I have placed an Amendment on the Paper for the rejection of this Bill. I had expected that the hon. Member in charge of it would have offered some explanation of its necessity, but he has not thought fit to do so. Now, Sir, I ask the House to reject the Bill on two grounds—first, that it is not needed; and, secondly, that it will inflict an irreparable injury on the scenery of one of the most beautiful parts of England. I quite admit that considerations of the picturesque beauty of scenery must have their limits, and that there may be cases where it becomes necessary to sacrifice our love of scenery where substantial benefit is to be conferred upon the public, and that the public benefit must be secured even at the cost of injuring the natural beauties of the district. The St. Gothard Railway, for instance, has destroyed the charm of some of the most beautiful parts of the Valley of the Renn and of Val Levantina, but here the interests of Italy, Germany, and Switzerland were so great that the mischief had to be faced and endured. So the Highland Railway has ruined the pass of Killiecrankie; but a railway to the North of Scotland was needed, and possibly no other route could have been, found. But my contention is that in this case no such benefit would be bestowed as that which was conferred on the public by the making of the Highland Railway; but that, on the contrary, the construction of this railway will inflict irreparable injury upon the scenery of the beautiful region through which it is proposed to carry it, without any public advantage at all. I quite admit that considerations of scenery—or, if hon. Gentlemen choose to call it so, considerations of sentiment—must give way when a large and appreciable public benefit is to be conferred; but my case in regard to this Bill is that there is no substantial benefit whatever to be conferred by it; but, on the contrary, public annoyance and wanton encroachment. What are the benefits which are alleged by the promoters of the Bill? What good will be conferred upon the people of the district by the making of the line? The district is a tourist district, and in consequence there is no traffic during nine months of the year. The only traffic which could make a railway like this pay would be a tourist traffic during the three summer months. Therefore, there is no case for the Bill so far as the permanent interests of the inhabitants are concerned. The best proof of that is that the Kendal and Windermere Railway, which runs by means of a junction with the main line of the London and North-Western Railway Company at Oxenholme through Kendal to Windermere, has not been a successful line, although the population served by it is much larger than that which will be served by the proposed line, which is, in fact, a continuation of the Kendal and Windermere Railway. It is quite clear, therefore, that this line is one which is even less likely to pay a dividend. We are told that the railway will develop the industries of the district. That is an argument which this House would be disposed to pay some regard to, if it were to turn out that there was anything in it; but I shall, I think, be able to show the House that there is absolutely nothing at all in it. It is a district in which there is no important industry, and no hope of it; in fact, the district is purely pastoral and agricultural. The reasons circulated among Members by the promoters of the Bill for the making of the railway assert that there are manufactories at Troutbeck—for instance, a bobbin mill, gasworks at Ambleside, and also numerous surrounding populations to be served at Hawkshead, Elter Water, and elsewhere. I think this statement is some- what disingenuous on the part of the promoters of the Bill, because they have entirely ignored the fact that there is already a railroad in the district which supplies all that is wanted in that direction. Indeed, it is somewhat remarkable how many railways there are which give an entrance on every side of the Lake District to the region where the most beautiful scenery begins; and this, I think, is as it ought to be. Troutbeck is only two miles from the Windermere Station of the Kendal and Windermere Railway; and there can be no particular hardship in the Troutbeck bobbin mills having to send their goods to a railway two miles off. Elter Water is only five miles from a station which already exists at Coniston, and it is four miles from Ambleside; practically, therefore, the people of that neighbourhood have as good an access to railroad accommodation as they can obtain by going to Ambleside and Windermere. As regards Hawkshead, that town also is much nearer Coniston than Ambleside. It is only three miles from Coniston, five from Ambleside Station, and it is four miles from Windermere; so that, in point of fact, the people of Hawkshead have better railway accommodation than they would get if this railway were made to Ambleside from Windermere, so the Langdales are nearer to Coniston Station, than to Ambleside. These facts will, I think, entirely dispose, as hon. Members will see, of the allegations contained in the Paper which has been supplied to them as to the necessity of making the line for the development of the industries of the district. I have shown that in every case except in regard to Ambleside itself there is railway accommodation near, or nearer than the station at Ambleside would give. In point of fact, the only industry left that requires the making of this railroad is the gasworks at Ambleside, which wants to get its coals cheaper. We are also told that it would have the effect of enabling the publicans of Ambleside to pay less for the carriage of their beer. These, therefore, are the so-called industrial reasons for the making of this line. Although there is at present no railroad communication to Ambleside, there are plenty of other means of communication. [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: No.] The railroad at present comes to the station at Windermere immediately Windermere Lake; and from that station there is a service of coaches and omnibuses running to Ambleside. There is also a steamboat service on the Lake; and I believe the fare is only 9d. for the whole distance from Bowness to Ambleside. There is a constant and regular service in the summer months, although not so frequent or regular in the winter. Indeed, there are few places so well-off in regard to road and steamboat accommodation, and which less require railroad communication. As regards the Lake District generally, any hon. Member who looks at the map will find that there are a number of railways approaching it on every side. The London and North-Western Railway runs along the east side with numerous branches. The Furness Railway has various branches on the south side. The Whitehaven Railway serves the district in the west. These lines set people down on the edge of the Lake country, which I have stated is exactly what they ought to do; while the Penrith, Keswick, and Cockermouth Railway carries them through the middle, perhaps a more doubtful benefit. Of course, it is for the benefit both of the tourists and the locality that a railroad should be made up to the point where the scenery begins to be fine; but if it were carried further it would spoil the scenery itself. The best proof that the communications which now exist are ample, and that there is no great passenger traffic to be served, is to be found in the fact that the London and North-Western Railway Company are opposing the Bill. The London and North-Western Railway Company, as a Railway Company, would make a profit if there was any chance of a profit being realized, because it is that Company which would carry the additional passengers from Kendal to Windermere. Therefore, if this scheme were likely to be profitable, the London and North-Western Railway Company would assist it, instead of which the London and North-Western Railway Company are, as I understand, substantially hostile to the Bill. Petitions have been presented in favour of the Bill from Ambleside; but that is only a small town, containing about 2,000 inhabitants; and I am informed that a great many of the Petitions have been signed by boys and girls. [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: NO.] Hon. Members well know how easy it is for active agents to pick up signatures to a Petition of this kind. In the most populous parts of the district—namely. Windermere and Bowness—the inhabitants are opposed to the Bill. The only other population is to be found at Hawkshead and Elter Water; but I have told the House that those places are already better served by the railway communication which already exists, viâ Coniston, than they would be by Ambleside. As a matter of fact, this is a line purely promoted by contractors. It is a contractor's and innkeeper's scheme, and it has no substantial support from the best part of the local population of the district. At a meeting which was held at Ambleside in support of the Bill only one local landowner could be induced to appear and speak in its favour, and the only other persons who appeared on the platform were Sir Charles Fox, the engineer, and Mr. Nelson, the solicitor. The House will naturally ask what particular harm this railway will do? I think it is enough to say that it will simply destroy the charms of the scenery of one of tie most beautiful parts of our country. The line will have to be made over a tract of undulating ground by means of cuttings and embankments, and it will pass across two beautiful valleys, which it will cross by means of viaducts and bridges. It will also destroy many of the public footpaths which now exist. [Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: No, no!] The hon. Gentleman need not say "No, no!" because what I am stating is the fact. It will interfere with public footpaths leading to the hills from the Lake, and will destroy the copses and woodlands. Persons who are now able to enjoy the scenery will be deprived of the ancient footpaths, by means of which they are enabled to climb the hills; and the Bill will work all this destruction to the beauty of the scenery in order that people may be carried to Ambleside for 6d. less, and a saving of half-an-hour of time. The railway will, moreover, carry them along a line from which it is impossible to see the loveliness of Winder-mere. The promoters say it will be possible to see Lake Windermere out of the railway carriage; but that is somewhat inconsistent with their other case, that it will be impossible to see the railway from Windermere. The fact is that the railway, though it will afford no continuous view of the landscape from its line, will be in view from the Lake at so many points and in so obtrusively disagreeable a way as to destroy the peculiar charms which the scenery now possesses. No doubt, I shall be told that this is all sentiment. I am quite prepared to be told that, and do not, in the least, regard what is meant to be a sneer. If a regard for the beauty of scenery be sentiment, then sentiment is a good thing. It is a good thing that people should value the beauties of their country. It is a good thing that they should be able to go somewhere to enjoy Nature, and enjoy it in peace and quiet. It is desirable that they should have a perfect and complete change from the surroundings in which they live during the rest of their lives. Is it contended that the untouched nature of the Lake country would be improved by the introduction of railway engines and steam, by the construction of brick viaducts, spoil heaps, and straight embankments? Is it desirable that for the sound of sheep-bells, murmuring brooks, and waterfalls, there should be substituted the shriek of the locomotive and the clatter of the train? There is already plenty of that in Lancashire, and when the people of Lancashire want to get rid of their own surroundings they go to the Lake Country for quiet and enjoyment. It would appear that the promoters of the Bill want to import the scenery of Bolton, Wigan, and Clapham Junction into the most delightful retreat in England. If this kind of legislation is to be carried out there will soon be no scrap of country left to show those who come after us what England was like 100 years ago. The fortune of the Lake Country is its beauty. It depends upon the charms of its scenery for its attraction, and its scenery has secured for its people exceptional prosperity. Those are certainly its worst friends who endeavour to destroy what has hitherto constituted its charm. It is a very small district, and its beauty is beauty in miniature. If you destroy that exquisite combination of beauties, delicate and singularly harmonized beauties, which Nature seems to have here laboured consciously to produce, blending into a perfect whole all the elements of form and colour which have power to touch the eye and awaken the imagination, you will destroy what never can be replaced, and the loss of which will be a loss to the whole life and mind of our people. I feel the less hesitation in urging this so-called sentimental views, because it is generally entertained by the masses of the people. I should like to add that since Notice of opposition was given to this Bill I have received abundant evidence of the existence of this feeling, not only from Lancashire and Yorkshire, but even from the manufacturing districts of Yorkshire, Northumberland, and Durham. The people in those localities feel the greatest interest in the preservation of this piece of scenery. They want to go to the Lake Country; but they do not want to be carried by a railway through the Lake country. Many hon. Members who have country houses have parks surrounding them. They are glad to have a railway made near to the gate of their park; but they have no desire that a railway should run through the park itself. Now, the people look upon the Lake District as their national park, and they desire to preserve it. They desire to reach it easily—as they can now do—but not to be hurried through it inside a railway carriage, still less to see it robbed of those very beauties which have drawn them to it. Even supposing that a majority of the residents were in favour of making this railway, I should maintain that the residents are not the only people in the Three Kingdoms who have to be considered. We might as well say that the only people to be considered in determining what is to be done with Hyde Park are the people who live in the Edgware Road and Park Lane. Hyde Park is an object of concern to the whole of the people of London, and the Lake District belongs to the whole of England, and especially to the North of England. It is the recreation ground of the people who go there to enjoy their holidays. Members of this House can afford to take a trip to Norway or Switzerland; but many millions of their countrymen who cannot afford to go to Norway and Switzerland desire to enjoy the one piece of scenery it is possible for them to get at; and you would be doing them the worst service you could do them if you endeavoured to destroy that scenery. Bring them there by all means; give them every facility to get there; but do not destroy the place they go to see. There are per- sons all over the English-speaking world who entertain great respect and affection for the Lake Country. It has been hallowed by the genius of some of our greatest poets; and when visitors come from the Colonies and America to see the Lake Country, they do honour there to the memory of Wordsworth and other illustrious men with whose names the Lake Country is associated, they desire to see the country such as it was in the days when the presence of those men made it famous. Are we to show ourselves less sensitive to the value of natural beauty than the people of California, who have set apart their Yosemite Valley to be kept sacred from the intrusion of railways? The people of New York have, at immense cost, removed all the obstacles which prevent a full view from being obtained of the Falls of Niagara. Are we to fall behind them by allowing works to be made which will destroy what Nature has bestowed? These are the reasons why I oppose this Bill on the second reading. It is, of course, as a general rule, a sound principle that a Private Bill should be sent to a Committee, and I should not ask the House to depart from that rule now without good reason. The reason why that principle should not be adopted in the present case, but the measure should be dealt with by the whole House, is this—that the people of England, and particularly the people of the manufacturing districts of Lancashire, who have sent up numerous Petitions against the Bill, would have no locus standi before a Private Bill Committee. They cannot be heard there; the arguments on which they rely would have no place there, and for this reason we are obliged to ask the House to reject the Bill on the second reading. A Private Bill Committee can only consider questions of finance and engineering matters, and would have no power to go into, nor, indeed, much capacity to consider and decide, the questions which I have respectfully endeavoured to put before the House as the grounds upon which the Bill ought to be rejected. A Committee of four Members is no fit tribunal to determine the issues which this Bill raises, nor could its determination of them command acceptance. It is a small railway, no doubt—only a railway of five miles—which is sought to be made; but the principle involved is a very large one, and the interests of the people involved are also large interests. It is on behalf of the people who desire to retain the full enjoyment of this piece of scenery that I ask the House to reject the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time on this day six months.

I rise for the purpose of seconding the Amendment. It seems to me that when questions of this kind are submitted to the House, the interests of the people, which are so largely involved in them, should not be excluded from consideration; yet that would be the case if this Bill is read a second time, and referred to a Select Committee. I believe that those who represent important districts in the North of England have been strongly pressed to vote against this Bill. All the representations which have reached me from Lancashire, both from the town populations and from the inhabitants of the rural parts of Lancashire, are distinctly and decidedly against the Bill. The people who live in the crowded towns of Lancashire and Yorkshire, immediately around the Lake District, look upon that district as their great picnicking ground. The Lake is as well known to them as Pall Mall is to hon. Members here. It is because they know it so well, and because it is the only part of England where they can see Nature without such adornments as Rosherville, which appears to be so attractive to other minds, that they desire to preserve it intact. It may be said that the complaint we make is one of sentiment urged by æsthetic people; but what we maintain is that the House ought not only to regard the desires of a small population in the immediate neighbourhood of Windermere, but of the great masses of the people of this country who daily find the area in which Nature can be studied and enjoyed shrinking rapidly. When issues of this kind are raised it seems to me that a different principle from that which is generally employed in support of railway undertakings is evoked. People who are fortunate or unfortunate enough to have possessions which contain objects of interest to the great mass of their countrymen not only have proprietary rights, but are trustees for the people. They have no right to come to this House and ask this House to give them excep- tional advantages in the Bill, which has for its object an infringement of wider rights than proprietary rights—namely, the general right of the community to enjoy humanizing scenery. The Americans have recently enclosed a very large tract in one of their States. They have engaged to preserve the Yellowstone District absolutely intact from railways or the other vulgarities of modern life, and to preserve it as a great national park. Wherever a railway is intruded it undoubtedly brings in its wake a great amount of vulgarity; and it is the wish of those who oppose this Bill to preserve, as far as possible, the only area in England where Nature can be seen without modern vulgar embellishment. For these reasons I beg to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member opposite.

As my name is on the back of the Bill, and as I have the honour to represent a constituency immediately contiguous to the district in which it is proposed this railway shall be made, I wish to state briefly why I think the House ought to allow the second reading of the Bill to pass. My complete answer to the hon. Member who moved the rejection of the Bill, when he asserted that there is no industry in the district, and that the vast majority of persons living in the district have no desire to see this railway made, is that yesterday I presented 8 or 10 Petitions from Ambleside itself, and from the neighbouring villages, in favour of the Bill. Those who briefed the hon. Gentleman, and who object to this Bill have not been able to secure, as far as I am aware, one single Petition against the Bill from the district. Now, I maintain that if the inhabitants of a district desire to have a railway in their midst it behoves those who are opposed to such a scheme to make out a very strong case indeed for opposing the line, and I say that the hon. Gentleman has completely failed to make out such a case. The hon. Gentleman talked of the railway destroying the scenery, and he referred to Clapham Junction, as if it were proposed to make a Clapham Junction at a wayside station, such as that at Ambleside would be. The hon. Gentleman must have known that such talk was mere claptrap. I do not know on whose behalf the hon. Gentleman has made his speech this afternoon. It certainly was not on behalf of the inhabitants of the district, because he does not seem to have been in communication with them, or, at all events, with only a very small portion of them; and I do not think that his speech was made on behalf of the great communities of Lancashire and Yorkshire, because, if it had been so, his desire ought rather to have been to bring railway communication to a point which would be the most suitable for them to see the Lake scenery. Instead of that, how does the case stand? Under present arangement, "trippers"—as we call them in Westmoreland—that is to say, the excursionists from Lancashire and Yorkshire, arrive at the Windermere Station, where they are landed high and dry—dry, I may say, in more senses than one. They are landed high up on the side of a hill some five miles distant from where the best of the scenery begins—namely, the head of the Lake. [Cries of "Oh!"] Of course, compared with Aberdeenshire and Finsbury Circus, the Members for which, I believe, are opposing this Bill, all the scenery of Westmoreland and Cumberland is beautiful; but what I maintain is that the real beauty of the Lake scenery does not begin until Ambleside is reached. When the "trippers" are landed at Winder-mere Station they have to make their way to Ambleside by means of a long and dusty road for a good many miles before they can reach Rydal or Grasmere, which are some three or four miles further on than Ambleside. Then, again, if they desire to reach the Lake, they have to go half-a-mile below the station before they can get to the pier at Bowness. In fact, they have actually to go south before they can pick up a steamer to take them from Bowness to Ambleside. If the sole question before us is whether the scenery is likely to be interfered with, that is essentially a question for a Committee upstairs, and a Committee alone can decide it. This House is altogether incompetent to judge whether the construction of the proposed railway will destroy the scenery or not. I have been at some pains to consult the plans and look at the photographs of the district; and, as far as my judgment goes, I think the line has been laid out so as to destroy the scenery, as the hon. Member calls it, to the least possible extent. The hon. Member knows perfectly well that the whole question can be raised before a Committee if he chooses to raise it. Why, Sir, what happened in the case of the Ennerdale Railway Bills in 1883 and 1884? The hon. Gentleman objected to those Bills on precisely the same grounds, and twice he was defeated. The House of Commons, acting upon the principle that it would not exercise its judgment on mere matters of detail, passed the second reading of those Bills; but, at the same time, it accepted, and perhaps not wrongly, the Instruction moved by the hon. Gentleman to the Committee to take into consideration questions dealing with the fact whether the scenery would be spoilt or not. I now invite the House humbly and respectfully to follow the same course as that which it took in 1883 and 1884, and to allow the second reading of the Bill to be taken. It will then be in the power of the hon. Member or any other hon. Member to move an Instruction to the Committee to take into consideration this question of scenery. I, for one, shall not object to any such Instruction being sent to the Committee. There were one or two other matters stated by the hon. Gentleman; but I do not think they are of sufficient importance to justify me in detaining the House upon them. There was, however, one point which he made which I think shows that he has had very little experience of the Rules and Regulations of the House of Commons. The hon. Member said that the London and North-Western Company are opposing the Bill. Of course, they are opposing the Bill, because it gives them a locus standi to appear before the Committee in order to obtain terms as to the connection which it will be necessary to make with the Kendal and Windermere Railway at Windermere. The hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Howorth), who seconded the Amendment, referred to the Yellowstone National Park, and gave that as an instance of the way in which the Americans preserve the land for those who desire to use it for holiday purposes. Now, the Yellowstone Park is a complete fraud; because it is a park for rich men only, and not for the poor. I think I am well within the mark when I say that it is 1,000 miles from New York. My contention is that if you continue the existing railway from Windermere to Ambleside you will, at all events, bring into the district those poor inhabitants of Lancashire who desire to see the Lake District. You will enable them to get nearer to the most beautiful parts of the scenery than if you land them at Windermere. On these general principles, which I have attempted to lay before the House, I, therefore, humbly trust the House will allow the second reading of this Bill to pass. It is a Bill which is strongly desired by the vast majority of the inhabitants of the district.

I, like the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce), am of a somewhat sentimental turn; but I must really protest against the false sentimentality contained in the tone of the observations of my hon. Friends. Who are the objectors to this Bill? They are sentimentalists, poets, and æsthetes. Who are those who are the supporters of the Bill? They are the best judges of the matter—namely, the inhabitants of the district. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce) has stated that it is desirable to retain portions of old English scenery free from the disfigurement of railways, as specimens of old England; but what would he say if it were proposed by the inhabitants of London to retain portions of Aberdeen, without an omnibus, without a railway, a tramcar, or anything connected with modern civilization, in order that it might be kept as a specimen of an old Scotch town? My hon. Friend seems to be under the delusion that the introduction of a railway must necessarily destroy the beauty of the scenery. I am sure that my hon. Friend has seen the railways in Savoy, Switzerland, and Italy. Why, the railroad in itself is a beautiful object. I know of nothing more pretty than the viaducts, against which my hon. Friend protests, when we see them either on the Corniche or the St. Gothard Railway. My hon. Friend stated that persons going into the Lake District would object to the shrieking of trains. Well, but the trains will not shriek. Why should trains shriek? There may be steam coming from the engine; but, after all, what is steam? It is only a vapour; and we have heard a good deal about the beauty of clouds. The railway engine will only give out artificial clouds. My hon. Friend alluded to the Yellowstone Park and the Yosemite Valley, and he said that the Americans have converted them into national playgrounds. But the American people have paid for them. I protest against these attacks upon property. Is my hon. Friend prepared to pay for the national playground he is going to establish for the benefit of sentimentalists, poets, and æsthetes? If this playground is to be reserved free from the disfigurement of railways let it be paid for. I sympathize with the "tripper." I know very well that the "tripper" who goes for a day to the Lake District wants to be deposited in the middle of the district, so that he may look about him for a few hours, and then go to his home. I was once a "tripper" myself, and I went down to this district. I was turned loose at Windermere, or Bowness, and I found great difficulty in getting a carriage to carry me on to Ambleside. I forget what I had to pay; but I see from the statement put forth by the promoters that it costs from 3s. to 5s. to get from Kendal to Ambleside. My hon. Friend scoffs at the opinions of the inhabitants of the district. They are to be entirely sacrificed to gentlemen from Aberdeen and other places who may probably never go there, but who may want to go. He says that the people of Ambleside will only have to pay a little more for their gas if this Bill is rejected. At present they have to pay 3s. 6d. more for the carriage of their coals. He says there is a bobbin factory which feels aggrieved; but he adds that it is only two miles from the railway. Now, in these days of competition it is absolutely necessary to bring a railroad as near as possible to a manufactory in order to enable it to pay. My hon. Friend says that the Bill ought not to be referred to a Committee upstairs, because in that case the people of England cannot appear before the Committee. Why should the people of England appear before any Committee? The "people of England" is a very vague term, and it is generally made use of by an hon. Gentleman when he merely wants to state his own opinions. My hon. Friend always says—"The people of England are in my favour." Now, I do not pay much attention to this vague impersonality of the people of England. When a district containing—not 2,000 as my hon. Friend asserted—but 7,000 persons wishes to have a railroad to connect it with the rest of England I think it is the best judge of what it wants; and if you want to make any country a playground buy it up. I shall vote for the second reading of the Bill, as I shall in favour of any Railway Bill which may come before this House, because I believe that a railroad means civilization, and the more we have of them the better.

As an old Cumberland Member—I believe technically the oldest Cumberland Member now in this House—I desire to say a few words in support of the second reading of this Bill. Nothing has more surprised me than the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). I do not hesitate to say, for my own part, that I agree with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) who has just sat down that railways need not involve any interference with the picturesque scenery of a country. On the contrary, I believe they add to the beauty of the scenery instead of detracting from it. I am familiar with the railways in Switzerland, Savoy, and Italy, and also with the railways which now exist in Cumberland itself. When the hon. Gentleman talks about intruding a system of railways into Cumberland, is he aware that there is a railway at this moment at the very foot of Scawfell by way of Eskdale—one of the most beautiful valleys in the whole of England. How is it that he did not oppose that railway or make a protest against it? Is he not also aware that there is a railway running along the shore of Bassenthwaite Lake and another over Shapfells; and does he mean to allege in any reasonable moment that these railways are an interference with the enjoyment of the people? No assertion of that kind would be received by this House. However the sentimental idea may be treated, and whatever weight it may have with the House, I take objection to the hon. Member's speech, on the ground that he told us that there was substantially no support to the Bill except among the people he enumerated. I do not know from whence the hon. Member got his information. On the West Coast of Cumberland there is a large mining population, and that population, almost to a man, is in favour of this project. Within the last few days I have received a considerable number of letters, not only from my own constituency in North-West Cumberland, but also from South-West Cumberland, asking me to give all the support I can to this Bill. At this moment this district, which the hon. Gentleman is so desirous of preserving, is absolutely inaccessible to the working population of West Cumberland. If they desire to visit Ambleside, they have to take the railway which goes to the foot of Scawfell, and from thence they have a weary walk of 14 miles in order to reach the head of Windermere. If this railway is authorized they ought to be able on great holidays to reach Ambleside in three hours, with ample time to enjoy the scenery and return to their homes the same day. There is another point to which I think it absolutely necessary that I should call the attention of the House—namely, the issue of a document called "Reasons against the second reading of the Bill by the Commons Preservation Society." I must say that in so short a space I have never seen reasons put forth so absolutely destitute of foundation. It is surprising to me that the hon. Member for Aberdeen should have identified himself with the Society which has put forward such a series of false accusations as are contained in this document against the Bill. I will not go through the first three or four reasons, because they have already been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther); but the last of them, and perhaps the most important, because it bears materially upon this case, states, among other things, that "Parliament has hitherto steadily refused to permit any railway to traverse this district and the four railway schemes have been successively rejected." Now, the truth is that the Ennerdale Bill was twice sent to a Select Committee, and not rejected upon, any picturesque or sentimental ideas, nor because it interfered with the enjoyment of the public. The Ennerdale Bill was rejected, not by the House, but by a Committee, because the financial proposals it contained did not meet with the acceptance of the Committee. Therefore, I say it is perfectly monstrous that this so-called "Commons Preservation Society" with whom the hon. Member is connected, and I believe other hon. Members, probably on both sides of the House, should allow such false and misleading statements to be put forth. It is nothing of the sort. The Ennerdale Scheme passed a second reading on two occasions; and, as I have told the House, the Bill was rejected by a Select Committee for other reasons. The hon. Member flatters the working man, and, when it suits him, upholds the great necessity that he should have the opportunity of rational enjoyment. Now, it is on that very ground that I support this Bill. The working man in this part of the country has the British Museum, the Tower of London, and the Brompton Boilers, as the South Kensington Museum is properly called; but in the Lake District there are no exhibitions of the kind. I have not the slightest doubt that it is very disagreeable to some hon. Members on the other side of the House that we should endeavour to do something to assist the working man. I see sitting on the Front Opposition Bench the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees (Mr. Courtney). Before the House consents to reject this Bill, I think it is desirable that the hon. Gentleman should rise in his place and give the House the full benefit of his advice. At this stage I shall certainly give my strenuous support to the second reading of the Bill.

I ask the indulgence of the House for three or four minutes by that clock while I explain my reasons for opposing this Bill. The whirligig of time has brought with it its revenge in giving me the position of answering the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I oppose this Bill upon that principle which animates us both, and which animates many other Members of this honourable House, although it rarely extends its influence to the occupants of the Treasury Bench—the true I democratic principle—that is to say, I prefer the interests of the greater number of the inhabitants of the country to those of the lesser. That is a principle upon which the whole of this House—Conservative as well as Liberal—is supposed to act, although I must confess; that it occasionally nods. I wish to put before the House three reasons why the Bill ought to be rejected. Firstly, it ought to be rejected on utilitarian prin- ciples. The hon. Member for Northampton has proved to demonstration, in his own paper, that the railway which it is proposed to construct cannot be a commercial success. Why, then, should we run a railroad into a district where it is not wanted? No one presumes to say that a railroad is beautiful in itself, or desirable except for the advantage of the public, although I know there are those who would be prepared to run a railroad through Westminster Abbey in order to get a more ready access to this Chamber. Taking the artistic view, I think I speak the mind of every artist, of every true Democrat, of every Conservative, in the proper meaning of the word, and of every Englishman who loves his country, when I ask all sides in the House to join in protesting against and rejecting this most unnecessary Bill. I know that the opponents of the Bill have been termed artists, poets, sentimentalists, æsthetes, and selfish people. I am not going to stand up and argue that a mountain may not be improved by the presence of man and of that of woman sometimes; but I protest against robbing the poor of the nation of one of their playgrounds. The time has gone by when, by the permission of the House, and through the agency of some of those processes facetiously called "law," most of the commons has been stolen from that great goose—the British public. I know, Sir, that it is of no use to urge the example of the Yellowstone Park; and, therefore, I shall not proceed to do so. It seems to me that, like the Yellowstone Park, this Ambleside district might be most advantageously bought by the nation, and preserved for the people of our great towns as a Democratic playground. In this country the rich have their enclosed parks, in which the noble owner can walk or commune with his gamekeeper beneath the shadow of the neat white-painted board—"No Trespassers;" but his poorer neighbour can only ramble about his well-flavoured open slum, and saunter between that and the public-house, where refreshment is provided both for his body and soul—for I am even prepared to advance that the poor have souls. I will not ask the House to accompany me very far in a flight of fancy; but I would ask hon. Members to imagine Ambleside when all the pomp and circumstance of glorious commerce shall have descended upon it, when refreshment rooms and shilling teas prevail, and when lads and lasses no longer go a-courting—I do not mention the circumstance as any reflection upon the morality of the district, which I believe stands high, and will compare favourably with that of any other parts of the Kingdom in which the people are equally as well fed, and enjoy the privileges of an Established Church—when lads and lasses no longer go a-courting amongst the groves to the song of the nightingale, but stagger amidst gasometers and scoria, and listen to the dulcet tones of the steam whistle. In conclusion, I would venture to ask the House, irrespective of Party, to show that small portion of humanity outside its walls that they have some sympathy with legislation of a popular character. For these reasons I oppose the second reading of this Bill.

I support the Bill on behalf of the constituents whom I have the honour to represent, who desire to obtain access to this most beautiful district, and who have presented Petitions in favour of the measure. They object to have the beautiful scenery of the Lake District shut out from the great body of people; and I would remind the hon. Gentleman who has moved the rejection of the Bill that some of the support which is given to the second reading is based upon a desire to get rid of the flooding of people which now takes place at Windermere alone, in order to carry them a little further on, and afford them an opportunity of seeing those beauties of Nature which have been so graphically described by the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Bryce). Well, Sir, are the sentimentalists, who desire to shut up our fells and valleys, and confine them only to the people who inhabit them, to prevent the manufacturing population from visiting them? Do they wish to set a seal on it, and allow no one to get out of it; and do they desire to build up a kind of Chinese wall, which is to prevent access from either side? We invite the whole population of the United Kingdom to enter the district. We have no selfish motives, even against the æsthetic cause they may have at heart. If this railroad is not made, is the district to be converted into a happy hunting ground for the spirits of the poets, æsthetes, and sentimentalists who take such deep in- terest in its reservation and seclusion? The objections to the Bill seem to emanate entirely from those who have no present business in the district; while the inhabitants who live in the murky cities bordering on the proposed line wish to have an opportunity of getting to Amble-side, but do not at present possess the necessary facilities. I feel that I should fail in the duty I owe to my constituents if I did not give my support to this Bill. Living, as I do, in the midst of this scenery, I am prepared to say that the construction of this railway will in no sense injure the beauty of the Lake Country; and probably I know the locality as intimately as any man who has ever visited it. More than that, the fear I have is that if you do not sanction this railway, you will have the still more objectionable tramways laid down in its place; for the means of communication we must have, and if the House of Commons refuses to give us a railroad we must obtain what we desire by some other means.

The question before the House has been so fully discussed, that I will promise not to detain hon. Members long. I only rise for the purpose of answering the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for White-haven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), who has, in strong terms, denounced a Circular issued in opposition to this Bill by the Commons Preservation Society, of which I have the honour to be Chairman. I am fully prepared to maintain substantially the accuracy of every word contained in that Circular, although the right hon. Gentleman only cited one of the various reasons which the Society give for objecting to the Bill. The statement to which the right hon. Gentleman specifically objects is that the Society has, on four occasions, successfully prevented railroads from invading the Lake District. That statement is perfectly true. On every occasion their opposition has been attended with success. Whether in every case the proposal was rejected on the ground of sentiment or from some other cause I am not able to say; but our opposition was in every case successful, and we prevented the railroad proposed from entering the district. I should be very sorry to enter into a controversy with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) as to what is true or false in sentiment. On numerous occasions an appeal of this kind has been fought in the interests of the public against private interests, and always with success. If the matter were a private matter, dealing only with private rights and interests, I should not have interposed to prevent the Bill going to a Committee; but my experience of Select Committees is that they do not sufficiently regard the interests of the public, and that it is only in this House that the interests of the public are properly maintained. It is on that principle that I have, over and over again, dealt with matters of this kind, and shall do so again whenever they come before us. The hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. Lowther) has put the case very fairly before the House; but his case is that the railway will be a benefit to tourists. Now, would it be better for the tourists to have this railway, or to be without it? Surely, if we are to enter into the consideration of what is for the benefit of tourists, we ought to take a broader view when the interests of tourists are likely, by the construction of a railway, to encroach upon the general interests of the community. That is really the question before the House; and I hope the House will decide, as upon former occasions, by rejecting the Bill.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, If he can state how many men have been engaged in the invasion and conquest of Upper Burmah, how many of them have been killed or have died of disease, how many Burmese have been slaughtered, and what amount of money has been hitherto spent on that enterprize?

The number of men engaged in the invasion and conquest of Upper Burmah up to December 31, 1885, was 9,546. Of these, nine were killed in action, one died of wounds received, 78 of disease. Twenty lakhs of rupees were spent on the enterprize. In the operations for the suppression of brigandage and establishment of order that have taken place subsequent to the invasion and conquest, up to December 31, 1886, there have been engaged 31,571 men. Of these, 100 have been killed in action, 31 have died of wounds received, and 967 have died of disease. The mortality has been much aggravated by occasional outbreaks of cholera. The cost of these subsequent operations has been 121½ lakhs. It is impossible to ascertain the number of Burmese villagers who have been slaughtered by dacoits, or the number of the latter who have been killed in resisting the British Forces.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that the Chief Land Commissioners have not visited County Sligo for more than a year, for the purpose of hearing appeals, and when they intend to do so?

It is true that the Chief Commission has not visited Sligo for some time; but I am informed by the Secretary to the Commission that they expect to visit that town again next May.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Volunteer Force will be afforded an opportunity of taking part in any military review or other celebration in honour of Her Majesty's Jubilee?

No decision has yet been arrived at as to the holding of a special review in honour of Her Majesty's Jubilee. If a review takes place, the desire of the Volunteer Force to be represented at it will certainly not be lost sight of; and if a similar desire is expressed on behalf of the Yeomanry it will also be borne in mind.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, notwithstanding that, since the coming into operation of "The Married Women's Property Act, 1882," a husband has no legal control over his wife's income,, yet he is compelled to pay Income Tax on the joint incomes of himself and his wife, when together they exceed £150, although the separate income of each may be under £150?

, in reply, said, that where the joint incomes of husband and wife came to over £150 they were taxed, the income being treated as the joint income of a family, and not as that of two separate persons lodging together in. the same house. The hon. and gallant Member would find that if the husband and wife were to be treated separately, the wife, in the case of the death of her husband, would have to pay Legacy and Succession Duty as a stranger, so that they would gain little by being treated as separate persons.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether His Highness the Khedive of Egypt, whose troops received the English War medal for service in the Nile Expedition, has been invited to confer on the English troops similarly engaged the bronze star conferred by him on the English troops engaged in 1884 in the Eastern Soudan?

No, Sir; Her Majesty's Government has not invited the Khedive to confer the bronze star on the troops engaged in the Nile Expedition. It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to invite the bestowal of decorations by Foreign Potentates on British troops. In the former case the bronze star was conferred by His Highness on his own initiative.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is a fact that a labourer named Waters, living in Newtown Mount Kennedy, County Wicklow, whose house was certified by the sanitary officer as unfit for human habitation, applied to the Board of Guardians, Rathdrum Union, for a cottage under the Act; whether his application was granted and a cottage built for him amongst others; and, whether the cottage intended in the first instance for Waters was assigned to an employé of one of the Guardians?

The Local Government Board have submitted a Report from the Clerk of the Union from which it appears that the statement in the first paragraph of the Question is correct. But cottages were built to supply the wants of the locality, and no cottage was intended expressly for any individual. A person employed by one of the Guardians was preferred to Waters as a tenant, because he was living in lodgings. The Local Government Board have no power to interfere with the discretion of the Guardians in the matter.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to a memorial submitted on behalf of the people of Greystones, County Wicklow, relative to the harbour works at that place, Whether the Treasury will sanction the expenditure of £1,000, at present in the hands of the Board of Works in connection with Greystones, in excavating a small dock, as recommended in the Memorial, to give employment to the fishermen who are prevented from following their calling regularly owing to the present condition of the harbour?

The Board of Public Works have not £1,000 to spare from the amount sanctioned for the harbour at Greystones, as they have in this and all similar cases to meet the charge for a clerk of the works and other incidental expenses from the difference between the amount of the contract and the total amount sanctioned for the execution of the works. They hope, however, in this particular case to be enabled to excavate the small dock recommended by the Memorialists, and have made arrangements for giving effect to the recommendation, as far as is possible, with the funds available.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any objection, and, if so, what, to the inspection by proper persons of the Irish records now in the Public Record Office of date subsequent to 1769; to what date may such records be inspected; and, whether there are any written or other Rules, and, if so, what, regulating such inspection?

It has been held by successive Secretaries of State of both Parties that the inspection of certain Irish Papers now in the Record Office would be detrimental to the public interests. It is purely a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State whether he shall allow access to these records. He is not guided by any written Rules; but solely by what he considers his duty as trustee of confidential documents which have been committed to his charge. The inspection of these records is open to the public up to 1772.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that by means of the system of selling, through the Post Office, Government Securities in sums of £10 at a time and upwards, more than £2,500,000 of such Government Securities is now held by about 30,000 persons; and, whether he is willing to extend the system by reducing the £10 minimum investment, so as to bring this mode of investment in the National Securities more within the reach of the working classes, as is the case in France with the French Rentes?

The question of fixing a minimum amount for investment in Government Securities through the medium of the Post Office Savings Bank was very carefully considered in 1880, when the Savings Bank Act of that year was passed, and the minimum is fixed by the Act. It was thought that the Savings Bank itself afforded ample facility for the deposit and safe keeping of sums under £10, and that for less than that amount it would not be worth while for an individual to incur the expense of commission chargeable on the purchase and sale of a portion of so small an amount. The interest on a Savings Bank deposit is 2½ per cent; while the interest on a Stock investment at the present time barely roaches 3 per cent. Therefore, on a sum of, say, £9, the Savings Bank would give 4s. 6d.; and, taking the Government Stock at 3 per cent, the interest would be 5s. 5d., while the commission would be 9d. Judging by the average amount of each investment, which is about £50, there does not appear to be any demand on the part of the public for a reduction of the minimum; but I shall be glad to consider any representations on the subject.

asked the Surveyor General of the Ordnance, Whether the balances shown in the Army Manufacturing Accounts are any better than paper balances; and, whether these paper balances are ever checked against actual balances by any auditor or stock-taker, independent of the War Office itself?

The balances shown in the Army Manufacturing Accounts are actual balances, and represent Government property actually held by the several Departments. Stock is frequently taken, independently of the Departments concerned, by the accountant and auditor who represent the War Office. There is no audit whatever applied to the accounts and balances in question by any other Department than the War Office; but the question of introducing an audit altogether independent of the War Office is now under consideration.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is aware that, owing to exist- ing rates of postage, a manufacturer in the North of England distributes his trade samples throughout the United Kingdom by means of the Belgian Post Office, effecting thereby a considerable saving; and, whether this does not represent a loss of income to the Post Office Authorities here?

The subject to which the hon. Member refers has already been brought before me, and is now under my consideration. I am, at the present moment, actively engaged in endeavouring to ascertain upon what system a satisfactory Pattern Post can be established without injury to the Revenue, and without affording opportunities for fraud.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a quorum attended the meeting of Commissioners of Endowed Schools, Ireland, on 13th January, 1887; whether J. J. Berrison, the land agent, was in attendance; whether any of the Commissioners who wrote advising an increased abatement of rent to tenants were present; whether the Board has repeatedly refused the admission of any deputation from the Cavan tenantry; and, whether the Commissioners will now reconsider the matter, and receive a deputation from the tenants at their next meeting?

No reply has yet been received from the Commissioners, whose stated meeting, it is understood, will be held to-day.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a case reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 12th instant, in which it is stated that a man named Lambe, recently an inmate of the Criminal Lunatic Asylum at Dundrum—

"Was punished by administering to him a cold plunge bath, and by solitary confinement;"

whether he is aware that punishment by ducking in a cold bath is frequently resorted to in the Criminal Asylum; and, whether he will put a stop to this practice?

The newspaper paragraph referred to mentions that an action arising out of this case is pending, and will be heard at the approaching Quarter Sessions at Kilmainham. This being so, it would be obviously improper to enter into any discussion of its merits. But I understand that this punishment, under careful regulations, has been sanctioned in the Asylum since its opening.

asked the Postmaster General, If he could state to the House the amount of money received by friends, relatives, &c, in England from Australia last year through the Money Order Office; and, the number of remitters?

asked, Whether the Postmaster General was not aware that the postal rate of letters to Australia under half an ounce was 6d., and that this was a prohibitive rate to the poorer classes?

In reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Henniker Heaton), I have to state that the value of the money orders issued on the United Kingdom in Australia in the year 1885–6, which is the last year in respect of which the Returns are completed, was £346,645, as will be seen at page 52 of the last Annual Report of the Post Office; and the number of orders was about 100,000. The number of remitters could not be ascertained without an examination of each order, involving much labour and expense. The Returns for the current year cannot be made up until the receipt of the accounts from Australia up to the 31st of March next. I am fully aware of the importance of the subject referred to in the second Question. I believe that it is to be brought before the House in another form.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he proposes to renew the grant for the remuneration of Union Officers for their services under the Representation of the People Act?

As the Irish Government are advised, this is a proposal which could not be carried out without legislation. It is one which concerns the whole Kingdom rather than Ireland exclusively; and it is a question more for the Treasury than the Irish Executive whether they would sanction the introduction of a Bill for the purpose of legalizing the proposed payment.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What steps have been taken by the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries for the collection of statistics of the quantity of fish landed in Ireland, for which a sum of £350 was voted by Parliament last Session, and if the next Report of the Inspectors will contain such statistics; and, how soon that Report, which is directed by Act of Parliament to be laid upon the Table of the House three weeks after the commencement of the Session, will be presented?

This Question was referred to the Inspectors of Fisheries for report immediately when it appeared on the Notice Paper (two days ago); but, as they are absent from Dublin on duty, there has not been time for a reply to come to hand. The same observation applies to the Question which stands in the name of the hon. Member for North Tipperary (Mr. P. J. O'Brien).

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the precept addressed to Sheriffs for the summoning of jurors in Ireland specifies the number of jurors to be summoned; whether, if not, the number of jurors to be placed on any panel is entirely in the discretion of the Sheriff; and, whether, if the precep does specify the number, there was any change in the form of the precept addressed to the High Sheriff of the County of Dublin at the present Commission?

In answer to this Question, I have to say that the precept does not specify the number of jurors to be summoned, and the matter is left to the discretion of the Sheriff. I am informed there has been no change in the form of the precept addressed to the High Sheriff of the County of Dublin at the present Commission.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what the average cost of prosecutions at Assizes and Commissions in Ireland is?

Table 25 of the Judicial and Criminal Statistics, laid on the Table last year, and the corresponding tables for previous years, contain the fullest information that the Government can obtain on the subject.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state the average relative cost of prosecutions at Winter Assizes in England, as compared with prosecutions at the other Assizes?

I regret to say that I am unable to give the hon. Member the information he asks for. I am informed by the Examiner of Criminal Law Accounts that the compilation of such a Return would entail much labour, and occupy a considerable time, and he cannot undertake it without great inconvenience to his existing staff.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, in December last, Sub-Inspector Milling, of Cork, was charged at the Cork Police Court with a serious assault on Dr. Tanner, M.P.; whether it was proved against him that he had ordered his men to disperse a legal and orderly meeting of the citizens of Cork, under circumstances of great brutality; whether the magistrates returned Mr. Milling for trial; and, whether the Government have since refused to prosecute the accused; and, if so, on what grounds?

Sub-Inspector Milling was charged with an assault on Dr. Tanner, M.P., in December last. The case will be submitted to me in the usual way, for direction as to what further steps shall be taken in the matter, which is still pending.

Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say the case has not yet been submitted?

No, Sir; it has not been submitted for my direction as to prosecution.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he can state how many vessels and what number of men of Her Majesty's Navy are armed with weapons of the same description as those of which complaints have been received from H.M.S. Indus; and, whether any, and which, of such vessels are engaged on active service?

The pattern of the cutlasses with which the men in Her Majesty's Navy are armed is uniform throughout the Service; but there would appear to be a considerable difference in the quality and temper of the material which, from time to time, has been used in their manufacture. The Committee recently appointed, and now sitting, will ascertain how far this contention is true; and, if true, what is the cause of it.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true that there has been no sitting of the Land Court in County Louth since May, 1886; and, if so, will he consider the necessity for a Session being held in Dundalk at an early date to dispose of a number of pressing cases in that neighbourhood, many of which were listed last year?

The Land Commissioners report that the last sitting of a Sub-Commission in Louth was at the date named, and that the next will probably be in May. Of the cases pending in the county the majority are of recent date.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been directed to the following report in The Cork Herald of last Saturday, headed—

"Police outrage at Hospital, County Limerick. A man was arrested for being drunk, was dragged into a public house. Mrs. M'Carthy, its owner, being violently expelled, the police began to ill-treat the prisoner, when two young girls screamed, and said they would not see the man killed in their house;"

if the police removed the man to the barrack, no resistance being offered by the people; and if the entire force, including the man on guard, went through the town with loaded rifles threatening to shoot every person they met, actually striking and seriously wounding many inoffensive people; if one of the police went into the house of Dr. Gubbins, a county magistrate, and threatened to shoot his servant, actually presenting his rifle at her; if the police acted without orders, the sergeant being absent; and if it be true that they were all under the influence of drink, and that a number of cartridges were found in the streets in the morning; if those are the same policemen who recently batoned the Kilteely fife and drum band at the instance of District Inspector Greene; and, will the Government order an immediate inquiry into their conduct?

The newspaper paragraph quoted in the Question gives a very inaccurate report of what occurred. I am informed that a constable off duty was savagely assaulted by a man against whom he had given evidence some time ago. He was nearly strangled, and while insensible on the ground was rescued by two police, who arrested the man who had assaulted him. They took refuge in a public house, with their prisoner, from a mob which had collected, and conveyed him as soon as possible to the barrack. Mrs. M'Carthy was not expelled from her house. The police entirely deny the statements in the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of the Question. Charges of assault have been made against the police, and are now being investigated at Petty Sessions.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether three convictions have been recorded within the last month at Achill Petty Sessions against policemen, one being a wanton assault committed by Sub-constable Conalty on a boatman named John Patten for refusing to bring him illicit whiskey (poteen); and, whether information has reached him that many of the Coastguards in the Island of Achill are in the habit of procuring illicit whiskey, through Neil Gallagher Dagort and others, and encouraging into the Island the importation of illicit whiskey, to the detriment and demoralization of the inhabitants; and, if so, will the Government grant an inquiry into the matter?

I am informed that three convictions for assault were recorded against a policeman named Conalty at Achill Petty Sessions. In one case the person assaulted was a man named John Patten, who had been arrested for drunkenness. There was nothing during the hearing of the case to show that the assault was caused by Patten's refusing to bring the constable illicit spirits. The constable has been removed from Achill. It is not a fact, so far as is known, that the Coastguard procure the importation of whiskey into the Island.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a respectable farmer named James O'Mahoney has been refused a licence to carry firearms by Mr. Warburton, R.M., Bantry; and, whether Mr. Warburton, when applied to by farmers in the Bantry District for licences to carry firearms, usually demands a certificate from two local magistrates; and, if so, will Mr. Warburton be informed that the Law requiring such a certificate has been repealed?

The Licensing Officer, in the exercise of the discretion vested in him by law, refused to grant an arms licence to James O'Mahoney because he failed to produce satisfactory evidence that he was a proper person to be entitled to carry arms. Mr. Warburton is of course acquainted with the alteration in the law.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If a smith named Hegarty, residing at Dunmanus, County Cork, is under police protection; whether Hegarty has been paid for the conveyance of the police escort who travel on his (Hegarty's) car; if Hegarty sometimes travels without an escort; and, if the escort has been a source of revenue to Hegarty, will it be continued?

Hegarty receives police protection, which it is considered he requires. He is unpopular in consequence of his having supplied cars to police, and because he works for boycotted persons and for the Cork Defence Union. He was on a few occasions paid for the use of his car when no other was available, but this has been stopped for some time past. He sometimes goes short distances without an escort.

asked if Hegarty would continue to be paid if his car were used by the police escort.

I have stated that it has been stopped for some time past.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House, or lay Returns upon the Table, showing the effects which have followed from the lapse of the Contagious Diseases Acts in the garrison towns?

Some Returns on this subject of the suspension of these Acts were presented to this House in August, 1885. No other Returns have since been compiled, except the ordinary information contained in the Annual Reports of the Army Medical Department. But if my hon. Friend likes to move for a Return on the subject I shall offer no objection.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he can inform the House how many jurors have been directed to "stand by" by the Crown, and have been challenged by by the traversers, in the trial "Queen v. Dillon and others" now proceeding in Dublin?

The hon. Member will see from the newspapers what has been done in this case. Twenty-eight jurors were ordered to "stand by," six were peremptorily challenged, and several others were challenged "for cause," which was disallowed by triers under the direction of the Judge.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Why lodging houses are charged for Inhabited House Duty at the rate of 9d., whilst farm houses, public houses, shops, and other places of business are only charged at the rate of 6d.; and, whether he will take any steps to remove this anomaly?

, in reply, said, that the exemptions from taxation created innumerable anomalies, and led up to such questions as that of the hon. Member. There seemed to him to be a vital distinction between places of business, properly so-called, and lodging houses, which were exclusively used as dwellings, and were distinctly "inhabited houses." He was afraid that if the concession asked for were given it would open a wide door to evasion of the duty, to fraud, and to a still further weight of taxation which it was already very difficult to collect without considerable inconvenience.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the insanitary condition of the Royal Barracks, in Dublin, which has occasioned several instances of typhoid fever among the troops stationed there, chiefly among the officers—one or two cases being attended with fatal results—any steps are being taken, or will be taken, to render these barracks safe to inhabit in the future; and, whether the troops will be moved to more healthy quarters and the barracks condemned?

(who replied) said: All precautions which can be taken to insure good ventilation and drainage in the Royal Barracks in Dublin are thoroughly attended to, and money is provided in next year's Estimates for this purpose. It cannot, however, be denied that the barracks are too crowded, and that the site is disadvantageous in a hygienic point of view. Although from military reasons it is improbable that the site can be abandoned, it is in contemplation to erect barracks in a more healthy situation, which will enable the number of men in the Royal Barracks to be materially reduced, and allow of the ventilation being improved by the demolition of some of the buildings which now crowd the area.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in preparing the Mining Bill which he is about to introduce, he will take into especial consideration the insanitary condition of the mines of Cornwall and Devon, which, according to Mr. Frecheville's latest Report, causes the death rate among the Cornish miners to be more than double that of the minors of the coal-fields; and, whether he will consider the desirability of appointing one assistant Inspector from the class of the working miners to assist Mr. Frecheville in his increasingly arduous duties?

I do not propose in the Mines Bill, which I am about to introduce, in any way to alter the law as to metalliferous mines. I am aware of the high rate of mortality among Cornish miners, due chiefly to difficulties of ventilation arising from the irregular and tortuous character of the workings, and to the unhealthy conditions of the silicious and metallic strata, which would not be removable by an increase of inspection. I have been informed, however, on high authority that the ventilation of these mines is improving, and that steps are being taken to make the working less dangerous, so that I hope a lesser rate of mortality may result.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to the following incident at the Connaught Winter Assizes held at Sligo, as reported in The Freeman's Journal, 21st December, 1886—

"J. Cochrane Davys, Clerk of the Crown and Peace, was then sworn, and, in reply to Mr. Leamy, stated that he was appointed to the office previous to the Spring Assizes of 1886. For some years previous he had been Assistant Clerk of the Crown.

"Did you mark the panel of the Spring Assizes, 1886?—Yes.

"Did you send that marked panel to the sub-sheriff?—No.

"Why?—Because I did not think it my duty to do so.

"Have you read the Jurors' Acts. Surely you, a solicitor, must have read these Acts?—I declare to you I have never read them in my life."

And, whether he will take steps to insure that Crown officials in Ireland make themselves acquainted with Acts of Parliament relating to their duties?

It was thought right to refer this Question to the official named for any statement he might wish to offer with regard to the allegations contained in it. The Notice has been only one day on the Paper, and the reply has, of course, not yet been received from Sligo.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Regulations for the control of Greenwich Park have been revised; and, if so, what alterations have been made to suit the convenience of residents in the neighbourhood?

The Rules for Greenwich Park have been altered so as to admit carriages, equestrians, and cyclists to travel on the road between St. Mary's Gate and Blackheath Gate, and between Blackheath Gate and the Observatory. These Rules will come into operation by the end of March.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, In what way the tithe rent-charge as at present collected in Ireland is appropriated; and, whether he would consider the propriety and expediency of its being applied to the reduction of the Poor Rates in the different unions in which it is collected?

The entire income of the Church Estate, including the tithe rent-charge, is appropriated to discharging the liabilities and charges on the estate, and could not be diverted for the purpose of reducing the Poor Rates in the different unions in which it is collected.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any arrears of pay are due to Private James Gillen of the 9th Regiment of Foot, invalided from China for impaired sight; and, if he received only £30 16s. 6d. out of seven years' pay; and, whether, in consequence of his loss of sight while in the Service, he is entitled to a pension?

No arrears of pay are due to Private Gillen. The last payment made to him was one of £9. Gillen made no application whatever for a pension for seven years.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, of the 12 head offices of collectors of Inland Revenue in Ireland, three collectorships are at present vacant, and a fourth expected to be soon abolished, thereby reducing the number of Irish collectors to eight; whether the Chief Inspector has reported in favour of the abolition of the Sligo office; and, if so, whether the entire West Coast of Ireland, from Londonderry to Cork, will have only one collector, and thereby cause very great inconvenience to the trading population of the ports of Sligo, Ballina, Westport, Kilrush, and Tralee; whether the aggregate amount of Customs and Inland Revenue collected at Sligo is considerably greater than the amounts collected at each of two of the eastern ports where collectors are to be retained; and, whether the Sligo Harbour Board and the Corporation have by Resolution and Memorial protested against the contemplated abolition of the Sligo office?

(who replied) said: Three Inland Revenue collections are vacant in Ireland. Of these Cork is one, and the vacancy there will be filled up in the ordinary course. The question of filling up Coleraine and Sligo is under consideration; but no decision has been come to by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the matter. Should the abolition of Sligo be determined on, it would not inconvenience Ballina, Westport, Kilrush, and Tralee, as, besides the collector at Cork, there will still be a collector at Galway and Limerick. The amount of Customs and Inland Revenue collected at Sligo in the year ending March 31 last was about £120,000, and is considerably less than the amounts collected at each of the two eastern ports referred to where collectors are to be retained. The Memorial of the Corporation of Sligo against the abolition of the Sligo office and the copy of the resolution of the Harbour Board were received; and when the proposal for the abolition of Excise collections is submitted to the Board of Inland Revenue, the Memorial and Resolution will be carefully considered.

asked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, while in other parts of Ireland compensation can be levied off the ratepayers in the case of witnesses, magistrates, and peace officers killed or injured on account of their efforts to bring disturbers of the peace to justice: this is not the case in the Borough of Belfast, owing to an omission in the Belfast Private Act of 1865 (28 & 29 Vict. c. 183), transferring the jurisdiction of the Grand Jury of the County Antrim to the Belfast Town Council; whether, owing to this defect in the Law, a number of persons, including Sub - Inspector Stretch and the representatives of Head Constable Gardiner, have been deprived of compensation to which they would otherwise be entitled; whether, as promised last Session, he has looked into the matter with a view to having the law amended; and, whether he intends to propose any legislation on the subject?

I have considered the matter carefully since the last Session, and it seems to me that the law is unsatisfactory. The Report of the Belfast Riots Commission is now being considered by myself and Colleagues as a whole, and this matter will receive careful consideration.

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman state how soon the Report will be before the House?

I cannot answer that Question. That should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, in view of the admitted annual loss of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 of property, and a great number of lives of Her Majesty's subjects upon the coasts of the United Kingdom, and the representations of the Board of Trade to the Treasury upon the subject, he will make some provision in the Estimates for the construction of Refuge and Life Harbours?

The only provision in the Estimates about to be laid before the House for the construction of a Harbour of Refuge will be for the harbour at Peterhead. I am not prepared on such short notice, my attention having only just been called to the subject, to propose a further Estimate, or to pronounce an opinion upon a subject involving so vast an expenditure of money.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he is prepared now to raise the limit of the amount which may be deposited in the Post Office Savings Bank in any one year from £30 to £50, and also the limit of the total sum which may stand to the credit of an individual depositor?

If there is any evidence of a general desire on the part of the House to aid in promoting legislation to carry out the objects which the hon. Member has in view, I shall be very glad to introduce a Bill for that purpose.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether any, and, if so, what, steps are being taken to obtain from the Treasury the proceeds of Naval mulcts, fines, unclaimed prize money, unclaimed deceased men's estates, and the sale of stock, in order that this money, properly belonging to the Royal Navy, may be appropriated to the carrying out of the scheme of pensions to widows of seamen and marines, as recommended by the Committee under the presidency of H.R.H. The Duke of Edinburgh?

Considerable financial difficulties have been experienced when endeavouring to give effect to the recommendations of the Duke of Edinburgh's Committee, and up to the present moment no satisfactory method of surmounting the difficulties has been arranged.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether, 12 months ago, the Viceroy did not, in reference to the probable action of China upon our northern frontier "in Burmah," state that there would be no attempt to bring the Shan Chiefs "under direct administrative control," and that it was "of great importance to secure the acquiescence of China;" and, whether any, and what, steps have since been taken to secure such acquiescence?

The words quoted are to be found in the Blue Book. A Convention was made with China on July 24, 1886, which has been laid on the Table of the House.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether a proposal for a three years' lease of the Ruby Mines, Burmah, with details of the proposal, has already been communicated to Parliament; and, why the same publicity cannot be accorded to the other proposals as to the Ruby Mines received by the Government?

The Viceroy, in a Minute of February 17, 1886, which has been communicated to Parliament, appears to have mentioned, as an illustration of the revenue resources of Burmah, the offer made by a Calcutta firm to lease the Ruby Mines. This offer constituted part of the negotiations to which I referred some days ago as having taken place in the Spring of last year. The Secretary of State is of opinion that it would not be for the public interest to publish the details of negotiations which are not yet concluded.

asked whether the negotiations with the Calcutta firm had been brought to a conclusion?

The whole of the negotiations in connection with the Ruby Mines are still pending. However ingenious the hon. Member may be in putting Questions of this kind to me, I do not think that I shall be able to answer any of them until the negotiations are concluded.

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell me what distinguishes communications which can be properly made to the House from those which cannot.

asked the Lord Advocate, Whether he is aware that great dissatisfaction exists among all classes of the community with certain provisions of the Tweed Fisheries Acts; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a measure which will bring the River Tweed under a General Act for Scotland, and thus afford an opportunity to get rid of the provisions in the Acts complained of?

(who replied) said: The dissatisfaction referred to by the hon. Member in regard to the Tweed Fisheries Acts has been frequently represented to my Predecessors in Office and to myself, and is at present under my consideration, with a view to rectifying anomalies which undoubtedly exist. I have been engaged in making inquiries to which I am awaiting reply. There are considerable difficulties to contend with in dealing with the matter; but I can assure the hon. Member that it will not be neglected.

asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade, Whether, having regard to the Memorial lately presented to the Marquess of Salisbury by a deputation of employers of labour and working men delegates from Lancashire, and to the Resolution passed last week by the Associated Chambers of Commerce in favour of a double registration of Limited Companies, and of not allowing them to commence business till a considerable percentage of their capital has been paid up, Her Majesty's Government will undertake to legislate this Session for the amendment of the Limited Liability Acts?

The Board of Trade are considering the important subject referred to in the Question with a view to legislation; but I am not in a position at present to hold out any definite promise to the hon. Member.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Under what authority and by whose orders the recent trials to test the cutlasses and bayonets on board the Active, the Volage, the Rover, the Devastation, and the Indus were carried out, and why those ships were especially selected for such tests; whether those trials were made without previous reference to or communication with the War Department, as the Department responsible for the proper quality of the weapons supplied to the Navy; were the trials thus made of a character satisfactorily to determine whether the weapons tested were of a quality to comply with reasonable requirement "in attack or defence" on active service, especially the test of

"Placing the point of a sword in the deck and applying pressure at the handle till the point was turned about 50° from the straight line;"

Were any, and if so what, precautions taken to insure uniformity in the results, as affording indications of the quality and temper of the metal of the weapons tested; and in regard to weapons reported to be "defective," were they to be considered defective as regards the particular tests applied, or in respect of their use "in attack or defence" in actual warfare?

In the case of the Active, Volage, and Rover, one of the weapons having become bent in use, the order for testing the others was given by Commodore Fitzroy, commanding the Training Squadron. In the case of the Indus, the Commander-in-Chief at the port issued the order. The order for testing the weapons on the Devastation was given by the captain of the ship. The above ships were not specially selected; and the trials were made without previous reference to or communication with either the Admiralty or War Office. I stated the other day what the nature of the test was. And as that test will form the subject of the inquiry by the independent Committee nominated by the Secretary of State for War, my hon. and gallant Friend will not expect me to enter into controversial points connected with that investigation. It was clearly the duty of any officer, if he thought the arms defective, to test them.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as a fulfilment of the understanding on which the pictures of the National Portrait Gallery were allowed to be removed from their old premises, he has made any provision in the Estimates for this year for the purchase of grounds on which suitable buildings may be erected to receive this valuable collection, in many instances unique, and got together both by the generosity of private donors and from contributions of the Nation during the last 30 years.

I quite sympathize in the desire that a suitable and permanent abode may, as soon as possible, be provided for the very interesting and valuable Collection known as the National Portrait Gallery; but I regret that I cannot hope, during the present year, to obtain money for that purpose.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government will interfere in the relief of the ratepayers, either by monopolizing the supply of water to the Metropolis, or controlling the present rates of the Water Companies; whereby the present system of assessing the inhabitants of the Metropolis to the water rate upon the gross rental of their premises rather than upon the consumption, as in the case of gas, being especially felt by the trading community of the East End of London, who are heavily rated for their business, as distinguished from other residential premises, and are consequently charged to an amount wholly disproportionate to their limited consumption?

My hon. Friend must be aware that the Government have no power by law to interfere with the statutory right of the Water Companies to charge water rates upon the rental of premises rather than upon the consumption. They could, doubtless, propose by legislation to buy up and extinguish the rights of the Water Companies; but they contemplate no such legislation this Session.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware of the failing supply of native timber trees in Ireland, mainly owing to the defective state of the Law in regard to planting of the same, notwithstanding that, during the passing of the Land Law Act of 1881 and since then, efforts have been made strenuously and unsuccessfully every Session by private Members to remedy the same by introducing Bills; whether the Government are prepared to introduce a measure upon the subject, or afford facilities for the passing of a Trees Planting Bill; and, whether the Government will take the question of re-afforesting in Ireland, even partially into consideration, for the purpose of developing the resources of the country?

I fear that any failure in the supply of trees in Ireland is due to other causes besides the defective state of the Law. But I may remind the hon. Member that he was successful in passing a Bill on this subject through the House last Session. I shall be glad if I can aid him in dealing with it; but I cannot promise any special facilities.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If the paragraph, which appeared in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday last, the 12th instant, as follows:—

"It is stated that the War Office Committee, appointed to consider the question of the adoption of a new rifle, held what was practically their last sitting yesterday, and have decided to recommend the Lee-Burton Magazine Rifle …"

is correct; and, if he is in a position to give the House any further information on the subject?

No, Sir; the paragraph is not correct. No magazine rifle has yet been adopted; but trials, which we hope may be final, are about to take place. It is my earnest desire to arrive at a decision on this subject at the earliest date possible; and when I do, it will be communicated to the House.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph appearing in The Gazette of November 23rd, 1886, issued by the authority of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, and referring to the enforcement of an alleged copyright in Government publications— Extract from Gazette—

"Printers and publishers are reminded that any one reprinting, without due authority, matter which has appeared in any Government publication, renders himself liable to the same penalties as those which he might, under like circumstances, have incurred had the copyright been in private hands.

"T. Digby Pigott, Controller.

"Her Majesty's Stationery Office,

"Westminster, November 22, 1886."

what is the scope and object of the announcement in question; whether it is intended to interfere with the right of any member of the public to reprint documents prepared and printed at the public expense; if so, under what Law does Her Majesty's Stationery Office propose to proceed; and, how far does Her Majesty's Government propose to support the Controller in this new departure?

The Government issue numerous publications. In a great number of instances the information is given in order to be widely circulated, and in such instances the Government do not intend or wish to interfere with the action of private individuals; but in some cases the Government consider that the cost of publication should be recouped to the taxpayer by the sale of the work. This object would not be attained if private individuals were allowed to take advantage of Government work in order to undersell the Government. The Treasury propose that a Memorandum should be drawn up defining, as clearly as pos- sible, the cases in which the Government right should be asserted; and they are at present in communication with their Legal Advisers on the subject. I shall be happy to lay this Memorandum, in due time, upon the Table.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in connection with the Jubilee, Her Majesty's Government will grant additional holidays to the clerks and other employés in the Civil Service?

I can hold out no prospect of the leave suggested being granted. My hon. Friend will see that in order to give it we should have to impose extra work upon those to whom the leave could not be given.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the vast importance to this Country and the Colonies of the question of bounties upon sugar, Her Majesty's Government will not seriously consider the desirability of approaching the Governments of the Foreign Countries affected, by means of representatives from the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, as was done in the case of the Fisheries Convention, and in other similar instances?

A Question on this subject was addressed to the Secretary to the Board of Trade on the 15th instant, when it was stated that the Government had approached certain Governments on the question, some of whom had replied not unfavourably on the subject. The proceedings have not arrived at a stage at which Papers could be produced; but when they have they will be laid on the Table.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether information has reached the Government with respect to serious defalcations on the part of the Secretary to the Bishop Stortford Trustee Savings Bank; and, whether the Government will take action to protect, as far as possible, the poor people whose hard earning are thus jeopardized by the dishonesty of a public official?

It has been notified to the National Debt Commissioners by the trustees and managers of the Bishop Stortford Savings Bank that an examination of the books of that Institution discloses a deficiency of £8,250. The Secretary admits his defalcations to that amount, and has been arrested with a view to his prosecution. It would appear, from a statement made to the National Debt Office, that the trustees and managers have neglected, in their administration of the bank, to comply with the requirements of the Savings Banks Act. If, on investigation, such should prove to be the case, they will have forfeited the exemption from liability afforded by the Statute, and will have to make good the deficiency. The Secretary of the bank is in no sense a "public official." He is a servant of the trustees, who, and not the Government, are responsible for the manner in which he performs his duty.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution of the Paddington Board of Guardians to the effect that an inmate of the workhouse has been incarcerated for seven years in a lunatic asylum though she is not only quite sane, but a woman of more than ordinary intellect, and that there are many other similar cases; and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman will direct an inquiry into those cases?

I can only say that I have not seen or heard of the resolution to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If I find that a woman perfectly sane, and of more than ordinary intellect, has been incarcerated for seven years in a lunatic asylum, I shall certainly order a very stringent inquiry.

I beg to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the irregularities that have taken place in a trial at law, whereby certain Members of this House are prejudiced.

The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) proposes to move the Adjournment of the House, in order that he may "call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the irregularities that have taken place in a trial at law whereby certain Members of this House are prejudiced." The hon. Member showed me a Notice a few minutes ago which was substantially the same as this, and which I informed him I could not put to the House. Nor shall I put this Notice to the House. My Predecessor in the chair was asked a question in 1882, shortly after the new Rule had been passed respecting the making of Motions for Adjournment, previous to Public Business being entered upon. He was asked whether a Member proposing to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, would be debarred from doing so by the fact of a Motion standing on the Notice Paper which dealt with the same subject, in pursuance of the practice that no Motion can be submitted to the House upon a question on which there is a Motion already standing on the Order Book. My Predecessor, acting on the practice of the House, said that a Member would be debarred by the established and fundamental Rules of Debate. Now, there is already a Notice on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) for Tuesday, the 1st of March, in these terms—

"Mr. Sexton—Jury-packing: To call attention to the purpose, method and effects of the system of jury-packing pursued by agents of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland; and to move a Resolution."

That is a Motion which is down for a particular day, and the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has just proposed to move is a distinct anticipation of that Motion. Therefore, I cannot put it to the House.

Upon your ruling, Sir, I would respectfully submit to you, firstly, that the terms of my Resolution are not on the Paper; and secondly, that my Resolution does not bear, nor is it intended to bear, on any proceedings by which any Member of this House is prejudiced.

The Resolution which is down on the Paper for Tuesday, the 1st of March, in the name of the hon. Member, specifically mentions the question of jury-packing. When the hon. Member for Swansea some time ago, gave me a Notice of Motion for the Adjournment of the House in a slightly altered form to that which he has now made, the question of jury-packing was specially referred to in it. The following is the Entry in the Votes:—

Adjournment of the House.—Mr. Dillwyn, Member for Swansea, asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., "to call attention to irregularities which have taken place in a trial at law, whereby certain Members of this House are prejudiced:"—

But it appearing to Mr. Speaker that the subject which the honourable Member a3ked leave to discuss was included in the Notice of Motion which stood upon the Notice Paper for Tuesday, the 1st of March, in the name of the honourable Member for West Belfast, Mr. Speaker declined to submit that Motion to the pleasure of the House.

, in rising to move the following Resolution—

"That the consideration of the proposed Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions on every day on which the consideration of those Rules may be set down by the Government,"

said: It is not my intention to occupy the time of the House at any great length, in order to persuade the House of the necessity for the Order which I desire the House to make this evening. The House is very well aware of the circumstances under which it has become necessary for the Government to propose new Rules of Procedure for the adoption of the House. The grounds upon which I propose to urge the necessity of these Rules, and the necessity of proceeding expeditiously with them, are not grounds which have regard to the advantage of this or any other Government. But the grounds upon which I recommend them is that these Rules are designed to secure the dignity, honour, and capacity of the House to discharge the duties it has undertaken in coming here. I, Sir, have some sense of pain and humiliation as a Member of this House in finding that it is necessary to ask the House to place restrictions upon its own liberty of speech; but the occasion is one which, I think, it will be acknowledged by the House as well as by the country, demands the Order which I desire to move, and requires such a self-restraint as will enable the House, as I believe, to discharge its duties of legislation, and maintain that decorum which should mark the proceedings of the Parliament of this great country. Sir, I have only to point out to the House the number of days that the discussion upon the Address has this Session already occupied, to bring home to every hon. Member a sense of the necessity for the imposition of some restraints upon the prolongation of debate. We are now, Sir, on the first day of the fourth week of the present Session; and we have now arrived at the 16th day of the debate on the Address in the present Session of Parliament. I will state to the House the number of days occupied in the discussion of the Address in past years. In the first Session of 1880 four sitting days were occupied in the discussion of the Address, and in the second Session one day; in the Session of 1881, 11 days; and of 1882, six days; the Session of 1883–84, 10 days; and of 1884, eight days; 1884–85, nine days; in the first Session of 1886, five days; and in the second Session, 10 days were occupied in the debate upon the Address. Under those circumstances, I think the House will admit that it is necessary it should impose some restraint upon itself in the conduct of debate, and in the transaction of the Business necessary for the great interests of the country which are entrusted to it for protection and advancement. I may, no doubt, be told that I have individually opposed the restrictions which are now sought to be imposed. That, as it appears to me, does not enter into the consideration of this question at all. I say I make this proposition to the House with a sense of humiliation, but I admit its absolute necessity. I think nothing short of the course it is now proposed to the House to take will save the House and Parliament from that which will virtually amount to self-destruction—the abnegation of the duties which belong to the Parliament of an enlightened country. I have no doubt I shall be appealed to by hon. Gentlemen to make exceptions in regard to this proposal in favour of a particular Motion or a particular Order which may stand on the Order Book. I say, in advance, that I cannot promise to the House to make any exception whatever. The necessity for the course which I ask the House to take is so extreme—the necessity is so obvious—that the only course we can now pursue is to consider these Rules with as much deliberation as may be necessary, but not more than is necessary, for a proper decision to be arrived at; and then when those Rules, which are absolutely essential, are adopted by the House, I hope we may be able to proceed to Business with as little delay as possible, with as much deliberation and as much discussion, but not more than is necessary for the proper solution of the questions which we have to decide. I beg to move the Resolution which stands in my name.

said, he must appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) not to begin the consideration of the proposed Rules until after Tuesday next. His reason was that—on the first day of the Session—he had secured—in the ballot—for Tuesday, the first place for the discussion of the question of the "Disestablishment of the Church in Wales." [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed. He (Mr. Dillwyn) knew they had got the upper hand in Wales, and they wished to keep it. The question was one which excited the keenest interest in Wales, and, as it had been brought before the last Parliament, he thought his request was not unreasonable.

said, he, was as anxious as anyone to get to the Procedure Rules, but he trusted the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) (whose courtesy they all acknowledged) would accept the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). His position was a peculiar one, for he had been fortunate enough to secure the first place out of 180 Members on the first night of the Session, and, if he was now displaced, the chances against him of getting another night would be something like 20 to 1. His hon. Friend had not attempted, as he might have done, to bring his Motion on by way of Amendment to the Address, and, unlike other Members in similar positions, had a nation behind him; for no one who did not know Wales could conceive how intense was the interest taken by its 1,500,000 inhabitants in the subject. Looking to the disappointment which would otherwise be caused among so large a proportion of Her Majesty's most loyal and law-abiding subjects, he urged the right hon. Gentleman to give way and accede to his hon. Friend's appeal.

I hope the Government may see their way to grant some concession to the request which has been made by my two hon. Friends. I only rise for the purpose of saying that as far as I am concerned, and, I believe, my hon. Friends around me, there is no desire to interpose any obstacle whatever to the proposal of the Government to proceed to the consideration of the amendment of the Rules of Procedure in this House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has said that the delay of Public Business in late years has been very remarkable. That is quite true. His enumeration began at 1880, and ended at 1886; and the figures he gave were very instructive, and I think experience has shown how a bad example grows. I have been told—I have not checked the figures myself—that from 1874 to 1880 the debates on the Address during the whole of that Parliament did not take up 11 days. Therefore, we see how this thing has arisen. How did it arise? It arose upon a system much criticized and muck condemned in the present debate—that is to say, on Amendments on the Address. But from what quarter and in what manner did these Amendments proceed? Why, I remember one occasion that after four or five days' debate on the Address, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford (Mr. Chaplin) moved an Amendment on foot-and-mouth disease, merely in order to demand that the Motion should take precedence of all other Motions; admitting that the Government had undertaken to legislate as he wished on the matter. I offer that as an illustration of the manner in which these delays on the Address have arisen. I agree with all that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman on the subject. I think it is greatly to be regretted that so much time is expended in these debates. We, upon this side of the House, have shown every desire to forward an Amendment of the Rules of the House, in order to enable it better to transact the business of the country. In 1882 we proposed a number of new Rules to the House. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that I am not going to offer any recriminations, and I am not going to remind him of his opinions at that time; but, unfortunately, the question of Procedure was then made a strictly Party question. I hope it will not be made a Party question now. When the penultimate Government of Lord Salisbury came into office, the then Leader of the House (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) laid upon the Table a plan for amending the Procedure of the House. The Government was displaced soon after the plan was laid on the Table; but so far were we on this side of the House from opposing the Amendment of Procedure, that we immediately took up the plan of the right hon. Gentleman, and endeavoured, with certain amendments, to base a plan of our own upon it. Now, I have the permission of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) to say that that plan, which it was my business to lay before the Committee of last year, was not a plan only of the late Government, and still less of my own; it was a plan drawn up by a private Committee which sat under the auspices of my noble Friend the Member for Rossendale, and of which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, the present Chairman of Ways and Means, my hon. Friend the Member for the borough of Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), and the present Lord Herschell were Members. That was the authority under which the plan was drawn up, and it was based upon the plan of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). I do not know how far I should be in Order—perhaps, not at all—in referring to the particulars of these Rules. I only want to show that we were desirous not to treat this as a Party question. We referred the plan to a very strong Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale, and it was as strong a Committee as could have been got in this House. All I can say is that, with every desire to forward any proposal for facilitating the Business of this House, I cannot but very deeply regret that the plan the Government have laid upon the Table is a plan that widely differs from, and wholly overthrows, first of all, their own plan of 1886; and then, in its most fundamental principles, the plan approved by that strong Committee of the House of Commons presided over by the noble Marquess. I am sorry to say, generally, that I consider the plan that the Government have laid on the Table is very inefficient. I do not object to it because it is too strong; I object to it because it is not half strong enough. My belief is that they have thrown overboard altogether what was really the main part of the plan of the Committee presided over by my noble Friend—namely, the referring of all the Committee stages of the Bills to Standing Committees of the House, and thereby relieving the House.—[Cries of "Order!"] I do not wish to say anything to arouse opposition on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite; I am only saying I wish that the plan had been a plan corresponding to that recommended by the Committee of the House, and that it was one likely to prove more efficient; but so far as the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman to proceed with the discussion of the plan is concerned, I have no word to say against it. The responsibility, after all, rests with the Government. Bat there is one question upon which I should like to have an answer from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. It was, I think, in 1882 there was some opportunity given of discussing the plan as a whole. It is obvious that many particular parts of it depend one upon another, and you cannot discuss one without referring to the other. What I should like to know is, on what stage it will be possible to discuss these Resolutions as a whole, as upon a second reading, so as to be able to discuss the bearings of one Resolution upon another? I venture to hope that some such opportunity will be given.

, in rising to support the appeal to the Government on behalf of the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea, said, he wished to do so in the strongest possible manner. The question which it brought up was really a national one, besides being of the last importance to the inhabitants of the whole Principality. It was no obstructive Motion. Indeed he would remind the Government that Welsh Members had never in any way interfered with the progress of Business. He acknowledged the importance of taking the earliest possible day for the Resolutions on Procedure, and he himself would do his best to support the right hon. Gentleman opposite; but he ventured to suggest that it would be most cruel to take away the only opportunity of discussing in the House of Commons the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He could assure the Government that any such attempt would be most bitterly resented in Wales.

I must very earnestly support the respectful appeal made to the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, by my hon. Colleagues from the Principality. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well how difficult it is amid the hot competition which now prevails in this House for a private Member to secure a place for bringing forward any Motion or Bill And when a Member has been fortunate at the ballot, it is very hard that the advantage he has gained should be wrested from his hands by the Government. Indeed, one of the crying sin of recent proceedings in this House is he tendency shown by Governments—by all Governments—to encroach on the right of private Members. All who are acquainted with the history of progress in this country are aware that almost every step that has been taken in advance, in the reform of every kind, of our institutions has begun by Resolutions, generally what are called abstract Resolutions, moved by private Members, and usually in the first instance, and sometimes for a long time, opposed and defeated by a combination among the Leaders of both Parties. But we also know that the seed thus sown in adverse circumstances has afterwards borne ample and valuable fruit, when the so-called 'men of light and loading,' have slowly admitted the light into their minds, and followed the lead of more courageous and enterprising spirits than themselves. I think the time must come when private Members on both sides must confederate to protect themselves against this kind of official conspiracy to rob them of their rights. I hold that the Members for Wales have a special right to complain of the hardship inflicted upon them by depriving my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea Mr. Dillwyn), of the opportunity he had gained, to bring before the House a subject in which the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people are intensely interested. No one can charge Wales with having been too importunate in its demands on the attention of this House. It is a question whether it would not have been better for Wales to have been more importunate. My countrymen, as everybody knows, are a singularly patient, loyal, and law-abiding people. But their patience has limits, and there are ominous indications, that if its claims are habitually postponed and neglected, that patience will come to an end. You should take warning by your experience of Ireland. The Representatives of the Irish people in this House have from time to time, ever since the Union, until a few years ago, done all they could by what are called legitimate and constitutional means to interest this House in the condition of their country; and to induce it to do something to redress the wrongs and grievances of their countrymen. But they were persistently pooh-poohed, their Motions were rejected, their Bills were outvoted, and all their suggestions and endeavours for the benefit of the Irish people were set at naught. At last the Irish Members were driven to take other means to force Irish questions upon the attention of the House. I should be very sorry to see my countrymen driven by similar neglect to the use of similar means. I beg to propose as an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the insertion of the following words:—

"That the consideration of the proposed Rules of Procedure have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day except Tuesday, the 22nd instant."

Would it not be more convenient if the hon. Member simply added, after the word "Day," "except Tuesday, the 22nd instant."

assented to the suggestion.

, who seconded the Amendment, said, he was disposed to think that, having regard to the object the Government had in view, it would be the wiser course to hold a short special Session at the end of the present one to discuss the New Rules than the one now taken by the Government. At any rate, as the Government could not make much progress with their Rules of Procedure by acting severely on this occasion, he thought they might make a compromise by yielding to the appeal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), especially as the subject referred to was a demand made by almost the entire Principality.

said that the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) had stated some time ago that he objected to give a blank cheque to the Marquess of Salisbury. He confessed that he too entirely objected to give a blank cheque to the Marquess of Salisbury and his Colleagues simply because one of the latter happened to be the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said when he made his proposal that it was a humiliation to the House, Most un- questionably it was a humiliation, because it was a penal proposal. They were called upon in the midst of the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne to suspend all action on the Address and to put it aside in order to pass a Resolution with regard to Procedure, which no doubt was deliberately to be used to put an end to all debate on the Address. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not deny that the debate had gone on a considerable time. As he pointed out the day before, he had heard with great interest some of the 65 speeches which had been delivered by hon. Gentlemen opposite in their anxiety to shorten the proceedings of the House. Moreover, there was a sort of bargain entered into with an hon. Gentleman opposite, to the effect that if he and his agricultural friends did not discuss the agricultural question upon the Address they should be allowed to do so upon the Report. Well, but if the Address was to be put aside, how was that bargain to be carried out? There was also an Amendment of which he (Mr. Labouchere) had ventured to give Notice that evening in regard to Bulgaria. He was not now going into the question; but he might point out that most important action had been taken by Her Majesty's Government during the Recess—action which he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of considering; and it certainly seemed to him that if they were to put off the Address until the Rules of Procedure were passed, it was exceedingly improbable that they would have any opportunity of discussing the Bulgarian Question. [An hon. MEMBER: Or anything else.] When it was stated that 16 days had been taken up in debating the Address—a thing unknown in times past—it should be remembered that in times past Ministers were not so eager to take for themselves the time of the House and of Private Members. When they asked for a day for the second reading of a Bill that was a very different thing from asking for the whole time of the House for a matter which would probably take up several weeks. He would ask whether it was reasonable that the right hon. Gentleman should stop the debate on the Address in order to bring in the Rules of Procedure. The right hon. Gentleman had frequently told them that they ought to devote themselves to the Business of the country. Well, what he (Mr. Labouchere) and his Friends considered the Business of the Country was the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. The question of Disestablishment in Wales was a subject of paramount importance, and therefore he could not understand what was the Business with superior claims which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to. It was absolutely impossible that the present Government could bring in any sound legislation, and the reason was because they were Conservatives who had not got a Conservative majority, but were supported by hon. Gentlemen who were kind enough to perch themselves on the front Opposition Bench; and one of the most important of whom stated the other day that he agreed with Her Majesty's Government upon one question and disagreed with them upon 99. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that this ought to be made an educational Session, and that the very best use they could turn it to was to occupy the time of Her Majesty's Government as long as possible by making speeches; because the Government, if left to their own devices, would only produce what the majority of the House would consider bad legislation, and so every moment that hon. Members did not occupy with their speeches would be devoted to a bad use. Therefore they ought seriously to consider the matter in view of the fact that a Coercion Bill for Ireland was to be brought in; and, that the Marquess of Salisbury—that great perturbator of the peace of Europe—was at the head of the Government, they should voluntarily agree to give up every opportunity of taking into consideration the action of the Government. If the Government took every day, hon. Members, in all probability, would not be able to raise questions of importance, even by way of Motions for Adjournment; for the result of the Ruling which had been lately given—a Ruling no doubt perfectly correct—was that it would be open to any hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House to put down any general Amendment with regard to foreign affairs—or Ireland for example—and so prevent an hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side from bringing forward an urgent question which he might wish to raise. He should therefore vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Richard), though, he should like to go a good deal further. He should like to make it Tuesdays instead of Tuesday. He should also prefer that the Government should take into their consideration the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for West Bradford (Mr. Illingworth). Anxious as he was that their Rules of Procedure should be strengthened, he was not prepared to give that blank cheque to Her Majesty's Government for an indefinite time. Let the Government, when they wanted a day, come to the—House and ask for it—perhaps they would get it; perhaps they would not—but at any rate the House would be in a position to consider the matter.

said: I think that the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is probably the best argument that could possibly be used in favour of the Motion that I had the honour to propose to the House. He stated plainly what line he considered it his duty to pursue for the rest of the Session, and that was to occupy the House in discussion, and to take care that no Business was done—not to allow the House to do any of the Business which it ought to do, and which Her Majesty's Government are prepared to lay before it. That may be the view that the hon. Gentleman takes of his duty; but I confess I do not share it, and I do not think that it is the view that other hon. Gentlemen will take of their duty as Members of this House. The hon. Member has made a remark that, as the Address is not to be disposed of for some weoks—and no doubt, if the House follows the line proposed by the hon. Member, that will be so—we might accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn).

I said the Rules of Procedure, and not the Address.

I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I certainly understood the hon. Gentleman to say the Address. With regard to the speech made by the hon. Member for Swansea, I may say that a more honoured and respected Member of this House does not exist; and, if it had been possible, we should have been most glad to have made an exception in his favour. I think he is entitled to the consideration of this House, and I had hoped that it might have been possible to make an exception in favour of one who bears such an honoured name, and who has attained to the position that the hon. Member has; but it is impossible to make a concession to one hon. Gentleman without laying ourselves open to claims of an equally strong character on the part of others. I would wish to appeal to the House to enter on the consideration of these Rules as soon as possible, to dispose of them as quickly as possible, and, if the House will do that, the object of the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard) will be attained. The hon. Member for Merthyr complains of an official conspiracy to deprive the hon. Gentlemen of their place on the Notice Paper, in order that the Government might proceed with Bills of their own. There has been no such conspiracy on the other side of the House or on this; but the House itself has placed obstacles in the way of the transaction of Business, which from time to time—and this I say perfectly frankly—compelled right hon. Gentlemen opposite who then sat on these Benches to ask for the time of private Members. Only the necessary and reasonable time has been occupied in the despatch of Public Business. I regret as much as any hon. Member of this House that proceedings as regards Committee have rendered it inevitable that Parliament should be asked to give up time on certain occasions to the Government, and to propose new Rules of Procedure. I hope that the House will take the matter in hand, and prevent the possibility of its recurrence. I believe it can do so if it exercises its power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has asked a very reasonable Question as to whether an opportunity will be afforded of discussing the Rules as a whole. I think that that opportunity should be afforded, and that it should be given on the first reading. I think I have referred to the general objections that have been made. I can only say that I must press the Motion that I have made. I do so with deep regret; but a sense of the responsibility and the duty that are imposed on me, not merely as a Member of the Government, but as Leader of the House, in the endeavour to restore the House to a proper control of its own Business.

said, he was desirous of expressing his regret at the course taken by the Government with respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He would bear his testimony to the strong feeling which existed throughout the whole of South Wales on the question of Disestablishment. The announcement just made would be received in Wales with keen regret. He would be willing to support any measure which would enable the House to do its Business; but they were trying to do a great deal more—they were trying to adapt that great Parliamentary Institution to conditions to which it was not suited. They had already made away with some of the Privileges of Parliament for which their forefathers fought and bled. They had sacrificed the right of putting grievance before Supply. Last year he (Sir Edward Reed) endeavoured in vain to bring before the House the wrongs and grievances of the Navy, which were now universally acknowledged, and he failed, because that House had almost ceased to be a Parliament in the only sense in which it was worthy to be called a Parliament. The House, by accepting these Rules, was about not simply to facilitate Business, but to take away Parliamentary rights and to shut the mouths of its own Members. He was afraid that the result of passing these Rules would be fraught with the greatest injuries to the State in the future of our history. The effect of these Rules would be to stifle the voices of the Representatives of the people. [Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh; but they did not like even the present Rules of Procedure when they were in Opposition. A Parliament was not worthy of the name in which any hon. Member, who reasonably, intelligently, and honourably desired to represent the opinion of his constituents upon any particular subject before the House was systematically deprived of the opportunity of doing so. He should not offer any obstruction to the progress of the discussion of the new Rules, although he should vote against many of them; nevertheless, he thought that there was much force in what had fallen from his hon. and venerable friend the Member for Merthyr—that Ireland had, by mis- government, been brought into a position in which it could not be governed except by stifling it; and if Wales were to be similarly treated, fresh difficulties would be created which would call for even more drastic and disastrous remedies than were now about to be proposed. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) would have done well if he had yielded the point with regard to Tuesday, because, by his refusal, he would deprive the Government of the last vestige of prestige and regard in which it had been held by the Welsh people.

said, that no one could feel more disappointed than he did at the decision that had been arrived at by the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). There was no question which raised such a strong feeling as the question of the Disestablishment of the Church did in Wales. Even the Church people themselves desired that the matter should be decided. The time was very soon coming when a great many Welsh Members would demand—in a stronger voice than hitherto—the settlement of many Welsh questions which had been repeatedly put before the House. It would, in his opinion, have been far better if the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had been allowed to be thoroughly threshed out and discussed in that House. Without wishing in any way to emulate the tactics of hon. Members from Ireland, he must express his regret that the Government had refused to allow the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea to be discussed next Tuesday.

said, that it was pretty evident that the Welsh people required some safety-valve for their feelings, and he therefore advised Welsh Members to imitate the example of the Scotch and Irish Members, and to bring on the discussion they desired in the form of an Amendment to the Address; instead of making appeals which they knew would not be regarded. If, as seemed to be the case, Wales would be saved from revolution by that simple mode, and he trusted the Welsh Members should not hesitate to avail themselves of what yet remained to them of their Parliamentary rights. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had promised to allow a second reading debate upon the discussion of the first Resolution; but sometimes arrangements of that kind had subsequently been found not to be in Order. He (Dr. Cameron) wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker whether it would be in Order for the House to enter upon a sort of second reading debate upon the whole of the new Rules on the Motion that the House agree with the first Rule?

It is impossible for me to anticipate events, and determine now whether such a discussion would be in Order or not. It would be contrary to practice to do that. When the case arises I shall, of course, be prepared to give my decision upon the point.

said, be should be glad to have the opportunity suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). If there were any difficulty about it, it would be very easy to make, as was made in the Committee upstairs, a Motion "That these Rules be now taken into consideration." He made that Motion in the Committee; and such a Motion would permit the general question of the Rules being discussed.

said, he would venture to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to a point on which, though he could not suppose there was any doubt of his intention, it would be better to have a distinct understanding. As the Motion stood on the Paper, it was perfectly clear that the Government would be able to put down the Procedure Rules for private Members' nights only, and reserve Government nights for their own Business. Of course, the House understood that the whole time of the House—both Government time and private Members' time—would be devoted to the subject for which urgency was asked; but it was better that the understanding should be distinct.

, in reply, said, that he had exactly followed precedent in the Motion he had made, and that he would follow precedent also in the course he should adopt under that Motion. It might, possibly, be necessary that urgent Business, such as Supply, should be taken during the debate on the Procedure Rules; but there was no intention of appropriating Mondays and Thursdays to ordinary Government Business, and only the private Members' days to the consideration of this question. Nothing but urgent Business would be permitted to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, the case of Wales having been rejected by a large majority, it may appear somewhat rash in me to ask the House to consider the case of Ireland. But as I have secured an early day for a very important measure, a Bill which will deal with a question upon which I understand the Government have made up their mind favourably—I refer to Wednesday next, which I have secured for a Bill dealing with the question of the inclusion of leaseholders within the Land Act of 1881—I have considerable and strong hopes that as it is a question I am credibly informed the Government had made up their minds favourably to entertain and to agree to, they will not object to excepting a day from the Resolution which is now under the consideration of the House. In the event of this course being adopted, and the Bill in question being favourably received by Her Majesty's Government, as I am credibly informed it will be, it would probably only take up a short time for discussion and decision on the second reading. Her Majesty's Government would, therefore, if they made an exception in favour of this Bill, be enabled immediately afterwards to resume the discussion of the Rules of Procedure, if they were by that time reached. Consequently, there would be no practical disadvantage to the Government in adopting the course I have in view. On the contrary, they would save the necessity of setting aside a day, or days, hereafter for their own Government measure on the subject, and they would deal with a pressing question, which both sides of the House admit urgently demand a settlement. There are also other considerations of a graver and wider character, which I should not have wished to have imported into this discussion, if I had seen on the other side of the Table a favourable response from the Government with regard to this question of mine respecting the Bill I have previously mentioned; but in the absence of any such favourable sign I fear it will be necessary for me to go further, and considerably enlarge the scope of the matter which it will be my duty to bring before the House. It is very true that if I had seen any intention on the part of the Government to meet me on this question I should not have to propose to enlarge, the field of discussion, because I should have looked upon that yielding so far on the part of the Government as an earnest that they are commencing to devote their serious attention to the very grave state of Ireland, and that they are going to take this first step at once in the inclusion of the leaseholders under the Land Act of 1881—a step which formed part of my original Bill of last Session—and that this would be regarded in Ireland as an earnest, a very much-needed earnest, on the part of the Government that they are about to change, or, at all events, to modify, their policy of coercion for one of amelioration. It would be difficult for me, even if I had the power to do so, but not having the power to do so, to exaggerate the importance of such a step on the part of Her Majesty's Government in the present critical state of Ireland. We know what is happening in that country. We know that the Government have thought it necessary to take a series of proceedings against leading and prominent politicians—Irish politicians, Members of this House. We know also that the Government have announced to the House that they intend to bring forward coercive proposals against Ireland; and, so far as we have yet gone, we have only had a very shadowy and vague intimation of any intention on their part to go into the question of ameliorative legislation. Now, Sir, I think that, although the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) may turn from the consideration of the ordinary Business of the House to the question of reforming the Rules of Procedure, like Napoleon III., when he made war upon Germany, "with a light heart," and although the House may grant him those powers with a light heart—powers entailing an interval of four or five weeks, if we are to judge by the precedent set in 1884, when the Rules of the late Government were under consideration, and when over five weeks, from day to day, of the time of the House were occupied with an unintermittent consideration—if we are to judge by this precedent, the probability is that we shall not be able to revert to the question of Ireland, or to any other question, for four or five weeks. Now, I the right hon. Gentleman has complained that if hon. Members of the House I had not shown a disposition to unduly protract, according to his views, the debate upon the Address by the introduction of a miscellaneous collection of subjects, he would not have felt it necessary to move his Resolution; but we have the remarkable fact, Mr. Speaker, that on the very first day of the Session the Government announced that they were going to ask all the time of the House for the consideration of the Rules of Procedure—therefore, this statement of the right hon. Gentleman will not hold water in his own justification. It is evident that the Government had determined that they would pilfer private Members of the half of their time from the very commencement, and that the subsequent conduct of hon. Members of the House in bringing forward various questions for discussion upon the debate on the Address had nothing whatever to do with it. Now, Sir, I have said that I had intended to narrow my request to one point for securing portion of Wednesday for the question of the consideration of this Bill; but the stern and unyielding appearance of the right hon. Gentleman warns me that I shall gain nothing by adopting that course, so that I am therefore obliged to submit to the House a Resolution which I propose to move at the conclusion of what I have to say—to move to leave out all the words after the word "That," and to add these words—

"In the opinion of this House the state of Ireland is such as to require the disclosure"—

Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; but I must point out that we have got to the word "day," in the third line of the Resolution; and, therefore, it would not be competent to the hon. Member to move the Resolution he proposes.

I submit, Sir, with the greatest deference to your superior judgment and your ruling; but I was under the impression that no word of the Resolution has yet been affirmed by the House, and that the Question which you have just put is, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

There is no doubt as to what is the Rule of the House—we propose, after the word "day," to insert the words "except Tuesday, February 22"—therefore, we have reached that point in the proposed Resolution.

I was under the impression that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman not having been to leave out any of the words of the right hon. Gentleman, all the words of the Resolution were still before the House, and that we should be entitled to reject the whole of that Resolution if the House thought fit. However, I submit Sir, to your ruling, and will substitute for that Amendment an addition to the end of the Resolution by way of proviso—

"Provided the said Rules are not set down for consideration before the Government have disclosed to the House the nature of their proposed legislation with regard to Ireland."

Now, Sir, I think that we have valid and good grounds for asking the House to pause before they adopt the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. We have, in the first place, Mr. Speaker, grave events occurring from day to day in Ireland which surely ought to call for some provision—some safeguard—from the House, in order, if possible, to give some guarantee that those events should not be followed, and that we may have time to meet them. If these events should be followed by others of a similar character, and if the state of affairs in Ireland should become appreciably worse in the interval which must elapse before the proposed Rules of Procedure of the Government can be considered and finally decided in this House; if you give all the time of the House to Her Majesty's Government you will not only close your own mouths, but you absolutely prohibit yourselves from taking up any question which Her Majesty's Government will not choose to take up, no matter how pressing it may be. I understand that no amendment or alteration of the Rule can be moved if once it has been adopted, and any dispensing power with regard to it will be entirely in the hands of the Government. Well, Sir, I, for one, am not disposed to surrender either my own rights or the rights of hon. Gentlemen who are associated with me in order to discuss the Rules of the Government. I think that some consideration should be extended to a body of 86 Members of this House. They have asked through me for permission to bring forward the Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment Bill on next Wednesday. I think also that the conduct of the Government, in springing this Resolution by surprise upon us this afternoon by interpolating it upon the ordinary course of the debate on the Address, is one which ought to be condemned. It is an unusual and unheard-of one. There is no precedent for a Minister of the Crown, or for anybody else, to ask the House to depart from the discussion of the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech of the Queen in order to bring forward or to annex all the time of the House for the purpose of enabling the Government to bring forward proposals connected solely with the reform of the Procedure of the House, and not with the Crown. There is no precedent for the interruption of debate on the Address at such an early time in the season. It was never done except in one instance, and that was in the Session of 1881. But it was not then a question merely of the reform of the Rules of Procedure; but the then Government asked for the time of the House because they were convinced that the state of affairs in Ireland was so stringent that it was absolutely necessary that the House should proceed from day to day and from night to night to, first, pass a Coercion Act, and, secondly, to pass remedial legislation for the reform of the Land Law. That is not the case now. The Government have pushed aside all legislation for Ireland and all parts of the United Kingdom, and they claim from us that we shall surrender the opportunities we have obtained in the ballot for the discussion of Irish and other questions. Now, Sir, what is the urgency for the alteration in these Rules of Procedure? The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the gravity of the situation of the House; but I deny that there has been any undue prolongation of the debate on the part of any section of the hon. Members of the House. I contend, Sir, that if the Government had announced at the commencement of the Session that they intended to take up all the time of the House, private Members would have been justified in bringing forward matters in which they were interested for discussion on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman may depend upon it that so long as there are attempts made to sit upon hon. Members in one direction he will have them popping up their heads in another direction; and if he filches away the privileges and rights of private Members they will make some attempt to retaliate in another way. The Leader gets on best with this House who is mindful of its traditions and of the fact that it does not consist entirely of Her Majesty's Government, but of Members as a whole, who are supposed to be equal in the law of debate. Of late years, however, we have had invasions of the rights of private Members, who have been thrust on one side as if they were of no account. I believe, Sir, it would be found on examination of the chronicles of this House that all the great measures of reform—measures for remedying the grievances of the people—measures for asserting public rights and putting down public wrong—have been due to the perseverance and often repeated exertion for many years of private Members of this House in bringing forward these questions in which they were interested on the days which the House gives up to private Members. I think it is time that private Members should make some kind of stand against this encroachment on their rights, and I do not think we could have a better case to make a stand upon than this question of Ireland. The Government have not told us what they are going to do with regard to Ireland. They have told us that they are going to bring forward a Coercion Bill of some kind; but they have not told us of what nature that Coercion Bill is going to be. They have told us nothing whatever of their measures of amelioration for Ireland. A very important event is going to happen next Saturday. We are told that on next Saturday the Government will be placed in possession of the Report of Lord Cowper's Commission with regard to the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland. Now, I confess that before this Resolution is agreed to I should like to have seen that Report. I do not know why it has been kept back so long. The Government say that even when they get it into their possession they will refrain for some time longer from disclosing its nature to the House. I do not know why the Government are going to do that. I do not see why the Government should not, without any unnecessary delay, disclose this Report to the House of Commons and to the country, in order that we may be the better judges whether we ought to proceed with the Rules of Procedure first, or with measures of amelioration for Ireland. Why has Her Majesty's Government sprung this Motion now under discussion upon us without Notice? It was only on yesterday afternoon, when it was impossible to frame an Amendment in time to place it on the Paper of the House, that we were informed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of his intention to bring forward the Motion this evening. I do not think the House has been well treated in this matter. I think we should have got sufficient Notice—at least 24 hours' Notice—of the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward this very important and grave Resolution. I do not know that things may not go from bad to worse in the meantime in Ireland. I have received a telegram this afternoon from the Westport Board of Guardians—a Board which was in receipt a very few months ago of relief from State sources for the purpose of saving it from bankruptcy. The telegram says—

"The Westport Board of Guardians have today received notice of the eviction of 121 families, numbering 1,000 persons, the landlords being in some cases Lord Sligo and Lord Clive. The guardians consider this attempt at the general extirpation of the people as inhuman and barbarous, and they implore the Government to use their influence to stay the hands of the evictors."

Sir, it is at such a time as this that we are asked to shut ourselves out of the power of raising our voices against grievances such as these in Ireland, to deprive ourselves of the power of bringing any measures or making any suggestions on our own account to meet these terrible acts in Ireland. Sir, the day before yesterday in West Cork Lord Cork invoked the aid of a large body of police to enforce evictions—

, interposing, said, a discussion on the state of affairs in Ire- land was not in Order. From what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman I consider that his Amendment will take the form of a negative to the Resolution already agreed to and passed by the House, and I shall point out that an Amendment of that nature cannot be accepted.

Well, Sir, of course I am bound by your ruling. The Resolution reads this way—

"That the consideration of the proposed Rules of Procedure have precedence of Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day on which the consideration of these Rules may be set down by the Government."

I proposed to add to it this—

"Provided the said Rules are not set down for consideration before the Government disclosed to the House the nature of their proposed legislation regarding Ireland."

In my opinion, that is in direct opposition to the first proposition. If the Government have power to give precedence among the Orders of the Day to the proposed Rules of Procedure by the first proposition, by the second they are forbidden to do so under the terms of the hon. Gentleman's provision. The two together would have a militating effect one upon the other.

It appears to me, Sir, that the House may fairly require the Government to agree to such a condition as I propose—that before they use this right which the House would be willing to give them they disclose to the House the nature of their proposed legislation. However, I would not on any account set myself up to differ from any ruling which you would make, and if I understand your ruling and judgment I will simply content myself.

What I object to is the sweeping character of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman moved "that except on certain days," be added to the Resolution it would not be of such a sweeping character.

May I move an Amendment of this character—

"Except on such Wednesdays as measures concerning Ireland may be set down for consideration."

I think it will be competent for the hon. Gentleman to do that.

I will substitute for the first Amendment the Amendment I have just recited. I will say, Mr. Speaker, that the importance of this question is one which I fear very much will be increased from day to day. In fact, it appears to me, from the occurrences which reach us from Ireland, that the importance of this question is very much graver and exists to a very much larger extent than appears to have impressed itself on the minds of the Members of Her Majesty's Government. I wish to know whether we can really shut the door for considering every question affecting Ireland until these Rules of Procedure have been disposed of? I, for one, would hope that even at the eleventh hour the Government would say they are making demands upon the House, and particularly upon the Irish Members, of an arbitrary character, and that they will consent, at all events, to give up one day, as was done last Session by the then Leader of the House, the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), for the discussion of the Bill we brought in for the relief of Irish tenants. I do not think that the time of the House will be wasted in that way; on the contrary, I think that the avoidance of arbitrary conduct on the part of the Leader of the House will tend to facilitate Business—that it will be remembered for him, and that one good turn will be held to deserve another. But if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House insists upon depriving us of our privileges—if he strokes the cat against the grain—if he uses the gag snaffle when the rein would be sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman will find that he has not adopted the best course. I can but express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to give a favourable reply. In conclusion, I beg to move as an Amendment—"Except upon the Wednesdays on which Bills relating to Ireland are set down."

I am not at all insensible to the gravity of the situation. I am fully conversant with the necessity of exercising any authority with which the House may be disposed to entrust me with the greatest possible consideration to hon. Members who differ from me, as well as to those hon. Members who agree with me. But there is another duty devolving upon the Leader of this House, and that is to endeavour to guide the House in the way in which it is necessary that the House should go for the performance of the work which it undertakes. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has appealed to us to consider the measures which relate to Ireland. We are most anxious to approach the consideration of those measures. But I appeal to the hon. Gentleman himself whether the experience of the last three weeks is not sufficient to convince him that no attempt at legislation is possible until the Rules of Procedure are before the House? We are desirous of giving full consideration, not only to the proposals of the hon. Member for Cork and the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), but also to our own proposals. But we know perfectly well that it would be useless to bring forward these proposals until the House has amended its Code of Procedure, and until it has taken into its own hands the power of conducting its Business in a manner which shall be creditable to the House itself and advantageous to the country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork has spoken of the struggle of hon. Members for their rights. There is no wish whatever on the part of the Government to interfere with the rights of private Members. From the day on which I had the honour of becoming a Member of this House—a good many years ago—I had, and still have, the highest respect for the rights of private Members. I believe they are a great and cherished privilege which this House is bound to respect. But what I wish to impress upon the hon. Gentleman is that the prolongation of debate, the impossibility of getting Business carried to a conclusion, is in itself the greatest enemy and the greatest obstruction to the rights of private Members. We should not now have to propose to the House that it should give its whole time to the discussion of these Rules of Procedure if there had only been a reasonable discussion on the Address. Not only on the Address, but on every other question brought before the House, there has been an abundance of discussion, so great that the transaction of Business has become impossible. The hon. Member said that this Motion had been sprung upon the House, and a few minutes before he had drawn attention to the fact that it had been my duty to give Notice of this Motion on the first day of the Session. One remark of the hon. Gentleman answers the other. I gave Notice on the first day of the Session that it would be my duty, at the earliest convenient opportunity, to move for the time of the House for the purpose of Procedure. I think it must be admitted that 16 days' sitting is a period long enough to intervene before I proceed with this Motion. The hon. Member complains that 24 hours' Notice was not given. I gave it at a quarter to 6 yesterday afternoon, and I acted upon the Notice at 6 o'clock this evening, so that here, again, the hon. Member's desire has been fulfilled to the letter. But that is not, I am sure, the real objection of the hon. Gentleman. He is anxious that his measure should be proceeded with. Let him, then, exercise the influence which he possesses with his Colleagues on those Benches, and let him and them give no more than is just and proper consideration to Procedure, and he will certainly have the opportunity which he desires of explaining his own Bill to the House. I should be glad that he should have such an opportunity. No difficulty whatever will be thrown in his way by any hon. Member on this Bench, or on this side of the House. No, Sir; let the hon. Member for Cork give the assistance which it is in his power to give to the House to recover the character and reputation which the House had a few years ago. With regard to Lord Cowper's Report, the hon. Gentleman taunts the Government with having kept back that Report. There is not a shadow of foundation for that taunt. The hon. Gentleman ought to be aware that, when a Royal Commission is appointed, the Government has no power whatever over the conduct of the Members of that Commission, and that they are entirely independent of the Government. We have been, at least, as desirous as the hon. Member can be, that the Report should be presented as rapidly as possible. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), when Notice of the Question was given, wrote to Lord Cowper, and gave me the answer which he had received. It was to the effect that the Report would be agreed to to-morrow, and would be sent to the Home Secretary on Saturday. There will be no delay whatever in the presentation of that Report on the part of the Government. There will be some delay in the way of printing, of course; but the Government will interpose no delay. No, Sir, we are, in good faith, most earnestly desirous of legislating for the benefit of Ireland. It will be the hon. Gentleman himself and his Friends who will hinder us in proposing this legislation to the House, if we are not able to obtain the time of the House for Procedure.

I listened attentively to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell); but I think that any hon. Member who has any knowledge of what is going on in Ireland, and who has a due sense of the responsibility which rests upon this House, must deem it a very grave matter to place it beyond the power of this House to consider important questions affecting the well-being of Ireland, unless the consent of the Government is previously obtained. I have looked over carefully the new Rules of Procedure which have been laid upon the Table, and I have also referred to what has taken place in this House in past years with respect to that matter; and I am induced to believe that, after we have entered upon the consideration of the new Rules of Procedure, much time must elapse before we come to a conclusion of our labours upon them. I particularly noticed that the First Lord of the Treasury did not, in any way, attempt to contradict the assertion of the hon. Member for Cork, that there is no precedent for the Motion which he has made this evening. For these reasons I am prepared to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork.

The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The right hon. Gentleman dwelt upon the fact that he is an old Member of the House; but, by the help of his mechanical Motion, he has just defeated the proposal of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), who is a much older Member of the House than he is. I believe that the hon. Member for Swansea has sat uninterruptedly in this House since the year 1855; while the First Lord of the Treasury, although he has always been an ornament of the House and has been of great value to his Party, has only been hare since 1868. Therefore, if the House is to be guided by the lengthened experience of an hon. Member as to the Business of this House, there ought to have been a majority for the Motion of the hon. Member for Swansea. Nevertheless, the First Lord, with his obedient legions, proposes practically to shut out the Nonconformists of Wales, on Tuesday next, from discussing a question which is of the utmost importance to them. I do not propose to refer at any length to an English question, and one which has already been decided by the House; but in the name of the West of Ireland I am prepared to back up every word my hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Cork has said, especially in regard to the West of Ireland. I regret that the First Lord of the Treasury has not thought fit to follow the example of one of the greatest Conservative Leaders who ever sat in this House—Mr. Disraeli—and to act upon the dicta he was in the habit of pronouncing in reference to the decisions of this House. I cannot help thinking that the tension of feeling in Ireland will be much aggravated, if it is found that two Wednesdays we have already secured by Ballot for the consideration of the Land Bill, and an important Motion with reference to Poor Law Guardians, have been taken possession of by the Government. I trust that the First Lord of the Treasury will reconsider his determination, and accept the moderate Amendment of my hon. Friend, being satisfied with full possession of four days a week. Four days a week will be ample for discussing the new Rules of Procedure, and we should still have our Wednesdays left. If the Government insist upon having five days a week, let the House, if it is deemed necessary, sit on Saturday. Although it would be extremely inconvenient to me, and I have no doubt it would also be most in- convenient to you, Sir, although, perhaps, as we have a Deputy Speaker, you might be able to get over the difficulty we Irish Members are so anxious to secure the discussion of these Irish questions that we are perfectly willing to sit here on a Saturday. By that means the First Lord of the Treasury, who is so anxious to pass these New Rules, will secure their discussion upon five days a week, and will leave to those who are anxious that the Imperial Parliament should consider the case of Ireland one or two Wednesdays upon which those Irish Members who have been fortunate enough to secure the Ballot can ventilate the grievances of Ireland. I am aware that the adoption of my suggestion would give to you, Sir, a considerable amount of extra work, and also to the officers of the House; but, in return, you would gain the good-will of the Irish people; and surely the goodwill of 5,000,000 of Her Majesty's Irish subjects is worth something. Under these circumstances, I claim that our Wednesday Sittings should be allowed to follow their ordinary course; and if the Government absolutely require five days a week, let them have a Sitting on Saturday. But then there arises another question. Will the Rules of Procedure really make more progress in five days than they would in four, seeing that the Sitting on Wednesday is bound to close at 6 o'clock? I remember Mr. Disraeli, who, next to the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone), I look upon as having been the greatest Leader of this House—I remember Mr. Disraeli stating on one occasion that, whatever might be the nature of the Business brought in by the Government or by private Members, there would not be a difference of more than two or three days in the date of the Prorogation of Parliament. Nor do I think that, whether the Government take four or five days a week for the consideration of the New Rules, the slightest difference will be made in the progress of the Rules. Therefore I am of opinion that the Government will derive very little advantage indeed from taking the Wednesday Sittings—certainly none in comparison with the immense mischief that would be done to the Tory Government themselves, and especially to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Great interest is taken in the Irish cause in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and America; and is it desirable that it shall be possible for people there to say—"The British House of Commons will not even discuss the affairs of Ireland. So intent are they on altering their Rules that they decline even to devote one day a week to the consideration of Irish questions." Surely that is a very strong argument in favour of Home Rule, that even one day a week—those days having been already secured by the Ballot—are to be taken from the Irish Government. It must no be forgotten that this will constitute an argument in favour of the Home Rule Party, not merely in our mouths, but in those of our sympathizers in the Press, and for every English-speaking community in the world which has an Assembly modelled on the institutions of this Mother Parliament. They will be able to say—"Ireland can always be put out in the cold by the simple assertion that the House of Commons desire to remodel their Rules." I am not very strongly of opinion that the House has a very ardent desire to change its Rules, or that there is any absolute necessity for a change of Rules, or that that is a matter of very great concern. It is even desirable for the Irish landlords themselves that they should have the safety-valve of discussion in this House. I fail to see that the question of the New Rules of Procedure is a matter of urgent importance. In the first place, the House of Commons is supposed to have existed for 700 or 800 years. To a certain extent its Rules are simply legendary; but ever since the time of Elizabeth, at any rate, there have been well-understood Rules, and legislation has been able to go on very well without New Rules, and to get on very well too. Twenty years ago—I was not then a Member of this House, but I took great interest in the Procedure of Parliament, and in its debates; and I know that all the London papers at that time were agreed that no House of Commons would ever be able to pass more than one great measure in the course of a single Session; but by concentrating their resources the Government were able to do that. That has certainly been the state of affairs for the last eight or nine years. Any Government which takes an interest in any particular subject can pass one big measure, and is probably able to pass, in addition, a number of small measures. In the face of an active and energetic Opposition, however, they are not able to pass two or three large measures in the course of a single Session. I believe that the capacity of the Government to pass great measures is now precisely the same that it has been for the last 20 or 25 years; and the talk of Obstruction is, to a great extent, a fiction on the part of the Government. Although my experience of the House of Commons is not so long as that of the hon. Member for Swansea, I sat in the same Parliament as that which first introduced the First Lord of the Treasury into the House, and that is the opinion which my experience has enabled me to form. I have been told by a Conservative Member that the freedom of this House was utterly crushed when your Predecessor in Office, Sir, required an hon. Member to second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. In previous years any hon. Member could make that Motion without a Seconder. But in the course of the last 20 or 25 years our privileges have been gradually curtailed, and a Seconder is required before a Motion for the adjournment of the debate can be moved. Another Conservative Member of much weight in the House, but whose name it is unnecessary to give, although I have no objection to give it privately if desired, has protested to me against the evil which will be done if any Rules are passed which are likely to limit the privileges of Members of this House. Even the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian himself has pointed out what sweeping Radical measures might be carried if the Rules were changed, and the Government, by a mechanical majority, were able to overbear every opposition. My own opinion is that the Conservative Party are taking a rash step in altering the old Rules of this House; but the deleterious effect of the Rules themselves is not so much the question as the immediate harm they will do by their mere discussion during the next four or five weeks. We cannot alter Rules which have been in force for 300 or 400 years without a considerable amount of deliberation and discussion. The discussion of these Rules may occupy the House during the next five or six weeks, and during that time every reform on every other matter will be hung up. As a Representative of Ireland, I am much concerned at the prospect; and I consider it a matter of much importance that, having secured the first place in the Ballot, we should be shut out from having a discussion upon Irish affairs. I, therefore, request the First Lord of the Treasury to reconsider his decision on this point, so far as the Wednesday Sittings are concerned. If the Government adhere to their determination, an hon. and gallant Member opposite will be unable to bring on any question as to naval affairs. My hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) will find himself in the same boat when he desires to raise the question of jury-packing in Ireland. The Poor Law Guardians (Ireland) Bill stands for the 2nd of March; the Land Law (Ireland) Act (1881) Amendment Bill for the 16th; the County Government (Ireland) Bill for the same day; the Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) Bill for the 6th of April; and the Land Tenure (Scotland) Bill is the second Bill for the 20th of April. These Bills are of the highest importance; but the First Lord of the Treasury at one fell swoop gets rid of the whole of them, and, in the case of Ireland, declines to spare one. We should be satisfied merely to discuss our grievances. We might be out-voted, but we should not be in a position to say that we had not been listened to. I think that any temporary Party advantage which may be gained by closing our mouths will be more than counterbalanced by the feeling of dissatisfaction which will be created. I cannot help feeling that there may be much external danger in denying an opportunity for free discussion; and I would again appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to allow the Irish Members, at least, one day. I know there will be a strong feeling in Ireland when it is known that Irish questions are to be ignored altogether while we are engaged in discussing our own Rules, and are practically standing still. At the present moment the House of Commons enjoys greater power than it ever enjoyed at any former period of its history. The House of Lords is, of course, a mere second Chamber for the purpose of revision; but, as a Chamber with real power, there is nothing to compare with the House of Commons. Yet Her Majesty's Government propose to tie up our hands for the next five or six weeks, so far as legitimate work is concerned. If we considered the Rules of Procedure on four or five days each week, and devoted, at least, one to the general affairs of the nation, we should be able to maintain our position in the country. We are only wasting time by discussing the fashion in which we are to effect a particular object. In the long run, the House of Commons will be found to be quite capable of setting any grievance right; but, at the present moment, events are marching on very fast. We have got Socialism in London—

Order, order! The hon. and gallant Member is really travelling beyond the Question. I must ask the hon. and gallant Member to keep to that Question.

I do not propose to trespass much longer upon the time of the House, and I must apologize to you, Sir, for having strayed into a general discussion. I have already pointed out the immense necessity of some reform in the Irish Land Law, and in the Poor Laws of that country. At any rate, I feel that an opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of those questions, so that the Irish people may know that their Representatives have had a full and ample opportunity of stating their grievances. As you, Mr. Speaker, think that I ought not longer to trespass on the time of the House, I will, of course, bow to your ruling.

Mr. Speaker, I think that my hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) has made a very reasonable proposition to the Government, and I sincerely trust that in the interest of peace in Ireland— Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

I was saying I sincerely trust that in the interest of peace in Ireland the Government may see their way to accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend. In substance, all that my hon. Friend asks of the Government is that they should give three and a-half hours' consideration on Wednesday next to the Irish Bill which has first place on that day. In conformity with the Rules the House will not meet until 2 o'clock on Wednesday next—Ash Wednesday—so that there cannot be more than three hours and a-half discussion, and that is all we ask. It is not competent for me to discuss the provisions of the Bill, the second reading of which my hon. Friend desires to move on Wednesday; but I may say that if the Government were to accept the measure they would thus do more to preserve the peace in Ireland than they can possibly do through the operation of the proposed New Rules of Procedure. The Government complain of the length of the speeches which have been delivered on the Address; but when they do that they should remember that some years ago, when they were in Opposition, they were not averse to give us an example of how to prolong the debate upon the Address. As a matter of fact, Her Majesty's Speech was such as to make it necessary for us on this side of the House to take up a certain portion of the time of the House in discussing it. Indeed, I think it will be generally admitted that the Royal Speech was as verbose a one as was ever framed; and, at the same time, one of the most unsatisfactory. It dealt with little or nothing of interest. Moreover, when the Government charge us with consuming the time of the House unnecessarily, they should remember that they and their supporters have themselves consumed a great deal of time. Now, the practical effect of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) has made will be to bring legislation to a standstill—while we are discussing the Rules of Procedure all the useful legislation which this country and Ireland so much require will be brought to a standstill. We have not forgotten that not many years since it took the whole of a special Session to pass certain Rules of Procedure; and I ask the House how long is the discussion of the New Rules now proposed likely to occupy? The proposed Rules are drastic in the extreme, and they propose to very greatly curtail the Privileges of private Members. I venture to say that when they do come on for discussion the New Rules will be vigorously opposed; and instead of being passed in a short time, as the Government seem to suppose, they will not be adopted until some weeks have elapsed. As was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Galway (Colonel Nolan), the public at large are very little concerned in the Procedure of this House. They wish to see legislation; but the friends of the Government naturally say that the first step towards the passing of useful legislative measures is the adoption of the New Rules of Procedure, and the consequent curtailment of the Privileges of private Members. I predict that they are wrong in their forecast, and that the Rules which the Government propose to bring into force, with a view of enabling them to pass their own measures, will be found to have a contrary effect; that so far from expediting Business they will be found to retard Business. It would have been much better for the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to have shown a more conciliatory disposition towards those who belong to the minority in the House. He may for the moment possibly obtain a victory; but it will be a dear victory. If he secures the passing of the Now Rules he will not be one whit nearer the solution of the Irish Question than he is to-day. There was one remark which fell from him which was very unsatisfactory to us. Replying to the Question addressed to him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley), he said he was not in a position to state precisely what Business the Government might think important; while he added that important Business would be taken. Now, the proposal which my hon. Friend the Member for Cork lays before the House for its acceptance is shortly this—that, at any rate, it should not allow the Government to absorb next Wednesday. Next Wednesday we, by the fortune of the Ballot, have first place for the second reading of the Land Law (Ireland) Act, 1881, Amendment Bill; and we know from personal experience, and from the reports which are reaching us daily, that some reform of this Act is actually necessary, if peace is to be preserved in Ireland. The very telegrams which my hon. Friend read in proposing his Amendment to the Motion now before the House must convince you that we are in the midst of a great agrarian crisis in Ireland, and that unless something is done in the shape of the Bill which, is down for second reading next Wednesday, that crisis will daily increase in gravity. For this reason, and for many others, we on this side of the House intend to offer the most strenuous opposition to the proposition of the Government to absorb the time which usually belongs to private Members, and to thereby encroach upon the Privileges of Members of this House. We know that every great reform which has been passed in this country, or in any other country, has had its origin in a minority. You will generally find brave and daring spirits who lead the way in great reforms—they must necessarily be so—in a minority at first; but as time wears on they gain in strength, and that which was scouted a few years previously as impracticable becomes the question of the day. Now, we know from experience that if the Government obtain their present wish, they will with their large majority, unfortunately recruited by hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House, pass these Procedure Rules, and that, when once they have passed them, they will enforce them with a hand of iron. We know from experience that Ireland and the Irish Members are not in the odour of sanctity on the other side, and that the Rules will be exercised with rigour towards Ireland, and towards the Irish Representatives. Consequently, we believe that it is our duty, in the interest of Ireland, to offer every opposition that we can to the Motion which the Leader of the House has proposed. Now, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the Government imagine that if they obtain the leave of the House to absorb the time of private Members, they will be considerably nearer the solution of the Irish Question, inasmuch as they will secure the power of gagging the Irish Representatives. Events will prove that the Government are wrong in that opinion, and that if the Rules are exercised against us, so far from the Government being nearer the solution of the Irish Question, they will be further off than ever. We believe that the Bill, the second reading of which my hon. Friend desires to move on Wednesday, will tide us over, to a great extent, a serious difficulty in Ireland, because we know upon the very best authority that many of the evictions—

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for some time, but has not at all touched the subject before the House. I must warn him to address himself to the Question.

I am sorry, Sir, I was not dealing with the Amendment before the House. Now, another important measure is set down for an early Wednesday, the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill—a Bill which interests very considerably the people in this country. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill has also been put down for the same day; and another Bill in which we are very interested, and which we are anxious to speak upon, is the Belfast Government Bill, and that is fixed for another Wednesday. If the Government carry this Motion, we shall be excluded from speaking on these important matters. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, in reply to my hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), said that he had given timely Notice of his intention to move this Resolution, and in proof of that he said that at a quarter to 6 last evening he gave Notice of the Motion. Technically, the right hon. Gentleman did give 24 hours' Notice; but it must be recollected that the Motion is one of the greatest importance; and, therefore, it would not have been unreasonable if the right hon. Gentleman had given us a considerably longer Notice, and thus have afforded hon. Members ample opportunity of forming an opinion with regard to it. I hope that when the Government calmly consider the proposition of the hon. Member for Cork they will see that it is a reasonable one, and one made in the interest of the peace of Ireland. We are very often accused, from the other side of the House, of being unfavourable to the peace of Ireland; but I think that, by the measures we bring forward from time to time, we prove conclusively that we are most anxious to preserve peace in Ireland. It is really those who reject what we know to be reasonable measures who are responsible for the present unsatisfactory state of our country. We now appeal to the House to allow us to do what we fully believe will conduce to the peace of Ireland. Last November we told you that the passing of the Tenants' Relief Bill would have a salutary effect in Ireland. Events have justified our action. What has occurred during the winter is solely at- tributable to yourselves. Under the circumstances—though certainly we have no reason to expect very much from Her Majesty's Government, having regard to what we have received from them in the past—we do expect, in the interest of the preservation of peace, that you will give us next Wednesday for the consideration of a measure most important to the agricultural tenants of Ireland, and to the well-being of the country at large.

said, he hoped that, in all the circumstances, the Government would make the concession which had been asked from them in moderate terms by the Irish Representatives. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) had told them that it was a mistake to say that his Motion had been sprung upon the House, and that they had been given Notice of it at the beginning of the Session. Now, although those Resolutions might have been in sight for a long time, still a difference was made when they were suddenly taken from their position of rest, and it was proposed at once to make use of them. If he had seen a gun in his neighbour's house for weeks and weeks, and if one day, when he called again, the neighbour suddenly took the weapon of war and presented it at his head, it would not do to tell him that his neighbour had not suddenly sprung the gun upon him because he had seen it there for weeks before. Yet that seemed to him the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. No doubt these Resolutions had been before them, but they had been hoping that they were in the dim and distant future. If they were suddenly taken, and made use of, as they had been that evening, he would say they had been sprung upon the House. The whole transaction impressed him most unfavourably. It had to him the appearance of something in the nature of a trick. The purpose evidently was to prevent the possibility of general discussions which might be of very great importance, not only to Ireland, but to the country at large. He did not see, for his part, that at the beginning of the Session the announcement should have been made for any alteration of the Rules of Procedure. The reason alleged was the experience of last Session; but, as a new observer, who considered carefully what went on before him, he could not say he had seen much, of any discussion that was unreasonably beyond the necessities of the case that was being discussed. If, then, that was the reason, he could only draw the inference that they were not to be at liberty to discuss minutely the Estimates, because, so far as he remembered, the necessity placed on the Speaker from time to time, to keep hon. Members strictly within the Rules of Order, developed itself chiefly in the discussion of the Estimates. He should, therefore, look forward with a degree of alarm to the contingency that might arise when duty imposed on the Representative of a particular constituency to draw attention minutely to Estimates specially affecting his particular locality; and that alarm was not at all allayed by the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that he had no wish to deprive private Members of their rights. He (Mr. Wallace) believed that it was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was not harbouring any unconstitutional designs; but he would require something more explicit than simply a general declaration of his benevolent intentions with respect to private Members to make him confident that there was no danger lurking under the determination he had taken to press on these Procedure Rules with all the speed that the House would give. It occurred to him that it was not unreasonable on the part of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland to ask the concession which was implied in their Amendment, considering the amount of time that seemed to be proposed for the discussion of these Rules of Procedure. He (Mr. Wallace) thought the Government were asking too much when they asked the whole time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had estimated that four or five weeks would be required for the consideration of the Rules of Procedure; but the conclusion he (Mr. Wallace) had come to upon that was that it would be from eight to ten weeks. In reality it seemed to him the effect of these Procedure Resolutions, unless they were very carefully modified by the jealous regard of the House for its own liberties and interests—

The House is not discussing now the Rules of Procedure, and it would be out of Order to refer to them in detail.

, continuing, said, that without dealing with the Rules of Procedure themselves, and merely having respect to the danger from the amount of time that might be required for their consideration, he thought it was not unreasonable to ask the Government that a little portion of the time which they proposed to ask for their consideration should be given to Ireland, in consideration of the special claims which it had in present emergencies as contrasted with the other parts of the country. He could not forget that the position of Ireland and of the Irish people was one of peculiar injustice. He believed at this moment the Irish people should be entrusted with the management of their own affairs.

The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order in discussing the question of Ireland.

said, he had purposed to give, as a reason for offering this concession to the people of Ireland, that there was a natural feeling of disappointment in the Irish mind in connection with proceedings which had taken place in that House, which seemed to him to differentiate the case of Ireland very broadly from the case of Wales. Both sides were anxious that something should be done in regard to leaseholders in Ireland, whose interests were involved in the Amendment under consideration; and he could not see how the right hon. Gentleman could, on the ground of expected danger or difficulty, refuse this concession when there was no difficulty to be apprehended. He was not called upon to make the same refusal as in the case of Wales. He ventured, therefore, to express the hope that the Government would not, out of a mere attachment to what they considered uniformity of treatment all over the country, refuse to make an exception in this matter. The question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales was on a totally different footing from that of the leaseholders in Ireland, so far as discussion and sympathy were concerned. The Government might, in the most reasonable way, be alarmed at the prospect of a discussion devoted to the question of the Disestablishment of the Church in Wales. [Cries of "Divide!"] He proposed, in spite of the interruptions from the other side, to proceed with the performance of his duty. He considered it perfectly reasonable, from their point of view, that the Government should refuse to allow discussion on Dissestablishment in Wales to be interpolated into the consideration of the Rules of Procedure.

Order, order! I have twice reminded the hon. Member that he is dealing most irrelevantly with the subject before the House, and I must now direct him to discontinue his speech. The hon. MEMBER thereupon resumed his seat.

said, he did not rise to prolong the discussion, but simply to draw attention to one fact. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in introducing the Amendment before the House, made a very strong appeal on behalf of the Irish leaseholders. The hon. Member said nothing in regard to Irish leaseholders that he (Mr. T. W. Russell) was not prepared to endorse. He was also prepared to join the hon. Member in any reasonable appeal to the Government asking for facilities to discuss the question of Irish leaseholds; but he could not refrain from asking, was this a reasonable appeal which the hon. Member for Cork had made to the Government that evening? The House had already refused to the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) facilities for the discussion of the question of Disestablishing the Church in Wales. Hon. Members who were opposed to the existence of an Established Church in the Principality had voted against the hon. Member for Swansea. Was it then, he asked hon. Members below the Gangway, likely that the House would concede to Ireland what it had distinctly refused to Wales? Was it a reasonable appeal that the hon. Member had made to the Government on behalf of the Irish leaseholders? The hon. Member for Cork was not the only Member of the House who had displayed interest in the case of the Irish leaseholders. He wished to point out, in two sentences, what had already occurred this Session on this matter. He (Mr. T. W. Russell) himself had introduced a Bill on the subject, and that Bill would have been discussed, and in all probability read a second time by the House, but for the action of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. He just wished to point out to the House that while this appeal was made on behalf of the Irish leaseholders it was as likely to do those leaseholders harm as to do them any good. While he was ready to join the hon. Member for Cork in any reasonable appeal to the Government on behalf of those in whom he was interested, he was not willing to go through the farce of marching through the Division Lobbies of the House of Commons in support of that appeal when he knew it was perfectly useless, and likely to do harm instead of good.

said, he repudiated the suggestion that they were opposed to the Bill of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); they had taken no part in blocking that Bill. The hon. Member for Cork based his case on the grave state of affairs in Ireland, and he maintained that the condition of that country would be governed very much in the future by the action of the Government, which would act and re-act on the mind of the Irish people. The Government had promised the Report of the Royal Commission dealing with the agrarian difficulties in Ireland; but the result of interposing the discussion of the Rules of Procedure would be to destroy any chance which the House might have had of considering its recommendations. This might suit the policy of the Tory Party, which, in reality, was to initiate no legislation whatever. If the Government were to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Cork, he thought that some earnest would be given to the Irish people that serious legislation of some kind in regard to Ireland was to be proceeded with in this Parliament.

said, that were it not for the negligence of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) in not getting his Bill printed, it would have been facilitated before it was blocked by Members of the Tory Party. It so happened that Members of the Irish Party had on the Order Book of the House two Bills dealing with the subject of leaseholders, and also with broader issues on the Land Question. The first of those Bills was set down for the 23rd instant, and the second for the 16th of March, If the Motion of the Government was adopted, those Bills would be thrown aside without any reasonable probability of their being read a second time this Session. Would the hon. Member assist in throwing out these measures by voting for the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith)? He maintained that the Irish Members had not blocked the Bill of the hon. Member for South Tyrone; on the contrary, two supporters of the Government, who might be considered the allies of the hon. Member, if not his Colleagues, had taken measures to block the progress of the hon. Member's Bill. But another Bill in which the hon. Member for South Tyrone was more particularly interested than in land agitation would suffer if the Motion were adopted—that was the Liquor Traffic (Ulster) Local Veto Bill. The hon. Member had, on a recent occasion, given up in an ostentatious fashion the apostleship of temperance; but perhaps a little of the old love yet remained to induce him to keep, by his vote, that measure from destruction. He (Mr. M. J. Kenny) protested against the action of the Government as an encroachment upon the rights of private Members.

said, that a measure of the greatest possible importance to the Irish people was down for Wednesday, the 16th instant; but if the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) carried his Motion they would lose the day for the discussion of that Bill. There was a still more important measure set down for the following Wednesday, the 23rd instant—the Irish Land Bill, which dealt with all the rights connected with the land, and those improvements in which the Irish people at the present time took such a deep interest. The Government were never tired of telling them they were desirous of bringing forward legislation for the amendment of the Land Act of 1881. Why were they going to prevent the Irish Members from bringing in a Bill dealing with the subject? If the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House were adopted, it would be impossible to deal with this important question. The opportunity would be lost, and in the hurry-skurry of a long Session such an opportunity might never occur again, Another important mea- sure had been arranged to be brought forward by the Irish Members relating to the bad system of election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland; but not one of these measures for the improvement of the condition of the Irish people could be advanced if the proposed Rules of Procedure were adopted. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to withdraw his Motion.

said, he thought the present moment a most inopportune one for bringing forward such a Motion as that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith). If the right hon. Gentleman were serious in his statement that he was anxious to approach the Irish Question, why did he not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell)? In the present condition of Ireland it was imperative that the Government should state what their remedial or coercive measures might be. At the present moment, from one end of Ireland to the other, there was nothing but distress, nothing but disturbance; and it was incumbent on the Government to bring forward their measures to ameliorate the distress, or put an end to the disturbance. The refusal of the Government to consider the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork would have a bad effect—it would induce the Irish people to take their minds and their eyes off that Assembly, and to seek again the redress of their grievances by other methods. The time had arrived when every private Member of the House ought to take his stand against the Rules of Procedure. He protested against the Government taking steps which would prevent the Irish Members from bringing in a Bill placing the leaseholders of Ireland within the benefit of the Land Act.