proceeded with.

said, he thought he could tell the House why the surprise spoken of by right hon. Gentlemen was felt. The Prime Minister, on the first night of the Session, announced that the Business next after the debate on the Address would be the introduction of the Franchise Bill, and that he proposed, in due course, to introduce a Motion for the revival of the Standing Committees. No one after that had any idea that this Motion would be brought forward in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman; indeed, the Prime Minister was so much identified with the Business of the House dealt with in the present Motion, that he thought it natural, on the part of hon. Members, to expect that it would be brought forward by him. He would not go into the question as to the success or otherwise of the Standing Committees appointed last year, but merely say that, in his judgment, the imperfect action of the Standing Committee on Law, in respect of a certain measure which came before it, was due not to the construction or action of that Committee, but to the character of the measure which it had to consider. It was a Bill, the principle of which was strongly objected to by a large proportion of the Committee. That principle had never been really discussed in the House at all, still less by many of the Gentlemen who served on the Committee; and the Bill was, therefore, not in a fit state to go before the Standing Committee. There were, doubtless, many Bills to which that objection would not apply; and he, for one, was not at all clear that they had not arrived at a useful method of dealing with a certain class of measures; but he did not think the Bill which came last year before the Standing Committee on Law was one of that class.

said, he thought it scarcely worthy of the House for right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Benches to put forward the argument as to time in support of the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, because, as the Secretary of State for the Home Department had pointed out, any Business on the Paper might be reasonably expected to be taken which came forward before half-past 12 o'clock, and although this proceeding on the part of Her Majesty's Government did smack a little of what to some might appear sharp practice, they were not to be surprised at anything which the Government did. The proposal which had just been put before the House was one so important in itself that it seemed to him reasonable to ask that the discussion upon it should be postponed, and the decision of the House postponed until all those Members were in their places who felt an interest in the question. He had certainly understood the Prime Minister to say that it was not his intention to bring forward the Motion on the subject of the Standing Committees until a more advanced period of the Session had been reached, and his own opinion was certainly that the Motion would not be taken at that Sitting. He thought, with regard to the Standing Committees, that there was a good deal to be said against them as well as for them. He was a Member of one of those Committees, every Sitting of which he attended, and his experience was that there was an immense waste of time in connection with it. He believed much more work could have been got through in a Select Committee than in the Committee of which he was a Member, and much less expenditure of the force of the House would have been involved. The end of its labours was that the Bill which was passed through the Committee, and which was very imperfectly understood by the House, was brought down, and was ultimately read a third time without the House having before them the Amendments on the Paper. He would detain the House but a few moments longer in order to urge the desirability of postponing this discussion, on the ground of the great importance of the proposal made by the noble Marquess, the attenuated condition of the House, and the absence of Members who were greatly interested in the question of the Standing Committees, which made demands upon their time and attention that they could very ill afford.

said, he trusted the Government would agree to the adjournment of the debate. He had been a Member of one of the Standing Committees, having attended every Sitting, and he would venture to say that no one who had sat during the day on a Standing Committee, and gone through the work which they had to do, was then in a condition to come down to that House, sit there the whole evening, and discharge his duties efficiently. There were many considerations arising out of this question—namely, as to whether the old Committees had not worked as well as the Standing Committees, and as to whether the duties of the Standing Committees might not be discharged by a less number of Members.

I would point out that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going beyond the Question before the House.

said, with submission to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, that it was difficult to support the adjournment of the debate without showing the importance of the considerations involved in the Motion for the revival of the Standing Committees. The noble Marquess, however, must see that there were good reasons why the debate should be adjourned. He himself was exceedingly anxious that there should be an opportunity of fully discussing this important question of reappointing these Committees, to which in future very important Bills might be relegated.

said, he wished to remind the noble Marquess that the Prime Minister had stated distinctly that first after the Report of the Address he would ask leave to introduce the Bill dealing with the Franchise, and that he would next make the Motion relating to the Standing Committees. He felt sure that if the Home Secretary had known that, he would have agreed at once to the Motion of his right hon. Friend for the adjournment of the debate. It was all very well to say that Members must expect to be taken by surprise. They knew that. They were taken by surprise last night, and he must suppose that the Government intended to move these important Motions at a time when the House would be taken by surprise. If the debate on the present Motion were allowed to continue there would be a distinct breach of pledge, the responsibility of which would rest not on the Government alone, but particularly on the shoulders of the Prime Minister himself, because, as he had shown, the right hon. Gentleman said that the Motion would come on after the introduction of the important Bill of which he had given Notice. He did not think the noble Marquess was cognizant of this fact when he made the Motion, and they all knew that the Prime Minister had had a very onerous duty to perform in the House that evening; no one supposed for a moment that he would be in his place after the speech he had made in the debate which had taken place. He did not say it was un-Constitutional, or a thing that ought not to be done, for another Member of the Government to make a Motion of which the Prime Minister had given Notice, but it added to the number of surprises they had experienced; and for the reasons stated he trusted the noble Marquess would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

said, he rose to corroborate the statement of the hon. Member who had just spoken with regard to the announcement of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman certainly did say that this Motion would not be brought on before the Report of the Address had been taken; and that fact, in his opinion, bound the Government to agree to the adjournment of the debate. But another point had been raised by the Home Secretary—namely, that because the Motion appeared on the Notice Paper, it was perfectly legitimate and proper to bring it forward. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have known that it was a regular thing to put Motions on the Paper which it was not intended to bring forward; and that when a matter of great importance was really to be discussed, it was usual to bring it forward early in the evening, not at a quarter past 12 o'clock, as had been the case with the present Motion. The Motion of the noble Marquess stood in a very different position from that of the Bill brought forward last night, because, in the case of the latter, there would be an opportunity for discussing the merits of the measure at a subsequent period; whereas, if the Motion of to-night were carried, there would be no other opportunity for discussing the re-appointment of the Standing Committees. The Prime Minister certainly led the House to believe that he would not bring forward the Motion until after the Report of the Address. For that reason, in view of the importance of the question, and because there was room for much difference of opinion as to whether or not the Standing Committees should be re-appointed, he trusted the noble Marquess would agree to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

pointed out that, although the Prime Minister was not present, yet the Motion was made with his cognizance and consent.

protested against the Motion, and earnestly pressed the Government not to persist with it that night. It was in his recollection that it was a matter of dispute last year, in the course of the Session, whether these Grand Committees were to sit during the Sitting of the House. He mentioned that as an illustration of matters of dispute that might arise again with regard to these Committees. He thought the Government would be wise not to press this matter now, because this question necessarily produced a considerable amount of friction, as there was not a unanimous feeling in the House with regard to these Committees. No doubt, the majority of the House had agreed to them; but he thought the Government must feel that on a matter of this kind, which affected the conduct of the House, and naturally became a part of the arrangements of the House, every effort ought to be made to obtain as nearly as possible the general assent of the House. That was not the case at the present time. He had hoped to hear a statement on the subject from the Prime Minister; but the House had not had the advantage of hearing a statement of the right hon. Gentleman's views, and he thought that as that expectation was common to the whole House, it would only be dealing fairly and candidly with the House if the noble Marquess agreed to the adjournment, so that the Prime Minister might fulfil the pledge which hon. Members had understood him to give—namely, that this Motion should be made by himself, when the House was full, and proper attention could be given to the matter. He was sure the Government would consent to the adjournment if they consulted their own interests.

moved the adjournment of the House. No doubt hon. Members on this side would be taunted, because, up to now, they had been credulous enough to suppose that certain well-recognized principles, which would prevent Party warfare degenerating into faction, would still be observed; but if this Resolution was pressed through that night, these Grand Committees, which were passed at the end of that very excited Winter Session in 1882, and which were tried last year wholly experimentally, would again be forced upon the House without a fair discussion, into which all could enter with goodwill, and they would become a Party measure. There was a strong opinion on all sides last Session that this was the one portion of the New Code of 1882 which was to be kept out of the area of Party politics. That night the simple question was, whether the Government majority should, under conditions to which he would not further refer, acting under a strict Party Whip, snatch a purely Party victory over an Opposition totally unprepared. He must endorse everything that had been said as to there having been a general understanding as to when this Motion would be brought on; and he thought there could not be better evidence of that than that his right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Raikes), who was the last man to go to bed when there was anything to fight about in the House, had left the House. Could there be better evidence of the utter surprise that had been sprung upon the House? If the Government did snatch a majority that night they might carry the Grand Committees; but that would make them very unpopular, and would be a very bad beginning indeed.

said, he must recall the recollection of the noble Marquess to the fact that when these Grand Committees were first brought into action, towards the end of that long Session, the noble Marquess himself gave a most solemn pledge that when these Committees were to be proposed again the Motion would be made at a time of the Session when a full House could be expected to be present. When the Prime Minister brought forward, or attempted to bring forward, this matter at the end of a Session, and was reminded of this pledge, he then said he would not press it forward at that time, but would bring it forward early this Session, so that it might be considered by a properly constituted House. Considering that and the statement of the Prime Minister that after the Report of the Address he would bring forward the Franchise Bill, and after that the Standing Committees—words which he himself heard—it was a gross breach of faith to bring forward this Motion now. There was one further matter which he was bound to mention. Through the ordinary channels from one side to the other, he and his hon. Friends had been told that this matter was to be put down as the third Order for tomorrow. His objection would apply just the same in that case; but, that communication having been made, he considered the present proposal as a still further breach of faith. This was a question for the serious consideration and deliberation of the House, and it could not be supposed that hon. Members who had sat on these Committees would be able or willing at that time of the night to state their experience; and if hon. Members found in the morning that these Committees had been struck in their absence, and without their having had an opportunity of discussing the matter, their astonishment would have been very great. Therefore, he put it to the noble Marquess that, considering the opposition which would undoubtedly be persevered in, it would be better, if the House was to have a discussion at all upon these Committees, to bring them forward when Members were in their places. He ventured to say that these Committees would not have been agreed to but for the understanding to which he had referred. Under all these circumstances, he hoped the noble Marquess would not persist in the attempt to force this matter on an unwilling House, otherwise he might rely upon it that there would be a most determined opposition.

said, in regard to the argument as to the application of the Standing Committees to private Members Bills, that the Registration of Deeds Bill was not a private Member's Bill, but a Bill to be introduced in the other House by the Lord Chancellor. There was no wish to press the other private Bill further, if there was any objection on the part of the House. He had, however, something to say with respect to the somewhat excited charge made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross). The right hon. Gentleman said there had been a gross breach of faith on the part of the Government. That was a rather awkward charge to make. [Mr. WARTON: It is quite true.] He was not surprised the hon. and learned Member for Bridport agreed with that charge. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Prime Minister said he would introduce the Franchise Bill on Friday, and after introducing it on Friday he would take this proposition. He (the Attorney General) heard the Prime Minister use those words. It was in reference to Friday that the right hon. Gentleman used them, and he (the Attorney General) knew it was the right hon. Gentleman's intention and wish to make this proposition on every night of the Session since. He (the Attorney General) was sorry the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross) had seen fit to use such strong language, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) should have expressed the belief that there was a desire to push this proposition down the throats of hon. Members. There was no such wish on the part of the Government; indeed, if there was a strong feeling on the part of a considerable minority that the Motion ought not to be pressed on the present occasion, the Government would not further persevere with it. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington) had asked him to make this explanation, and to protest against the violent charge which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross). He trusted that the Motion would be withdrawn.