I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether a Government Inspector was recently sent down to inquire into certain charges made against Mr. Rowland Hills, the public vaccinator at Denaby, Yorkshire; whether it was proved to the satisfaction of the Inspector that Mr. Hills had made an arrangement with a man to vaccinate babies, to charge for the same, and then to give the parents unsigned certificates, which were subsequently signed by Mr. Hills, and presented to the Doncaster Guardians, when they were again charged for,' as though the vaccination had been free; and what further action the Local Government Board intend to take in the matter?

One of the Medical Inspectors of the Local Government Board has recently made inquiries into alleged irregularities in the performance of public vaccination in the Doncaster Union. There appears to bo no doubt that Mr. Hills, the public vaccinator, had made an arrangement by which children were vaccinated by a Mr. Smith, an unqualified medical practitioner. The certificates of vaccination were filled in with the usual particulars by Mr. Smith, who vaccinated the children, and were then submitted by him to Mr. Hills, who, after signing them, as having himself performed the vaccination, forwarded the certificates to the Vaccination Offices. In some of these cases, although the vaccination fees were charged to the Guardians, payment was made to Mr. Smith by the parents. The Board have communicated with the Guardians, and requested them immediately to determine the contract with Mr. Hills, and have informed them that it will devolve upon them to consider what action they will take with regard to the cases in which they have been improperly charged with the vaccination fees.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the House will have an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Committee on the grievances of East Indian Civil Servants before any action is taken upon it; if it was intended that the Committee should report not only on the existence or non-existence of real grievances, but also on the specific remedies to be applied; whether the Government or the Under Secretary personally are pledged to the approval of the Report by the circumstance of the Under Secretary moving it in Committee, or whether he merely acted ministerially to carry out the resolutions of the Committee; and whether, if it is desired to take any action, either in the direction of conceding the recommendations of the Committee, or submitting those recommendations for the consideration of the Government in India, anything more can be done than to lay those recommendations before the Council of India in Downing Street, and to leave it to the majority of that Council to decide on a matter affecting the finances, of India, and especially payments from the Home Treasury, in accordance with the power vested in them by the Indian Councils Act?

The reply to paragraphs one and three of the question is—No, and to the second and fourth—Yes.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now fix the date for the Indian Budget Statement; and whether, in view of the fact that the Indian Councils Bill affects more than 200,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects, and that repeated undertakings have been given for its ample discussion at an early period of the Session, he will arrange that the Second Reading be taken with as little delay as possible?

I join in the expression of regret which I understand this question is intended to convey, that it has not been possible to take the Indian Budget at an earlier period in the course of the present Session. But that is due, I am afraid, to the fact that the House has debated other questions at very considerable length. In regard to the Indian Councils Bill there can be no doubt that it is a very important measure, affecting a large number of Her Majesty's subject. I also acknowledge that I have given repeated undertakings to the hon. Member that, as far as was in my power, an opportunity should be afforded for the consideration of the measure. It has not been possible to redeem those pledges. I deeply regret the fact, and I am afraid that it will not be possible to afford an adequate opportunity for the discussion of the Bill this Session. The hon. Member will see that I am unable at present to appoint a day for the Indian Budget Statement. As soon as we have got through the other business it will be taken.

In consequence of the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has just given in reference to the Indian Councils Bill, and the decided implication that it will be impossible to proceed with it in the course of the present Session, may I ask that it may be taken early in the next Session? I know that there are many Members, who, during the last two months, have specially intimated their intentions of taking part in the Debates upon it. It is quite certain that whenever it is taken there must be a long Debate on the Second Reading, seeing the number of Amendments which stand upon the Paper, and the avowed intention of raising in Committee the question of the elective principle.

I think it will be better, under the circumstances, that I should say at once that the Government will not proceed with the Bill this Session.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have decided that nothing can be done in the direction of the amalgamation of the two ancient Grammar Schools at Worcester; and whether he is aware that there is no room for two efficient schools of the kind in the same town?

The Royal Free Grammar School in Worcester could not legally be amalgamated with the Cathedral School without the consent of the governing body of the latter, the former being an open, and the latter a denominational, endowment. The Commissioners are aware that there is not room for two co-ordinate schools of the same classical type in the city. They propose, therefore, to provide that the Royal Free Grammar School shall give a practical, modern education, at a low cost.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the General Congo Treaty of Berlin, 1885, the Congo Free State undertook that merchandise imported into that country should remain free from import or transit dues; whether, in violation of that undertaking, transit duties and an export duty of 5 per cent. are now levied on all exported goods; and whether, when the Brussels Act comes into force, if ever, the Congo Free State will be at liberty to raise both import and export duties; and, if so, to what percentage?

1. The Congo Free State was a party to the provisions of the Berlin Act. 2. We are not aware that the Congo Free State levies transit dues. The Congo Act allows export dues. 3. As to import dues, the maximum under the Brussels Act will be 10 per cent. ad valorem, except as regards spirits, which will be subject to special regulations. They were sanctioned by the Brussels Conference, chiefly in order to enable the State to undertake the measures designed to extirpate the Slave Trade.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America only consented to recognise the Congo Free State on the condition that merchandise imported to that territory should remain free of Import and Transit Duties; whether the Brussels Act can be enforced according to International Law without the consent of the United States; whether at the Brussels Conference the American Envoy opposed the proposition that the Congo Free State should be permitted to levy Import Duties, and declared the Conference incompetent to modify the Berlin Treaty of 1885; and whether the United States has since given its adhesion to the Brussels Act, authorising the establishment of Import and Transit Duties by the Congo State?

(1) Yes. (2) Not as far as regards United States citizens. (3) The United States Government, at the commencement of the deliberations, raised objections to the levy of duties by the Congo State. (4) But subsequently signed a declaration relinquishing the right of the United States to the free entry of American merchandise into the Congo State, on the same conditions and within the same limits as those specified in the declaration signed by the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act. This provisional declaration is eventually to be supplemented by a Treaty.

Under the present Act will the Congo Free State be at liberty to levy both Import and Export Duties?

Yes. The Congo Free State will have the same liberty to impose Export Duties as it has now.

Will it be competent for America to send in merchandise without paying Import Duties?

My previous answer explains that point. If the American Government accedes to the Brussels Act, American merchandise will pay the same duties as that of other Powers.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the following passage in the last Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners in Lunacy (Appendix C, page 215), with reference to the Banstead Asylum—

"Applicants for discharge were also a legion during our visit. On this point we could only refer them to the Committee (having ourselves no power in the matter), and were then too often answered that they never had an opportunity of speaking to the Committee. Doubtless this answer is beyond the truth, but we fear that the changes incident to recent legislation have interfered with the regular visitation of the wards by the Asylum Committee;"

My attention has been drawn to the passage referred to in the Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy with reference to the Banstead Asylum. I have been in communication with the London County Council on the subject, and the Chairman of the Asylums Committee of the Council, who is also chairman of the Banstead Asylum Sub-Committee, states as follows:—

"The date of the Report in question is October 26th, 1889. The County Council took over the Asylums in the previous July. Therefore, these were early times to report on. I have been on the Banstead Committee of Management without a break for 10 years, formerly as a Justice, latterly as a County Councillor; and have been at every fortnightly meeting in all those years, except, perhaps, three or four. I am sure the County Councillors have visited the wards and interviewed the patients more frequently and more thoroughly than the Justices did. There has never been a break in the regular statutory visitation; and every fortnight some of the Committee inspect some of the wards and interview some inmates."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a Memorial has recently been forwarded from a large number of the Customs outport second-class clerks, praying for compensation for loss of prospects, and for re-arrange- ment of promotion, and whether the Board have declined to grant the prayer of the memorialists; whether the Treasury contemplate any immediate improvement in the position of these clerks, on the lines of the recent improvement in that of the Second Division of the Civil Service; whether a further reduction in the number of the first-class outport clerks is contemplated, and whether the vacancies in the list of clerks rising to £300 are intended to be filled up; whether it is intended to apply the seven hours system to the clerks as a body; and, if so, on what terms; and whether he will include the alleged grievances of these clerks in the inquiry which it is understood he is conducting in the matter of the outdoor branches of the Customs Service?

A Petition has been received from a number of Customs outport second-class clerks, and has been refused by the Board as unreasonable. No reduction in the number of Customs first-class outport clerks is contemplated, but, of course, no pledge can be given that the existing number shall be rigidly maintained. No vacancies in the list of clerks rising to £300 at present exist. It is not intended to apply the seven hours system to these clerks as a body, but clerks accept promotion to the first-class on the understanding that they are liable for the seven hours. I regret that I cannot extend the inquiry I have undertaken in the case of the outdoor branches so as to include these clerks.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consent to place upon the Table of the House copies of the Minutes of the Courts Martial on the men of the Grenadier Guards, recently quartered at Wellington Barracks; and will he further consider the advisability of securing to soldiers similar publicity of trial as that of civilians in Magisterial Courts, and which, by the publicity of their proceedings, aid in diminishing crime?

To produce the proceedings of these Courts Martial would not be to the benefit of the Public Service. I may, however, inform the hon. Member that perfect publicity of trial is secured to soldiers, as all Courts Martial are open Courts to which the public has free access.

said: I would venture to suggest that the House of Commons is not the proper place for discussing these proceedings.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can inform the House which of the Treaties of Commerce now existing with foreign nations expire in 1892, upon 12 months' notice on either side; whether any of the existing Treaties lapse without notice being given; if the Departmental Committee now examining the Treaties at the Board of Trade, is taking evidence upon the wishes of the commercial communities of the United Kingdom and of the colonies; and if their Report will be laid before Parliament, and opportunity be afforded for discussing it prior to any action being taken, and before the time at which notice to terminate, either wholly or in part, must be given?

The Commercial Treaties with Bulgaria, France, Italy, Montenegro, Portugal, and Spain, are terminable at various dates in 1892, upon 12 months' notice on either side, and if no such notices are given, will thereafter be terminable at 12 months' notice at any time. None of the existing Treaties lapse without notice. The Treaties Committee will, doubtless, consult the commercial bodies of this country respecting the wishes of British trade, but it is not proposed to extend their inquiries over the whole British Empire. It is not intended to depart from the course heretofore adopted in regard to the Executive having the charge and responsibility of commercial negotiations.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if anything can be done to influence the Emperor of Russia in favour of the Jews in his Empire, now threatened with severe affliction?

These proceedings, which, if they are rightly reported to us, are deeply to be lamented, concern the internal affairs of the Russian Empire, and do not admit of any interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, since the General Election in September, 1889, the Council of Government in Malta met for the first time on the 29th January, 1890, when little or nothing was done; whether it was kept closed from 29th January to 14th May; whether, just as it had got into working order, its sittings were again brought to an abrupt termination on 25th June; and whether, as; there is before the Council of Government at the present time a Motion for an Address to Her Majesty which, among other prayers, contains one for removing from the Civil List the sum of £1,000, out of which all the expenses incurred by Sir Lintorn Simmons and his suite have been ordered to be paid, he can state when it is intended that the Council of Government shall be summoned for the discussion of this Motion, and for the despatch of the business of the island?

The statement in the first paragraph of the question is correct. The delay was caused by the change of Governors owing to the death of Sir H. Torrens. The answer to the second paragraph is, Yes. The Council was adjourned on the 25th of June, after passing several important Estimates, ordinances and useful measures. It was adjourned earlier than the Governor had anticipated on account of the three un-official Members of the Executive Council sending in their resignation which has been accepted. It is hoped that others will shortly be appointed fairly representing the majority of the Council of Government, which will meet again after vacation in October next.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the decrees of the Council of Trent have been promulgated in the Island of Malta; and, if so, by whom, at what date, and under what circumstances?

I would refer the hon. Member to what was said by the Secretary of State in another place, on the 24th ultimo, namely:—

"The Legal Authorities in Malta have advised that it was duly promulgated there, that it was accepted by the Civil Authorities, and that it has ever since continued to be the Civil Law of the island. We have no information as to the date and circumstances of the promulgation."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received a letter from Mr. Savona, bearing date 12th July, 1890, on the Constitution of Malta, and the recent proceedings in the Council of Government of that island; and, if, so, whether he can state what answer, if any, has been returned to the letter in question?

I have no knowledge of any such letter.

I am prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman a copy.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what are the names of the compositions which have been used in the Navy for the first time since the date of Commander Pitt's appointment at the Admiralty; whether the experts on the late Committee or the technical Dockyard Officers have been consulted as to the efficacy of Commander Pitt's instructions for guidance in the application of compositions to the bottoms of Her Majesty's ships, and as to the applicability of these instructions to the various compositions in use in the Navy; and whether any manufacturers who supply compositions to the Admiralty have been consulted by Commander Pitt with reference to these instructions; and, if so, what firms or agents?

Apart from the compositions which have been applied experimentally, Rahtjen's composition is the one which has been adopted for the use of the Navy since the Committee made their Report. This composition was at the time under trial. The answer to the second question is "No," the Admiralty being fully able to deal with the matter themselves. The reply to the third question is "Yes," namely, the Maritime and General Improvement Company:—Messrs. Peacock and Buchan, and the Suter, Hartmann, and Rahtjen's Composition Company.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board have agreed with the London and North Western Railway Company as to the classification and Schedule to be embodied in a Provisional Order and reported upon to Parliament; and, if so, whether such Report will be made by the Board during the present Session; and whether, in the event of disagreement with the Company, the Board will determine the classification and Schedule which they are of opinion ought to be adopted, and report thereupon to Parliament before the expiration of the present Session, or if they intend to postpone such Report till Parliament meets in November?

The Board of Trade have not been able to agree with the London and North Western Railway Company as to the classification and Schedule to be made applicable to them. Consequently, the Board of Trade will take the course provided for by Sub-section 6 of Section 24, and will make their Report to Parliament before the end of the present Session.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether' his attention has been called to the recent conviction, at the Central Criminal Court, of two men, named Falvey and Foskett, for stamp frauds, to the rider to the jury's verdict in the case, and to the observations of the Judge when sentencing the prisoners; whether it is a fact that there has been considerable laxity in the proper custody of the stamping dies in the Department of the Chief Superintendent of Dies at Somerset House, and who are the superior Revenue Officers primarily responsible for this neglect of duty; whether it is known how long the fraudulent practices in question have been carried on; whether there is any truth in the rumour that, owing to the circulation of fraudulent stamps upon the Stock Exchange for some time past, the State has lost several thousands of pounds of Stamp Duty; and whether any absolute knowledge on this head has been arrived at by the Treasury, and has that Department made any special and independent inquiry into the matter, or does it propose to do so?

In the absence of my right hon. Friend I will answer the question. The Board of Inland Revenue are not prepared to admit that considerable laxity in the proper custody of dies in their Stamping Department exists. These dies are kept strictly as laid down by the regulations for which they are responsible, but on the rider to the Jury's verdict, in the case of "The Queen v. Falrey and Foskitt," being brought to their notice, the Board themselves, with the assistance of their solicitor, commenced a searching inquiry, which is still proceeding, with a view of ascertaining, if possible, the person or persons responsible for the fraud, and of making, if found desirable, stricter regulations as to the custody of the dies. There is no reason to believe that these frauds have been going on for any length of time, and the evidence disclosed at the Police Court and at the trial only pointed to the fraudulent use of dies on three dates in March of this year. There is no reason to give credit to any rumour that the State has lost several thousands of pounds of Stamp Duties. The facts have not yet been sent officially to the Treasury, pending the inquiry by the Board of Inland Revenue, but they will be reported on as soon as that inquiry is completed.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is true that the Sugar Convention Bill has passed the French Chambers; and what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to fulfil the international engagement made by this country?

The Bill which has been passed by the French Chambers is not the Sugar Convention Bill, but one of domestic policy, designed to recoup the State for the great profits which the sugar refiners are said to have been making by the existing system. As regards the second paragraph of the question, the time for the ratification of the Convention expired on the 1st of August.

I beg-to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether his attention has been called to the decay of the new stone-work on the west side of Westminster Hall?

The new stone-work of the new buildings on the west side of Westminster Hall has been carefully examined, and, with the exception of two or three small stones, which are evidently soft, there is no decay. Some interesting stones which were taken from the old buttresses have, however, been raised in corresponding positions in the new buttresses and these, having been covered up in the old buildings for many years are, now that they are again exposed to the atmosphere, showing signs of decay on the surface, but this, after a time, will probably cease to a great extent. With respect, however, to the new stone-work which has been used as a facing to the main wall in the interior of the Hall, I regret to say that, from some reason which cannot at present be explained, certain patches of the work are undoubtedly decaying on the surface, and, strange to say, in the same places as the decay had principally occurred in the old stonework before the repairs were effected. The architect, Mr. Pearson, is at present quite unable to account for this mysterious decay, and assures me that the stone selected for the work (Ketton) is the best for the London atmosphere, and this opinion would appear to be borne out by its standing well on the outside of the building. It is believed that there must be some peculiarity in the mortar of those parts of the old wall where the decay is taking place, and I intend to have the matter thoroughly investigated at once, with a view of ascertaining the cause, if possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty what information he has as to the firing of the heavy guns of H.M.S. Hero and Inflexible (the most powerful ships of the squadron which actually fired their heavy guns) during the present manœuvres on Friday last; whether it supports the account in the Times, of 4th August, that—

"One of the turret guns of the Hero could not be fired during the greater part of the practice;"

"The guns could not be run in, and that it was therefore necessary to take the pistons out, which could not be safely done at sea. If the operation had been real warfare instead of peaceable target practice half the heavy armament of these two powerful ships would have been disabled early in the action, not by the fire of the enemy but by their own inherent defects."

I also beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is correct that, during the heavy gun practice off the Scilly Islands on Friday last, two of the four 80-ton guns on board the Inflexible were for a considerable time disabled by accidents to their hydraulic gear, and that, on Saturday, one of the 44-ton guns of the Hero was disabled from the same cause; and whether, in consequence of these (and similar accidents during the Manœuvres of last year), Her Majesty's Government will consent to the appointment of a Departmental or Select Committee, to inquire into the whole system of gunnery in connection with the Navy, and more especially for the purpose of ascertaining whether the proposals for arming the ironclads now building under the Naval Defence Act, with big guns, are the most suitable for Naval warfare?

I also wish to ask the noble Lord whether it is true, as stated in the newspapers, that at heavy gun target practice off the Scilly Isles, on Friday last, two of the four 80-ton guns on board the Inflexible, and one of the two 44-ton guns on board the Hero became totally disabled; and will he inform the House who is responsible for the defective construction of these guns?

No reports have as yet been received at the Admiralty of failure in the hydraulic arrange- ments for working the heavy guns of the Inflexible and Hero. As regards the Inflexible, all the 80-ton guns were in continuous use for 10 consecutive hours at the bombardment of Alexandria, firing the maximum charges of powder the whole time, and there was not the slightest failure of any sort whatever at any time in any of the hydraulic arrangements during the whole period of the action in question. As regards the Hero, her heavy guns have been continuously used for instruction during the last two years in the training of seamen gunners at Portsmouth, and during the whole of that period there has been no failure in the hydraulic arrangements for working the heavy guns. I have full confidence in my gunnery advisers and the Board of Admiralty are thoroughly satisfied as to the efficiency and system of working heavy guns in the Navy, and there is, therefore, no intention of appointing a Committee to inquire into the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can now state the result of the official inquiry as to the jamming and other defects in the new magazine rifle, mentioned in the Times report of the recent practice at Bisley?

I have not yet received a Report, and I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone the question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the last Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, and subsequently, the British Government was diplomatically represented at the Papal Court of Rome by a functionary, who, although nominally attached to the British Legation of Tuscany, was, in fact, accredited to the Pope of Rome?

At the time referred to, and subsequently, an Attaché to the British Mission in Tuscany resided at Rome, and was in confidential communication with the Papal Government. But he was not accredited to the Holy See.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in the "Reports, Police (Counties and Boroughs)" for 1889, the tables on pages 118 and 119 do not give the population according to the Census of 1871, so as to be uniform with the similar tables on pages 222, 223, 318, and 319, and that the table on pages 318 and 319 entirely omits the population in the case of about 31 boroughs; whether he will consent to a re-issue of the three tables, so as to make them uniform and complete; and whether he will take steps to prevent a repetition of these omissions?

The three tables were prepared by the Inspectors, and it is true there is some slight want of uniformity in them. I will give instructions, so that hereafter this may be remedied. The 31 boroughs have not been omitted, but having, in pursuance of the Local Government Act, been merged in counties, their figures are included in the County Returns.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith whether he is aware that in the new scheme for the administration of the Church and Poor's land of the township of Defford, in the County of Worcester, the Charity Commissioners have stipulated that the three representative Trustees shall have a ratal qualification of not less than £15, whereby all members of the working classes of the district, and also any other person occupying a house without land attached, will be entirely excluded from the administration of the charity; whether he is aware that instead of the share of the poor in the fund being distributed in coal, as hitherto, it is intended that this shall only take place after a preference has been shown by subscriptions to dispensary, infirmary, hospital, convalescent home, and provident clubs, a method of distribution which is generally objected to by the people of the country districts; and whether the Commissioners intend to take any action in the matter?

According to the original Trusts of the endowment of the Church and Poor's Land of Defford, the Trustees are to be "landowners of Defford, which are of the best, largest, and ablest estates there," and the Commissioners consider that their proposal fairly represents the original qualification. The provisions for the application of income, which are inserted in the draft scheme, are those in general use in schemes for dole charities; they were approved by a Select Committee in 1884; they do not give preference to any one of the several alternate modes of application suggested, of which distribution in coal and other articles in kind is one.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government has entered into negotiations with France respecting Madagascar; and, if so, whether they will give the House an opportunity of pronouncing a judgment before concluding a Treaty on the subject?

I must ask the hon. Member to postpone the question until Thursday. I think I shall then be able to give him a more satisfactory answer than I could give him to-day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the case that Sections 1 and 2 of Article III. of the Anglo-German Agreement define the boundaries of the Cape Colony and the German Territories; whether the Cape Government have been consulted as to these boundaries; and whether it is the intention of the Government to consult the Cape Ministry as to the further delimitation of the Cape Territory at Walfisch Bay, before offering a settlement, or going to arbitration, as defined in Clause 2 of Article III. of the Anglo-German Agreement?

As this question only appeared on the Paper to-day I must also ask the hon. Member to postpone it. Perhaps before question time is over I may be able to answer it, but I cannot at this moment.

said: Section 1 of Article 3 speaks of the Orange River as a boundary. As this made no change in the status quo, there was no question on which consultation was required by the Cape Government. The remainder of the section and the 2nd section do not define the boundaries of the Cape Colony; the contiguous territories belong to the Crown Protectorate of Bechuanaland, and to Khama's country, which is under Imperial protection. As regards Walfisch Bay, Her Majesty's Government have complete knowledge of the question in dispute, as stated on behalf of the Cape and on behalf of Germany. They would give the Cape Government every opportunity of strengthening their case before going to arbitration.

Was the right hon. Gentleman mistaken yesterday when he said that the Cape Colony would not be considered because its interests were not affected? As its interests are affected, will he carry out his pledge of May 19, that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to ascertain and give due aonsideration to the opinion of the colonies before the question is finally settled?

I have nothing to add to the very full answer I have given to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a police constable named Marr, who, at the Manchester Assizes in December, 1888, was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, being at the same time severely censured by the Judge for having perjured himself, has since his release been re-admitted into the Force, and is at the present time serving in the D Division of the Manchester City Police, or is on the probation list, with the view of being reinstated in the Police Force; and whether he can make any representations to the Police Authority in Manchester on the subject?

Yes, Sir; it is the fact that this man is on the probation list in consequence of there being a strong feeling among the Local Authorities that he was not guilty of the offence of which he was accused. It is not the fact, as alleged, that he was severely censured by the learned Judge.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any further information as to the five prisoners incarcerated in the prison of Erzeroum for a full twelvemonth, namely, Bedros Athamian and four others, and as to the five prisoners imprisoned for the last three years in the gaol of Erzingian, namely, Ohannes Kaladjian, Boghos Berberian, Nichan K. Artzruni d'Eguin, Nichan Akevnian, and an Armenian priest of Seghert; whether he is aware that their only offence was having a patriotic song, written in pencil, in their wallets, which they had not published in any way, as is necessary for conviction according to Turkish law; and whether Moussa Bey has been brought to a second trial, as was reported was to be done; and, if so, what stage has the trial reached?

The Grand Vizier denies that there are any Christian Armenians either at Erzeroum or at Erzingian who have been kept in prison any length of time without trial. Moussa Bey has not yet been put on his trial again, but he has not been allowed to leave Constantinople.

I had intended to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the report of a libel action tried at the recent Manchester Assizes before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams, wherein it was stated that the police had handed over to the plaintiffs in the case a petition against a house which it was alleged or suspected was used for immoral purposes, and if it is customary to treat such communications as privileged; and whether the police exceeded their duty in handing the document to the tenants of the house in question, upon which letter the case was based; but I will postpone it until another day.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British Consuls in the Ottoman dominions enjoy the right or are granted permission to visit State prisons; whether, in that event, they ever do so; whether Her Majesty's Government are in possession of any Consular Reports upon the condition of Turkish prisons; and, should no such Reports be in existence, whether the Government will direct Her Majesty's Representative at Constantinople to request the Porte to give British Consuls facilities to test the accuracy of recent statements as to the horrible state of the prison in Uskup, and the habitual use of torture there and in other prisons of Macedonia?

I am now able to reply to a question put by the hon. Member for Stoke on the 31st July, that inquiries have been made with regard to the reports appearing in the Daily News of the 29th of July; that the manager of the Salonica Railway emphatically contradicts those statements, and states that 10 months ago two Albanian women were run down and killed by an engine, and that, in consequence, some of their relatives a week afterwards fired on a train, but did no injury, and that there has been no repetition of any such outrage. It appears, therefore, that the information furnished by the Daily News correspondent that the stoker and three Mussulman passengers were killed is not correct. Her Majesty's Government have received the further information that the correspondent—a German gentleman named Weitz—who was expelled from Servia last winter for inventing sensational news, did not visit Pristina, as represented by him, but only went to Nievsovitz, and returned the same day to Uskup.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Fnreign Affairs whether it is the fact, as stated by the Daily News correspondent at Erivan, in the issue of the 4th instant, that Martini-Henry rifles have been distributed by orders from Constantinople to the Kurds of Moosh, Bitlis, Van, Bayazid, and Alashgerd; whether the Turkish troops, in obedience to their instructions, shoot down any Armenians found in possession of firearms; whether the arming of Mussulmans and dis- armament of the Christians in Bulgaria immediately preceded and occasioned the massacres in that country in 1876; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose to warn the Porte of the probable consequences of similar action in Armenia?

We have received no information of the statements mentioned in the first and second paragraphs. As to the third, full particulars of the events of 1876 in Bulgaria will be found in the Blue Book presented to Parliament at the time. There might be much said for and against such a statement. As to the fourth paragraph, I have already stated that I must decline to give any particulars as to communication which Her Majesty's Government may consider it expedient to make to the Porte.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of the Trade if, having regard to the unanimity of the Select Committee upon Merchandise Marks as to the desirablity of the public prosecution either on the part of the Board of Trade or of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, in respect of offences against "The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887," and to the improbability of the House offering any serious opposition to the carrying out of such recommendation, he can introduce and pass a short Bill to that effect should legislative sanction be necessary?

As I have not yet had an opportunity of seeing the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, which has not yet been circulated, I am not in a position to give an answer to the question; but when I have done so, it will be my duty to consider, in conjunction with other Departments of the Government, what course should be adopted. I am not sure that legislation would be necessary, but there would be no time to undertake it during the present Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, during the last Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel and subsequently, the British Government was diplomatically repre- sented at the Papal Court of Rome by a functionary who, although nominally attached to the British Legation of Tuscany, was in, fact accredited to the Pope of Rome?

At the time referred to, and subsequently, an Attaché to the British Mission in Tuscany resided at Rome, and was in confidential communication with the Papal Government; but he was not accredited to the Holy See.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there are any Papers in the Foreign Office relating to the Special Mission of the Duke of Norfolk to the Vatican in 1887; and, if there are, whether they can be laid before Parliament?

; There are some Despatches in the case of the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk, and if it is desired they could be produced, but they are purely formal; there is nothing of a political character in them.

I wish also to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether there are any Papers in the Foreigh Office relating to the Mission of Sir George Errington to the Vatican, and, if there are, whether they can be laid before Parliament?

There is an extensive correspondence reaching from 1881 to 1885 in the Foreign Office relating to Sir George Errington's communications with the Vatican, which were left for future Secretaries of State in accordance with the undertaking given by Mr. Gladstone in 1883. As many of them relate to individuals, or to questions affecting Foreign States, they would require careful examination before any decision could be taken as to the possibility of presenting them to Parliament.

Were there not two Missions of the Duke of Norfolk to Rome?

The Duke of Norfolk did go twice: whether there were two Missions I cannot say.

Were there not two separate charges against the public moneys?

I think not.

If the right hon. Gentleman produces any Papers to the House in connection with the Duke of Norfolk Mission, will he produce all with regard to Sir George Errington? I would remind him that when the matter was before the House recently he undertook, at the request of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian (Mr. Gladstone) to look into the correspondence of previous Missions as well, and to consider whether they could not be brought before the House at the same time.

It is perfectly accurate to say that I did undertake to consider whether I could produce a sort of narrative of the communications that had passed between successive Governments through the medium of gentlemen at Rome and the Vatican. That is a matter that will involve considerable labour and some time, and, therefore, I am not able to give any decision at present.

Do we understand that the matter will be considered at a future time?

Certainly.

With regard to the ambiguous reply of the right hon. Gentleman as to the Mission of the Duke of Norfolk, I wish to ask if he was sent to Rome twice, and received different instructions on each occasion?

The hon. Gentleman will see that I am not prepared to answer questions of this kind off-hand. I can simply answer the question on the Paper of which I have had notice.

I have answered the question already. On one occasion on which the Duke of Norfolk went to Rome he had no Mission whatever from Her Majesty's Government, and the second time it was on a purely formal and complimentary Mission.

Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to produce that portion of the correspondence relating exclusively to Ireland?

I am not aware that any portion of the correspondence relates exclusively to Ireland, and, therefore, can give no undertaking of the kind.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether Sir G. Errington's negotiations with the Vatican from 1881 to 1885 were such as to constitute his proceedings there a Mission in the ordinary sense of the word.

My hon. Friend will see that this is a question which is more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact. Sir G. Errington did not occupy the position of an accredited Ambassador or Minister to the Holy See, but, undoubtedly, he was the medium for making communications between the Government of Great Britain and the Holy See.

Did Mr. Errington receive any appointment or any remuneration for his services?

I believe he was made a Baronet afterwards.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Morning Post of 14th July, from the Secretary to the Royal Commission appointed by the; late Government in 1884 on the Housing of the Working Classes, in which the writer says that—

"Cardinal Manning was accorded his precedence on that Commission not as a matter of courtesy, but as a personage of princely rank;"

I have no official knowledge of what took place in 1884 under the Government of the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian, and no responsibility in respect to it. As Her Majesty's Government do not at present contemplate the appointment of any Cardinal upon any Royal Commission, it does not seem necessary to make any provisions with respect to the precedence which would be accorded to a Cardinal in such a case. The point raised in the second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question is a purely legal point, which I cannot undertake to answer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether an inquiry under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act has been instituted in the town of Tipperary; and, if so, for what purpose; and whether Mr. McCurtin was summoned to give evidence on the 29th July, and on his refusing to be sworn was committed to gaol for a week, and was taken handcuffed through the town on his way to the gaol; and, if so, for what reason handcuffs were used?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, when Mr. William M'Curtin was being conveyed to Clonmel Gaol on the 29th ultimo, he was handcuffed by the police; what was Mr. William M'Curtin's offence, was he a first-class misdemeanant, and is it usual to put handcuffs on such prisoners; and what was the offence of Morgan Hayes, lately sent to prison from Tippsrary, was he a first-class misdemeanant, and was he handcuffed to a prisoner who had several times been convicted of robbery?

With the permission of the House I shall now also reply to the two questions of the hon. Member for South Tipperary on the same subject. The inquiry referred to is not one under the statute mentioned; but is the ordinary Magisterial investigation constituted and authorised in indictable cases by the Petty Sessions Act, Section 9, Sub-section 2. The questions asked witnesses are being confined to the subject-matter of the inquiry. M'Curtin was, under the powers contained in that Act, committed in custody for eight days. Handcuffs were used as a crowd was observed to be collecting, and an attempted rescue was apprehended. A man named Morgan Hayes was sent to prison for seven days, with hard labour, in default of paying a fine of 10s. for an assault on a constable when on duty. He was handcuffed to a man who was convicted at the same Court of a minor offence. No record can be found of any recent convictions against that prisoner of the nature indicated in the question.

Why were these gross indignities inflicted upon persons accused of trifling offences?

In one of the cases there was a charge of throwing an explosive.

The only charge against Mr. M'Curtin was that he refused to be sworn, and was sent to gaol for seven days as a first-class misdemeanant.

The charge before the Magistrate was throwing an explosive, and Mr. M'Curtin refused to give evidence. In other words, he refused to assist in the administration of justice.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state any fact in justification for the belief that a rescue was apprehended?

Such matters must be left to the judgment of the police, who, of course, must act at the moment.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether full pay during sick leave has recently been granted to officers of the Post Office in England and Scotland; and whether the measure is to apply also to Ireland; and, if so, why the Belfast office has not been included in the new scheme?

Yes, Sir; the new rule granting full pay during sick leave applies to Ireland, and it is already in operation at Belfast.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can explain what special circumstances influenced His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to interfere to procure a licence for Charles Mitchell, of Shantonagh, County Monaghan, in opposition to the wishes of the inhabitants of the locality, the clergy of various denominations, and the landlord of the townland, and the repeated refusals of the Magistrates and the County Court Judge to grant such licence; whether he can give the name and denomination of the clergyman who is alleged to favour the granting of a licence to Mitchell, and give the number of Mitchell's customers, in addition to the inhabitants of the police barrack, the only house within a considerable distance of the licensed house, who are said to be anxious for drinking facilities; whether it is a fact that two of the three Resident Magistrates who attended the Castleblayney Licensing Sessions on the 20th July, reside outside the County Monaghan; and, if so, where do they reside; can he explain why they attended the Castleblayney Licensing Sessions; whether Mitchell's temporary retail licence will in the meantime be renewed; and whether he will advise the Lord Lieutenant not to give Mitchell any further help, either by the aid of Resident Magistrates, or by the use of His Excellency's influence with the Board of Inland Revenue, to establish what the inhabitants of Shantonagh regard as a source of demoralisation in their midst against their declared wish?

(1 and 2) Charles Mitchell has held for some years a spirit-grocer's and beer-retailer's licence. The granting of a temporary publican's licence to Mitchell, pending the decision to be come to on his application to Quarter Sessions, was recommended by the Lord Lieutenant in the exercise of his discretion. The application to Quarter Sessions has not been opposed by the inhabitants of the locality. Two clergymen are opposed to it, and one, the Reverend Mr. Knox, a Presbyterian, favours it. I am informed that the number of Mitchell's customers in favour of the licence could not be readily ascertained, but that the great majority undoubtedly are so. (3) One of the Resident Magistrates referred to is a Magistrate for the County Monaghan, and had been acting for some months in the Castleblayney district. He lives at Armagh. The other who is likewise a Magistrate for the County Monaghan is Resident Magistrate for the greater portion of the sub-district in which the licensed premises are situated. He lives at Virginia, County Cavan. (4) They attended as Resident Magistrates connected with the Quarter Sessions district. (5) The temporary licence has been renewed until the hearing of the application at the Annual (October) Licensing Sessions.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that great inconvenience and loss is caused to the inhabitants of portions of the Emyvale district of the North Monaghan Parliamentary Division who have to travel a distance of 18 miles to attend the Revision Court held in Monaghan; and whether, as Emyvale is a Petty Sessions district, with a population of about 9,000, he will cause a Revision Court to be held there?

I fear I cannot add anything to the reply given to a similar question on this subject asked by the hon. Member on 6th September, 1886. Since that date no new circumstances have come under the notice of the Government tending to alter the decision then come to. The decision then arrived at was stated by the then Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Holmes, Dublin University), who said—

"The places for holding Revision Courts are not determined by the Revising Barristers, but by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. In selecting the places the convenience of the electors and the suitability of the accommodation are carefully considered, regard also being had to the fact that every additional Court imposes an additional charge on the ratepayers. Careful inquiry was recently made as to the expediency of holding Revision Sessions at Emyvale and Scotstown. It appeared, however, that Monaghan, which, is the market town of these districts, was probably the most convenient place for a large proportion of the voters residing therein; and as regards those at a greater distance, the Revising Barrister, by taking their cases first, was able to dispose of them on the first day of the Sessions. In any case, it is too late to make any change before the next Revision."

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Sheriff is bound to find means of conveyance for himself and his men when he is going on eviction duty, or to seize under a decree; and, if so, on what ground ships of Her Majesty's Navy are placed at the disposal of the Sheriff and his officers when going to evict tenants, or to seize for rent, on islands off the coast of Ireland?

The Sheriff, under ordinary circumstances, is bound to find the means of conveyance for himself and his assistants to effect evictions; but where the forces of the Crown are requisitioned to secure the carrying out of the law in cases where the opposition to the evictions would otherwise render its enforcement impossible, the Government have decided that the Sheriff may be afforded accommodation in Her Majesty's ships for himself and assistants, with the protecting police force when they have to proceed by sea, the Sheriff, as already explained, paying the expenses of subsistence for his party.

As this is a very important question, I wish to ask the Home Secretary if it is true that the gunboat Britomart took away from Blasket Islands the property of the fishermen; and whether Her Majesty's Government have determined not only to assist in carrying out evictions, but also to despoil the fishermen of their property?

I am afraid that I must have notice of the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether four policemen have been stationed for more than a year on Castle Island, off the West Coast of Cork; for what purpose are they stationed there; whether it is a fact that these policemen dig potatoes for the emergency men in charge of Mr. Mullasmion's evicted farm, row these emergency men into Schull, and do other work for them; and whether he can state how much it costs to maintain these four policemen?

The Constabulary Authorities report that three policemen have been stationed on Castle Island since the 17th April, 1889. The strength was increased to four men in April, 1890. They are stationed there for the protection of Mullasmion's two caretakers and a neighbouring farmer who paid his rent, and on whose property outrage has been committed. The police do not dig potatoes for the emergency men. Having to accompany the caretakers to and from the island, they assist in rowing the boat in which all are conveyed. The police do not work for these caretakers. Approximate cost, since the formation of the protection post, £235.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the death of Bridget Hoban, of Coolarn, Ballinatimon Union, County Mayo; if he is aware that the death has been caused through the neglect of the officials of the Union; that when the husband of the woman went to the doctor with an order to attend the wife on the 2nd of July, the doctor told him to go to hell; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this case?

I cannot find that there is any Union in Ireland of the name mentioned. If the hon. Member will renew the question, stating the correct name of the Union and the name of the Medical Officer against whom the allegation has been brought, the necessary inquiries shall be made.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, notwithstanding the intimation conveyed in Mr. Ward Hunt's letter to Mr. Corry, of the 11th January 1867, namely, that the Treasury concurred in the arrangements proposed for placing and maintaining the College of Science in Dublin in a state of efficiency, the proposed arrangements have never since been made, although continual applications to that effect have been received from the Dean and Council of the College; whether the last memorial in December, 1889, of the Dean and Council on the subject correctly represented that the development of the College renders it urgently necessary to extend the buildings so as to relieve the congested condition of the laboratories and library, and to meet the requirements of the yearly increasing number of students; that new chemical and metallurgical laboratories and a new lecture room are required; that the attendance of students in the college is limited by the insufficiency of the present accommodation; and that the work of professors and students is interfered with, and rendered difficult by overcrowding, want of proper ventilation, bad lighting, and by the grave structural defects and general unsuitability of the buildings; and whether steps will now be taken to make such extensions and improvements as the health of the staff and students, and the interests of the College, urgently require.

I am most anxious to see the College of Science developed and made thoroughly effective, which cannot be the case so long as the difficulties referred to in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's question exist, and I am in communication with the Treasury on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, although John Moonan, of Drogheda, was allowed 10s. expenses by the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Caraher, for attending as a witness at the Diogheda Quarter Sessions on the 22nd April last, and Mr. Thomas Brady, Drogheda, Moonan's employer, was allowed the same amount for similar attendance, Sergeant Harbourne, of Drogheda, gotcash order for these sessions, and paid Mr. Brady his expenses, but converted Moonan's 10s. to his own use; and whether he will inquire into the circumstances of the case?

The Constabulary Authorities report that the allegation that Sergeant Harbourne converted Moonan's expense allowance to his own use is without foundation. The Sergeant handed both cash orders to Mr. Brady.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland where informa tion can be found showing the extent to which the recommendations of the Royal Irish Constabulary Committee of Inquiry of 1888 have been acted upon?

As stated in reply to a question put by the hon. Member on August 6, 1889, the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry of 1883, to which it is assumed the present question refers, were dealt with partly by the statute 46 & 47 Vic. c 14, and partly by Departmental regulations. As then stated, the hon. Member can have a Return on the subject if he will put the necessary notice down on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Jasper Tulley, Editor of the Roscommon Herald, now a prisoner in Tullamore Prison, is suffering from diarrhoea; that he is still sleeping on a plank bed; that he is stripped naked for a portion of each day; and that his life is in danger; and whether he can take any steps to secure an alteration of the treatment of this prisoner?

I have not yet received a special Report on this question, but the allegations therein contained appear from another Report I have received to be unfounded. If, however, the hon. Member will repeat the question I shall obtain further information.

Since a similar question was answered yesterday, I telegraphed to Tullamore for information, and I have received a telegram in reply stating that the facts are true. I will put a further question on Monday.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it is correct, as stated in a letter to the Times by the Rector of Baylham, Suffolk, that it is the intention of the Department to withhold the £10 grant under Article 105 from schools which already obtain a special grant under Article 104?

The letter from which the Rector of Baylham quotes was, I regret to say, due to a misapprehension on the part of an officer of the Department, and I am glad of this opportunity of again stating that the grant of £10, under Article 105 and Section 2 of the Code Act, 1890, will be in addition to any special grant obtained under Act 104 and Section 19 of the Elementary Education Act, 1876.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given the right hon. Gentleman private notice. It is whether his attention has been called to a poem by Mr. Algernon Charles Swinburne in the current number of the Fortnightly Review, containing a direct incitement to the assassination of the Czar; whether any representation relative to this publication has been made to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of Russia, and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to prosecute Mr. A. C. Swinburne or the publisher or printer of the Fortnightly Review for this gross incitement to assassination of the Sovereign of a friendly nation. Perhaps I may be permitted to read an extract. It says—

"Night brings but one red star—tyrannicide!" —

Order, order! This House has no control over a poet's opinions.

This question is an illustration of the inconvenience of asking questions without putting a notice on the Paper. I received private notice from the hon. Member about a quarter of an hour ago that he would ask the question. I inquired of my right hon. Colleagues near me whether they had seen, or read, or heard of the publication, and I could not find that any of them had. A question of this consequence ought to have been placed on the Paper in the ordinary way if it was necessary to ask it.

I will put it on the Paper.

I wish to ask, with your permission, Sir, and the permission of the House, to make a statement on a matter of privilege, which need not form a subject of full discussion. It may be within the knowledge of some Members of the House that in the course of last week a letter was published in the Times signed "Dartmouth, Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire." In that letter, as it appeared to me, Lord Dartmouth presumed to pass a censure upon me as a Magistrate of Staffordshire in his capacity of Lord Lieutenant, in connection with a subject in no way relating to any Magisterial duty, but for a speech actually made in my place in this House. On the next day Lord Dartmouth, on seeing his letter in print, somewhat hurriedly it seems, wrote another letter to the Times, explaining his first letter and conveying what purported to be his real meaning. I feel sure that this was a generous attempt to remedy the first error, bur, unfortunately, it seems to have failed still more to express clearly what was really meant. The error admitted as to the first letter unfortunately characterised the second also. I therefore thought it my duty to send Lord Dartmouth the following' telegram:—

"Expect letter from me to-morrow. Yours to-day makes case worse."

"Patshull House, Wolverhampton, Aug. 3.

"Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt this morning of your letter of yesterday, and, in the first place, to express my regret at having given you cause to complain of want of proper consideration on my part for not communicating to you my intention to comment on your speech with reference to the action of the officers of the Guards in not returning the salutes of their men—in a letter to the Times. I, therefore, consider it my duty to offer you my apologies for this omission. Next I have, very decidedly, to assure you that I have no intention to pass any official censure as Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire upon your action in Parliament, my sole object having been in alluding to my official position to emphasise my protest against that action, and I consider that I was protesting against your censure of the officers in my first letter. This really is all I have to say by way of explanation on this part of the matter, having had no wish whatever to question your privilege as a Member of the House of Commons. With regard to my second letter to the Times, published yesterday, I desire to explain that it was the result of a comment made to me personally that I had seemed in my (first) letter to express my regret that you were a Magistrate for Staffordshire, and this being entirely contrary to my meaning, I thought it right to supplement my first letter by my second. I go on to ask you to read the enclosed letter which I yesterday prepared to send to the Times, hut did not post, thinking that after your telegram I had, on the whole, better wait for the letter from you which you led me to expect, but I do not now intend to despatch that letter, although I will ask you to return it at your convenience. No doubt you will gather from it that, under no pressure whatever, I repudiated any intention to pass any official censure upon you, and I have further to add that I claim no right as Lord Lieutenant to censure any Magistrate for speech or conduct, public or private, being well aware that it is not in my power to do so. This will, I hope, satisfy you that I never thought of interfering with your privileges, either as a Member of Parliament or a Magistrate. Merely adding that my private opinions upon the subjects as to which I wrote my letter to the Times of the 30th of July remain unaltered,

I beg to remain, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

DARTMOUTH."

"Robert W. Hanbury, Esq., M.P."

"P.S.—I should, I think, add that, having consulted no one on the subject of writing my protest to the Times, I am solely responsible for the letters which have appeared with my signature. DARTMOUTH."

"Regret to find myself again misunderstood; never intended to express regret at your being a Magistrate for Staffordshire, which I do not feel privately. DARTMOUTH."

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is a fact that the Lords of the Treasury have for some time past been expecting to receive proposals from the Home Office as to the status of clerks in Her Majesty's Prisons; and whether they have also been endeavouring to obtain a Report from the Departmental Committee appointed no less than four years ago?

The Treasury has now received the papers referred to by the hon. Member.

I wish to ask what the intention of the Government is with regard to the Savings Banks Bill in view of the opposition which has developed against it?

As the First Lord of the Treasury appeared to complain of my action with reference to this Bill, I may say that I have received communications from several large Savings Banks suggesting a series of Amendments. One of my correspondents says—

"You are accused of obstruction in this matter, but the Bill requires careful consideration in Committee."

May I ask whether the First Lord of the Treasury is aware that the unexpected withdrawal by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Clause 11, as it appeared in the original draft of the Bill, has caused the greatest dissatisfaction among the best class of Savings Banks, and that there is a strong desire among them that the Bill should be maturely considered in another Session of Parliament?

Was this Bill introduced for the purpose of dealing with the actuaries, secretaries, and officers of the banks, and to safeguard the interests of depositors?

I believe that the great majority of Members on this side of the House are sincerely anxious to pass the Bill into law this Session.

May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not received communications from large Savings Banks in Edinburgh and Glasgow which are opposed to some details of the measure, but which are, on the whole, satisfied with the Amendments which the Government have introduced?

Do the Government propose to deal differently with Ireland in respect of Savings Banks?

I do not know whether any other hon. Gentleman wishes to put a question to me. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) appears to complain of the tone which I have used in making some observations on a previous occasion with reference to this Bill. If I used stronger language than was just in the circumstances, I am sorry for it. The Government really thought that this was a Bill which might have been received by the House with favour, as it was intended to secure and safeguard the interests of depositors. In securing the interests of depositors, they were also securing the interests of the officers of the banks, who were identified with the depositors, because it is obvious that if the bank were unsuccessful the officers associated with it must share in the failure also. Communications have reached the Government from Scotland, and I have now before me a letter from a Glasgow Savings Bank which states that, with the slight alterations which the Government propose, the Bill would satisfy the Trustees, and they hope that it will pass the House.

What is the date?

The 2nd of August. I do not doubt that there is a considerable opposition to the measure on the part of some hon. Members, and the Government are aware of it. Those hon. Members believe that the interests of the banks are affected by the measure. I stated last week that the Government could not force the measure through against a serious and protracted opposition at this period of the Session. If hon. Members who oppose the measure are still of opinion that they must protract the discussion and debate the measure in Committee, then the Government cannot ask the House to prolong its sitting. I regret this, but I still entertain the hope that hon. Members may, on re-considering the subject, find it to be possible to withdraw their opposition. The Government did intend to extend the benefit of the Bill to Ireland, but it was stated the other day that if it was objected to by the Irish Members it would not be so extended. It is a matter for the Irish Members themselves; if they desire to have the Bill, it will be extended to Ireland. I think that three or four months' delay in passing the measure would do harm, but if hon. Members feel it to be their duty to persist in opposing the Bill the Government have no alternative but to withdraw it for the present Session.

If there is to be one law for England and another for Ireland the Irish Members will oppose it.

May I explain that I have received a letter from a Glasgow Savings Bank, urging that Clause 11 should be struck out, and other letters from different parts of the country pressing for Amendments in all directions.

I do not think the answer of the First Lord of the Treasury on the subject of the Savings Banks Bill was quite conclusive. It appeared to leave open the possibility of the Bill being proceeded with. I have, with an hon. Friend on this side of the House, taken pains to ascertain the facts, and I have found that from the Opposition side of the House there is practically only one gentleman who has put Amendments on the Paper, the greater part of the opposition to the Bill coming from hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side, who are more or less within reach of persuasion, and in these circumstances I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his decision, the Bill being one of the very greatest importance. The other Amendments which come from this side, save those of the single Member to whom I have referred, are only two in all, involve no principle, and could be disposed of in 10 minutes.

It is an extraordinary proceeding on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to assume that because Amendments stand in the name of one gentleman therefore the opposition is by one gentleman. There are a number of——

Order, order! This is becoming a Debate. There is no question before the House.

I would ask whether it would be possible to have the Amendments considered by the Standing Committee?

In answer to the question addressed to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I can assure him that the Government are most anxious to see the Bill passed into land. I am afraid, however, the opposition to the measure is more extensive than he appears to imagine. As far as my hon. Friends behind me are concerned, I am quite prepared to say on their behalf that they will withdraw their Amendments if it will in the slightest degree insure the passing of the Bill. I will make one further attempt this evening in order to ascertain whether, without protracted Debate, it will be possible to carry the Bill. If I am unsuccessful I shall deeply regret it, but the only course then will be to withdraw the Bill for the present Session.

I beg to ask whether it was by the direction or with the sanction of the Government that the Collector General of Rates of Dublin, an officer of the Lord Lieutenant, appeared before the Committee of the House of Lords to-day in opposition to the insertion in the Dublin Corporation Bill of clauses drawn up by the Government themselves, and

I do not, of course, know what happens in the Committees of the House of Lords, but in this instance I have heard with very great regret that the Committee of the House of Lords have thrown out clauses which the Government desired to see introduced into the Bill. Certainly no official of the Government has appeared before the Committee against the proposals of the Government.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Collector General of Rates of Dublin gave evidence against the clauses?

What was extracted from him in cross-examination I do not know.

I would ask whether the Government intend to move in the House of Lords to re-insert the clauses in the Bill?

I shall have to consider that question.

I am not surprised at this Motion being made on the part of the First Lord of the Treasury, for after the attacks the right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly made on the Rules of the House, nothing that he can do in this direction forms, in my mind, subject for surprise. Of late, the First Lord of the Treasury and many of his Colleagues have been girding at us as though we were responsible for the terrible state into which public business had fallen. [Ministerial Cheers.] I thought that would elicit the usual cheer from hon. Members opposite, and as hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to endorse that view, it will be necessary to throw a little daylight on the question who is really responsible. I suppose that even hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit that this Session has been wasted. ["No, no!"] Well, I was curious to know that, because I follow with great interest the speeches hon. Gentlemen deliver up and down the country. One day I read in their speeches that owing to us on this side of the House the Session has been entirely wasted, and then, next day, I read a speech from another hon. Gentleman on the opposite side, to the effect that there never has been such a wonderful Session, and that the Ministry has covered itself with honour. ["Name!"] Who says this? Why, all of you. [Cries of "Divide!"] If hon. Gentlemen are anxious that the Session should end at a reasonable time, they will do well not to cry out "Divide!" and so try to prevent hon. Gentlemen on the Radical side from speaking, for we intend to do our duty, and, for my part, when hon. Gentlemen opposite cry" Divide!" it only leads me to believe that I am doing my duty, and makes me feel that I ought to do my duty still more fully. Unquestionably the Session has been wasted. Not even the ordinary business has been taken in reasonable time, and the question is, whose fault is it? I should say that it is the fault of Her Majesty's Ministers. They have frequently been accused of it, even by their own followers and their own organs in the Press, which charge them with having muddled the business of the House. What have they done? They have announced certain Bills in the Queen's Speech, they have brought them in, and there seems to have been a sort of rivalry amongst them, each Member of the Government wishing to bring forward his own measure before that of his Colleague. The Chancellor of the Exchequer entered the lists, and suddenly came forward with the Compensation Bill, but everything failed to pass. There was a considerable amount of discussion on all the Government Bills on both sides of the House, and after wasting a great number of days on them Ministers withdrew them. There is only one advantage to the country that has been gained by the present Session. At the commencement of the Session Ministers were going about the country and really persuading some people that although their politics were not sound they were good men of business. I think the bottom has been entirely knocked out of that illusion. I do not think that even their own supporters regard them as good men of business at this moment. We are told that we are responsible for what has happened, and that the failure of the business of the Session is due to our obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham the other day said that Ministers had done a great deal of good, but had been prevented from passing many of their excellent Bills owing to inveterate, professed, and avowed obstruction. I am perfectly ready to admit that when Bills are brought into this House which, practically, are raids on the public Treasury, it is the duty of Members on this side of the House to offer them a most strenuous opposition. It is their duty, when the forms of the House are used again and again to crush out discussion on this side, that we should use on our own part all the forms of the House in order to have discussion. But, Sir, as a matter of fact, there has been no obstruction this Session, for the simple reason that there has been no need of obstruction. All that is needed is to leave right hon. Gentlemen alone. Ministers have obstructed each other, and they are themselves responsible for the failure of legislation. We have at present one Bill before us—the Police Bill—and the First Lord of the Treasury complains that there has been obstruction in regard to that, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby pointed out in the early days of the Bill that if it were referred to a Standing Committee it would have to be fully discussed on Report when it came down to the House. They have put the Bill off to the last days of the Session, and now they complain of that which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, with great prescience and knowledge of the House, foretold would take place. We may put aside the Police Bill, which will pass to-day or tomorrow, and there will then be no measure of a controversial character before us. But what is more important is that only one-half of the Estimates have been carried, although that is the primary business of the House. In order to be fairly discussed they ought to be brought in at a fair and reasonable time. Last year the Government put off the Estimates to the end of the Session, and when complaint was made of this the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself that this Session the Estimates should be brought forward at an early period, and that certain Votes which are usually put down at the fag-end of the Estimates should be taken first. Has that pledge been kept? Most unquestionably it has not been kept. We have reached, now the last dying days of the Session, and we are still left with one-half of the Estimates undisposed of, and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, not satisfied with having placed them in the position of being scamped, now insists on their being taken at a late hour of night when the Debates cannot be reported, and when hon. Members who wish to express their views will be met with cries of "Divide, divide!" That is adding insult to injury. On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman ask for this? On the ground that hon. Members are fatigued; and he asks us to adjourn shortly, because we are going to meet again in November. Well, we never asked the right hon. Gentleman to call a meeting of the House in November, and the proposal was not received with rapture even by hon. Members opposite-Why is it proposed to meet in November? In order that we may adjourn next year somewhere about the beginning of July. We are asked, in fact, to sit up all night now in order that we may adjourn early in July, 1891, instead of in August. I trust the government of the country will be in other hands in July next, and it will not be for the present Ministry to decide how long we are to sit. No Ministry has ever fallen so low as this one. They have done absolutely nothing. They are condemned by their own organs, and there is almost a mutiny amongst their own followers. Really, when I see them sitting there struggling against their followers and opposed by everybody, I do feel a sort of pity for them. Obstruction has not been necessary, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume that there has been obstruction, and that they have been prevented by it from carrying out their plans. Then, I say, I am rejoiced to think that it has been so useful. When I think of the Irish Land Purchase Bill, the Tithes Bill, and the Compensation Bill, I am thankful that hon. Gentlemen opposite have so good an opinion of us as to imagine it is owing to our action that such excellent results have been obtained. If you say the Session has been a failure owing to us, it appears that our tactics have been successful. The country is utterly sick of the present Parliament, and regards it as thoroughly played out. The Liberal portion of the constituencies look to us on these Benches to prevent as much mischief as we possibly can, but what they aspire to is a General Election. Surely the Government are not going to—I may say—throw pearls before swine—to throw legislation before those who will not pass it. I have been asked when there will be a General Election, and I have said not while the present Government can prevent it. They "lag superfluous" on that Bench, and they will continue to lag there superfluous. I say that Estimates ought not to be relegated to the end of the Session, and then discussed after midnight. I shall divide against the Motion, as a protest against the mode in which Ministers conduct business, and against the way in which they put off the Estimates till the last days of the Session, and then try and force them through in a more rapid way than is absolutely necessary.

Whatever be the intention of this Motion its effect will be to punish the Scotch Members. I suppose the discussion on the English Police Bill will finish at 12 o'clock to-night, and then the Government propose to start the Scotch Police Bill.

No, no.

The difficulty in which the House is placed in regard to these two Bills is owing entirely, in my judgment, to the rejection last Saturday of the Motion made to send the two Bills to the same Committee, so that they might be considered side by side, the measures being to a large extent identical. If this course had been accepted, probably by this time we should have been two-thirds through both of them. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Childers) said on Saturday he had made inquiry among the Scotch Members and found that four out of five of them desired the immediate passing of the Scotch Police Bill. I have made inquiries, and I find that the statement made by the Scotch Members was not that they desired the Bill to pass this Session, but that if it came on at all it should be immediately after the English Bill. That was not the statement made on Saturday.

That was the statement I made on Saturday.

Then it had no relevance to the appeal I made to the right hon. Gentleman.

I stated three times that we were asked to ascertain whether it was the wish of the Scotch Members that the Scotch Bill should follow the English Bill or whether Scotch Supply should come first. The answer from the great majority of Scotch Members sitting on this side was that the Scotch Police Bill should come first. I doubt whether at the outside eight Members were of a different opinion.

I am glad of the explanation. I did not gather that from what was said on Saturday. I hope that the appeal made on Saturday may be renewed now with more success than it met with then. The Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen will give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of stating his views on the subject. I do trust, having regard to the entire absence of consideration of this Bill by the Scotch people, that the First Lord of the Treasury, in order to facilitate the progress of business in this House, will provide for the suspension of this Bill. The First Lord has conferred many favours on Scotch Members, and I hope he will add another to the favours he has bestowed upon them.

I do not rise to answer the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, and I think he can have little confidence in what he himself said, seeing that he has left the House; but I have been in the House for a good many years, and have never known a Session when it has not been said by 'somebody that it had been wasted through the fault of the Government. I entirely approve the proposal to suspend the Standing Order for the rest of the Session, and I wish I could induce my right hon. Friend to carry his Motion still further, so as to get rid of the Standing Order altogether, because I am satisfied that such hard and fast rules do not conduce to the efficient transaction of business. As to the Scotch Members they have taken up a great deal of time, far more than their fair share I remember Lord Sherbrooke, then Mr. Lowe, saying "Confound these Scotch Members. I really think there ought to be one Scotch Member with 60 votes." If an arrangement of that kind could be made, there is no doubt that business would be got through with much greater despatch. I urge upon the First Lord of the Treasury that he should consider seriously whether next Session he could not do something to amend the blunder that had been perpetrated in establishing this hard and fast 12 o'clock rule. It might, for example, be made for a later hour than 12, or, at all events, not allowing it to stand exactly as it is at present.

I do not know that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has thrown much light on the subject, or done anything to conciliate Members sitting on this side of the House. I will say a word or two on this proposal, which I look upon as one for the convenience of the House. But, first, with regard to what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee. The opinion of a great number of the Scotch Members was this: that if the Government intended to proceed with the Scotch Police Bill, it would be convenient that it should be proceeded with immediately after the English Bill. That opinion was expressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, who received and acted upon it in perfect good faith and courtesy. Now, I will say a word or two on the question whether the present proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is justified or not. There is a very dangerous tendency on the part of leading men of the Party opposite to lay the blame for the disasters of the Session on this side of the House. Against that I must emphatically protest. I hold that the Government when they bring forward an important Bill are bound to pass that Bill or to go out. A very great number of days, I think 25, have been spent over the financial proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and what has been most disputed in those proposals has been dropped in consequence of the opposition from this side of the House. No Government that I can remember has ever dropped the principal, the only great Bill of a Session, without going out or dissolving. ["What about the Compensation for Disturbance Bill?"] That was the House of Lords. I do not see why we should be alarmed at the proposal of the leader of the House, for no Bill to which hon. Gentle men are strongly and keenly opposed will be more likely to pass in consequence of the adoption of the Motion. If the Government have, mismanaged business, why should the House of Commons be punished, and it will be punishing the House of Commons not to permit this latitude in respect of the transaction of business, for if it is not allowed the Session must be prolonged. But I think that the Government ought to give a pledge that the power which they obtain will be used reasonably. The House, it should be remembered, meets now at 3 o'clock in the day, and it is a serious matter to sit very far into the night. Very important business, like the Scotch Police Bill, ought not to be taken at such a time as will necessitate any large part of the discussion being continued after 12 o'clock. If there is that honourable understanding, though I can understand hon. Members voting against the proposal for various reasons, I trust on this occasion they will vote in favour of that which is for the convenience of the House.

I think it will be convenient to hon. Members that this question should be decided without much further debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite asks me to give an undertaking that we shall use this power reasonably. I may at once say that the Government have no intention of using the power unreasonably. It must be obvious to the House that considerations of convenience demand that during these remaining days, or weeks, or perhaps months, of the Session we should at least have power to proceed after 12 o'clock with reasonable Bills to which no section of the House objects, but to which individual Members may object on the ground that to consider them would be to make progress with public business. It is most undesirable that at this period of the Session it should be in the power of hon. Members to terminate a discussion at 12 o'clock without finishing the business the House had entered upon. The House is very well aware that on many occasions questions have been fully discussed and were really ripe for decision by the House when that hour arrived, and so fresh debates arose when the House met the next day. I trust, therefore, that the House, taking into consideration the convenience of the House and the advancement of public business, will consent to the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. With regard to the Scotch Police Bill, the hon. Member for Dundee assumed that we should bring in that Bill after 12 o'clock. I admit at once that it would be an outrage to ask the House to go into Committee for the first time on the Scotch Bill after 12 o'clock, and I am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have supposed that we could be guilty of such an outrage. It might be possible to ask the House to complete that Bill after 12 o'clock with a view to making progress with the business of the House, but we should not think of asking the House to begin the Bill after 12 o'clock. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to a conversation that took place on Saturday with regard to the Scotch Bill, and to some observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh with regard to the Bill. I have taken steps to ascertain what was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject, and I was assured by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bridgeton and Edinburgh that it was the main desire of the Scotch Members that the Scotch Bill should follow the English Bill. I did not realise the contingency which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton has suggested now. I put a reasonable interpretation on the information which was conveyed to me, and that interpretation was that the great majority of Scotch Members did desire that the Bill should be dealt with in the course of the present Session, and should follow the English Bill; and I think I only attribute a plain meaning to the English language when I attribute that meaning to the information I received. We have had from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton a speech which I have heard before. The hon. Gentleman expressed that extreme sensitiveness which belongs to his nature, lest anyone should malign him and suggest that he is the author of obstruction in this House. The hon. Gentleman seemed anxious that the people in the country should not attribute to him that he is capable of carrying into practice those declarations which he occasionally makes from his place in the House when he assures us that he will render to the Government every possible opposition and make use of every form of the House in order to defeat their measures—because, even if they are good measures, they proceed from a bad Government. Well, Sir, the hon. Gentleman reminds me of the old proverb, Qui s'excuse s'accuse. I have no doubt that his apologia will be read in the country, and will produce the conviction that it is "Truth," and the hon. Member will be able to pose, not only as a hero, but possibly as a martyr in the discharge of his duties, and in the protection he will give to the country against the iniquities of Her Majesty's Government, and the necessity he finds for exercising a watchful care over their doings. The hon. Gentleman attributes to me and my Colleagues on this Bench differences which he has created in his own imagination. All that has been done has been done as the act or the Cabinet and of the Government as a whole, and the hallucination under which the hon. Gentleman labours with regard to my right hon. Friend who usually sits on my right and my right hon. Friend who usually sits on my left, is only to be attributed to the disordered imagination which extreme conscientiousness occasionally produces. I would now venture to appeal to the House not to carry this Debate any further. I do not propose to avail myself of the opportunity of entering into a defence of the Government for its proceeding, during the Session. I believe that even those who differ from the Government are not desirous of hearing our defence, but are much more desirous of making progress with public business. When we have occasion to make our defence, I have no doubt that it will be received by this House as it deserves. I trust that the House will now consent to proceed with the business before it, and, in conclusion, I would remind the House that even the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has himself admitte d that there are no Bills of a controversial character now before the House.

I regret that at the fag-end of a long Session you are about to suspend the Standing Orders, the result of which will be that the Scotch business in Supply will be taken, as has been the case for two or three years past, at 3 o'clock in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark desires to bring forward the notorious Wishart case on an Amendment for the reduction of the salary of the Lord Advocate; then, again, the Crofters Commission Board will have to be discussed, and something must be said regarding the re-construction of the Scotch Fishery Board. There are also upon the Paper three Scotch Bills, the Police (Scotland) Bill, the Factors Bill, and the Education of Blind and Deaf Mute Children Bill; the latter being a very peculiar Bill, introducing in Scotland a principle applying the public funds in a manner which is entirely new. We are asking when the annual massacre is to take place, and yet, at this moment, the Government are proposing to consider Bills of a highly controversial character in Scotland, and determining to carry them at whatever hour they may be reached in the morning. We are unable to believe the promises of the right hon. Gentleman. Formerly, when he told us he would do certain things, we expected them to be done, but we have found that year after year his promises are only made to be broken, and that the Government practically refuse to take Scotch business until they can do so by suspending the Standing Orders. The fact is that the Government are treating us with contempt, and I am afraid are teaching my colleagues to be a source of trouble to them, as the result will probably be that they will adopt the tactics which have been so successful in the case of the Irish Members. The Irish Debates are now over, and most of the Irish Members are going about the country enjoying themselves. Scotland, however, has to wait till the very end of the Session to find that its measures have still to be passed.

I should like to ask the Government whether they propose to extend this Rule to private Members' Bills which have passed the House of Lords and come back to this House?

The hon. Member for Caithness has said that Scotch measures were not considered last year until the extreme end of the Session. I would remind the House that is not the case, some of the Scotch Estimates were taken before the Whitsuntide holidays, therefore it is not fair to blame the Government, as the hon. Member has done. I hope, however, that next year it will be found convenient to take the Scotch Estimates at a somewhat earlier period than this year has been found possible.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is reasonable to press forward the Youthful Offenders Bill at this period of the Session? This Bill is a new "Whipping" Bill of the most sweeping character. If it is retained on the Paper, the only result will be that Members will be kept until 2 or 3 in the morning, and the sense of grievance which they would feel would scarcely contribute to the rapid dispatch of public business.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not intend to begin the consideration of any contentious measure after 12 o'clock, and whether it is not his intention rather to make progress after 12 o'clock with certain measures that might be objected to by some individual Member? I hope myself that the Government will proceed with the Scotch Police Bill, and pass it into law. I do not think I was formally committed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, but I remember saying to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton that I hoped the Government would shove along the Scotch with the English Bill. I only speak for myself, but I hope the Government will succeed in passing the Scotch Bill into law. The hon. Member for Caithness referred to the Bill for the education of the blind and deaf mute, and I am very sorry to hear that any Member of this House looks upon that as a contentious measure. It does not give us all we want, but those who are interested in this subject are anxious to make a start by getting this Bill through. I wish, further, to point out that the form of the present Motion is somewhat novel. Hitherto the suspension of the Standing Order has been moved with regard to some particular business, but this proposal is that Government business shall be taken at any hour, and I take it that means that the House might sit to any hour on Wednesday. Now, this might be drawn into a precedent, and hereafter used at an earlier period of the Session in a more drastic fashion than could be justified. I think the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven to abolish the 12 o'clock Rule would be keenly resisted by hon. Members generally, and they would be exceedingly jealous of anything that might interfere' with the practical working of that rule. We are all willing that it should be suspended on special occasions for special purposes, but we strongly deprecate any graver interference with it. I think we are entitled to an explanation why the Motion is proposed in this form.

I am sorry the hon. Member for Caithness is not in his place; but I can assure the Lord Advocate, from all I can learn, that there is a very sincere desire that the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Bill should be passed, and I hope the hon. Member for Caithness will not continue his opposition. I should like to add, further, that there is something to be said for Scotch Members. The First Lord of the Treasury has admitted that it is fair that the Scotch Estimates should be taken at a reasonable time. We live at a considerable distance; we have to make our arrangements; yet I do think that the First Lord has rather taken Scotch Members into his own hands. At all events, I think Scotch Members ought to be defended by him against the rather insulting remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven. I can only account for it by the fact that the Member who made the observations was not considered worthy of notice. I do not think these remarks should be repeated, if you wish the assistance of Scotch Members in the conduct of Imperial affairs. All I can say is, that if such remarks are continued the Scotch people will become more and more of the view that they should be left to conduct their own affairs without the interference of the dominant vote of English Members.

Though I have Amendments down upon the Education of the Blind and Deaf Mute Bill, I regret very much that the hon. Member for Caithness regards it as a contentious Bill. I do not regard it as in any way contentious. Though it does not give nearly all that was recommended by the Royal Commission, yet it gives something, and I hope the Government are prepared to meet us by a reasonable concession, and to endeavour to pass the Bill. There is nothing of a partisan or sectarian character in the Bill, and it is one which both sides of the House desire.

I rise for the purpose of reminding the right hon. Gentleman that he forgot to refer to a substantial part of the observations of my hon. Friend (Mr. Labouchere) with reference to forwarding Supply. The Scotch Members have vindicated their claim to be able to take care of themselves. But as an English Member, I wish to put forward a plea on behalf of English taxpayers, who, after all, form the great majority of those who contribute to the taxes, that this question of Supply should be dealt with on a more rational basis than Her Majesty's Government have dealt with it hitherto. The Government is well aware that they have broken faith with us in not. bringing the Estimates on earlier, and in regarding that as a first duty. I should like to know how, in the interests of the English taxpayers, we are to adequately discuss these Estimates at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning at the fag end of the Session? I protest most emphatically against such proceedings, and I hope my hon. Friend will carry the matter to a Division, and that he will not hesitate to raise this question on every occasion he can until we have obtained a more rational method of dealing with Supply.

I cannot congratulate the Government on the particular moment they have selected for the suspension of the Rule. They have waited until the English Bill was practically through the House, and they have only begun this new system when Scotch business is coming before the House. The Government now ask us to sit until 2, 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning; but if that is attempted, it will be resisted unanimously by Scotch Members. There is a special reason why the Scotch Police Bill should be considered at a reasonable time. Originally it was sent to a Committee composed of nine out of the 12 Scotch Tory Members and seven out of the 46 Scotch Liberal Members. The deliberations of a Committee of that kind in no degree correspond with the opinion of the Scotch people. The whole Bill was passed through the Committee in three days. The Report was taken under the protest of the minority. These circumstances alone constitute sufficient reason why the Bill should be discussed in this House. I do not want to make a double Division by moving the Amendment which I have upon the Paper, but I should like an assurance from the First Lord that it is not intended to press the discussion of the Scotch Police Bill at an early hour in the morning. If such a course were taken it would be doubly inexcusable, because unnecessary.

I can only speak again with the indulgenc of the House, but I wish to say that the Government has no desire to act unreasonably. We cannot enter into an engagement to report Progress at a certain fixed hour after 12 o'clock; but we wish to treat the House fairly and reasonably, and I do not think the hon. Member will have any reason to complain of the action of my Colleagues or myself in considering any reasonable objection. With reference to the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Warmington) with regard to Bills coming down amended from the House of Lords, it will be the duty of the Government to give the House an opportunity of considering those Amendments. With regard to the Deaf and Dumb Children (Scotland) Bill, I hope when it comes down from the House of Lords that we shall have the assistance of the great majority of the Scotch Members in passing it. There is, I am glad to say, no sectarian feeling involved.

The House will observe that the Pension Fund is to be made up from various sources, one of which is the deduction of 2½ per cent. per annum from the wages of the constables. Now, that percentage will be recognised by all hon. Members as perfectly illusory, for the purpose of forming a substantial contribution to the fund; indeed, for all practical purposes, there might as well be no such contribution at all. What I propose is, then, that instead of the contribution being 2½ per cent. it should be 5 per cent. I know it may possibly be argued by the right hon. Gentleman that this would constitute a heavy tax on the police; but when I compare the wages they received with those paid to men belonging to a similar class in life, I think the conclusion is justifiable that a deduction of 5 per cent. would not be excessive. For instance, in the Metropolis the constables start with wages of 24s. a week, and are supplied in addition with boots and clothing, while, in the event of a man being unmarried, he can have quarters, including fire and lighting, for the moderate sum of 1s. per week. Can it be said, then, that a deduction of 5 per cent. is too heavy? Further than that, I believe that, in the case of all-other pension funds established for the benefit of bodies of workmen, the deduction is higher than 2½ per cent. I again pray in aid of the case of the Scotch Bill, in which it is provided that the rate of deduction in the case of officers above the rank of sergeant shall be 7½ per cent. I trust the Home Secretary will leave this an open question, and that I shall be supported by hon. Members opposite instead of their giving the customary silent vote against propositions emanating from this side of the House.

If this question had appeared as res nova there would have been a good deal of force in the contention of the hon. Member, because 2½ per cent. may be called an infinitesimal percentage. It must be borne in mind, however, that the subject does not come before us as res nova. A series of Bills have been introduced by successive Governments, all of them containing a limit of 2½ per cent., and this, too, is the contribution enforced upon all the workmen employed by the great Railway Companies.

I will not press the Amendment, but will ask leave to withdraw it.

We are always told that this Bill has been framed in the interests of the Public Service, and not merely of the police. In the Scotch Committee the majority insisted that officers above the rank of sergeant should pay 7½ per cent. instead of 2½ per cent. In the case of an officer, in all probability his contributions to the Pension Fund for the great part of his service have been based on a low rate of pay, whereas his pension is calculated on the higher salary received in the last few years. That is the ground on which the Scotch Committee varied the percentage, and the Amendment I am now proposing is somewhat of a compromise on the point. A question was also raised as to whether officers who had not contributed to the fund ought not to be subjected to a further deduction. The Government undertook to consider this, and I should like to know at what conclusion they have arrived.

The hon. Member will understand that the observations I made on the last Amendment apply equally to this.

How about the question of deductions for non-contribution?

We have considered that point, but we think it hardly necessary to alter the Bill in that respect, as very few such cases exist. No doubt in some parts there was a mistaken notion that a Chief Constable was not a constable in the ordinarily accepted sense of the term, and, therefore, was not allowed to pay anything to the Superannuation Fund. I think it would be very hard to make this Bill retrospective in such cases.

I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

I will not press my Amendment.

I have to move a new sub-section providing that in cases where a constable's pay has not been subject to deductions for the Pen- sion Fund, it shall be competent for the Police Authority to diminish the pension as they may deem reasonable under the circumstances, but to an extent not exceeding one-fifth of the pension to which the officer would otherwise be entitled. I hope the Home Secretary will explain how the matter stands. He has once or twice ridiculed the idea that the word "constable" required defining-, yet we have been told that in many counties the people were under the impression that a Chief Constable was not a constable, and that, therefore, his salary-was not subject to deductions for pension. We have been told that in all boroughs the Chief Constables have contributed to the Superannuation Fund, but that the mistaken idea prevailed in several counties, and that the cases of non-contribution are so very few that it is hardly worth while altering the provisions of the Bill so as to deal with them. I say that if officers who have not contributed are put on the same footing as those who have, it would be a great scandal. It is to obviate any harm arising from such a cause that I wish to move my Amendment.

I think the hon. Member is moving the Amendment in the wrong place. It more properly belongs to the section which applies to the cases of existing constables; and when we reach that part of the Bill, I shall be willing to accept a clause taken from Mr. Fowler's Bill, and which practically provides for the reduction of pension in these cases as suggested by the hon. Member.

And will that apply to the Scotch Act?

The case of Scotland is very different. There no member of the force has had deductions made from his wages for pension purposes. It would be a real grievance if a man who had been in the force 14 years and not paid any deductions, should at the end of another year be entitled to a pension, while a man just entering would have to serve 15 years and pay a percentage the whole time before becoming entitled to a pension. The case of England is that everybody practically has had to contribute to the Superannuation Fund, with the exception of a few chief constables, who have not been allowed to do so.

I think the clause taken from the Bill of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler) is the best one that could have been framed to meet this difficulty.

I beg to move the omission of Clause 26, which gives power to charge upon the Police Fund the expenses when the military are called in to assist the police. This clause was not discussed in the Grand Committee, and introduces an entirely new principle which exists nowhere except in Ireland. I admit that were the military called in to assist the police on the responsibility of the County Council or some representative body, it might be reasonable that the locality should pay for it; but soldiers are called in on the signature of two Magistrates at the request of the chief constable—not representative people at all. Let me give the House three instances of this: A little while ago the soldiers were called in to assist the police in some tithe distraint at Anglesey by two Magistrates at the request of the chief constable. It was altogether against the wishes of the people, although they were not called upon to pay the cost. This clause may throw the burden on them in the future. I do not think the police are ever likely to be called in to assist at distraints for tithes in the future, because any Member for the County Council who voted for such a thing would lose his seat at the next election. Then, quite recently, the military were called on to quell some disturbances at Northampton. Their intervention was quite unnecessary, and the people were very angry about it. They would have been still more angry had they been called upon to pay the cost. The third case I wish to allude to is that of London. I do not think that Londoners would be very pleased if some unwise Home Secretary called upon the military to help the police when not necessary, and then threw the cost on the rates. Here are three instances in which the enforcement of this clause would create dissatisfaction. This is an entirely new departure, and I do not believe that anyone but the Irish people would submit to these conditions being imposed upon them. I think we ought to take a Division on this clause so as to see what hon. Members endorse the application of this entirely new principle. I submit that the clause is unnecessary, and that it will only breed ill-feeling and friction, and there is no demand for it from any quarter. It is an entirely new departure, and I hope the Home Secretary will not think it necessary to retain the clause.

The hon. and gallant Member is perfectly correct in saying that this matter was not discussed in Grand Committee. No one raised an objection to the clause. I took this clause bodily from the Bill of my predecessor. I do not think the Bill of Mr. Hibbert contained the clause, but the Bill of 1883 did, and all the successive Bills did. I will not argue whether it was wise to call out the military in Anglesey or in some other places, but I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will dispute that there have been, and will be, occasions when it is necessary to call in the aid of the military. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is giving up the system of having small bodies of troops in given localities, and is adopting the plan of concentration. Consequently, in case of the military being called in to aid the civil power, there will be travelling expenses incurred by the troops summoned to assist, and I see, to my astonishment, that it is Welsh Members who oppose this clause. I suppose that, on account of the unhappy tithe dispute, which is really only a passing incident in the history of Wales, I know no part of the country in which it may be more necessary than in Wales to be able to call in the military, because in no part of the country are the police forces so small as in Wales, because of the absence of lawlessness and the peaceable demeanour of the people. On the other hand, in case of emergency, such as the Turnpike Riots some years ago, the police forces would not be sufficient to cope with the disturbance. I do not attach very great importance to the clause; but it seems to me only fair that if the military are called out by the civil power, it would be extremely inconvenient that the expense should be thrown on the War Office Vote. If, at the request of the Local Authority, military are sent over to any given place, surely it is proper that the Local Authority should pay the expense.

I regret I cannot agree with the Home Secretary on this question. So far from thinking this a small matter, I am afraid it is a large one. I do not attach much importance to it as a question of expenditure; but I think the principle which would be established by this clause is of great moment. A similar clause was in the Scotch Bill of this Session, and the Scotch Committee struck it out without opposition. If I remember right, the Lord Advocate entirely concurred in the omission. The fact is, it is an entirely new principle. All naval and military expenditure is defrayed out of the Votes of Parliament, and it is only upon the Estimates that the action of the Naval and Military Authorities can be challenged. If we allow a small amount of the military expenditure to be defrayed by any authority which is in no way responsible to Parliament, we shall prevent the possibility of the action arising out of that expenditure being challenged. As the right hon. Gentleman says he does not attach much importance to the matter, I trust he will consent to the omission of the clause.

I do not share the constitutional scruples of my right hon. Friend, but inasmuch as my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate approved of the omission of the clause from the Scotch Bill, I will not press the clause.