asked the Secretary of State for War, If he can state the designs upon which fortifications are now being constructed for the defence of our coaling stations abroad; the designs of fortifications, and weight of guns, intended to be adopted for the protection of military and commercial harbours at home; whether any of the new defensive works will be so constructed as to resist dynamite shells; and, how far, and in what manner, local Naval Reserves, Militia, and Volunteers are to be organized and utilized in connection with the proposed works?

In answer to the first two Questions of the hon. Member, I am not prepared to publish to the world the details for which he asks. The details already published were very carefully considered by my Military Advisers and myself; and those only were given which could be given in the interest of the Public Service. In answer to the third Question, I would remind the hon. Member that many of the guns will be mounted on disappearing carriages. In answer to the fourth Question, we propose to utilize to the full all the Auxiliary Forces of every description.

asked, whether any works had actually been commenced in connection with our military and commercial harbours?

said, this was a very comprehensive Question to ask. It was rather one for the debate to-night.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, If he will inform the House the names of all the coaling stations which are now being wholly or partially fortified, and what stock of coal the Government intend maintaining, as a minimum quantity, at each depôt at home and abroad for the use of the Fleets; whether any system has been adopted for the purpose of replenishing stations in the event of hostilities; if so, what; and, whether it is intended that stocks of coal shall be maintained during war for the use of steamers of the Mercantile Marine as well as of the Navy?

The hon. Member will find the information he asks for, with reference to the defence of the coaling stations, at page 11 of the Secretary of State for War's Memorandum accompanying the Army Estimates of this year. It is undesirable, in the public interest, to state either the stocks of coal which it is intended to maintain at these stations, or the system that has been adopted for replenishing them. The stocks of coal that the Admiralty keep are for their own use.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the fact that the Royal Commission on Warlike Stores held their final meeting and ceased to exist on or before December, 1887; whether they received the Report on the Collingwood gun, and reported on it, before they were dissolved; where those documents are now; whether he will state the names of those officials who have withheld the Report since December, 1887; and, how he proposes to deal with them?

I do not think that even an hon. Member of this House is justified, without ample evidence, in making the charge against public servants that they have wilfully suppressed public documents of importance. In this case there is no such evidence. No such Report has been received. But after a charge of this sort has been made, I think it just to the Department to publish at once Colonel Hope's Report, and the observations of the Ordnance Committee upon it.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Mr. John J. Hickey, of Lisnaboy, Cullin, Millstreet, County Cork, who served an originating notice on his landlord, Mr. French, to have a fair rent fixed by the Land Court, in the month of December, 1886, and whose name was not placed on the list for hearing by the Commissioners at Millstreet in 1887; whether this was owing to pressure of business; what were the number of cases listed and heard at that sitting of the Commission; whether it is a fact that Mr. Hickey's case is not even yet listed for hearing; whether he is aware that there are 12 similar cases in the parish of Cullin; and, whether the judicial rent, which may be fixed in pursuance of the notice of December, 1886, will date from the gale day following?

My attention has been called to the case referred to. The Land Commissioners inform me that the case of John J. Hickey was listed for hearing at Millstreet last October, and was No. 151 on the list. The Sub-Commission was not able to reach the case owing to pressure of business. The number of cases listed for that sitting from the Union of Millstreet was 14, none of which were reached at the last sitting of the Sub-Commission in that district. Hickey's case will appear in the list for the next sitting, which will probably take place in July. The answer to the last paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative.

said, he had no reason to doubt the statement that the originating notice in this case had been served in 1886.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was aware that his Predecessor had stated that the case was not listed in 1886; and, whether it was a fact that at the last sitting of the Court only two cases were heard?

said, the facts were substantially as stated in the Question. The case was not listed till last year. It would be taken up at the next sitting.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that the Resolution with regard to duties on bottled wines having been passed on the 26th of March, the Board of Customs nevertheless afterwards issued a General Order which was forwarded to Hull, dated the 19th of April, 1888, that all still wines in bond on 27th of March, or placed in bond before the 10th of April, which had been described in Customs Warehouse Entries as of a value not exceeding 20s. per dozen quarts, should be admitted at the old rate of duty; by whose authority such Order was issued; whether it was legal for any Department to issue an Order making exceptions in the case of particular goods coming under the Resolution adopted by the House; whether he is aware that the effect of the Order has been that a large quantity of low priced German and French wines has been cleared; and, on what ground the Order was given, and how much wine has been cleared under the Order?

In reply to the hon. Member's first Question, I have to say that an Order, such as he describes, was issued by the Board of Customs, not limited to Hull, but extending to all other warehousing ports, authorizing the admission, free of the additional Wine Duties levied under the Resolution of the 26th of March last, of still bottled wine which had been imported and bonded between the 27th of March and the 10th of April, and had been described in the Customs warehousing entries as of a value not exceeding 20s. per dozen quarts. The Order was issued on my authority, and according to precedent. It is true that no executive authority has, strictly speaking, a defined right to remit duties which the Legisla- ture says are to be collected; but there must always be, of necessity, an administrative discretion to some extent, on equitable grounds, and such a discretion was exercised in 1845 and in 1870 in relation to the Sugar Duties. Goods imported, and in bond in particular "packages" rendered suddenly liable to a tax because of that package, but capable of being, and which under the tax would be, packed otherwise, have, in extreme cases, some claim in equity to the exercise of such administrative discretion. If the hon. Member will look at Parliamentary Paper No. 281 of 1870 he will find a Treasury Minute issued in a parallel case of administrative discretion applied to the Sugar Duties, with the reasons and precedents for exceptional remission. In reply to his fourth Question, I have to say that there has been no abnormal increase in the quantities of low priced German and French wines cleared. It is estimated that 5,000 dozen bottles have been cleared under this provision.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the office of the surveyor of the Midland District of Scotland is part of the establishment of the Post Office in Edinburgh; whether two of the clerks in the surveyor's office in Edinburgh also hold appointments on the staff of the Dundee Post Office; whether they are each paid the proper salary for the Edinburgh appointment and another salary for the Dundee appointment; and, whether they perform any duties in Dundee; and, if not, whether the duties connected with their appointments are performed by clerks at a considerably lower salary than that paid to the clerks who nominally hold the appointments but perform no duty?

The office of the Surveyor of the Midland District of Scotland is not part of the establishment of the Post Office in Edinburgh. In accordance with a Rule applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom, the Surveyor's stationary clerks are borne on the establishment of Provincial post offices. The Post Office on the establishment of which the stationary clerks to the Surveyor of the Midland District of Scotland are borne is Dundee; and it is only the salary which they would receive were they employed at Dundee that they receive as stationary clerks. Over and above this salary they receive a special allowance; but it is not the case that, in consequence of the withdrawal of two members of the Dundee establishment to act as stationary clerks, anyone at Dundee performs higher duties, or receives a lower salary than he otherwise would, the establishment having been specially adjusted to provide against such a contingency.

asked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Petition of 10,000 members of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, for a modification of the Charters of the College now under consideration by the Council, has received the favourable consideration of the Lord President, or whether it will be referred to the Royal Commission on University Education in London, recently appointed to consider, among other things, the means of facilitating University degrees for resident students in London; and, whether the Royal College of Surgeons of England has yet presented to the Lord President any comments on, or reply to, the representations made on behalf of the members of the College by the deputation which recently waited on him; or whether, in the absence of any reply, such representation in support of the Petition by 6,000 members will be held to be conclusive?

The Petition of the members of the Royal College of Surgeons has received the consideration of the Lords of the Council, and will not be referred to the Royal Commission recently appointed to consider the means of facilitating University degrees for resident students in London. There has been a correspondence between the Council Office and the Royal College of Surgeons on the subject of their Petition for a supplementary Charter; and the College have accepted a proposal from the Privy Council to omit from the supplementary Charter points upon which there has been a controversy with the Fellows and the members of the College.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will grant the Return relating to the British Hospital at Smyrna, standing on the Paper for this day?

(who replied) said: Returns are being prepared, on the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for South Bristol (Colonel Hill), which will cover the hon. Member's proposed Motion, except that they will only embrace seven instead of 10 years, and the length of the stay in hospital of each seaman, which could not be furnished here. Perhaps he will be so good as to confer with me, and I will see how far the Returns, which are in preparation, can be extended without loss of time.

asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has yet received further information from Her Majesty's Treasury in respect to compulsory hospital dues at Constantinople and Smyrna; and, if so, will he communicate it to the House?

Further information has been received. The Returns, which are being carefully prepared, are nearly ready, and will shortly be laid on the Table.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is prepared to take into consideration the case of the men who have been many years employed at Battersea Park, but who, since the Park has been taken over by the Metropolitan Board of Works, have been dismissed from their employment; and, whether the Statute, by which the Park was transferred, provides for superannuation to these men?

The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that I am in no way responsible for the dismissal of the men lately employed in Battersea Park. One of them, who was foreman at Battersea while it was under my Office, and who has since been dismissed by the Metropolitan Board, I have appointed foreman at the Hampton Court Pleasure Gardens. As to others, I am about to submit their names to the Treasury for such gratuities or superannuation as they may be entitled to under the Act of last year.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the monopoly, in virtue of which he has directed Railway Companies to discontinue the conveyance of letters "per rail," was conferred upon the holder of his office prior to the introduction of the penny postal service; whether any further powers have been conferred in this respect upon the Postmaster General during the past half century; whether any of his Predecessors in Office have ever interfered with the practice of sending letters needing expedition by rail; and, whether, pending the inquiry by a Departmental Committee, he would allow the practice to be continued?

The monopoly referred to by the hon. Member was conferred upon the Postmaster General long prior to the introduction of penny postage, and has been continued by various Statutes up to the present time. There has been no extension of the Postmaster General's powers in this respect since the Post Office Acts of the first year of Her Majesty's Reign. Representations have been made from time to time by successive Postmasters General to various carrying agencies as to the illegal carriage of letters. For my own part, I will say that, while every effort shall be made to effect an arrangement which shall be convenient to the public, and at the same time legal, I have not the power to sanction the revival of a practice which the law forbids.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether an application was made to the Sub-Commission Court (Messrs. Edward Greer, O'Callaghan, and Sproule) sitting at Downpatrick on Friday, the 4th instant, that a case in which an hon. Member was coming over from London to give evidence in might be fixed for Tuesday, the 8th instant, was refused; whether the case was fixed for Saturday positively; whether, on Saturday, the hon. Member being in Court, having been summoned by telegraph, the Sub-Commissioners refused to take the case on that day, and postponed it until Tuesday; and, whether the action of the Sub-Commissioners can be justified on grounds of public convenience; and, if so, what were those grounds?

The Land Commissioners inform me that Mr. Greer, the Chairman of the Sub-Commission, reports that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the Question. He declined to accede to the application; as from the state of the Court list he confidently expected to reach and dispose of this case, with all the others on the same estate, on the following day (Saturday). The Court, however, unfortunately found itself unable to reach this case, which was accordingly fixed for hearing on the 8th. The Chairman adds that he was assured that the convenience of all parties had been suited and the despatch of public business facilitated. If my hon. Friend would like to see the Report, I will be very glad to show it to him.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a direct or indirect order has been sent from Dublin Castle to the Governor of Derry Gaol, commanding that official to refuse The Nation and United Ireland newspapers to Father M'Fadden and Father Stephens; and, whether the Government will cause instructions to be sent to the Governor to allow those papers to be handed in for the use of those gentlemen?

No such order has been sent from Dublin Castle. Discretion as to allowing newspapers rests, under the Rules of local prisons, with the Visiting Justices, and not with the Government.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman would say whether the First Lord of the Treasury had not received a large revenue from the sale of these papers at his book and paper stalls in Ireland?

Order, order!

asked, whether the Chief Secretary was aware that this same gaol Governor refused to allow Father M'Fadden, amongst the books to be read by him, a book containing a copy of the Prison Rules and of all the Acts relating to the government of prisons in Ireland?

I am afraid I can give the hon. Gentleman no information about that.

inquired, if the Chief Secretary was aware whether Governors of prisons in Ireland had refused to allow first-class misdemeanants to read "Gems of American Poetry?"

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether unpaid magistrates are in all cases prohibited, under pain of dismissal (as in the case of Mr. James Byrne, of Wallstown Castle), from adjudicating in their counties, except in their own Petty Sessions district; whether paid magistrates adjudicate in whatever Petty Sessions district they are ordered to sit in within their counties; are several paid magistrates appointed for more than one county; if so, why does not the Under Secretary's Return, No. 89, 15th March, 1888, show this, and why does it only give one district as that in which stipendiaries adjudicate; would the Government consider the propriety of ordering their paid magistrates, at least, not to sit in Licensing Sessions outside their own districts, as shown by this Return, so that local opinion may not be out-voted by the action of strangers from distant places; and, will a correct Return be presented, showing the actual districts in which the gentlemen in question operate?

The hon. and learned Member on the 13th of March asked a somewhat similar Question, and was answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland to the effect that the case of Mr. Byrne was not at all analogous to that of a Resident Magistrate, who was paid to devote his whole time to the Public Service, and who was not appointed with reference to a Petty Sessions district; but was bound to attend all Sessions in his jurisdiction, as far as time permits. Resident Magistrates are qualified to adjudicate at any Petty Sessions within their counties. As a matter of practice, however, they only adjudicate in the Petty Sessions assigned to their charge, except where they act also as locum tenens for another Resident Magistrate on leave of absence, or on the constitution of a special Court under the Crimes Act, or other exceptional circumstance. Resident Magistrates selected under Section 11 of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act are necessarily appointed to act in more than one county. The Return referred to, which is in part a continuation of the Return ordered by the House on the Motion of the late Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division of Dublin (Mr. Dwyer Gray), states the Resident Magistrates' head-quarters, and not the extent of their jurisdiction. I do not see that any public advantage would be gained in giving the directions suggested, or presenting a further Return.

said, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's declining to supply a Return showing exactly where the Resident Magistrates were to act, he begged to give Notice that when the Public Houses (Ireland) (Saturday Closing) Bill came before the House he should move that the licensing powers of the Resident Magistrates be strictly confined to the districts for which they were appointed. He asked was it not possible to show exactly the Petty Sessions districts for which Resident Magistrates were appointed?

said, he had already explained that the Resident Magistrates did not go out of their own districts unless when they got special orders. He did not think there was any objection to giving the Return asked for; but he could not see that it would be any great gain.

asked whether, in consequence of the systematic absence of the Stipendiary Magistrates supposed to be sitting in Cork, considerable inconvenience had not been caused at the Petty Sessions Court?

asked, whether the Chief Secretary was aware that one of the Resident Magistrates for Cork adjudicated in every one of the six counties of Munster?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether sheets of printed matter posted at Chancery Lane on the 26th and 28th of April were delayed by his express warrant; was any such sheet detained two days after the Secretary to the Post Office had written to say that the said sheet had been delivered; and will he give a Return of all letters (see definition of letter) which have been delayed for inspection during 1887 and 1888?

I am informed by the General Post Office that they presume that the hon. Member is referring to certain sheets printed on a kind of material which had never been previously seen in transmission through the post. No warrant was issued by me for their detention. Any delay which may have arisen in their delivery was owing to doubts as to whether they came within the Book Post Regulations, and whether they could be safely sent by post at all. I am informed that the sheets were sent to the despatching office at the same time as the instructions for their delivery. I cannot give the hon. Member the Return he asks for.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he would give a Return of the number of deaths from starvation according to Coroner's Inquest during the past year; and, if he can give any approximate Return of the number of men out of work in London during the past winter, and a Return of the prostitutes under 16 years of age who frequent the streets of London?

A Return is now with the printers, and will shortly be issued, giving the number of deaths in the Metropolitan District in the year 1887 upon which a Coroner's Jury have returned a verdict of death from starvation, or death accelerated by privation. I hope this will be sufficient for the purpose of the hon. Member. I have no information in my Department to furnish the Returns asked for in the last paragraph.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that about 20 accidents, the last of them terminating fatally, have occurred during the past five years at the entrance to Rotten Row; and, whether he will consider the advisability of levelling and altering the stone crossing where all these accidents have happened, and by which they are believed to have been caused?

I am aware that accidents have happened—one very sad one ending, I am sorry to say, fatally—at the crossing at the east end of Rotten Row, and I shall certainly do all I can to diminish the risk of such deplorable occurrences; but, of course, there must be a crossing for pedestrians, and people on horseback will, I hope, on their part exercise caution in pulling up their horses before getting off the Ride.

asked, whether it was not precisely when riders had no con- trol over their horses that these accidents occurred; and, whether the paved crossing was not placed just at the spot where a runaway horse would be most dangerous?

said, that was very likely to be so, and he should be glad to consider suggestions that might be made to minimize the danger.

said, the danger arose, not from the horses cantering, but, as had been stated, from runaway horses.

said, danger must always arise from runaway horses; but the attention of the Board should be particularly directed to the matter.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to an advertisement which appeared in The Leeds Mercury, 4th May, headed—

"Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1887. (Advertisement B.) Examination for first and second class certificates of competency as manager and under manager respectively;"

and concludes with the following note:—

"N.B.—Persons who do not reside within the district are equally eligible for examination with those who do;"

whether he will state to the House under what clause of the Act the Board derive their authority to examine persons outside their district; and, whether, if they have no such authority under the Act, and knowing the diverse character of the danger in mines in the various districts, he will give instructions that no Board in future shall examine any person for certificates of competency except such person has worked in a mine at least two years in the district for which the Board was formed?

Yes, Sir, I am aware of such an advertisement. Under Sections 23 to 25 of the Act the Board appear to have power to examine persons who reside out of their districts. It rests with the Board, and not with the Secretary of State, to make Rules as to the qualification of the candidates; but the Act requires the Board to have regard to such knowledge as is necessary for the practical working of mines in the district for which the Board was formed.

asked, whether a certificate given in one district was available for a man who was out of employment in a different district?

It is. I do not know of anything in the Act which prevents an owner in Durham from employing a man who was examined in Wales.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in order to prevent a continuance of the sweating system, and to insure some modification in the hours and conditions of the poorer class of labour, the Government will consent to enlarge the scope of the Factory Acts by such compulsory registration of all workshops not at present included in those Acts, and by other stringent Regulations and Rules as will give adequate powers to Inspectors appointed for such purposes?

Pending the completion of the inquiry before the Select Committee which is now sitting, it would be premature for the Government to determine whether, by any amendment of the Factory Laws, the evils of the sweating system could be abated. When the Report of the Committee is received the Government will consider what steps can be taken.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is true that one of the auditors of the Sevenoaks Trustee Savings Bank is also auditor of 11 other Trustee Banks, and the actuary of a London Trustee Savings Bank; and, whether, having regard to the fact that the defalcations at the Sevenoaks Bank were carried on over a series of years, the Government will institute au inquiry into the circumstances connected with the defalcations at such bank, under the provisions of the Trustee Banks Act of last Session?

I understand that the firm of accountants who are auditors to the Sevenoaks Bank act in the same capacity for 14 other Trustee Savings Banks, and that a member of the firm is also actuary of a London Trustee Savings Bank. I am informed that the Trustees of the Sevenoaks Bank are still investigating their accounts, and will shortly submit a full Report on the subject. They are also, I am told, taking steps to enforce the bond for £600 given by the late actuary's sureties, to realize his estate, and to institute criminal proceedings. As soon as the Treasury receive the Report of the National Debt Commissioners on the case they will be able to determine whether there is good ground for an inquiry under the Act of last Session.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, To give the names of the ships whose tonnage make up the 70,000 tons mentioned in his Memorandum on the Navy Estimates as having been passed into the Reserve last year?

At page 12 of my Memorandum on the Navy Estimates I stated that it was estimated that 75,000 tons—not 70,000 tons—would be completed ready for commission in 1887–8. The names of the vessels themselves and their tonnage are given at page 188 of the Navy Estimates. My Memorandum was written a month before the close of the financial year. The actual tonnage passed into the First Reserve for 1887–8 was 64,500; the difference between that figure and my estimate being mainly caused by the unexpected delay in the delivery of guns. The estimate of the amount of tonnage to be passed this year—namely, 1888–9—into the Reserve will be raised by that difference; and should, therefore, come to 88,000 tons, in place of the 77,000 tons of my estimate.

Has every one of the ships got all her guns on board?

Yes, of course. My noble and gallant Friend is aware that no ship is passed into the First Reserve unless she is complete, and can be made ready for commission within 48 hours.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If he is aware that three fresh cases of pneumonia occurred last Thursday at Fermoy Barracks (County Cork), in addition to the large number of cases which were treated in the hospital within the past few weeks; and, if he will order an inquiry by a competent authority into the sanitary condition of the barracks and the general accommodation available for troops?

The Returns show that there were four admissions into hospital at Fermoy for pneumonia during the week ended the 11th instant. One death is also reported from that disease during the same period. Careful inquiry has been made into the circumstances of the case, as promised by me in my answer to the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) on the 30th ultimo, but the sanitary state of the barracks is reported to be good.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether he has taken into consideration the suggestion that postal cards, which can be closed, shall be sold by the Post Office; and, if so, whether he has taken action in the matter?

I have considered the suggestion mentioned by the hon. Member, and shall be very glad to show him some specimens of cards which have been prepared, with a view to arriving at a decision upon the question.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether any action has been taken with a view to afford the public greater facilities to enjoy Bushey and Hampton Court Parks; whether he has observed the statement in the Press that there is an outbreak of rabies in Richmond Park; and, whether, in view of the fact that this is the second outbreak within a year, and that the cost of keeping these animals is great, whilst the profit derived from them is nil, he will consider the expediency of ceasing to keep them in Richmond Park?

I have not lost sight of the question of opening Hampton Court Park, and it is now being discussed by the Departments concerned, but no decision has yet been come to. As to the rabies reported to have broken out among the deer in Richmond Park, I have not yet got full information on the subject; but I do not think that in any case such an event would be a good reason for entirely banishing the deer from the Park.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in the event of the Licensing Clauses of the Local Government Bill becoming law, persons interested in the liquor trade will be prohibited from taking part in the administration of the Licensing Laws?

The Bill does not make any alteration in the existing law on the subject.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that the Treasury recently discovered that clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office have for the past 18 years been paid a day's pay too much; whether two days' pay was deducted from the salaries of the staff after one week's notice; whether, as a consequence of this discovery, fortnightly payments have been abolished; and, whether the clerks have complained of such change having been made in the mode of payment; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of paying these clerks weekly, as is done in several other branches of the Post Office service?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that the over-payment to which he alludes in his Question was brought under my notice by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of the officers employed at the Central Telegraph Office are paid on a scale of annual salaries, and in consequence of payment being made fortnightly an extra day's payment was made in ordinary years and two days' extra payment in leap years; the question having been referred to the Treasury, it was decided that from and after the 31st of March, 1887, the actual annual salary only should be paid, and, consequently, in making the last payment for the year to the 31st of March last, being leap year, the extra payment for two days was not made. As I was unwilling to alter the period of payment, I gave instructions that an advance of salary calculated to the nearest pound should be made in the middle of every month, the balance being paid at the end of the month. And I do not think it would be the wish of the officers that their wages should be paid weekly.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following judgment of the Land Commission in The Freeman's Journal of the 12th instant:—

"There were two cases on the property of Colonel King Harman, Michael Killeen, £14 0s. 2d. old rent and £9 judicial rent, and Thomas Hoey, £15 10s. old rent and £9, which were heard before Judge Curran. Judge Curran appended to his order a statement that he thought £12 would be a fair rent in both cases, only for the unreasonable conduct of the landlord as to the cutting of turf by the tenants; and, in consequence of that unreasonable conduct, he made the rent £9 …they would make the rent in both cases £10 10s.;"

and, were the Government in possession of the text of the Judgment of County Court Judge Curran, or would it be possible to lay a Copy of it upon the Table?

The Secretary of the Land Commission telegraphs that the Commissioners are sitting in Court at Roscommon hearing appeals; and that he cannot communicate with them in time to furnish the necessary Report in reply to this Question, which appears on this morning's Paper without previous Notice.

Then, perhaps, when the right hon. and gallant Gentleman comes back, I will ask himself directly.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether a new barge contractor has recently by his neglect placed the Arsenal and town of Woolwich in great danger, by leaving powder and ammunition barges unattended in the River Thames; whether about 750 tons of explosives were in the deserted barges, and that, with the adjacent powder ship and Government barges, a total of 2,000 tons of ammunition and powder was involved in risk; to whom would the people of the Metropolis look for indemnity for loss of life and property in case an accident had happened; whether his attention has been called to the statement of the contractor—

"That he employed vagrants, whose names and addresses he did not know, and who deserted the barges;"

and, if so, will the Government offer a reward for the said vagrants to come forward and explain whether they swam ashore, or how they all made their escape unobserved, and particularly why they left work for which they were to be paid; and, whether the said contractor will be continued in the service of the Government?

I cannot at present answer the Question fully, inasmuch as I have not obtained sufficient Notice from the hon. Member; but I may say that the contractor is bound to provide suitable watchmen for the barges; and that, having in this case failed to do so, he was summoned by the Thames Conservancy Board and punished with a heavy fine.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it be true that Mr. Patrick Larkin was appointed rate collector by the Portumna Board of Guardians on March 31 last, and that the Local Government Board refused to sanction his appointment; and, whether the reasons assigned for such refusal were that he had taken part in an assembly at his father's door, and that he had spoken harshly to Constable Clemens, who followed Mr. D. Crilly, M.P., into his (Mr. Larkin's) father's house; and, if so, Whether, having regard to the light character of the offence for which Mr. Larkin was held to bail, the Local Government Board will withdraw their opposition to his appointment?

My reply to the first paragraph of the Question is in the affirmative. Upon the matter coming before the Local Government Board, it was found that this man had, in 1886, been convicted of being one of a party charged with assaulting persons, and he was bound over for six months; again, on the 12th of March last, he was put under a rule of bail for 12 months for using violent and abusive language towards a police sergeant in the discharge of his duty. In these circumstances, the Local Government Board are of opinion that he is a person who should not be entrusted with the office, and they decline, therefore, to sanction the appointment.

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether his attention has been called to the report in The Cork Examiner of the 8th of May, of the trial of Captain Ludlow Strange Payne, at Fermoy, on a summons charging him with tearing down after midnight certain banners and decorations erected across the streets of Fermoy in honour of the visit of the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. O'Brien); whether the evidence showed that Captain Payne was caught in the act by the night watchman; whether, although the summons was dismissed on the ground that the complainant should have been the Town Commissioners, the presiding magistrate stated that—

"So far as the emblem was concerned there was nothing to object to in it. We cannot understand why Captain Payne interfered with them;"

and added, in giving judgment—

"That both Mr. Furlong and himself considered that Mr. Payne had acted not only with very bad taste but with the most extreme imprudence and danger. By the insult he committed he not only placed himself in danger, but also other people who might be supposed to regard Mr. Payne's action with favour; but on the legal point they did not see their way to a conviction;"

and, will Captain Payne be allowed to retain his Militia command?

With regard to the first three Questions asked by the hon, and learned Gentleman, I can only refer him to the answer given for me last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir Herbert Maxwell). In answer to the fourth Question, I have to say it would depend upon the result of further inquiries, which are being made.

asked, when it would be convenient for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the Question?

said, he was afraid he should not be in a position to answer it on Thursday. He had communicated with the authorities in Ireland; but he had not yet received a reply.

said, he would repeat the Question on Thursday.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, if a bonâ fide political meeting be called by responsible persons to discuss the Local Government Bill in its bearing upon the Metropolis, in Trafalgar Square, the police will be directed or authorized in any way to interfere with the same?

The Regulation of the Chief Commissioner of Police of November 18, 1887, is still in force. It has been very useful in preserving the peace and good order of the Metropolis, and in protecting the trade and quiet of the neighbourhood. Until it is countermanded the duty of the police will be to prevent any public meeting being held in the Square, or in the adjacent thoroughfares.

When will the Home Secretary direct his subordinate, the Chief Commissioner of Police, to countermand the Order respecting Trafalgar Square?

That is a question for future consideration.

Will that future consideration depend upon the conduct of the people, and the peaceable and orderly character of London, or is coercion in London to be permanent, as in Ireland?

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the conduct of the police in Bermondsey on Saturday last, at the corner of Grange Road, in refusing to allow Mr. Twelch, one of the candidates for the Bermondsey Vestry, to address the ratepayers, after the other two candidates had spoken; and, if he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?

I have made inquiry into this matter. The Inspector of Police gave evidence as stated. I am informed that the magistrates went fully into the evidence on both sides in the first two cases. Upon that evidence, which tended to explain the circumstances deposed to by the Inspector, these cases were dismissed. The Bench at the same time stated that the police had acted very properly in bringing them forward for inquiry. The other informations, which related to the same transactions, were not proceeded with.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If Her Majesty's Government will assent to the withdrawal of that part of the 1st Schedule to the National Defence Bill repealing the provision in the Volunteer Act of 1863 of an allowance to Volunteers, on embodiment, of two guineas for the provision of necessaries, and one guinea on disbandment?

The words in the Schedule were due to a mistake, to which my hon. and gallant Friend has recently called my attention, and I have myself given notice to omit them.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On which day he intends to introduce the Bill for the drainage of the Bann?

As the House is aware, I expressed the hope before now that I should be able to introduce this Bill before Whitsuntide. After consultation with the Leader of the House, I do not see any opportunity of doing it before Whitsuntide, unless on Friday afternoon before the adjournment of the House. I do not know whether that course would be convenient, and I leave that to the Leader of the House to determine.

repeated the Question.

I suppose the right hon. Gentleman was in communication with some Gentleman near him and did not hear; but I have just answered the Question.

asked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government of India have lately proposed to dismember the Bombay Presidency, by annexing Sind to the Punjab; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will place the Correspondence upon the Table of the House before arriving at a final decision on the subject?

No such proposal has been submitted to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is aware that a correspondence on the subject is going on between the Government of Bombay and the Government of India; but no such change could be made without the sanction of the Government of India. There is at present no correspondence to lay upon the Table.

asked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Can he inform the House of what offence the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) was convicted by the Court presided over by Mr. Hamilton, R.M.; and, will that magistrate be invited to correct his letter to Mr. Speaker?

The hon. Member for East Mayo was convicted of the offence of taking part in a criminal conspiracy to compel and induce certain tenants of farms in diverse parts of Ireland not to fulfil their legal obligations with regard to payment of rent, and of the further offence of inciting others to take part in such conspiracy. It appears from the evidence that the particular conspiracy for taking part in which the hon. Member was convicted was the conspiracy known as "the Plan of Campaign." As regards the second paragraph of the Question, I have to state that the matter is not within the province of the Government, but rests rather with the Authorities of the House.

I beg to give Notice that on Thursday I shall move to expunge the letter of Mr. Hamilton from the Minutes of the House.

(for Mr. WHITMORE) (Chelsea) asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has obtained any definite answer as to the total height to which it is now proposed that the now buildings at Albert Gate should be raised?

Since I was last questioned on this subject the promoters of the buildings at Albert Gate have been in communication with me, and they have agreed to reduce the proposed mansions by two stories, bringing the ridge of the roof down to a height of 100 feet. The new buildings will thus not much exceed in height the adjoining houses.

How many stories will the buildings be?

Well, they have been reduced two stories. I forget exactly how many stories they are now; but I think the building will be rather a handsome one.

(for Mr. R. T. REID) (Dumfries, &c.) asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he is aware that the piece of land lying to the west of the buildings of the Royal Courts of Justice, in the Strand, is now lying in a waste and unsightly condition, and has been in that state for some years; and, whether he will cause this land, until required for building, to be laid out in grass, or otherwise made available for recreation, especially for the children of the crowded streets adjoining?

A considerable portion of the land now vacant on the west side of the Courts of Justice will be almost immediately required in connection with the building of the new Bankruptcy Offices. As to the remainder, it may be at any time wanted for an extension of the Courts of Justice, for which purpose it is reserved.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, seeing that the entrance to the St. Stephen's Chapel is through the Members' Cloak Room, there is any reason why hon. Members and their friends should not have the privilege of visiting and showing to their friends this interesting and beautiful portion of the Parliament House; and, whether he will make arrangements to enable them to do so?

I have referred the question to the Home Office, and I am informed by my right hon. Friend that it is now under the consideration of the Police Authorities.

asked Mr. Attorney General, When the Government propose to introduce their promised Bill for the appointment of an Official Trustee; if it will be introduced in this House or the House of Lords; and, if they will consider the advisability of including in it provisions to permit and facilitate the performance of the burdensome duties of Trustees by Public Companies under proper Regulations?

I am informed by the First Lord of the Treasury that the Bill in question will be introduced in the House of Lords. With regard to the last part of the Question, I have no doubt the matter therein referred to will be carefully considered.

asked Mr. Attorney General, Whether, in the case of agistment, a landlord can distrain upon stock not the property of the tenant, but which are on other crops sub-let by the tenant to another person?

In the case of agistment, properly so called, the landlord cannot distrain upon stock not the property of the tenant. But if, as the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member supposes, the crop has been sub-let, it is not a case of agistment so called, and the stock are not free from distress.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What steps have been taken by the Government to give effect to the recent Resolution of this House relating to hereditary pensions and allowances; and, whether he can now make any statement as to the course the Government intend to take to give effect to the remainder of such Resolution?

I am not yet in a position to make a statement as to the course which the Government intend to pursue. The subject has not been lost sight of, and progress is being made towards the solution of a somewhat difficult question.

said, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take care not to overlook that the Resolution said "forthwith."

said, that in the case of a difficult question, and of a hardly-worked official, "forthwith" must be allowed some little latitude.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, What Business the Government propose to take at the resumed Sitting of the House on Thursday, May 31?

The Government propose to take the Civil Service Estimates in Committee of Supply on Thursday, the 31st May. Since last evening I have been aware of the fact that hon. Gentlemen have remained in town—some of them with the view to take part in the discussion of the Employers' Liability Bill, which it was understood would come on next Thursday—and having regard to that fact, and having regard also to the extreme desirableness of getting that Bill referred to the Grand Committee on Trade and Commerce, I think it better to revert to the original arrangement with regard to that Bill and take it on Thursday, in place of the Irish Bills which were intended to be taken. It is, therefore, proposed that we should take a Vote on Account, which is absolutely necessary for the Public Services, on Thursday, and the second reading of the Employers' Liability Bill, in the hope that we may be able to refer it to the Committee on Trade and Commerce. The two Irish Bills will then stand for Monday, the 4th of June.

asked at what hour Progress would be reported, and the Employers' Liability Bill taken?

We will report Progress the moment we got the Vote on Account; and I trust hon. Gentlemen will not occupy more than the necessary time for the discussion of the Vote on Account. It is unusual to occupy a very long time on a question of that kind, but it is absolutely necessary for the Public Service that we should have the Vote. Seeing that is the case, the Vote will stand as the first Business, and the Employers' Liability Bill as the second.

said, that after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman he would not go on with his Motion, of which he had given Notice for Thursday. Could the right hon. Gentleman see his way to postpone the Criminal Evidence Bill until the 4th of June?

It will not be taken before the 4th of June.

asked when the Railway and Canal Traffic Bill would be taken?

That is a matter which does not rest with me. It is for arrangement by the Committee on Trade and Commerce.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that several hundreds of Companies registered under the Limited Liability Acts will Probably be forced into liquidation, owing to the recent judgment of the Lords Justices of Appeal that the issue of shares at a discount is ultra vires, he is now prepared to state what course the Government propose to take in the matter?

:The hon. Member is aware that the Government intend introducing a Bill dealing with this subject; and as to the date of the introduction of such Bill I am unable to add anything to the answer I gave on the 1st instant.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury Whether it is true as stated in the public press, that the International Conference on Sugar Bounties have concluded a Convention for the abolition of bounties, and that all the Powers have engaged to prohibit absolutely the importation of bounty fed sugar?

In answer to the hon. Member, I have to say that, at the concluding sitting of the International Conference on Sugar Bounties, the final Protocol, with the Draft Convention, was signed by the Representatives of all the Powers. Those Representatives will now submit the Draft Convention, with the reserves they have made, to their respective Governments, who will communicate their views to Her Majesty's Government by July 5. The Plenipotentiaries will be invited to meet in London, on August 16 at latest, for the signature of the Treaty. Pending the receipt of such communications and the re-assembling of the Plenipotentiaries, it would be obviously improper, and contrary to diplomatic usage, to give to the House the details of a Draft Treaty, which, in its present form, is the property of the powers collectively, and not of any individual power. I may add that this view has been adopted by the Delegates of all the Powers, who agreed at their last meeting that no publicity should be given to the Draft Convention until after the re-assembling of the Plenipotentiaries.

asked, whether the statement, as reported, that all the Powers had engaged to prohibit absolutely the importation of bounty fed sugar was true or false?

The accurate statement is that which I have just read out of the House.

added that, with regard to giving an opportunity for the discussion of the Convention, the usual course would be followed.

asked, the First Lord of the Treasury to give a pledge on behalf of the Government that an opportunity would be given to the House of expressing its opinion on the question before the country was finally committed to absolute prohibition.

asked, whether the Government had taken into account the increased amount the people of this country would have to pay for their sugar if its importation were prohibited?

wished to know whether the Government had power to prohibit the importation of any kind of commodity without a Resolution or an Act of Parliament?

The hon. Gentleman who asked me the last Question has answered the hon. Member for Stirlingshire. It is absolutely impossible to carry out any engagement without the authority of Parliament.

asked, whether the 16th of August was the date at which the final ratification of this Treaty was to take place?

That, I believe, is the present arrangement of the Powers; but any agreement springing out of the Convention will be a prospective arrangement.

asked, whether it was not desirable that legislation in regard to this subject should be as early as possible, in order that if there was a disinclination on the part of Parliament to proceed, other Governments would be saved further trouble in the matter?

It is absolutely impossible for us to propose legislation in the meantime, seeing that the Convention may fall to the ground, or that the Powers, or any of them, may disagree with it.

said, he meant that as they had taken the initiative in regard to the Conference, so they might in reference to legislation.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any steps have been taken, and, if so, what steps, for the purpose of providing accommodation for the physical laboratory in the Royal Normal School at South Kensington, in consequence of the appropriation of the site of the present temporary building by the authorities of the Imperial Institute?

The Office of Works is in communication with the Science and Art Department; and is about to report to the Treasury as to what arrangements can be made for providing accommodation for the physical laboratory.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the promised measure for organizing and promoting intermediate education in Wales will be introduced?

Her Majesty's Government are aware of the interest felt on the subject of intermediate education in Wales, and will be glad to take the earliest opportunity of dealing with it that the state of Public Business and the progress of legislation permit. I cannot consent to send the two Bills already before the House to a Select Committee. The question is one which the Government alone ought to deal with.

, asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce an Estimate for Crofter Emigration before making arrangements to send out the crofters, or after all the arrangements were made and a portion of the money spent?

A small advance has been authorized to meet the immediate necessities of the case; but an Estimate will be laid before the House as soon as possible.

asked, whether it was the case that agents of the Government had already gone and invited crofters to emigrate?

said, it was the case that some few individuals had been invited to emigrate, under very pressing circumstances, with a view to their immediate relief; and also with a view to the fact that, unless they emigrated immediately, it would be impossible for them to do so until next year.

asked, whether it was the case that 25 families left Stornoway on Wednesday week?

said, he was not aware whether that was the case or not. Subsequently,

asked, when the right hon. Gentleman intended to lay the Supplementary Estimates relating to the crofters on the Table?

It will be laid on the Table immediately after Whitsuntide.

gave Notice that in Committee he would move to reduce the salary of the First Lord of the Treasury by the amount asked for.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given him private Notice, Whether he would lay on the Table of the House a copy of the long and important protest respecting the landing of Chinese in Australia which was cabled by Lord Carrington, the Governor of New South Wales, at the instance of the Premier of his Government to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; also copies of any Treaties between England and China bearing on the important question at issue regarding the influx of Chinese into Australia?

It would not be convenient to present to Parliament one part only of a correspondence in progress; and some little time must be allowed in order that a stage in the question permitting of presentation of Papers may be reached.

asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he would consent to lay on the Table a Return connected with the administration of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887, containing the following particulars: (1) Names of all Persons who have been proceeded against under that Act down to Whitsuntide, 1888; (2) the specific Offence charged against each Person; (3) the Result of the Trial; (4) Cases in which there was an Appeal; (5) the Result of the Appeal?

I have no objection; but the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make inquiries in Dublin as to whether there is any difficulty in the way of preparing such a Return.

said, he had already stated that a Bill for the constitution of an Agricultural Department was in progress; but he was unable to say when it would be possible to introduce it. The Government were giving their serious attention to the matter; and he hoped it would be possible to bring in the measure shortly after Whitsuntide.

said, he must protest against the course proposed to be adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury (Mr. W. H. Smith). On Thursday last the right hon. Gentleman professed to recognize the importance of a Motion which stood in his (Mr. Broadhurst's) name on the Paper for to-night, and went so far as to give a pledge to keep a House for the discussion of the subject until 10 o'clock at night. But the right hon. Gentleman had broken faith, and now proposed to take the whole of the Sitting for Business which might well be taken at some other time. It was perfectly conceivable that a measure for the Imperial defence of the country was of more pressing importance than the Motion he proposed to bring forward; but that was no answer to his appeal. The reply to that was that the Imperial Defence Bill was of more im- portance than the King-Harman Salary Bill, and the Imperial Defence Bill could have been taken yesterday in preference to the Colonel King-Harman Bill. If it was irregular to mention the name of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, he would say that the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill could have been taken on some other occasion. They were asked to believe a most astounding proposition—namely, that it was of such importance for the Government to provide a salary for a political friend that the National Defences Bill must be delayed. The appropriation by the Government of a private Members' Sitting at this period of the Session, especially when Public Business was in such a forward position, was altogether unprecedented. They had learned a good deal from right hon. Gentlemen opposite—even from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord himself, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. A. J. Balfour), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen). The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a speech delivered in the country in the early part of the year, told them that this was to be a Session for English legislation, and that the interests of the English people were to command and receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government. But where, up to the present moment, had been the interests of the English people which had been considered? So far, it had been a Session for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Under Secretary, and it was certainly much more like a King-Harman's Session than anything else. He protested against the proceedings of the Government, and he hoped the House would do something to show the Government how unjustifiable those proceedings were, and he should certainly divide the House as a protest. He had secured a place on the Paper for that evening, which afforded a favourable opportunity for submitting to the consideration of the House a subject of great interest and importance to the poorer classes of the people of the country. He made this protest with some warmth, but he believed that that warmth was fully justified by the conduct of the Government. He begged to give the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury Notice that if any other person, of more importance and authority than himself, would make a proposition, he would willingly divide the House against the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman had just submitted.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury pressed the proverb too far that "silence was golden." He had brought forward a proposal like this, and had not even apologized for it, although it was a distinct breach of a deliberate bargain entered into by the right hon. Gentleman. What was it that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did last week? When questioned on the subject, he assured the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) that there would be a Morning Sitting to-day, but that at 9 o'clock the Government would keep a House in order that the hon. Gentleman might be able to bring forward his important Motion. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman adhered to his bargain? It was simply because he knew exceedingly little about the Rules of the House. He had jumped up last night, in an autocratic manner, and tried to impose a new Rule upon the House. Indeed, he was only prevented by the intervention of Mr. Deputy Speaker; and then, when 12 o'clock was reached, the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill should be put down for 2 o'clock to-day. Of course, that would have involved the sitting of the House at 2 o'clock; but when it was explained to the right hon. Gentleman that he was under a delusion, he said he presumed Mr. Deputy Speaker had a right to decide the matter by taking the voices of the House. He was told that there was no such right, and that he was entirely and absolutely in the wrong; and now the hon. Member for West Nottingham was positively to suffer because the right hon. Gentleman had adopted this course, and had, as it were, to be closured by the action of the Chair. Why did the right hon. Gentleman take this course to-day? It was because, as usual, he had blundered over the Business of the House. Why had the right hon. Gentleman forced on the Secretary for Ireland Bill yesterday? Was it of urgent and paramount importance that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) should receive a salary one day before another day? Most assuredly not. If the right hon. Gentleman had felt that the question of the defence of the Colonies was of paramount importance he might have brought it forward on Monday. The House thought that he intended to stand to his bargain, and some surprise was felt that he had not brought on that Bill. Hon. Members did not know that he had made up his mind to throw over the bargain he had entered into with the hon. Member for West Nottingham. In future they would really have to be most careful with the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be very much like certain persons who, when they found themselves in financial difficulties, endeavoured to get the money out of somebody else. Notwithstanding his pledge to the contrary, he now came forward and endeavoured to take a day from private Members. He (Mr. Labouchere) objected to the whole system, and to the right hon. Gentleman taking days which ought to be devoted to private Members, when there was no absolute and paramount necessity for doing so, at the beginning of a Session. When the House passed the new Procedure Rules it was on the distinct understanding that only under exceptional circumstances would the days of private Members be taken. The right hon. Gentleman could not say that this was a case of exceptional urgency, because, if so, the Bill might have been brought forward yesterday. The right hon. Gentleman had given a specific pledge, and most assuredly it was not a question of importance and urgency that the Defences Bill should be taken today. Even on Friday last the right hon. Gentleman took no steps to keep a House, although it was understood that a House would be kept. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) sought in a previous Parliament to take away all the time of the House for one of the Coercion Bills, it was the Conservative Opposition who opposed the proposition and moved an Amendment. He presumed, therefore, that he should be in Order in moving an Amendment to the Resolution which had just been proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.

said, he had listened to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) and the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who accused him of blundering in regard to the conduct of the Business of the House. That was an allegation which the hon. Member had made before, and he was afraid it would not cease as long as he occupied his present position. He really was exceedingly sorry that it had been the duty of the Government to ask for the time of the House that evening for the question they were desirous of bringing forward. The hon. Member for West Nottingham protested that he had entered into an engagement with him. Certainly, he had entered into a provisional engagement to do all in his power to secure the consideration of the hon. Gentleman's Motion, and he had mentioned 2 o'clock to-day as the hour which he trusted the House would sit; but the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy), in the exercise of his right, had objected under the Standing Orders to the meeting of the House at 2 o'clock, and had thereby prevented him from keeping the engagement he had entered into. He had, therefore, felt it his duty to put down for 3 o'clock the question which he had intended to proceed with at 2 o'clock. The importance of this question was his answer to the hon. Member, and he was exceedingly sorry that he was prevented from carrying out the engagement. It was, however, the hon. and learned Member for North Longford, who, in the exercise of his undoubted right, had prevented him from carrying out his engagement. If, however, the discussion upon the Defences Bill was kept, as he hoped it might be, within reasonable limits, there would still be a considerable portion of the evening left for the consideration of the important question which the hon. Member for West Nottingham proposed to raise. The hon. Member said that the proceedings of the Government were without precedent. He was sure the hon. Gentleman would find that there were many precedents for the course he had been obliged to take under the pressure of Public Business in the exercise of his duty in putting down the Business for a Morning Sitting. The Government must be responsible for the conduct of Business in that House, and the House would see what a large amount of time had been devoted to a measure which they had hoped would have been soon disposed of—namely, the Bill for creating the Office of Permanent Under Secretary for Ireland.

For giving a salary, not the creation of the Office.

Hon. Gentlemen had interposed delay in the progress of the Bill. They were quite within their right in doing what they believed to be their bounden duty in submitting this Bill to the consideration of the House. In all the circumstances, he trusted the hon. Member for West Nottingham would feel that the course now proposed to be taken was one that had been forced upon him, and that he had no alternative whatever. He therefore hoped that the hon. Member would not trouble the House to divide, seeing that by so doing he would only defeat the object he had in view of delaying the time when the House would take up the question in which he himself took a personal interest.

said, the House was getting quite used to the right hon. Gentleman telling them that the Government, and he in particular, were always actuated by an overwhelming sense of public duty. No doubt, that was the case; but when the right hon. Gentleman had applied exalted maxims of that kind to the provision of a salary for the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, and spoke of the duty he owed to the nation in respect of that salary, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for adding that when, with what seemed like infatuated obstinacy, he made that Bill the chief measure of the Government day after day and night after night, hon. Members would hardly moderate their views as to these exalted notions of the public interests and public duty. The right hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that this was a Bill which was obnoxious to Members who sat on that side of the House. He knew that it was a measure calculated to provoke violent resistance on the part of the Representatives of the country for whom this Under Secretaryship was being created and salaried. He knew, further, that those who advocated the cause of public economy on the Opposition side of the House would necessarily and properly resist what they regarded as a rank and flagrant job; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had to calculate upon a strong resistance from that side of the House, unless he had been very badly informed indeed by his own agents on the other side. He must have known that the Parliamentary Under Secretary Bill would not receive the support of a great number of hon. Gentlemen who were prepared to support him on almost every other occasion. He ought to have known that it would be opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage), who last night withdrew the light of his countenance from the Government, and yet the Leader of the House pressed upon the House, as a measure of first rate national importance, to take precedence of the question of Imperial Defence, a measure upon which he escaped, like Job, by only the skin of his teeth. Without emulating the virtues of that patriarch, including the virtue of patience, the right hon. Gentleman came forward and told them that he was actuated by an overwhelming sense of public duty in introducing such a Bill, and making it the first Order of the Day, night after night. All he could say was that he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in saying that this was a novel and unexampled method of conducting Public Business; and when, having so conducted Public Business, the right hon. Gentleman came forward, having wasted and abused the time of the Government on the nights appropriated to them, by giving them up to a measure which was not only frivolous but obnoxious to the exclusion of all others, the right hon. Gentleman asked them to set aside for urgent Business a question of interest and importance to the poorer classes of the community, like that which was advocated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst), it seemed perfectly right that a protest should be made against such a method of conducting Public Business.

said, he wished to enter an emphatic protest against the course the Government proposed to take in not allowing time for the discussion of one of the most important Motions brought forward in this generation. If the Government apprehended how the poor of England and the unemployed were looking towards the action to be taken for their benefit, they would have hesitated to refuse one evening for the discussion of the question.

said, he rose to protest against the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury that there had been any obstruction or factious opposition to the Parliamenatry Under Secretary for Ireland Bill last night. He wished to remind the House of what the circumstances of the case were on Monday night. It was not until 20 minutes to 8 o'clock that he could rise to move his Amendment. Four speeches had been made before Mr. Deputy Speaker left the Chair for the usual interval during the dinner hour, the debate went on until 25 minutes past 10, and no Member of the Government rose to ask for a Division. The right hon. Gentleman then rose for the first time, and asked the House if the time had not arrived at which a Division ought to be taken. He (Mr. Heneage) was actually on the point of rising, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. John Morley), to request other hon. Members who took an interest in the question to allow a Division to be taken. It was at that moment that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury interposed, and if there had been obstruction it was solely attributive to the right hon. Gentleman who moved the closure. Other people had a character at stake in that House as well as the right hon. Gentleman; and, therefore, he could not allow the remarks which had been made to pass by unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman could, at any time after half-past 9 o'clock, have appealed to the House to take a Division. He (Mr. Heneage) would, however, tell the right hon. Gentleman why he did not take that course. He refrained from taking a Division because he knew that he was in a minority, and although that fact was known to himself, much as he should have liked to have defeated the Bill, he was restrained from moving the closure, because the means by which he acquired his knowledge prevented him from taking advantage of it. He challenged the Government to deny that the debate was not allowed to be continued until the attendance of the supporters of the Government enabled them to take a Division.

said, he thought the House was entitled to look at the proposal of the Government from another aspect. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was himself in a panic, and appeared to have lost his head. He was constantly making his blunders, and there was a fear that they would be continued in an aggravated manner as the Session proceeded. It was most desirable that the proposal of the Government for making provision for the National Defences should not be considered by the House in any sense as if there was a panic. The right hon. Gentleman could have done no more than he now proposed if war had been imminent or actually declared. He could only have declared to the House that there was not an hour to lose; that the country was in a defenceless and dangerous position; and that it was necessary immediately to put aside every other question in order to put the country in a condition of defence. He had no wish to refer to what had taken place in "another place;" but he thought the House must be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government did not appear to have any well-matured policy on military and naval expenditure, or upon any other question that went along with great questions of high policy. He believed the House would be acting wisely if they asked the Government to postpone this question until after the Whitsuntide Holidays, when probably most hon. Members would by that time have been able to study the interesting and instructive discussion which had just taken place in "another place." To come back to the manner in which Her Majesty's Government were putting forward the Public Business. They all knew that Her Majesty's Ministers had treated the question of the salary of the under Secretary for Ireland as if it were the most important question they had in hand. So much haste had been shown to push forward the Bill to provide a salary of £1,500 a-year for the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) that he (Mr. Illingworth) was disposed to think the Government were under some obligation of which the House was ignorant, and that the Bill was a sop thrown to a certain section of hon. Members on the other side of the House. Certainly the Government must be under some private undertaking of which the House had no knowledge, or otherwise it would be inconceivable that the time of the House should have been frittered away upon such a frivolous proposal. It was quite possible that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had pushed the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) into a corner because he did not like the terms of the Resolution which had been placed on the Paper; but there was ample justification for saying that the unemployed, both in the towns and the country, were of opinion that Parliament might occupy itself much more satisfactorily in considering the great social and economic problems of the day than it was in the habit of doing. When it was seen that such indecent haste was shown for the introduction of changes into our Army and Navy system, and that great social problems were thrust aside for them, he thought the country would see that the present Government was one almost entirely of profession, and had failed in their duty with regard to economy and in all other respects.

said, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to reconsider his position with regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend. It was well known throughout the House that the Motion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst) was the subject of great interest on the part of the public, for it dealt with the sad problems that were thrust upon them periodically when the cold weather came on. The supporters of the Motion had placed their views before the Ministry in the hope that they might be able to hold out some prospect of aid to the suffering masses. He could not help thinking that the conduct of the Government in postponing the Motion was due to a desire to shirk responsibility which would be thrown upon them if the Motion were carried. He could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the crumb of comfort which he had offered to the hon. Member for West Nottingham when he said that Government might be able to come to his Motion in the course of the evening. That he thought was, indeed, adding insult to injury. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that a discussion of one or two hours would be sufficient to decide that for which the supporters of the Motion considered a whole day should be devoted? But, even if half or two-thirds of that time were taken, did the right hon. Gentleman believe that it would be possible for them to go into all the details of this gigantic problem? He thought the Imperial Defence Bill could wait its turn. There were some of them who believed that great home questions were as important as great foreign questions; that in the past too much money and time had been wasted on foreign affairs; and that in the future more of the time of the House should be devoted to the welfare of the masses. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham would divide the House on this question, in order to show who were in favour of this all-important subject receiving proper attention at the hands of the Government.

said, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of his action, which had been commented upon by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. As he (Mr. T. M. Healy) had stated last night, he had not the least objection whatever to the Government getting on with the National Defence Question, if they were really serious in their desire to do so; but what he objected to was their putting down as the first question the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland (Salary) Bill—he objected to give £1,500 a-year to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) for the reasons which had been over and over again expressed. He thought he might say, in the words of an American orator, that he was willing to give "millions for defence, but not a cent for tribute." The Government had put down this Bill on Monday before the Land Commission Bill, and they had done the same on previous days. The latter measure was one in which the Irish Members, it was needless to say, were greatly interested; but, as in the case of the little boys at Do the boys Hall, the Government were determined to make them take their treacle before breakfast. He thought that was an inverted mode of procedure. They had never been able to get a satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury with regard to the discussion of this measure, and they always found that if they obtained a Morning Sitting the right hon. Gentleman immediately dove-tailed to it another measure. What he wished to say to the right hon. Gentleman with reference to this conduct was that he did not get the support of his Colleagues; they might give him their countenance, but they did not give him their counsel. It seemed to him that many of them were very glad to see him floundering in this business. He could see last night the malicious pleasure which some of his Colleagues evinced in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not conducting Public Business in the manner in which they thought they could conduct it if only they enjoyed his place. That was the way in which the inferior Members of the Government unfortunately acted on occasions of this kind, bearing out the proverb that persons were able to bear with great equanimity the misfortunes of their friends. He thought the Government had taken a most unfortunate course with regard to the Under Secretary's Bill. They objected to that course, because the Government had already got a man for the post; and it was said that the Bill was not to create but to regulate the Office. But how was it to regulate the Office if the House was only asked to give the right hon. and gallant Gentleman £1,500 a-year? The effect of the opposition of Members on that side of the House would be that his salary would only date from the passing of the Bill; and if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had managed to screw a large amount of rack-rents from his tenants, they had fined him, at any rate, to the extent of £100.

If we have interfered but little in this debate, it is because we are anxious to get to the next Order upon the Paper—namely, the Imperial Defence Bill, and because it did not seem necessary to answer some of the observations which have been made. It has been said that we wish to evade the important discussion which is to be inaugurated by the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Broadhurst). Hon. Members will bear in mind that we pledged ourselves to make a House for the hon. Member, and that but for the action taken by the hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) the Motion would have stood on the Paper for 9 o'clock to-night, and we should have proceeded at 9 o'clock to discuss that Motion. I think that any hon. Member who views the circumstances with fairness and impartiality in his mind will at once see that the suggestion that we wish to evade discussion is utterly absurd. The suggestion can only have been pressed into the debate in order to prejudice our case. An hon. Member has complained of the management of the Business of the House by the First Lord of the Treasury. Well, I am glad to be able to point to the results which have already been reached this Session. Business is more advanced than it has been at this time in many previous Sessions. [An hon. MEMBER: No thanks to you.] We have listened with great patience while much insult has been heaped upon us. Hon. Members opposite seem hardly able to keep silence when a defence of any Member of the Government is made on this side of the House—a defence which we are entitled to make, and one which I think any Gentleman who is accustomed to decent society would tolerate. The interruptions and laughter which proceed from hon. Members above and below the Gangway are sometimes such as to make right hon. Gentlemen and many hon. Gentlemen on the Benches opposite rather ashamed of the conduct of their friends. I was saying that we are content with the management of the Business of the House, and the country knows that this year we have, under the guidance of my right hon. Friend, been able to bring the Business of the country to a more advanced point than has been possible during many past Sessions. It, therefore, ill becomes hon. Members, under these circumstances, to cast blame on my right hon. Friend. It has been said that we are forcing on the Parliamentary Under Secretary Bill, and hon. Members opposite have expressed surprise that the word "Obstruction" should have fallen from the First Lord of the Treasury during his remarks about the opposition which that Bill had met with. But do hon. Members remember that yesterday, if I am not mistaken, was the seventh night of their opposition to this Bill? It is a Bill of two clauses only, and the principle involved is very small. That principle is one which has been generally accepted in practice by right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. It is that a man is entitled to his hire, and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, by drawing their salaries when in Office, have shown their respect for that principle. The hon. and learned Member for Longford (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that we have got the man, and was not that enough? And another hon. Member has hinted that we must be under some private obligations to the right hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet. No; we are not under a private obligation; but we are under an obligation of honour. If the right hon. and gallant Member is doing his part in the service of his country, he is as much entitled to his salary as any other Member of the Government, or as any right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite would be. We shall go through with the Bill, because we think this an obligation of honour. This is the reason why we consider it absolutely necessary. We, moreover, do not think it would be right for hon. Members opposite, after taking seven nights in discussing that Bill—["Oh!"]—well, at any rate, after discussing it on seven separate occasions—to occupy more of the time of Parliament, when there is but one clause left in the Bill, which might have been disposed of in an hour. Everything has been said about it that could have been said—["Hear, hear!"]—and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) cheers that, and yet he, with others, is continually voting for more of the time of the House in order further to discuss this Bill. It would be well if we could accept that as the conduct of hon. Members opposite—that their object in discussing this Bill upon seven occasions is to drive the majority to do that which they had objected to on so many occasions—that it was to get the majority to surrender their will to the minority, and that that could be accomplished, provided they only spoke often enough, and interposed their opposition with sufficient frequency. It was not my intention to interfere in this debate; but I must protest once more against the injustice of Members in placing blame for this matter upon the First Lord of the Treasury, who has been able to advance the Business of the House in such a way as even to receive the compliments of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed us that the Bill for granting a salary to the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Ireland, which has been the unfortunate cause of all these difficulties—for it is quite evident that the embarrassment in which we are placed and the censure passed on the First Lord of the Treasury is due to that—is pressed forward by the Government because it is a matter of honourable obligation to provide the salary, and because the labourer is worthy of his hire. If it is a matter of honourable obligation to provide this salary, why was it not provided last year? Last year it was made a matter of boasting by the Government that they were providing gratuitously for the valuable services of this right hon. and gallant Gentleman. You cannot take it both ways. You cannot make it a matter of boast and credit to yourselves that you are giving us the great advantage of such valuable services for nothing, and then plead that it is a matter of honourable obligation which makes you invade the rights of private Members to furnish a salary for that purpose. For my part, I am bound to say I do not recognize the argument in the other form in which it has been put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He says you have enjoyed the benefit of these services, and therefore you ought to be ready to pay for them. I am not ready to pay for them, and I do not recognize the benefit of the services. I am not of opinion that they are, or have been, beneficial. I do not ask how far it is the fault of the right hon. Gentleman; but I am bound to say that, quite independent of the fact that this is the creation by Parliament of a totally unnecessary Office, it has been made the occasion for selecting for that Office a Gentleman whose appointment, in the unfortunate circumstances in which it stands, is no less than an insult to the people of Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that you have objected to this again and again, whereas everything that had to be said could be said in the course of an hour. I have never heard anything of an obstructive or over-prolonged debate upon this Bill. I was not present—[Ministerial Cheers]—I was going to say that I was absent from the House during a portion of the evening when, as I understand, there was a prolonged debate—not prolonged by the opponents of the Bill, but by its supporters, from a dread of being placed in a minority. If, therefore, there is any foundation for the complaint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it is a complaint against his own side of the House. But when the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects to our repeating our objections to a Bill like this, I say this is the very purpose for which the House provides successive stages in a Bill, so that when a Bill is judged by a large portion of the House to be of a most objectionable character, both in principle and effect, that objection may be repeated at every stage of the Bill, and I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer may fully expect that he will see that objection repeated upon the stages of the Bill which yet remain; not, I hope, in obstruction to the general Business, but undoubtedly in such a manner as to draw the attention of the House more and more to the nature and character of a Bill which I think to be one of the most objectionable ever submitted to us upon the creation of an Office, with regard to which, if it lays an honourable obligation on the Government to promote it, it is an equally honourable obligation on the objectors to record their votes again and again in condemnation of it. I mean to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton, not simply on account of the objectionable character of the Bill, but on account of the fact that this Bill—being one of the simplest scope, and one affecting personal convenience—was last night most improperly preferred to other measures of the greatest importance concerning the national defences. That precedence having been given, it is proposed to inflict the penalty of that error—to call it by a mild name—upon my hon. Friend the Member for West Nottingham, and through my hon. Friend upon those vast masses of the labouring classes of this country who take an interest in his Motion alike legitimate and profound.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct an error into which he has fallen. He has told us that if there was Obstruction, the Obstruction was Conservative; that there were speeches made on our side with a view of delaying a Division until a majority were secure for the Government. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman got his information from.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) made the statement about an hour before.

Wherever the right hon. Gentleman got his information from he was wrongly informed.

What I stated was this—that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House never asked the House to come to a decision upon the Amendment of which I had charge until 25 minutes past 10, and that at any time between half-past 9 and half-past 10 he could have had a Division if he had asked for one, and I said that the reason he did not do so was very well known to himself—because he did not desire a Division at that time. But I did not say that speeches were made on the opposite side of the House. In that my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was mistaken.

Now we know exactly what Tory Obstruction means. It means that the closure was not put on one hour and a-half earlier than it was. The right hon. Member for Mid Lothian will now perceive that he gave a totally wrong version of the information which he received, because he distinctly stated that the Division was delayed by the speeches made on the Government side.

The right hon. Gentleman said nothing of the kind.

I think the right hon. Gentleman could, and would, contradict me if I were wrong. The only speech made on this side of the House was made by the hon. and learned Member for Stafford (Mr. Staveley Hill); and if that was made with a view of aiding the Government, my hon. and learned Friend disguised his friendship in a very singular manner, because he spoke against the Bill. Now, if the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian tells us that we boasted last Session that the Under Secretary was to take Office without salary, he will allow me, for the second time, to correct him. We never boasted anything of the kind. The condition of Public Business last Session was such that everyone who was in the House knows that it was absolutely impossible to ask Parliament to pass the Bill which is now before the House. The duty which was cast upon us then remains a duty, though we were unable to carry it through last Session. We were bound by every principle of public policy and honour to carry out that duty, and we mean to do so. The right hon. Gentleman has attacked my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said that the labourer was worthy of his hire, and said—"We do not admit that we get any benefit from his services. We do not want his services. We do not think he ought to be paid for them." Well, Sir, my experience of Members of the Opposition is that they very seldom think that the Members of the Government are worth their salaries. If I had often been tempted to think that the right hon. Gentleman opposite was, when he was in power, considerably overpaid for any benefit conferred on the country, I never thought that was a sufficient reason to come down to the House and oppose a Vote for giving him his salary. The right hon. Gentleman worked hard and con- scientiously for what he thought was the interest of the country. I think he was mistaken—we all on this side of the House thought he was mistaken. But that did not make it a matter of public policy that the right hon. Gentleman should be deprived of his salary. I cannot admit that the criterion of merit laid down by the right hon. Gentleman that the action of Ministers must meet the approval of the Opposition Bench is one that will be accepted by the House. Then the right hon. Gentleman talked about our overriding the convenience of the House. Who is it that is overriding the convenience of the House? The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that, because he objects to a Bill, he has not only an unlimited right but an unlimited duty to discuss that Bill. If that principle is accepted you give up every argument against Obstruction once and for ever. The whole principle, as I understand the matter, in which in restoring to Parliament the right to manage its own Business is that when a question has once been adequately discussed and accepted by the majority, the minority shall accept the situation. It is a pure accident—a Parliamentary accident I may call it—that so many opportunities have been given for the discussion of this particular Bill. The Bill having been brought in by a Resolution of the House, undoubtedly opportunities have been given to hon. Members, which they have very seldom availed themselves of with regard to other Bills, of discussing the question on four or five separate stages; and every opportunity has been used for repeating over and over again the same stock arguments and the same violent personal invective. I deny the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman opposite; I deny that the Opposition have a duty cast upon them of repeating and repeating and repeating indefinitely precisely the same speeches, precisely the same arguments, and precisely the same statements; and I deny, above all, that the Government are bound to regulate their policy in managing the Business of this House by the degree of Obstruction it may please the right hon. Gentleman to oppose to them. If you once admit that principle it is perfectly clear that the persons who will arrange the order of Business will not be the Government, who are re- sponsible for tat business, out the irresponsible Gentlemen of the Opposition, who think they have a right to speak as long and as often as they like on every question. I confess I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will only examine into the principles which underlie the speech he has just made to the House, he will see that they are absolutely subversive of the conduct of the whole of the Public Business of the House; and on that ground, if on no other, I object to the Amendment he supports.