I beg to move that the Lords' Amendments be now taken into consideration. It will be in the recollection of the House that when the Bill was last before us it was postponed in order that time might be given to enable the Bill, which had already passed through this House, and which had been taken to "another place," in reference to the extension of the municipal franchise in the City of Belfast, to be passed. That Bill will, I believe, pass the House of Lords in the course of to-day. It will thus be seen that the promoters of the Main Drainage Bill have done all in their power to carry out the arrangement which was proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite, the Chairman of Ways and Means, and I have now to ask the House to pass the present Bill. I am sorry that we are not to have the presence here to-day of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), who has taken a very active part in opposition to this Bill. [ Cries of "No!" from the Irish Benches. ] If the hon. Member were present, I think it is probable he might object that certain Amendments have been introduced into the Municipal Franchise Bill which affect the Drainage Bill; but the House will remember the remarkable circumstances under which that Bill passed through Committee some weeks ago at a quarter to 3 o'clock in the morning; and hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the Amendments which were made on that occasion rendered the measure quite unworkable. The Bill itself dissolved the Municipal Council of Belfast; but it provided no machinery whatever for making a new Burgess Roll, At present, under a Local Act, the landlords of houses of £8 value and under are rateable and liable to pay the taxes, while the names of the occupiers do not appear on the Rate Book at all. In future, it is provided that the occupiers must be rated. The present Burgess Roll contains the names of some 6,000 persons, and it is provided that the Mayor, assisted by two assessors, shall revise the list. They have been able to make up the roll satisfactorily in the past; but it is not pretended that they can deal satisfactorily with a list containing five times the present number of names, for it is estimated that the new register will contain some 30,000 names. In order to meet the difficulty power is given in the Bill, as amended, to employ five Revising Barristers to make up the Burgess Roll of the borough, and the cost will have to be defrayed by the town. The Bill also provides for the renewal of the Council year by year; but as it is impossible to have a new Burgess Roll ready by November next, the operation of the Bill has been postponed for one year. In taking that course the precedent has been followed of a similar Bill introduced some years ago in reference to the City of Dublin, which measure passed this House about the same time of year as this. One of the provisions of that measure enacted that the Bill should not come into operation until the year following. These clauses may be objected to by the Friends of the hon. Member for West Belfast; but they are inevitable, and no change has been made in the Bill that could be avoided. However, in order to meet the wishes of the hon. Member, and, I believe, the feeling of the House also, a clause has been introduced into the Franchise Bill to provide that no steps should be taken in regard to the carrying out of the works in connection with the main drainage scheme until a meeting of the ratepayers shall have been held—as is held in England under the Public Health Act—and their consent obtained. That meeting of the ratepayers will be upon the list of 30,000, and it will be for that meeting to direct whether the Bill is to come into operation. It will be for the ratepayers to say whether the drainage scheme shall be proceeded with at once, or whether the works shall be postponed until the New Town Council are fully elected. It will also be in the power of the ratepayers to say to what extent the provisions of this Bill are to be carried out; and, in fact, this meeting of the ratepayers will have full power over the whole of the scheme. That clause will appear in the Franchise Bill when it comes down from the House of Lords, and I have given Notice to introduce, after Clause 33a in the Main Drainage Bill, the following Clause:—

"No action shall be taken or liability incurred in respect of the works by this Act authorized unless or until the execution of such works has the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the borough to be expressed by Resolution in the manner directed by Schedule III of the 'Public Health Act, 1875,' which, for the purpose of such Resolution, shall be read and have effect as applicable to the borough."

By this means assurance will be made doubly sure, and I appeal to the Friends of the hon. Member for West Belfast to receive an assurance from me that the Franchise Bill will be at once proceeded with, although I am not sure whether the Forms of the House will allow it to be taken to-night or tomorrow. When that Bill shall have been passed, I hope that an end will be put to these disagreeable proceedings, and I believe that the hon. Member for West Belfast and his Friends will find that all their wishes have been carried out by the clauses which have been inserted in that measure. It is not necessary that I should press upon the House the importance and urgent necessity of proceeding as rapidly as possible with these main drainage works. The scheme has received the approval of Committees of both Houses of Parliament, and, after having undergone the most minute inquiry, it has at length run the gauntlet of an investigation by the regular tribunals of Parliament. It was opposed by certain ratepayers a few weeks ago; but they signally failed in their efforts to get another scheme substituted, although, when their scheme was reached, they were clamorous for the hasty execution of the work, and endeavoured to induce the Chairman of Committees to put in a five years' limit for the execution of the works, instead of seven years, as the Committee of the House of Commons had decided. I hope the House will support me in the Motion I now make for the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords' Amendments be now considered."—( Mr. Ewart. )

The hon. Member for North Belfast (Mr. Ewart) has expressed his regret at the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, and I have no doubt the hon. Member will anticipate the Motion I am now about to make, and which I feel compelled to make, owing to the unavoidable absence of my hon. Friend from the House to-day—namely, that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments be deferred until Thursday next. I would ask the House to adopt that Amendment, because I because I believe it is absolutely impossible to discuss the Lords' Amendments to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill in a proper and thorough manner in the absence of my hon. Friend, who for more than 12 months has devoted so much of his attention and ability to the consideration of this measure. The hon. Member opposite spoke of my hon. Friend as having taken an active part in opposition to the Bill. I believe my hon. Friend has over and over again explained in this House that he has never opposed the Bill. There is all the difference in the world in giving a general opposition to a measure, and from time to time moving Amendments in this House in order to secure that the measure, when passed, shall be properly executed, and that the works shall be under the full control of the ratepayers. My hon. Friend has simply moved Amendments in this House from time to time to the effect that the consideration of the measure should be postponed, and on every occasion on which he has moved an Amendment to that effect the Amendment itself has been adopted by the House. It is, therefore, somewhat unfair on the part of the hon. Member for North Belfast to say that my hon. Friend is again prepared to oppose the Bill, except in the way of moving Amendments to secure the full control of the inhabitants over the execution of the works. This Bill has come down from "another place," where a variety of Amendments have been introduced, nearly all of which are of importance, and many of which vitally affect the character of the Bill. The hon. Member proposes to move that—

"No action shall be taken or liability incurred in respect of the works by this Act authorized unless or until the execution of such works has the consent of the owners and ratepayers of the borough to be expressed by Resolution in the manner directed by Schedule III. of 'The Public Health Act, 1875,' which, for the purpose of such Resolution, shall be read and have effect as applicable to the borough."

I would ask the House to consider the extreme inadvisability of adding to a Private Bill of this kind the 3rd Schedule of the Public Health (England) Act, in order to secure the adoption of the machinery provided by that Act in the carrying out of the works which are to be authorized by the present Bill. I believe that the English Public Health Act of 1875 is altogether inapplicable to the Belfast Main Drainage Bill. I maintain that the machinery for carrying the Act into effect should be provided in the Bill itself, and that all the proceedings should be taken under the Act itself, instead of being left to a public meeting, which will probably be clamorous, and will almost certainly fail to represent the calm and general voice of the ratepayers. I feel that such a proposal to hold a public meeting will result in a conclusion being arrived at in a disturbed atmosphere, and that, consequently, it is totally unsuitable for the carrying on of an undertaking of this kind. It will be infinitely better to have the proceedings guarded by the votes of the ratepayers and by the persons they send to represent them in the Belfast Town Council. The Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast succeeded in carrying on a former occasion provided that before any steps were taken under this Bill, if it became law, the Belfast Corporation should be altogether re-elected and reconstructed, so that the whole 30,000 ratepayers of Belfast should have a voice in the selection of their representatives. That Amendment has been struck out of the Bill, and the result may be that, notwithstanding the Amendment of my hon. Friend, proceedings under the main drainage scheme may be instituted and a large expenditure, in the first instance, incurred under the old municipal franchise which comprises 5,000 of the ratepayers of Belfast only, who are the sole persons who at the present moment have a right to vote for members of the Town Council. The hon. Member for North Belfast says it is a matter of urgent necessity that the scheme should be proceeded with at once, and he appeals to the House to pass this measure without further delay. I cannot believe there is such an absolute amount of urgency as would be injuriously affected by the postponement of the Bill for some 72 hours, which is about the distance of time my proposition to postpone the consideration of the Lords' Amendments involves. I am fully aware of the indulgence which the House has at all times extended upon this measure to Motions which have proceeded from this quarter of the House, and I believe that on no occasion have we done anything to abuse the confidence which has been reposed in us. I trust the House will recognize that in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, who for so long a time has taken such a deep interest in this question—it would be unfair, especially when he is absent from an unavoidable cause, that the consideration of the important alterations which have been made in the Bill in "another place" should be gone into. Under these circumstances, I would ask the House and the hon. Member opposite who has charge of the Bill to accept my proposal, and take the consideration of the Lords' Amendments on Thursday next.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and add the word "Thursday."—( Mr. M. J. Kenny. )

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

I wish to make one or two remarks before the House comes to a decision. I think it would be for the interest of everybody that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments should be postponed as suggested by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone (Mr. M. J. Kenny) so that we may have an opportunity of understanding the scope of the Amendments which have been moved in the House of Lords. The principal point at issue now is the time when the present Bill shall come into operation, and the mode by which it shall be brought into operation. I think that if we had the Franchise Bill which is now before the House of Lords, and which we are told may reach us in this House in the course of to-day—I think it is very possible we might have some common ground of agreement more removed from the region of debate in regard to the franchise question than the position in which we now find ourselves. I therefore hope that hon. Members who have charge of the Bill will consent to a further adjournment until Thursday. It is a very moderate and fair demand considering the fact that the Bill has already been adjourned from time to time in order to await the Franchise Bill, and it is only reasonable that the full scope and character of the Franchise Bill which is about to reach us from the House of Lords shall be thoroughly understood before we come to a final decision upon the Drainage Bill. I take it that the previous decisions of this House have undoubtedly been given upon the basis that there shall be popular control over public expenditure. I look upon that as a fair and just principle, and, therefore, I think it is possible that we may find some common ground of agreement when the Franchise Bill reaches us in an amended state from the House of Lords, and in that case there will be no further barrier to the passing of the Drainage Bill. Under these circumstances, I would respectfully urge upon the promoters of the Bill the propriety of consenting to the further postponement of the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

I must say that I think the promoters of the Bill are somewhat hardly used in being asked to consent to a further adjournment. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: No, no !] If my hon. and gallant Friend will wait before giving a hasty expression to his opinion, I think he may find himself somewhat disappointed as to the tenour of my observations. I was about to say that there is only one serious reason why the consideration of the Bill should be postponed—namely, the absence of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). All the rest of the reasons advanced by the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone appear to me to be extremely immaterial; but I cannot forget that no hon. Member has taken a more prominent part in the debates upon the Drainage Bill than the hon. Member for West Belfast, and inasmuch as we are now only asked for an adjournment until Thursday, although I sympathize with hon. Gentlemen who are promoting the Bill, I think the House would do well to consent to the adjournment.

I trust that if a further postponement of the Bill is accepted the House will come to some distinct understanding upon the matter. We have had more than one undertaking already which has invariably been set aside. We find ourselves in the same condition now, and I do not think that my hon. Friend the Member for North Belfast ought to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Tyrone unless there is a positive undertaking that there will be no further attempt to postpone the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

I think I may safely give an undertaking on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for West Belfast, that on Thursday he will offer no objection to the Motion for proceeding with the consideration of the Lords' Amendments.

Then I, for one, will not object to the proposal to postpone the consideration under the circumstances. I attach great weight to what has fallen from the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Question put, and negatived.

Word "Thursday" added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Lords' Amendments to be taken into Consideration upon Thursday.

, in rising to move—

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday; and that Standing Order XXI., relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to the other days of the week,"

said: It is usual on occasions of this kind to give to the House some indication of the measures which the Government think it necessary to press upon their attention and to pass into law during the course of the remainder of the Session. I have asked for the time of the House somewhat earlier than in some former Sessions, though not so early as in the case of last Session. Having regard to the state of Supply, and the expectation of getting to the consideration of the Land Bill early next week, I thought it better, instead of proposing two or three Motions of a like character, to make one Motion, which the circumstances of Public Business, I think, entirely justify. The measures which Government think it necessary to press forward at all risks and in all circumstances are those Irish measures which have been already announced to the House, and under the consideration either of this or the other House. There is also the Bill dealing with tithe rent-charge, which we consider to be a measure of very great importance. There are three Bills which have advanced very far, and which, I believe, are accepted by all Parties in the House as Bills of great importance, and involving no Party question whatever—namely, the Mines Regulation Bill, the Merchandize Marks Bill, and the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Bill, which passed through Committee on Thursday last. Those are measures which we think ought not to occupy any considerable portion of the time of the House. Then there is a measure for promoting technical education, which we have every reason to believe will be accepted unanimously by the House—at all events, we hope that a very slight discussion will be sufficient to pass that measure into law. The Government have announced their intention of bringing in a large measure of local government. We have been obliged by the pressure of Public Business to abandon that Bill; but in order to facilitate its consideration when it comes before the House, we propose that power should be taken for the appointment of a Boundary Commission to re-adjust the local areas in connection with that measure. That will necessitate a simple and a small Bill; but the appointment of this Commission will greatly facilitate the consideration of the Bill when it comes on next year, and I hope the House will accept it without much debate. There are some small Consolidation Bills on the Table of the House which, I believe, involve no great principle, but which it may be of advantage to pass. There is another measure which I hope the House will see its way to accept—namely, the Church Patronage Bill. I think I have now stated generally the measures upon which the Government feel it necessary to insist in the course of the present Session. There is one other measure which will come down in the course of a few days from the House of Lords—namely, the Land Transfer Bill. This is a Bill of very considerable importance, and one which has been accepted by the other side with favour in the House of Lords; and if it should be the pleasure of the House to accept it in the same spirit, I hope it may be possible to pass it into law; but I cannot insist against any considerable or protracted opposition. Then there is another measure, the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill. That is a measure we should like to pass if it is possible to do so; but here, again, we must rely on the temper and good feeling of the House. It is impossible that we can give time for protracted debate on the second reading of that Bill; but as it has passed the other House opportunities may be found towards the end of the Session for considering it in Committee, and for enabling the House to determine a measure which, I believe, is looked forward to both by the railway and agricultural interests as settling questions which have been in dispute for too long a period. That is the statement which I have to make to the House; and though it is exceedingly disagreeable for me to have to ask hon. Gentlemen to forego their privileges in the way of Motions and Bills they may have on the Paper, I feel that I have no alternative but to press upon the House to give the Government facilities for the transaction of the important Business of Supply, and the important measures still waiting the final decision of this House.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday; and that Standing Order XXI., relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to the other days of the week."—( Mr. William Henry Smith. )

I cannot undertake, Sir, to give approval to the present Motion; but I will endeavour to distinguish between the various questions which are concerned and involved in it. There is the question whether the Government is entitled to ask for an extension of time; there is the question of how that extension of time should be used with respect to the Bills which they propose to press forward; and then there is the question whether the demand which they make for extension of time is a just demand. With regard to one very important part of the subject—namely, as to what measures the Government intend to press forward—I think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) is, for the most part, satisfactory. I cannot take objection to the proposal to appoint a Commission to re-adjust local areas; but I hope it will be so arranged that, as far as possible, nothing will be done that will fetter the future liberty of the House in dealing with the Bill for local government. Then the right hon. Gentleman stated that Her Majesty's Government felt it essential that they should persevere with the Bills of great importance relating to Ireland which are before this or the other House of Parliament—

And which had been announced.

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman used those words; but now it has been made to signify that it is intended to bring in a Bill, and to pass that Bill, for the purpose of transferring the function of juries to Judges in certain cases in Ireland. [Mr. W. H. SMITH signified assent.] I cannot, of course, make any promise favourable to the announcement itself; but I am glad I have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of removing a misapprehension which was, I think, general—certainly, at least, on this side of the House. I understand, then, that there are three Bills which come within the right hon. Gentleman's statement—the Coercion Bill already passed, the Bill for the amendment of the laws relating to land, and a second measure regarding juries and judicature which has been announced. But, speaking generally, I consider that the announcements with regard to other measures are reasonable and fair. Nor do I deny that at this time it may be fair and right for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for an extension of time from the House of Commons, to be given at the expense of private Members, into the hands of the Government. I cannot say that I think the Motion is justified as it stands, because I am quite unable to look at this Motion without reference to what has already taken place during the present Session. It is one of a prolonged series of similar Motions which have been accepted by the House, to the almost total extinction of liberty, and, in my opinion, very disparaging to the dignity of the House. I do not intend to go into that subject at length, but it is a subject which will have to be very largely considered by the country. I am inclined to take so very strong a view of the general character and effect of those Motions in their bearing upon the functions and office of the House of Commons that possibly, if I were to state all that I must state in some way or other, and in some place or other, I should occupy a very long time and trespass largely on the patience and indulgence of the House. I would make that trespass on the patience and indulgence of the House if I had the smallest expectation of producing any good effect. Our position, I think, very much resembles what it was about eight or nine years ago, when we had a Parliament with a majority against us, though I freely admit that that majority was at that period a homogeneous majority, whereas the present majority is of the most peculiar and unprecedented character. That is not relevant to the present point. We have found it totally beyond our power to break up or impair by Parliamentary debate that combination, and I know that, according to the newspapers, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has thought fit to charge me elsewhere with intercepting and conspiring against the Business of the House. I have no doubt but there are numbers of Gentlemen on that side of the House ready to sustain that charge; but my allegation respectfully submitted to those Gentlemen, who approach this subject evidently in a most judicial and clear frame of mind, is that I have deliberately and advisedly refrained from the introduction and pressing of subjects of the greatest importance to the House, and the greatest interest to the country, for the sake of not interfering with the course of Business at a time when, as I thought from the fault of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the progress of Business had become almost impossible. From whatever cause the House has been placed in a position with respect to the progress of Business which is absolutely deplorable, while it has been placed in a position with respect to what it has gathered here, and the duties it has to discharge here, which is far more deplorable. The business of legislation, except in the hands of the Government, has been almost absolutely nil during the present Session, and the business—which is, if possible, still more important—of reviewing, questioning, and impugning wherever necessary the conduct and proceeding of the Executive Government, that great duty has been absolutely extinguished during the present Session. Of this I feel certain that the country will require that those questions should be thoroughly opened and elucidated. But I assure hon. Gentlemen—although there are those among them, I know, who will receive my assurance with contempt—I desire on no account and in no degree to interfere with their convenience or their inclinations so far as these measures are con- cerned. On this account I content myself at present with, on the one hand, making an admission, and, on the other hand, making a protest. I admit to the right hon. Gentleman that the Business of the House has come into a condition in which it is necessary for him to ask for further time from the House in order to keep the labours of the House within reasonable bounds; I protest against the entire method which has been pursued, and against the series of Motions which have been made, to restrain the liberty of the House—Motions which I admit have flowed out of the necessity which the Government has imposed upon itself. Further, it would not be fair to those who occupy the opposite Bench were I to treat this matter as one in which the main responsibility now lies with them. They have had the support of large majorities of the House; they have had support from that large Party, not amounting to one-half of the House, but still the largest Party which is of their own political complexion; they have had the support—not less uniform and unfailing—of some of those associated with the most moderate Liberalism, and of some associated with that Liberalism which has hitherto been deemed to be most immoderate. They have combined in giving their support to Her Majesty's Government; therefore, whilst I cannot refrain from my protest, I am bound in justice to them to recognize the fact that it is with the majority of the House that the responsibility lies; and if I am to draw any distinction, there can be no question that the greatest responsibility lies with that section of hon. Gentlemen by whom the minority has been made into a majority—those supporters of the Government who have sat on this side of the House, who have acted out of an imperative sense of public duty. Do not let it be supposed for a moment that I am using words of sarcasm at this point of my speech; I am as much convinced of their imperative sense of public duty as of that on the part of those with whom I have the honour to agree. Acting under the sense of public duty, they have taken a particular course, which has had particular results, and no doubt they will be very glad to accept the responsibility in the face of the world and of the country. Having thus registered my protest, not against this Motion only, but against the entire chain of Motions with reference to which I am obliged to consider it, I admit that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have exercised a wise discretion as to the use he proposes to make of the time of the House. As I hope I have not been immoderate in my demand upon the time of the House for the purpose of expressing my objections, so I hope there is no intention of pushing further or of occupying any further portions of the time of the House by opposing the Motion.

said, he desired to express his regret that no reference had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) about the Employers' Liability Bill, which expired this Session. It was not a contentious Bill, and last Session a distinct promise had been given that it should be introduced early in the present Session. Repeated promises of its early introduction had been made during the present Session. He thought at least some word was due from the Government in regard to it. There was another, though smaller matter, as to which the Government gave him a distinct pledge before Whitsuntide. He had asked the Government to give a day for discussing the Report on the charges of malversation against the City of London Corporation; and he thought it was not unreasonable to ask for some explanation in reference to it.

said, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith), if it were accepted, would place them in an absolutely unprecedented position, inasmuch as from the very commencement to the end of the Session independent Members would have been entirely deprived of the rights which they usually enjoyed. He was very far indeed from saying that the course which had been adopted by the Government had been unnecessary, and he was far from saying that, under certain circumstances, it might not be necessary and desirable that they should accept the proposition of the Government. He was, however, on behalf of some of his hon. Friends and himself, most anxious to obtain an assurance on one subject. When the Government came forward at an earlier part of the Session to announce upon their responsibility that for the purpose of maintaining law and order in one part of Her Majesty's Dominions it was absolutely necessary to strengthen the authority of the Government in that part of the Dominions, it was felt at once, when they asked for the whole time of the House, that it was impossible to resist the demand, unless the House of Commons was prepared to terminate the existence of the Government as a whole. But he wished to point out that the Irish Land Bill was a Bill of a very different character, and stood on a totally different position. He quite admitted the extreme importance of the question of Irish land legislation, and he reminded the House that they had had a great many measures since he was a Member dealing with Irish land reform; and the only effect of them, so far as he had been able to perceive and ascertain, had been to add to the muddle and confusion in which the whole subject was originally placed by the abortive and unhappy legislation of 1870 of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). He would also point out that the Land Bill was not yet before the House. Rumour had it that many alterations and even transformations had been made in the Bill in the other House of Parliament, and perhaps it would be better to have postponed this Motion asking for the whole time of the House until at least they had seen the Bill and had had an opportunity of forming an opinion as to its probable effect. Irrespective of that question, he wished to draw attention to one matter in particular. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was aware that from the earliest period this Session many Gentlemen who represented the agricultural interests were exceedingly desirous to obtain a day on which they might be able to call attention to the extremely grave and critical condition of that industry. Partly owing to the great length of time taken to debate the Address in answer to the gracious Speech from the Throne, and owing also to the representations made by the Government, hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies were prepared not to press the subject at that time. If the present Motion were agreed to without some assurance being given on this point, the agricultural Members would have been unable to obtain a single day during the whole of the Session in which to bring before Parliament the grave condition of agriculture. Before the House consented to the Motion he wished, therefore, to ask the Leader of the House to give some assurance that before the Session closed a convenient day should be afforded on which they might raise the question and bring it before the attention of Parliament and the country. He was certain that every farmer in the country would be justly indignant and disgusted if no opportunity for discussing it were afforded this Session. He had noticed with considerable regret the omission of any mention whatever in the speech of his right hon. Friend of the Bill promised in the Speech from the Throne on the question of allotments; although so recently as, he believed, the 16th of May an explicit statement was made that the Bill would be introduced shortly into the House of Lords, and, if possible, prosecuted in the House of Commons during the Session. No progress had been made with that Bill in either House, and he presumed that no progress would be made this Session. He exceedingly regretted that this was so.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) to state on what day the Government proposed to take the third reading of the Crimes Bill. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) might be summed up in a single sentence. The right hon. Gentleman was willing to make every sacrifice so long as a Coercion Bill was to be forced down Ireland's throat; but a Land Bill for Ireland, a remedial measure, stood on a totally different footing. While the whole time of the House might well be given to the one object, it was very doubtful whether any time ought to be given to the other at all. That was the view which the right hon. Gentleman presented to the Government. Then the right hon. Gentleman pleaded the cause of agriculture. Yes; but when it was a question of coercion he was ready to throw the agricultural labourers overboard. These country Gentlemen professed to be in concern about the condition of the agriculturists; but as long as the Government could feed them on coercion they were dumb, for what had they heard from the country Gentlemen about agriculture since January? But now that the Coercion Bill was going to leave the House the right hon. Gentleman said—"We must have time for agriculture." He forgot all about agriculture in the interim. The right hon. Gentleman and his Friends were willing not only to be silent on the subject, but to be silenced. When the Rules of Closure were before the House it was predicted that the House of Commons would not long be an Assembly for the discussion of important subjects affecting this country. That was what had happened, and is happening now; and hon. Members must look to other places than the House of Commons in which to discuss matters of interest to the country. That was one of the great deeds which the present Government had achieved; they had taught the country to look to other platforms, and not to the floor of the House. [ Laughter. ] Well, was this not so? There were a great many subjects, like foreign affairs, of the deepest interest to discuss which the Government would not allow a single hour to be given—questions which, in the old days, were considered to be of prime importance in this country. Did the Government not think that the country would have these matters discussed somewhere, and that if they could not be discussed in the House of Commons they must then be discussed elsewhere? The Government, therefore, had transferred the arena of debate from the House of Commons to another tribunal. He regretted this; it was the deplorable result of the policy and the course which the Government had adopted. He advised the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division not to be in a hurry about the question of agriculture, because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House had stated that there was to be a Coercion Bill No. 2 introduced. The right hon. Gentleman should place his claims on behalf of agriculture in abeyance for a short time longer, while Parliament was engaged in suspending trial by jury in Ireland. That was an interesting subject, and no doubt it would have cordial support from the right hon. Gentleman. Having left the subject of agriculture in abeyance for some months, the right hon. Gentleman might very well continue that course of patience, at all events until Coercion Bill No. 2 had fulfilled its mission in the House of Commons.

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) whether the Boundary Commission he spoke of would act in Ireland as well as in Great Britain; and whether it was the intention of the Government to carry out the promise of the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division of Lancashire (the Marquess of Hartington) and other Liberal Unionists, that a large measure of local government would be given to Ireland? As the House was told that the time for passing private Members' Bills was over, he was entitled to call attention to the way in which Private Business had been treated during the Session. The Irish Members started, at the commencement of the Session, with 15 or 20 Irish Bills on the Paper, each and every one of which dealt with a subject of vital importance to their country, while the principles contained in them were supported by five-sixths of the Representatives of Ireland, and which had been placed before the House in the same way, and had been rejected from the consideration of the House in a similar manner, during the past 10 or 11 years. The measures of justice they had been able to get for their constituents, to whom they were soon bound to return and give an account of their stewardship, was represented by the figure 0. He commended this condition of affairs to the consideration of the Unionist supporters of the Government. During last autumn, after the rejection of the Home Rule Bill, some of those hon. Gentlemen had spoken to him privately, and had consoled him with this pledge. They said to him—"Present to Parliament the Bills which you are commissioned to bring forward on behalf of the Irish people, and we pledge ourselves that you shall get the same justice from this Parliament as you would get from your own Parliament in Dublin." The Irish Members accepted that pledge, and they accordingly placed on the Paper 15 or 20 Bills dealing with subjects of vital importance to Ireland. But now, towards the close of the Session, the Irish Representatives were being sent back to their constituents empty-handed—a Coercion Bill excepted—and. to tell the people of Ireland that all they were to get from this Unionist Parliament was coercion, and that the measures on which they had set their hearts, and for the gaining of which he and his hon. Friends had been elected, were to be treated with infinite contempt. If a strong case was made out, showing the great necessity for taking the whole time of the House, then he supposed it must be given to the Government; but what were the grounds on which it was asked? First of all, on the ground that there were measures relating to England of minute importance, which it was anticipated would pass without much discussion. But how about Ireland? The only measure for Ireland which the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury mentioned as being likely to take up much time was the Land Bill. While this Bill was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, he drew the attention of the House to the fact that no pledge was given to the House that it would be hurried forward. While great orators were going about the country saying that the object of the Bill was to stop evictions, the character of which was acknowledged by such men as the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale to be "a disgrace to a civilized country," no pledge whatever was given that the Land Bill would be forced through the House. But that was not the worst. They were told what the object of the Bill was; but what were the facts? According to the latest edition of that Bill, and as far as their judgment went, there was not the smallest scintilla of proof, nor anything to lead them to believe, that it went in the slightest degree in the direction of attaining any one of the objects which had been placed before the House. If he (Mr. Dillon) believed that that was the object of the Bill, he would not be the man to raise his voice in protest against the time of the House being given to its consideration; but he believed the object of the Bill was not to put a stop to cruel evictions—and he might say that another Bodyke was about to be perpetrated in Wicklow. He believed the object of the Bill was to render the tenant more powerless and the landlord more powerful to carry out the war of extermination. He stated that opinion after a study of the latest version of the Bill. Then, on what ground did the Government ask for the whole time of the House in order to pass a few Bills relating to England, while they intended, at the same time, to rivet the collar of coercion more firmly on the necks of the Irish people? He added his strong recommendation to the appeal just made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), that before the House was asked to consent to this Resolution it should be placed in possession of the latest edition of the Land Bill, and information vouchsafed as to whether it was to be used for the benefit of the people of Ireland, or to add still more to the weight of their oppression.

said, he hoped the Government would be able to pay some attention to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). He (Sir Richard Paget) was one of those who had put a Notice on the Paper referring to the condition of agriculture; but that Motion had been set aside as a matter of duty. At the same time, he urged the Government to try and find an opportunity to enable a discussion of this important matter to be taken. He desired to express satisfaction at the announcement that a Boundary Commission was to be appointed; and with regard to the Railway Rates Bill, he understood the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to say that this was a measure looked forward to by the agricultural and trading communities with anxiety that it should be passed into law. In his opinion, that Bill, in its present shape, was certainly not looked upon favourably by either the agricultural or trading communities. There was an important clause in that measure which was looked upon by those large interests as opposed to that form which they thought the law ought to take. His right hon. Friend had said that a Bill was in course of preparation with regard to technical education, and that he did not expect that it would give rise to serious or prolonged discussion. If, however, that Bill should entirely disregard the interests of agriculture, and should make no provision for technical education in agriculture, it was not likely to be ac- cepted without serious debate. Moreover, if it was a Bill which added to the burdens of the over-burdened ratepayers, that would, of itself, be a matter which must receive consideration at the hands of the House.

said, with regard to the Railway Rates Bill, the feeling expressed by the hon. Baronet (Sir Richard Paget) was shared by many hon. Members of that side of the House—that the Bill had been so altered in "another place" that it could not be read a second time without serious debate. When he intervened, on Friday last, to suggest to the Government that it would be very undesirable to send a Bill of that magnitude to a Select Committee—it contained 49 clauses, and involved most important questions of principle and of technicalities—he did so entirely in the interests of the Bill; but the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) imputed to him the desire to obstruct the measure, though he hoped the right hon. Gentleman had since seen that he had misunderstood him. He was most anxious to get on with the Bill, and had no desire to obstruct it; but to send a Bill of that magnitude to a Committee upstairs, where there would probably be many Railway Directors sitting, would not be dealing with it in a manner satisfactory to the House. They wanted it to be brought as speedily as possible under the consideration of the House, which was the only place where it could be practically and satisfactorily amended. On the subject of Royal Grants, the right hon. Gentleman said, earlier in the Session, it was too late to consider it; and with respect to a Welsh measure, on which hon. Members on both sides were anxious to come to an agreement before Whitsuntide, the right hon. Gentleman said it was too late to refer it to a Select Committee. Surely, then, it was quite too late to consider the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill in a Select Committee. He hoped, if there were any time at the disposal of the Government, they would give the House the opportunity of considering the Bill in Committee of the Whole House, and he believed that the measure would be seriously discussed on behalf of both the agricultural and trading communities.

said, he was anxious to study the convenience of the House, and to show himself sensible of the courtesy of the First Lord of the Treasury. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that, although he could not give the pledge asked for, he would be glad to find that the progress of Business in the interval would enable him to give a day for the Woman Suffrage Bill later on. He felt that he could not ask for more, and, under the circumstances, would not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, that one very important measure which had been mentioned among those it might be possible to pass this year was the Land Transfer Bill. He ventured to make a suggestion, which might help to save time with respect to this Bill. His suggestion was to divide the Bill into two, and deal in the present Session with the parts relating to the inheritance of land and primogeniture. These portions of the Bill would not meet with any opposition on the Liberal side of the House. With regard to the remainder of the Bill, he had personally no intention to offer opposition; but there were many hon. Members who thought that the proposals of the Bill were insufficient, and that they dealt with the subject in a very unsatisfactory way. He, therefore, proposed to divide the non-contentious part of the Bill from the part which invited so much opposition, and postpone the latter part of the measure to next year. With regard to the rest of the programme of the Government, he had no objection to make except to one Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had been too much ashamed to refer to it; and any information regarding it had to be drawn from him by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone)—namely, the Coercion Bill No. 2. Now, he protested against the time of the House being again occupied with another Coercion Bill. The House had been surfeited with coercion. It was monstrous that the whole time of the House should be occupied with such a subject. He should have thought the Liberal Dissentients had had enough of it. Their noses had been rubbed sufficiently in coercion. If not, he should have thought that the Spalding Election would have shown them that the policy of coercion was not very popular in the country. He asked the Government whether they intended to give precedence to Coercion Bill No. 2 next after the Land Bill, and over all the other measures which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House? Was it intended to be a perpetual measure? Were they to be asked to pass a Coercion Bill No. 2, and suspend trial by jury for ever in Ireland? Was this only to be a temporary measure? He hoped the House would give no facilities for the further discussion of coercion. They had had enough of the subject; and it would be better that the time of the House should be devoted to useful legislation of a remedial nature.

said, he was greatly surprised at the speech which the House had just listened to from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt). The right hon. Gentleman repudiated the application of a Crimes Bill to Ireland; yet he was one of those Members of the late Liberal Govermnent who told the House of Commons and the country that law and order could not be maintained in Ireland without the use of repressive measures. The right hon. Gentleman had now turned round, and wished to hand over to those men who a short time ago he so strongly denounced, the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, and bitterly complained of the Conservative Government doing the very thing to which he was a party himself when law and order were threatened. It was in order that the Government might grapple with the deplorable state of affairs in Ireland that the agriculturists had maintained silence during the Session. At that stage of the Session, however, he might be permitted to remind his right hon. Friend that the greatest question at the present time, after the question of preserving law and order in Ireland, was one which not only affected England, but Scotland, Wales, and Ireland—and that was the terrible depression of agriculture, and the general desire that there should be a firm and a temperate discussion as soon as possible of its present condition. He, therefore, hoped that his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) would find it possible to afford the Members of that House an opportunity of discussing this most important question before the end of the Session.

said, he was desirous of supporting the appeal made to the Government for a day on which to discuss the state of the agricultural interest. In his remarkable flight of oratory, the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) had charged the county Members with standing quietly by while the Government were doing the first duty incumbent on any Government whatever—namely, to take steps for maintaining law and order throughout Her Majesty's Dominions. Now, however, that that duty was performed, those county Members thought the time had come when an opportunity should be afforded the House for discussing the lamentable condition of agriculture in all parts of the Kingdom. The Irish Land Question was very much an agricultural question; and the interests of English agriculture had an equal claim to consideration from the House and the Government with those of Irish agriculture.

said, he was pleased to hear the hon. Member who had just spoken candidly confess that he thought it a higher duty to be engaged in coercing Irish tenants than in looking after the interests of British agriculture; but he apprehended that the result of the election which took place last Friday at Spalding had done much to awaken the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) to a somewhat higher sense of duty than usual to his constituents. However that might be, he (Mr. Broadhurst), for one, was glad that the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends had become alive to a sense of their duty even at the eleventh hour. His object, however, in rising was to call attention to the fact that in the list of Bills mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) no mention whatever was made of the Employers' Liability Amendment Act. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt) and he himself, by Questions in that House, and by communications to the Home Secretary, had inquired whether the Government would introduce a Bill this Session and carry it into law. His hon. Friend (Mr. Burt) and he himself had spoken with the Government officially on this important question. It was a measure which affected the welfare of the whole working population of this country; and if the Government failed to deal with it there would be universal disappointment and dissatisfaction, more especially as he and his Friends had refrained from pressing forward a measure of their own. This was a matter of great importance, and he earnestly hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House of Commons would do what he could to bring about those changes in the Employers' Liability Act which were so urgently demanded. There was only one other subject upon which he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government or not to finish the Rules of Procedure during the present Session?

said, he was not going to say a word to embitter the discussion, but submitted an Amendment which he thought would be agreeable to everybody, and even in which he thought he should be supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The Government had promised to bring in a Local Government Bill, and of course everybody understood that the licensing question was to be dealt with in it. He had a Motion on Local Option for the 26th of July, and that, he would remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, was a question of law and order for England. He would desire the Government to take a Morning Sitting on that day, when they would have five good working hours before dinner, with everybody sober, and to give him an Evening Sitting. His Friends could make a House, and if the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends liked to stay away he (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) should have no objection. He formally moved that Tuesday, the 26th, be exempt from the operation of the right hon. Gentleman's Resolution.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Question, to add the words "but that Tuesday, the 26th of July, be excepted from the Order."—( Sir Wilfrid Lawson. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, he would urge upon the Government to give a day, or half a day, for a discussion on the condition of agriculture. He should also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith) could not give an opportunity for the discussion of the Ecclesiastical Assessments (Scotland) Bill? That measure was received with general favour by a large section of the people of Scotland, and he believed would have considerable support on both sides of the House. It was a matter of a pressing character, and it was not only the duty, but the privilege of the House of Commons to mitigate grievances, however small their character.

said, he wished to ask whether the Government could not give facilities for the consideration of the Adulteration of Beer Bills? This was a question of intense interest to the agricultural labourers, especially in the Eastern Counties, who, if not a little more considered, the Government must expect more elections to be decided with the same results as at Spalding. He was surprised that the Government had not made arrangements for the further discussion of the short and simple measures before the House to preserve the purity of their national beverage. The Bill he had introduced had been read a second time last Session, and in the interest of the agricultural classes it ought to be passed.

said, the people wanted to know what was the position of the Government in regard to the agricultural question. In Lincolnshire lately they had this appalling spectacle—that the Tory candidate in his address declared himself in favour of Protection, and yet three days afterwards found that Protection was a thing which no sane man could think of advocating. In mercy to their own supporters, the Government had better give a day for the purpose of stating their exact position on this question. As to the Boundaries Commission, he had no objection; but would the Government give an assurance that they would follow the recommendations of the Report of the Commission? The Government wanted all the time of the House for two Irish Bills. As an Irish Member he was flattered by the atten- tion paid to his country; but hon. Members complained with reason that the interests of England were being neglected. Well, where did the responsibility rest?

said, he hoped the Government would not give way either to the hon. Gentlemen opposite or to his hon. Friends on that side of the House, who wished for an academical discussion on agricultural affairs; such a discussion would do no good, because it could not end in any practical result, or even in a vote. The Government had plenty to do, and had only a few more weeks to do it in. By the proposed discussion, hon. Members might advertise themselves, but nothing more would follow.

said, he thought the position of the Government was most lamentable. The whole time of the House had been given to them, and they had submitted no Business of importance except coercion. He hoped hon. Members would have no more coercion proposed to them until it was seen whether the Crimes Bill was likely to alter the state of things in Ireland. The whole Session had been spent in doing practically nothing. The time spent on the Coercion Bill was worse than wasted, for there never was less crime in Ireland than at the present moment. There was the railway question, which had been long enough in the hands of Committees and Commissions and must be grappled with by the House. There were also other questions of great moment which ought to be dealt with, such as that of tithe rent-charge and technical education. There was only one point in the plans of the Government with which he agreed, and that was the necessity of a Boundary Commission for the purpose of devising a scheme of local government.

said, he felt strongly inclined to endorse one of the remarks of the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) and represent to the Government the extreme difficulty in which they placed many of their faithful supporters by not stating the view they took of the agricultural depression. His hon. Friend the Member for the Oswestry Division of Shropshire (Mr. Stanley Leighton) would, perhaps, say that in this remark he was indulging in self-advertisement, but that was what they all did to a greater or less extent. His hon. Friend also said that a discussion on agricultural depression would be of an academical character, but at the present time the state of agricultural depression demanded discussion in a business-like spirit, and it was becoming so urgent that it could not much longer be withheld from the consideration of Parliament. He appealed on this subject, not only to the evidence afforded by the Report of the Royal Commission on Trade and Agriculture, but to the experience of many Members of that House. He appealed especially to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) as to the reality of the depression which existed in the hop industry, and he did not think that any Member was discharging more than his simple duty when he endeavoured to bring matters which were causing distress to his constituents under the consideration of Parliament; and, however much the issues involved might be postponed, they would have ultimately to be met, and though he was not then going into a matter of such wide importance, he must point out that there was a large number of Members of that House who believed that the depression at present existing, in both trade and agriculture, was directly connected with, if not directly attributable to, the fiscal policy of the country. Admitting that it might be inconvenient to face the matter at the present moment, he must urge the Government not to stretch the fidelity of their supporters too far. He hoped that the Government would accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and give a day—if not considerably more than one day—to the discussion of the present state of agriculture, and that they would also state their own views as to the remedies by which they thought that this distress might be removed or lessened.

said, that the appeal the Government made for the time of the House was at least premature. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House (Mr. W. H. Smith) had presented a most incomplete case for demanding the remainder of the Session. The two Bills for which time was asked—the Irish Land Bill and the Coercion Bill No. 2—were neither of them, yet before the House. The Coercion Bill No. 2 was necessary to make the Coercion Bill No. 1 complete, and therefore the Government claimed for No. 2 Bill precedence over every other measure; but these measures were well nigh intolerable to every liberty-loving Member of the House, and he could promise the Government that they would require a considerable share of the time of the House in order to deal with their supplementary measures. The House was also assured that the Land Bill was the necessary complement of the Government scheme of coercion for Ireland. But surely before the House was asked to yield up its time to the Government, it had a right to know what form their land scheme was finally to take, whether it was to be adhered to as it came down from "another place," or whether the Government would accept material changes in the measure. Those who were entitled to speak for the agricultural population of Ireland declared beforehand that this Bill, as it was presented by the Government and shaped in "another place," was wholly inadequate to deal with Irish agricultural interests. Hon. Members were entitled, before they gave up the time of the House, to ask the Government, as to the Land Bill, whether they intended to treat Amendments as admissible? He also desired to know whether the Government proposed to make any arrangement for the discussion of the important Resolutions in favour of Local Option, and in favour of the extension of the franchise to women. He supposed the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would refuse facilities for the discussion of these Motions, and they would have the melancholy reflection that the whole Session had been taken up and the rights of Members had been suspended in order to pass Coercion Bills for Ireland and a Land Bill which the Irish Members declared inadequate for its purposes. Better that the gates of St. Stephen's had not this Session been unlocked.

I think the House will look for some answer to the speeches which have been made, and probably I may anticipate some observations which hon. Members intend to offer. We have now been discussing this matter for more than a hour and a half, and as we hope to make progress with Supply, I trust the House will assist the Government and assist itself by proceeding rapidly to Business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir William Harcourt) has asked me when the Criminal Law Amendment Bill will be taken. I engaged on Friday night that if the House would consent to give the time that is urgently needed for Supply on Tuesday and Wednesday, we would take the third reading of the Bill on Thursday. That, therefore, will be the day. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has addressed a very earnest appeal to me with reference to the condition of agriculture, and that appeal has been supported by many hon. Members behind me without any desire to advertise themselves, I am sure, but with a real sense of the great importance of the agricultural interest, which employs the largest amount of labour, and which certainly ought to have a remunerative return for the capital which it has embarked. I fully recognize the importance of the subject, and I should be most happy to afford every facility for its consideration did the exigencies of Public Business permit. I hope that during the next few weeks hon. Members will address themselves to the consideration of the Business brought before the House, with greater regard for the dignity and decorum of this House and with a greater desire for rapidity. [ Cries of "Oh!" and "Withdraw!"] I should be exceedingly sorry for language which is offensive to any part of the House; but I am bound to say that the conditions under which the Business of the country has been conducted during the last four or five months justify me in making an appeal to hon. Members who desire to show their capacity and fitness for the conduct of Public Business—justify me in making an appeal to them to assist the House to transact its Business with as much rapidity as is consistent with the proper consideration of the important subjects which must come before it. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has asked a question in reference to the Employers' Liability Bill. The subject presents some very serious legal points which require great consideration. I hope, nevertheless, that we may be able to submit a new Bill to the House this Session; but, in any circumstances, the existing law will be extended so that the interests of the employed will be protected from any possible lapse of legislation. As to the Irish Land Bill, I have to say that it is the intention of the Government to press that measure with all the energy, all the force at their disposal. We regard that Bill as a most important and vital measure, and we intend, if we are able, to pass it through this House. I hope that it may not meet with the opposition threatened by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).

The right hon. Gentleman has interpreted my words incorrectly. I have not expressed any intention to oppose the Bill.

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member has not committed himself to oppose the measure. I should be exceedingly sorry to impute anything I am not justified in doing, and I can only say that that was the impression which the hon. Gentleman's observations left on my mind. It is the intention of the Government to use all their influence to press that measure forward from day to day. A question has been asked upon the subject of allotments. With regard to that, I have to say that we do not retire from a single expression used by the Representative of the Government who spoke upon the subject some six weeks ago. I may add that the Prime Minister will make a further statement upon this subject in the House of Lords in the course of a few days. We cannot accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) for the reason which I stated earlier in the evening. We cannot afford to make any exceptions; but I shall be very glad if the Business I have indicated shall have made such progress that I shall be justified in placing time at the disposal of the hon. Member for the consideration of his Motion; and of other Motions and Bills which the hon. Member may deem to be of importance. The object of the Bill to appoint a Boundary Commission is to rectify the overlapping areas of local government districts. This will be the foundation upon which the local government scheme for England will be constructed. I am not able to include Ireland in this scheme nor Scotland, the system of local government in each of those countries being entirely distinct. The hon. Member for Kirkcudbrightshire (Mr. Mark Stewart) asked a question with respect to the Ecclesiastical Assessments Bill. I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman any undertaking upon the question; but will give him an answer in a few days. With regard to the Land Transfer Bill, I will take care to convey the suggestions made to those who are in charge of the measure. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Brightside Division of Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) has referred to the Railway Rates Bill. That is one of the measures which we should like to pass if there should be time for the adequate discussion of the different points that arise in connection with this subject. The interests which are at stake both of trade and agriculture on the one hand, and those represented by the vast capital invested in railways on the other, are so enormous that we should not be justified in hurrying the measure through the House.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what he proposes to do as to the Report of the Committee on the alleged malversation of public funds by members of the Corporation of London, as to which a specific pledge has been given that an opportunity will be afforded for discussion?

I did not regard anything I may have said in this connection as amounting to a pledge. If, as the hon. Member for Northampton says, I have given him a specific pledge that time will be found for discussing it, I will fulfil my promise. In reply to the allegation of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), that no general measures pressed by the Government extend to Ireland, I may point out that the Coal Mines Bill and the Merchandize Marks Bill both disprove his statement.

What are the right hon. Gentleman's intentions with reference to Coercion Bill No. 2?

I cannot permit the right hon. Gentleman to suppose that I accept his description of this measure as correct. The Bill to which he refers will be introduced in the House of Lords, and when it has made progress there I shall be in a position to say when it will reach this House.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question on the subject of the beer Bills?

I hope that the subject of pure beer may be discussed, especially as the beer is of a non-intoxicating character; but I can make no promise. I now wish to say a few words upon the general remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). The right hon. Gentleman described the course taken by the Government as disparaging to the dignity of the House of Commons. May I be permitted to ask what are the circumstances in which these incidents have occurred which the right hon. Gentleman regrets on the ground that they are disparaging to the dignity of the House of Commons and has reduced the legislation of this House to a condition—as the right hon. Gentleman says—of almost absolute nullity? Simply this—that the Government had felt it their duty to press on the consideration of Parliament measures which they deemed to be necessary to re-establish the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. We have been supported by a large majority of this House; but these measures have been met with an opposition entirely unparalleled in the history of Parliament, and by protracted discussions which have prevented the consideration of many other questions of immense and vital importance to the country. It is impossible for two Houses of Commons to be sitting at the same time. It was absolutely essential that the Government, responsible for the interests of the country, from our point of view, however wrong it might be considered by the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, to bring before Parliament measures which we deemed to be necessary and right, and to ask Parliament to pass them into law as rapidly as possible, consistently with due consideration and deliberation. We have been four months considering the Crimes Bill, and have been met with every species of opposition and every species of delay which Parliamentary ingenuity could invent or devise. The Government are not responsible for this, unless they are told that they are wrong in undertaking the task which they believe it to be their imperative duty to undertake, and unless they are told they are wrong in pressing on the consideration of Parliament measures which the majority believe to be necessary, although the minority entirely dislike them. I fully recognize the rights of minorities, and I have myself in the past attempted to defend them. But there is also a duty incumbent on the majority—to endeavour to carry on the Business of the country. There is a duty incumbent on the Government, and that is to meet, after much endurance and great delay, such opposition as they have experienced by the only measures which are open to them—namely, to ask the House itself to put a termination to debates which are absolutely unendurable. The country will judge whether we were right or wrong. This step has been, in the opinion of some persons, unduly delayed. Every step that has been taken has been forced upon the Government—not from any desire to restrict discussion, or to shut the mouths of hon. Members, but from every desire that they should have the fullest opportunity of discussing every question of principle which could properly be discussed, and that the House should at least be permitted to come to a decision on the question upon which they had practically made up their minds. I know I shall not convince the right hon. Gentleman that he or his Friends or hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are responsible for the special Rules which the Government have put in force, and for the demand now made upon the time of the House. But it is, in my judgment, so. It is not the Government who wish in the slightest degree to check discussion, or to infringe on the liberties of Parliament. We know perfectly well that every step taken of this kind does disparage the dignity of Parliament, and does injure the institutions which we are bound to safeguard and maintain. But there is a still greater injury that might be done if it was made to appear that Parliament itself is absolutely incapable of rising to the importance of the duties which it is called upon to discharge, and that it is absolutely incapable of coping with opposition—made conscientiously, no doubt—but made in such a form and in such a manner that, if it is permitted to run its length to the full extent, must bring the Parliamentary machine to an absolute dead-look.

As a matter of Parliamentary history the right hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong in stating that the opposition to the Coercion Bill has been of an unprecedented character, for as a matter of fact the opposition to the Irish remedial measures of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian in the last Parliament were far more excessive. [An hon. MEMBER: You were not here.] I admit that I was not at the time a Member of the House, but I watched the proceedings very closely, and I am persuaded that what I say is true. Proposals were made in the last Parliament by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, also at a time when I was not a Member, with regard to Rules of Debate, and these were again met with the most protracted opposition on the part of the Conservative Party, which has recently by a curious irony shown themselves the most relentless and the most unscrupulous in applying them. The right hon. Gentleman is, no doubt, quite right in saying that he has stood up for the rights and claims of minorities, but that was when he was himself a Member of the minority. No sooner, however, has he crossed the floor of the House, and become Leader of the majority, than he has flung to the winds all the principles that he previously laid down. With regard to the delay that has occurred over the Crimes Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has charged us with conniving at and encouraging Obstruction. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say when a short time ago he moved the violent application of the closure? He said in words which I propose to quote very frequently during the next six months, that in spite of the "wise counsels" which had been given from the Front Opposition Bench, he nevertheless felt bound to make the Motion. If we gave "wise counsels," how can we be charged with conniving at Obstruction? Having made that admission, with what consistency can the right hon. Gentleman now turn round and say that we have been abetting Obstruction? If this Government or any other Government brings in a Coercion Bill of this character, you may depend upon it that such legislation will most certainly be met with most resolute opposition. I am willing to admit that in my opinion there was some discussion on the Coercion Bill which was of a superfluous character. But that discussion came from hon. Gen-men who thought, and I am not sure that they were not quite right, that they were protecting their countrymen from the loss of rights which we Englishmen would not suffer to be taken from us whatever charges were brought against us. Gentlemen opposite think that they have vanquished hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. I do not take that view. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have warned us that legislation of this kind would not be passed without straining our Parliamentary forms and our Constitutional principles. That is just what has happened. You yourselves, the Conservative Party, have subjected the usages, traditions, and principles of the Constitution and of Parliament to a strain which they have never before had to undergo. The right hon. Gentleman said the country would have to judge between us. Well, on the latest occasion that we have had of consulting the country, the answer has been quite satisfactory to us. And we at least are not afraid of testing the opinion of the eountry on the public platform, or at the ballot-boxes as to all that we have done.

The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has referred to the procedure to be adopted by him on his future electoral campaign, and he has given us an interesting indication of how he intends to conduct it. He intends to cull an isolated phrase from the speeches of my right hon. Friend and drive it into the public ear. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, I do not think he will be able to find that any such expression, except that isolated phrase, has fallen from any Member of the Front Bench opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has said that no one has charged him in the House with conniving at Obstruction. If the charge has not been made, it will be made. I make it. Obstruction has been connived at by him, and the great influence which he might have exercised upon the whole of his Followers—at least upon all those who used to follow him—and I should think it might have been accepted also with, some degree of deference by the right hon. Gentleman's new allies—I say that that influence has not been exerted to bring the painful proceedings on the Irish Bill to an earlier termination. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that he is going to quote the words of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that—"Notwithstanding wise counsels, the hon. Members below the Gangway continue to obstruct." Yes; but it was only on one or two occasions in the whole of this Session, when too late by far—when the disease had eaten in far too deeply to be eradicated—that an attempt was made by the Front Opposition Bench to check the Obstruction which has landed us in the position in which we find ourselves. You say that you are going to quote that to the country on the subject of the causes which have led to the present deadlock. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) showed very plainly that, unless some strong measures had been taken, the Bill which we thought it our duty to introduce would never have been passed. ["Oh, oh!"] That, I think, is a fair inference from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. What was, therefore, our duty? We thought it imperative upon us to pass this Bill; if we had not thought so, it would have been a crime in us to have spent all this time upon it. We thought it was imperative, and we think so still, and we believe we have done a service to the country. We know the sacrifices which have been imposed upon hon. Members on this side of the House, and upon English interests, through the pertinacity with which we have adhered to this work; and we are grateful to the majority of the House for the great patience with which they have supported us and the endurance which they have shown. We feel how painful it must be to many Members who have most important interests to represent in this House to sacrifice occasions upon which they might bring them forward. Many hon. Members opposite, and especially right hon. Gentlemen, scarcely know what has passed in this House, because there have been many evenings—and I am glad my right hon. Friend has given me this opportunity of informing the public of the fact—during which not a single right hon. Gentleman has been sitting on the Bench opposite, and the few hon. Members behind them who did remain joined largely in those Amendments some of which have been condemned even by right hon. Gentlemen opposite as frivolous. I do not believe that there are three right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench who know the kind of opposition that went on during long hours of the evening upon points of insignificant detail, and repeated over and over again. Then comes the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon), and charges us with not being able to pass the 15 Bills which he and his Friends had introduced for the benefit of Ireland. Why are we not able to do so?

Coercion!

I know that is your answer. My answer to you is that you preferred—

Preferred liberty.

You preferred interminable discussion—

Preferred liberty.

On points of detail which you knew as well as possible could not ultimately affect the Bill—you preferred these interminable discussions to allowing the time of the House to be saved, and so allowing it to approach those very subjects you say now we have not dealt with. The whole time of the Session is wasted, and then you charge the majority with it. We have been charged with wasting the time of the House, [An hon. MEMBER: And with breaking pledges.] How has the time of the House been wasted? On the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, it is simply on account of the matter of the Bill, which is distasteful to the right hon. Gentleman, and not on account of the manner in which we have pressed it on, that we are said to have wasted the time of the Session. At all events, if we have wasted it we have wasted it in doing what in old time you considered and what we consider to be the paramount duty of a Government—namely, to maintain law and order. But for all those nights wasted in interminable discussion, where half an hour would have been sufficient to do the work of three hours, we are not responsible. My right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) said there had been other discussions this Session in which there had been unprecedented opposition. There were wearisome debates upon the Address, and hon. Members who have attended the House constantly well knew whether upon almost every occasion the discussion of details rather than of principles has not been carried to excess. We cannot discuss the Estimates and Supply without points ridiculously small being continually raised, almost to the exclusion of substantial questions. There is no time left to us of the present Session, and hon. Gentlemen opposite may show now to what extent they will facilitate the progress of Business and enable us to carry out some of our measures. There are also the Estimates; let them give us their cordial assistance. [ Ironical Home Rule laughter. ] You do not want to do so? Well, I tell you honestly I do not think we shall get it. Notwithstanding the one solitary occasion when wise counsels were given, I have seen little of that discouragement of the waste of the time of the House which one might have looked for from right hon. Gentlemen who occupy the Front Opposition Bench, and who know the enormous difficulty of carrying on the Executive Government of the country. I rose to answer the challenge of my right hon. Friend. He tells us that he intends to quote the saying that they had given wise counsels; but if wise counsels were given it was on one or two evenings alone, and during the rest of the Session they have neglected what we believe to be the duty of those who have held responsible Office. They have failed to assist us in what from day today is becoming more difficult—a duty which they themselves may some day have to perform. They are not diminishing those difficulties; but by their conduct are endeavouring to fetter the arm of the Executive and to discredit it wherever they can. It is they who have interfered with the results of this Session, and if it is a comparatively barren one, we shall know where the responsibility lies.

I invite the House to consider the tone and manner of the Minister who is asking us for our "cordial assistance," and to help them in their unprecedented demand upon the time of the House. There is an agreeable contrast between what I think the right hon. Gentleman the other night called the manner of the cat. When the cat has spoken the other animals speak in a different tone. But the right hon. Gentleman is not exactly in the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman is a man who is in the position of a convert, and he speaks with a bitterness of spirit and insulting language from which I am bound to say the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury is free; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer always speaks in the spirit of a deserter. With regard to the charge which the right hon. Gentleman brings against us, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has attended more or less in this House—he used to come in now and then to close the debate; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been conspicuous by his absence. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury said what was fair and true, that we had given wise counsels. He did not bring up untrue, unjust, and insulting charges, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he cannot find a Tory on that Bench to do so, jumps up and says—"I will do it myself." I say of this right hon. Gentleman as was said before of a man in a similar position—he has left his Party as a deserter, and I hope he will never return to it. The right hon. Gentleman has brought an absolutely unfounded charge against us.—["Oh, oh!"]—a charge which the Leader of the House who sits by him has denied. We are perfectly willing to be judged in this matter by the country. I do not think you have made much progress with your charges of Obstruction and speeches in favour of coercion. The country thinks very differently. [ Cries of "Spalding!"] The agriculturists of Spalding know what to think of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) and his necessity for coercion, and they know what to make of it. The right hon. Gentleman lives next door to them, and he jumps up to-night to make a demonstration in favour of the Agricultural Holdings Act! I have no doubt the country is thoroughly sick of the proceedings of the House of Commons; it has made up its mind thoroughly how to deal with them, but not by returning supporters of the right hon. Gentleman. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks he will advance his cause by the speeches and language he has used he is vastly mistaken. "When I heard that speech I could not help repeating the old classical proverb, "Whom the gods have doomed they first of all send mad;" and when I saw the Chancellor of the Exchequer dancing on the floor of the House I said—Well, that is the death dance of one of those foredoomed men. A great deal has been said about the character of the opposition that has been offered to this Coercion Bill by the Members from Ireland. Our charge against this Coercion Bill is this—that it was an unnecessary Bill and that therefore it has been a waste of the time of this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is a vindication of law and order. We challenge an opportunity to prove that law and order in Ireland are in any danger. We have told you that this Bill—and the country is beginning to understand it—never was a Bill for the establishment of law and order in Ireland, and the agriculturists in Lincolnshire and elsewhere are beginning to understand that there is one thing the right hon. Gentleman cares about, and that is the raising of excessive rents. They understand the real character of this Bill, and therefore it is they will have nothing to do with the supporters of such measures. After the conciliatory appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to this side of the House, all I will add is that this extraordinary measure—a measure which extinguishes the character of this House as the great assize of the nation in which its interests can be debated, has sent Members of Parliament to express their opinions elsewhere. The noble Lord the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington) when he wants to express his views cannot express them in this House, but must go on the platform to state them. You have damaged and degraded the House of Commons by the policy you have pursued; you have reduced it to the position of a Vestry, and, as I told you before, the only places where great public questions can be discussed are elsewhere. You object to the opposition offered by the Irish Members to this Bill. Just try and pass such a Bill for the country at large. I will offer to it ten times as much opposition as the Irish Members have offered to this Bill, and you may denounce me as much as you like for Obstruction; and I can tell you Derby will return me and the other Members who are returned for the County all the more by reason of your denunciation. Do you think that by denouncing the Irish Members for Obstruction you have diminished the confidence of the Irish people in them? Do you think you have destroyed their influence with the people they represent? You have said that we have given the Government no assistance whatever in solving the great and difficult problem in Ireland. We have given them assistance. We have told them that the method they are pursuing is the wrong method. We have pointed out what is the right method, and, therefore, I repudiate altogether the charge which has been brought by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I say it is an unjust and unfounded charge, couched in uncourteous and insulting language. We are obliged to use plain language upon this subject; and when persons in the position of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the Government upon such an occasion as this, make the irritating and offensive speeches which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has, a sample of which he has just addressed to the House, it is necessary to protest against them, and to say that language of that kind, and conduct such as he pursues, does not add to the dignity of the House of Commons, that it does more than anything else to obstruct its proceedings, and that it begets a spirit of opposition which is much more likely to retard the Business of the country than to help its successful accomplishment.

(who rose amid cries of "Divide!") said, he did not intend to make a speech—he merely wished to ask a question. Perhaps he might be allowed to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if he understood him aright in saying that Scotland was to be excluded from the purview of the Committee which was to settle the boundaries preparatory to the Local Government measure?

said, that, to the best of his belief, it would be necessary to have a separate Local Government measure for Scotland, and, therefore, a separate Commission would be required.

said, what he and the other Scottish Members wished to know was, whether the proposal of such a Commission for Scotland would be included in the Government measures for the Session? In other words, did the right hon. Gentleman propose to take the same steps with regard to Scotland as he proposed to take with regard to England?

If the necessity arose, a separate Boundary Commission would certainly be moved for. He was not, however, informed of the particulars of the case, and he would be glad if the hon. Member would give Notice of the Question. In that case, he would at once answer it.

said, that he must call the attention of the House to the very scandalous way in which Scottish measures had been neglected by the Government. At the beginning of the Session, a large number of Scotch Members met to consider what were the Bills which should be promoted during the course of the Session. They were extremely moderate in their demands; but there were three measures in particular which they desired to bring before the House. One of these measures was a Bill to regulate the expenses of Returning Officers—a measure which was approved of by the large majority of Scotch Members, and which ought before now to have been on the Statute Book. There was another measure prepared by his hon. and learned Friends the Members for Haddington and East Fife (Mr. Haldane and Mr. Asquith), dealing with an old standing grievance in Scotland—the Law of Entail. That was a subject upon which public opinion in Scotland had been long ripe for legislation. There was another measure introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay), and although he was a Liberal Unionist, his Bill had met with no better fate than those brought in by the Liberals. It was a Bill for improving the tenure of land in Scotland. What were hon. Members going to say to the Scotch people at the close of the Session, when they were asked to explain why nothing had been done for Scotland? What had the Government done? They had been doing something in Ireland. They had been aiding ruthless exterminating landlords in driving the cultivators off the soil—the industrial classes from the homes which they themselves had built. And what had the Government done in that House? They had introduced a Bill with the object of garrotting the Irish tenants, while the landlords calmly picked their pockets. He had heard some complaints with regard to the time that had been occupied by the discussion on the Irish Coercion Bill. He was bound to say that if such a measure had been introduced for Scotland, they would not have got so far with it as they had got with the Irish Bill. It seemed to him that the Irish Members had discussed the Bill with a moderation both as to the number of their Amendments and the length of their speeches which was remarkable, considering the character of the Bill. Never was greater nonsense talked of than that there was Obstruction in regard to that Bill. It was a Bill altering, in a fundamental manner, the Criminal Law of Ireland, introducing great novelties in legislation, and full of blunders; and when a Bill introducing changes not nearly so vast in the Criminal Law of England occupied a whole Session in connection with three or four clauses, he maintained that, having regard to the importance and complexity of the subject, it was a monstrous assertion to say that too much time had been occupied by the Irish Members. In conclusion, he would advert to the Railway Regulation Bill. Clauses 24 and 25, which altered the law with regard to undue preference, and which introduced new laws with reference to the classification of rates, were the two bones of contention between the different interests that were affected by the Bill. If the Government would omit these clauses and content themselves with passing the rest of the Bill, which provided better machinery for the existing law, hon. Members on his side would help them to add that Bill to the measures which they hoped to pass during the present Session, and there would be no reason why they should not have the credit of doing so.

said, that the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was most insulting and more ill-mannered than might have been expected from a Gentleman in his position—a Gentleman who had so lately changed his coat and deserted his Party and his principles. The Bill which the House had been discussing, and which they had opposed, was founded on the broken pledges of sup- porters of the Government, who dared not go to their constituents because of those pledges. The Bill had been forced through the House of Commons hacked by slanderous and diabolical libels which had been published by the connivance of the Tory Party. He made that statement, and was prepared to prove it. An official statement appeared under a large heading in The Globe announcing that the police had information that 100 Invincibles were preparing to use explosives in this country, and that was published on the day of the Spalding Election. Hon. Members opposite had no compunction in going down to their constituents with their hands full of lies and circulating them through the country. And yet the First Lord of the Treasury spoke of the dignity and decorum of the House!

rose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member was entitled to speak of Members going to their constituencies "with their hands full of lies?"

said, he had not heard the expression, but if it had been used it was highly un-Parliamentary, and would, of course, be withdrawn. He might point out that a retrospect of the Session was in Order only so far as it related to the question of the future absorption of the time of the House by the Government.

said, he referred to The Times pamphlets which had been published in the country, and which he distinctly stated to belies. Hon. Members opposite were unable of their own knowledge to say whether the statements in those pamphlets were true or not, and yet they were not ashamed to circulate those lies among their constituents. They were told that the opposition offered to the Crimes Bill had been indecorous and undignified. The First Lord of the Treasury, however, admitted that the action of the Irish Members had been conscientious; so long, however, as they were treated to insolent and ill-mannered speeches, he would rise in his place and reply to them.

said, he was anxious to make a quotation from a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), in order to illustrate the value which might be attached to some of the statements made by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. He was sorry that the right hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. John Morley) was not in his place, because in the course of his observations he had the assurance and audacity to declare that the opposition offered by Gentlemen who at that time sat on his own side of the House to the passing of the Irish Land Bill of 1881 had absolutely exceeded the Obstruction offered to the passing of the Crimes Bill this Session. He wished to test the value of this assertion by reading a sentence in Hansard from the speech of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian on the occasion of the third reading of the Land Bill. The right hon. Member for Newcastle admitted that he was not a Member of the House at that time; but the House would remember that the right hon. Gentleman said he watched and read all the proceedings carefully. Against his statement he placed that of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian on the third reading of the Bill—

"I take this opportunity of saying that, so far as regards themselves," that is, the leaders of the Party "and the bulk of the Party who act with them, although, of course, it is a matter of serious lamentation to us that a large body of Members of the House of Commons, and many distinguished Members, decline to recognize the necessity of the provisions that we have proposed, yet, as to the mode of their opposition, I am bound to say of them, and of the bulk of their followers, that I do not think we have any reason to complain."—(3 Hansard, [264] 150.)

That was his reply to the unfounded and ridiculous statements of the right hon. Member for Newcastle.

said, he had listened to the quotation read by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), showing that the bulk of the Tory Party had not, according to the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone), been guilty of obstructing the Land Bill in 1881, and thought it proved nothing whatever. If they could get the opinion of that right hon. Gentleman on the present measure, he (Mr. Biggar) had no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would use exactly the same words with regard to the opposition of the Irish Party to the Coercion Bill as he had with reference to the Tory Party and the Land Bill of 1881. After all, the evidence adduced by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) was of no value whatever. Before he (Mr. Biggar) sat down he would only make reference to some words that fell from the First Lord of the Treasury. That right hon. Gentleman gave the House a lecture on dignity and decorum. He (Mr. Biggar) did not think the use of those expressions came with a good grace from the right hon. Gentleman; and he would appeal to the House whether the right hon. Gentleman was a striking example of dignity and decorum in his own person? With regard to dignity, he must say that he had seen Leaders in the House of Commons before the right hon. Gentleman had assumed his present Leadership, and he must bear witness that, as far as his experience went, the decorum with which the Business of the House was conducted in former times gave him (Mr. Biggar) a very much higher idea of dignity and decorum than he had observed in the Leadership of the right hon. Gentleman. When the First Lord of the Treasury lectured hon. Members below the Gangway on that subject, the right hon. Gentleman should himself first take a few lessons in dignity and decorum. He (Mr. Biggar) would also point out that before the First Lord of the Treasury sat down he made a very curious admission, for he acknowledged that his Leadership had disparaged the dignity of Parliament. He thought that was an exceedingly honourable admission, and a true one. He (Mr. Biggar) hoped the right hon. Gentleman would show a little more modesty, and not lecture hon. Members for their conduct in the future.

said, the appointment of a Boundary Commission would be a proper step if taken at the proper time; but the country would be greatly astonished to find that the Government was only now at the initial stage of local government reform. For months the country had been deluded with the idea that the Government had their Local Government Bill ready, and that they were only waiting an opportunity to introduce it. In these circumstances the Government had framed their Bill without having first acquired that information which alone could form the basis of a satisfactory Bill.

said, the remarks of the hon. Gentleman showed that he had not studied the question of local government. It was perfectly well known to Members on both sides of the House that one portion of the Local Government Bill must of necessity be a re-arrangement of overlapping boundaries, and that had always formed part of a Local Government Bill. It would also have formed a portion of the Bill which the Government would have introduced this Session if they had been fortunate enough to have had time for the purpose. What they proposed was this—the arrangement of those boundaries would necessarily take up a considerable time; and, if their Bill had been introduced, it could not have come into operation until the boundaries had been accepted. They, therefore, proposed to take that part of the Bill which was not contentious, and to have a Commission appointed which would take advantage of the interval between this time and the next Session for proceeding with the essential work of defining boundaries. So far from delay being involved in the course they proposed to adopt, it would be a decided step towards the realization of that scheme of local government which Her Majesty's Ministers were anxious to put before the House and the country.

said, that when the Boundary Commissioners were appointed to carry out the Redistribution of Seats Bill a certain principle had been laid down beforehand by that House—namely, that the new constituencies were to be based, not on the Petty Sessional Division, but on the Poor Law Unions. But, in the present case, the Commission was to be appointed before the House had settled what was to be the principle of the different areas. He wished to know whether the House would have an opportunity for discussion as to what the nature of the areas would be?

said, there would be no opportunity of discussing what the foundation of the Local Government Bill would be; but all that the Boundaries Bill was intended to do was to bring all the rating areas within the counties. At present they might extend to two or three different counties. The idea was that all Unions ought to be brought within the counties. The question of unit would not be prejudged.

observed, that in the midst of that great city—the richest in the world—there were 50,000 families who had only one room each to live in. That state of things was a disgrace to their Christian civilization; and he appealed to the Government whether it was not their duty to give a day for the discussion of one of the most important social questions affecting the dwellings of the people?

said, he would advise hon. Members that now was the day and now the hour for them to strike, if they wished to promote the various measures in which they were interested. Let them try to make some impression on the Ministerial Bench, which was harder than granite. The 19 Bills which the Irish Members had placed on the Paper had been immediately blocked, and hon. Gentlemen opposite should not be surprised if reprisals were obtained by the blocking of their own Bills. It would be better if hon. Gentlemen, instead of asking him to remove blocks from Bills, took care that the Government did not deprive the House of the time to which private Members were entitled.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 85; Noes 165: Majority 80.—(Div. List, No. 280.)

said, he had no intention of occupying the time of the House in further debating the Motion; but the fact was, that one hon. Member after another had called attention to the importance of having one day for a discussion of the agricultural interest of the country. On a former occasion this Session he drew attention to a portion of this subject, and he thought it would be a pity if any opportunity was not given to many hon. Members on the other side of the House, who had expressed great interest in the question, for further discussion. He should not have brought forward the Motion he intended to move if it were in connection with anything that might be termed a "fad" or a "faddist" idea, The condition of agriculture interested hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House—it interested those Liberals who were called the Opposition. They were told to-night that it interested even more hon. Members above and below the Gangway on the other side, and he was sure it would be disappointing to them if they had not given them an opportunity of testing the sincerity of their demand in the interest of agriculturists for one day more for the discussion of the condition of their industry. The question was of the most urgent character, and even if this Session should be one day longer than the Government at present intended, if they should lose a day's shooting in order to discuss it, he did not think the House could be better employed. For these reasons he moved to add at the end of the Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury—

"But that a day be granted for the discussion of the present condition of the agricultural interest."

seconded the Amendment.

Amendment proposed,

At the end of the Question, to add the words "but that a day be granted for the discussion of the present condition of the agricultural interest."—( Mr. Esslemont. )

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

said, he regretted very much the absence of many of his Colleagues at this moment; but the Motion had certainly been sprung upon them very unexpectedly. On this side of the House they were rather sceptical as to the great desire of the hon. Member that they should have a day for the discussion of agricultural questions. The position taken up by the hon. Gentleman reminded him of the lines so often quoted by Colonel Sibthorpe, who was some time ago a Member of this House—

"Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."

He (Sir Henry Holland) distrusted this anxiety of the hon. Member to give effect to the wishes of the Conservatives who were interested in agriculture. The anxiety of the Government that the discussion referred to by the hon. Member should take place could not be overrated. They were all aware of the extreme depression which had so long prevailed, and of the gallant way in which, agriculturists had fought against it; but, as the First Lord of the Treasury had pointed out, they could not allocate a day for the consideration of any one of the many subjects which had been alluded to that evening, because, were they to do so, they would at once be pressed to set apart days for the discussion of other matters. The feeling was generally entertained upon both sides of the House that agriculture was suffering from depression, and, therefore, a Division on this Amendment would indicate, not that hon. Members on the Government side of the House were not as anxious as those opposite to take any steps that might be necessary to alleviate that depression, but that they felt that the state of Public Business was such that it was impossible for the First Lord of the Treasury to give any other answer to this proposal than that he had given.

said, he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman did not wish to do him injustice. He had risen before when the House was very full, and there was great impatience for a Division on the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Cockermouth Division of Cumberland (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). He at once gave way in deference to the feeling of the House; but he intimated at the same time that he desired to move an Amendment.

said, he was not exactly aware how far the hon. Gentleman had given Notice of his intention to propose the Amendment; but he was perfectly aware that the Amendment had taken a great many Members by surprise.

said, that hon. Members opposite representing agricultural constituencies ought to be grateful to his hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Esslemont) for the opportunity he had given them of showing, in a practical form, their desire to do justice to the agricultural community. Some hon. Members opposite had gone so far as to say that the ties of Party allegiance were being severely strained by the refusal of the Government of a day for the discussion of that subject. They were all aware of the great depression prevailing in the agricultural community, and it would be only fair to have a night or two nights to discuss the question, if only to prepare the way for future legislation. If they had not that opportunity, he did not know what they were to say to their agricultural constituencies when they went back to them in the autumn.

observed, that the least that the Government could do would be to give a day for the discussion of this most important question.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 82; Noes 139: Majority 57.—(Div. List, No. 281.)

Main Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes 146; Noes 85: Majority 61.—(Div. List, No. 282.)

Ordered, That for the remainder of the Session, Orders of the Day have precedence of Notices of Motion on Tuesday, Government Orders having priority; that Government Orders have priority on Wednesday; and that Standing Order XXI., relating to Notices on going into Committee of Supply on Monday and Thursday, be extended to the other days of the week.

I rise for the purpose of moving the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100. No doubt, my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works will be aware that this is only a formal Motion, my object being to ascertain who is the real custodian responsible for the building in which our deliberations now take place. I am sorry to see that my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works is the only Representative of the Government on the Treasury Bench, because his Representative in "another place," when appealed to a short time ago, said he knew nothing whatever about the matter, and could not say who was responsible. I wish, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury could have remained in his place, so that, if possible, he might have given to the Committeee a little of the information we desire to receive. In order to put the case in the simplest manner before the Committee, I may state that, some years ago, the minds, not only of Members of this House, but of all persons interested in art, were startled by the appearance in the Central Hall of this building of a statue of Earl Russell. Now, the Central Hall is one of the most successful creations of modern times, and it is an apartment upon which the the late Sir Charles Barry bestowed the best power of his talents and energies. It is an undoubted fact that this creation of the genius of Sir Charles Barry has always been admired by every skilled person, no matter to what particular school of art he might belong. I must confess, therefore, that I was much startled when I saw this ungainly and somewhat grotesque statue erected in the Central Hall. I had the honour in this House of sitting opposite to Lord John Russell for many years, but never saw him present any appearance resembling the statue, and much as I might desire to see his statue within these walls I dispute altogether the propriety of putting it up in the Central Hall, where it is entirely out of keeping with the surrounding architecture. The then President of the Institute of Architects—Mr. Whichcord—together with Mr. Charles Barry and Mr. Edward Barry—two of the sons of the late Sir Charles Barry—were in entire accord with me in condemning, not only the statue itself, but the position in which it has been placed. If any hon. Member will take the trouble to go to the Central Hall, he will see that the principal idea of Sir Charles Barry was the creation of four doors leading to the centre of the building, and the effect of putting up this statue has been to block up one of those four doors. I am informed that the statue was put up on the recommendation of a Committee, of which one of the principal Members was the late Lord Beaconsfield, at the time when Mr. Gerald Noel was Chief Commissioner of Works. The Chief Commisioner of Works, however, would appear to have no control over matters of this kind; but the principal portions of this building are under the control of an hereditary functionary styled the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Lord Great Cham- berlain acts in the name of the Office of Works, but the Office of Works knows nothing about him, and how the statue got there nobody seems to know; but it is quite certain, however, that when once a statue has been placed in a similar position, it is a very difficult thing to get it removed. At any rate, in this instance, the statue of Earl Russell has been allowed to remain. Unfortunately, a rumour has reached us that the experiment is about to be repeated, and that the Committee which has been appointed for the purpose of setting up a memorial to the memory of an eminent politician whom we all revere, and for whom we have always had the greatest possible respect and veneration—namely, the late Lord Iddesleigh, have decided to set up his statue in a position in the Central Hall, which will have the effect of blocking up another door. This being so, I ventured to address a Question to my right hon. Friend the First Lord to the Treasury, who, I am bound to say, did not answer that Question with the utmost amount of politeness, notwithstanding the matter is very important, and that the Representative of the First Commissioner of Works in "another place," when questioned on the subject, said that he knew nothing about it. It was for that reason that I addressed a Question to the First Lord of the Treasury, and his answer to me was simply that I had better go and ask the Lord Great Chamberlain. Now, in order to save the time of this House, the Lord Great Chamberlain had already been asked, and he—Lord Aveland—of whom I desire to speak with the greatest possible respect, for everybody is acquainted with his high character, is thus placed, as Lord Great Chamberlain, in an invidious position. No doubt, his Office is one which has something anomalous about it, and however much he might, perhaps, desire not to see this statue set up, at the same time, when he was requested to give permission, upon the high authority of the distinguished individuals who compose the Committee, he must undoubtedly have found himself placed in a difficult position. I, for one, should be very glad if some arrangement could be made whereby the Office of Great Chamberlain could in this respect be relieved of the great responsibility which now attaches to it, and that the control of this building be vested in the Office of Works, or in some other Department of Her Majesty's Government. It is for this reason that I have brought the matter before the Committee now, in the hope that some opinion may be expressed with regard to it. I have mentioned the rumour that a second statue is to be put up in the Central Hall to the late Lord Iddesleigh, and I understand that the consent of the Lord Great Chamberlain has been obtained to its erection. I very much regret that such a decision should have been arrived at in opposition to the view of the sons of Sir Charles Barry and of the present President of the Institute of British Architects, as well as of other skilled architects who have expressed the same opinion. To put up another statue there will altogether destroy the design of Sir Charles Barry. At present the statue of Earl Russell stands there by itself, and it may be removed; but if a second statue is put up, it will, I am afraid, render it more difficult than ever to retain the Central Hall in the condition in which it was designed. I have taken some trouble to examine all the designs, reports, and papers, of the late Sir Charles Barry, dating 40 years back, in relation to the subject, and I cannot find in any of them that it was ever contemplated to erect a statue in the place where it is proposed to put these statues. I now come to another point which has some bearing on the question—namely, what are we to do with the statues it may be desirable to erect of celebrated Englishmen? Where ought they to be put up? If hon. Members will examine the Lobby of the House, they will find eight pedestals placed there for the purpose of receiving the statues of distinguished statesmen, all of which are at present unoccupied. What I wish to impress upon the House is that my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has already disclaimed any responsibility in connection with this subject, and my object in raising the question is to elicit an expression of opinion as to who is responsible. I have no wish whatever to reduce the amount of the Vote; but my object has been to bring the matter before the Committee, in the hope, first of all, that, sooner or later, the Central Hall may be cleared of the statue which is now placed there, and that the anomaly may not be aggravated and perpetuated by the putting up of any other statue there. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by the sum of £100.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £37,535, be granted for the said Service."—( Mr. Cavendish Bentinck. )