I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to a Petition to Parliament on the subject of the opium trade, signed by over 11,000 Chinese residents of Singapore, wherein they pray of the British Administration

"Not to ruin them morally, physically, and materially, by affording facilities for carrying on the traffic in this most pernicious drug";

My attention has not been drawn to any Petition on the subject of the opium trade signed by Chinese residents of Singapore complaining of the facilities afforded to the trade. In reply to the last question of the hon. Member, I may say that the Excise on opium in Singapore produces more than one-half of the total Revenue of the colony.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if it is true, as stated in the Times of 11th March, that the Secretary of State has intimated to the Indian Government that certain parts of the Factory Bill, submitted by them to the Indian Legislative Council—

"Would be contrary to pledges given in the Imperial Parliament, and could not be accepted;"

In answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, I have to say that the statements made in Parliament by the First Lord of the Treasury regarding the Indian Factory Bill, which are, I presume, referred to in the question, have not formed the subject of communication by the Secretary of State to the Government of India. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative. The reply to the third paragraph is that the presentation of further correspondence will be considered by the Secretary of State as soon as the new Indian Factory Act is received.

In regard to the reply of the right hon. Gentleman to the first part of the question, may I point out that the Under Secretary has given me an answer to a question which I did not ask, while he has not answered the question which I did ask? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as stated in the Times of the 11th of March, that the Secretary of State has intimated to the Indian Government that certain parts of the Factory Bill, submitted by them to the Indian Legislative Council, is contrary to pledges given in the Imperial Parliament, and cannot be accepted; and, if so, when, and to whom those pledges were given?

The hon. Member, I presume, has-been in his place in this House, and must have heard the answers of the First Lord of the Treasury to the various Members who have put questions to him, and he must therefore know whether any pledges have been given. I have said that there has been no correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Government of India in reference to any pledges which have been given in the Imperial Parliament.

Is it true, as stated in the Times, that certain parts of the Bill submitted to the Indian Council are contrary to the pledges given in the Imperial Parliament? I ask whether that is true or is not true?

I beg to give notice that I will put the question down for to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether manufacture of salt is defined in the Bombay Salt Act, under which two native women were recently convicted and punished, to be not merely the preparation of salt for trade purposes, but "every process for the purification or refinement of salt;" (2) is he aware that it is by the process of evaporation over fire, which the Definition Clause of the Act defines to be manufacture, that the dirty bazaar salt is prepared for table use; (3) is he aware that the salt, for the treatment of which by the above process the women were punished, had already paid duty; (4) whether the cases were referred by the District Magistrate to the High Court in order to ascertain if there was any way of escape from the hard and fast definition and prohibition contained in the Act; that Justices Bird wood and Parsons found that there was not; and that Mr. Justice Birdwood declared that the definition of manufacture in the Act

"Would apparently convert into crimes some perfectly innocent practices connected with the use of salt for domestic purposes;"

The answer to the first paragraph of the question of the hon. Member is, Yes, and to the second, Yes. The reply to the third paragraph is that the newspaper report of the High Court decision states that the salt was not alleged to be contraband. The answer to the fourth paragraph is that the words quoted occur in the newspaper report. In reply to paragraph five, I have to say that the law will be enforced with discretion, and, if it is found necessary, will be amended. The answer to the last paragraph of the question is that if the hon. Member will consult the Bombay Annual Salt Report he will find there an account of salt prosecutions and the result thereof.

Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman controverts the accuracy of the report of Mr. Justice Birdwood's statement that the definition of the manufacture of salt in the Act

"Would apparently convert into crimes some perfectly innocent practices connected with the use of salt for domestic purposes."

No, Sir; I said that the Secretary of State had received no official communication in regard to this trial, but that the words quoted by the hon. Member do appear in the newspaper report.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the official, since dead, to whose mistake, in refusing to suspend a part of the Land Revenue in Gurgaon in 1877, he has publicly attributed the losses of human life and cattle during the years 1877 and 1882, and the great indebtedness then incurred, was Mr. Gore Ouseley, then Financial Commissioner of the Punjab; (2) whether, in the year 1877, a circular was issued by the Government of India from Simla, commanding that as large a proportion as might be possible of the revenues were to be collected; (3) whether Mr. Gore Ouseley was bound to obey that Circular; and, if so, why he is to be held more to blame for the disaster than his superior officers; (4) whether he is aware that the prevention of similar mistakes for the future in the Gurgaon District depends not upon the general Famine Codes, as stated by him on 18th February last, but on the terms of a Resolution, referred to by Sir James Lyall in his Orders on the Gurgaon Settlement, in which it is stated that the full revenue of insecure tracts shall not be realised in years of severe and long continued drought; and (5) what security exists that this Resolution will not be set aside if (as was the case in 1877) Imperial necessities forbid a relaxation?

In reply to the first question of the hon. Member, I have to say that the Secretary of State respectfully declines to give the name of the deceased officer. The answer to paragraph 2 is that no such circular can be traced. In regard to paragraph 3, officers are bound to obey general orders unless special circumstances justify a departure. As to paragraph 4, my answer on the 18th of February last was correct; and the reply to the last question of the hon. Member is, that the securities which exist are the vigilance of the Government of India, of the Secretary of State in Council, and of the Imperial Parliament.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether Abdul Rasoul was arrested at Bombay in consequence of communications received from the Indian Office by the Commissioner of Police at Bombay; (2) what action on the part of Rasoul prior to his arrival in Bombay led the India Office to forward instructions for his arrest; (3) for how long a period had Rasoul been an object of suspicion to the India House authorities, and on what grounds was such suspicion based; (4) is it the fact that Rasoul was escorted from the gaol at Assirgad on board the Peninsular and Oriental steamer Assam by a sergeant of police and seven constables, and his passage paid for him; (5) what further information, or action on the part of Rasoul, has led the India House authorities to the conclusion that Rasoul is now neither a danger to the Empire nor an object of suspicion; (6) and did any, and what, communications pass between the India Office and the Viceroy, in consequence of which the latter telegraphed to the Chief Commissioner of Police at Bombay that he was to send back Rasoul to London?

The answer to the first question is in the negative; the second and third, therefore, fall to the ground. The reply to the fourth question is, that the Secretary of State has no information about Abdul Rasoul's journey from Assirgad to the. Peninsular and Oriental steamer. His passage was paid for him by the Government. In answer to the fifth paragraph of the question, I have to say that the Secretary of State has received no fresh information about Abdul Rasoul; but this answer must not be taken as admitting the conclusion attributed to him in the question. In reply to the sixth paragraph of the question, my answer is that no such communication passed.

I understand that Abdul Rasoul has been interviewed by the authorities of India. If that is so, is the right hon. Gentleman still under the impression whether or not he was escorted from the North-West Provinces to Bombay by the police. Was it not a police escort that brought him down from Assirgad to Bombay; and, if so, I want to know, in spite of any statement to the contrary, whether the Government intend to maintain that Abdul Rasoul came to England at his own express wish, and not against his wish.

That is exactly the point on which the Secretary of State has no official information. He does not know how Abdul Rasoul came except that he came by steamer. There is no doubt that Abdul Rasoul did ask to be sent to England.

Abdul Rasoul says that he did not demand an escort. I think it would save the time of the House if the right hon. Gentleman will make inquiry upon these points, because I shall have to repeat the question until I get a satisfactory answer. Will the right, hon. Gentleman do his best to obtain the information?

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what remissions, if any, were made by the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Province of Oudh to the State tenants in 1877–8, when the average price of food was more than one-third higher than the average of the six preceding years; and whether he can state how far there is any connection between the high prices ruling in 1887–8 and the fact that the recorded death-rate in India in that year was the highest known?

The answer to the first question is that the remissions in 1877–8 were 214,315 rupees. At the end of the year 282,000 rupees were held over uncollected, of which 104,563 rupees were eventually remitted. In reply to the second question, I have to say that the connection between high prices and high death-rate must be a matter of opinion. The high death-rate of 1887–8 was chiefly caused by cholera and fever.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the illegal shipment of incompetent seamen as A.B.'s at the Port of Cardiff, as appears from the statement of R. Phillips and other's, reported in the South Wales Daily News of 25th February, and also by the statement taken from the said R. Phillips and others by the Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Cardiff; if he is aware of the fact that the man referred to, although incompetent and inexperienced, were signed on as A.B.'s in the presence of an official of the Board of Trade; if he is aware that the men so signed on as A.B.'s were brought to the ship by a person who is not licensed to ship seamen in accordance with Sec. 147, sub-Sec. (1), of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854"; and if these statements are true, whether he can take any steps to prevent the recurrence of these irregularities and to secure compliance with the law?

Yes, Sir; my attention has been called to the statements in the question, which are substantially accurate. I am, however, informed that prosecutions were instituted against those persons who supplied the seamen illegally, and that, in two cases, convictions were obtained.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the acknowledged deficiency of rifle ranges accessible to Metropolitan Volunteer Regiments, his attention has been called to the fact that a company has been formed with the object of establishing rifle ranges available for Metropolitan and other corps near Staines, and whether the scheme has his sanction or approval?

My attention has been called to the project of forming a company to establish rifle ranges near Staines, and I have expressed strong approval of the objects of the company.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works when he will be prepared to give the names of the judges and assessor of the South Kensington Museum completion competition; whether he is aware that the plans and elevations supplied to the competing architects contain no drawing or indication of the Central Quadrangle, with its important surrounding façades, which furnish the keynote of the style of the present buildings which the proposed competition is to complete, and whether he would be willing to arrange for all the competing architects to be taken over the present buildings and have the details explained to them, especially the exterior terra cotta enrichments and earthenware mosaics, by the officials of the Board of Works and of the Science and Art Department?

A course somewhat similar to that adopted in the case of the last important competition for Government buildings will probably be adopted in that for the South Kensington Museum competition; in that case the judges were for the most part Members of the Government of the Day, chosen for the purpose, and were assisted by professional assessors. Mr. Waterhouse. President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, has undertaken to act as assessor on this occasion. No competing architects have bean invited to visit and inspect the existing buildings, and of course every facility will be afforded them in obtaining any information they may require. In Class 3 of the Conditions and Instructions which we have issued to the architects it is laid down that the designs shall "pay regard so far as may be necessary to the style of the existing buildings," and beyond this it would, in my opinion, be very unwise to fetter the competitors.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has seen Professor Frankland's Report, stating that during the month of February the water abstracted from the Thames by the Chelsea, West Middlesex, Southwark, Grand Junction, and Lambeth Companies was, in all cases, of very inferior quality, being polluted by an abnormal amount of vegetable organic matter, that supplied by the Grand Junction Company on the 5th February surpassing in respect of organic impurity any sample of Thames water examined by Professor Frankland during the last quarter of a century, being opalescent from imperfect filtration, and not in a fit state for dietetic use; whether he has further observed that Dr. Koch's process of examination applied to the water supplied in the different Metropolitan districts showed the existence of "microbes" in the respective ratios of Kent 20, New River 74, West Middlesex 104, Chelsea 144, Grand Junction 220, East London 248, Lambeth 284, and Southwark 356; whether the Reports from the Officers of Health show that there is any correspondence between the condition of the water supplied and the amount of sickness in those districts; and whether, if the existence of "microbes" in water for drinking and culinary purposes is found to be pernicious and injurious to the public health, the medical officers of the Local Government Board are able to recommend any effectual method either of extracting or counteracting them?

My attention has been drawn to the Report to which the hon. Member alludes. With regard to the analysis of the water supplied by the Grand Junction Water Company on the 5th of February, I recently stated the facts very fully in reply to a question of the hon. Member for the Knutsford Division of Cheshire. As to the analysis of the water supplied at a later date in the same month by other Metropolitan Water Companies, I have no doubt that the abnormal amount of vegetable matter, although much less than was the case with the water from the Grand Junction Water Company on the 5th February, was occasioned by similar causes. Dr. Frankland informs me that the exceptionally impure condition of the river-derived waters supplied to the Metropolis in February has now passed away, and that these waters have apparently returned to a condition approaching the normal at this season. I have communicated with Dr. Frank-land with regard to his statements as to the existence of microbes. He states that the number was not large for filtered river water, and that as no pathogenic organism was observed among the microbes, their presence does not afford any ground for alarm. The Board have not received any Report from Medical Officers of Health, showing that there is any such correspondence as is suggested in the question.

I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, which arises out of the answer he has just given, namely, whether it does not appear from Dr. Frankland's Report of February that the water supplied to Glasgow and Birmingham during that month was inferior to that usually supplied to those places?

I am afraid that that is a question I cannot answer without notice.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why sentries are posted outside the Home Office and the Foreign Office?

It has always been customary to post a sentry in front of certain important Government Offices, and its utility has been proved upon more than one occasion.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, with, reference to the magazine rifle, why it has been decided to abandon the sights invented by Lieutenant Colonel Lewes, and revert to the old barleycorn sights; whether the Lewes sight was adopted because it enables fire to be kept low in the shock of rapid volleys; whether, with this sight, recruits are much more quickly taught to become effective shots; whether the Lewes sights were incorrectly marked, in consequence of having been calculated for the strength of a powder not yet issued; and whether he will therefore have a portion of the Mark II. rifles fitted with Lewes sights, with elevations correctly marked for the ammunition now in use, so that a fair estimate of their value may be obtained?

The Lewes sight was abandoned at the suggestion of the Committee on the Magazine Rifle after much practical experiment. It was found that the foresight was liable to injury, and difficult to repair if injured. The soldiers preferred the barleycorn sight, and the Naval Authorities distinctly objected to the Lewes. Seeing the importance of uniformity for all Services, and bearing in mind that the Lewes flight gave no decided superiority in firing, it was thought best to revert to the system which had given satisfaction with the Martini-Henry rifle. I am not prepared to go back on this decision.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can state the number of pauper children emigrated to the Colonies during the last 12 months; and whether the modification of the rules laid down by the Local Government Board in 1887 has perceptibly affected the progress of the movement?

The number of orphan and deserted children who were sent to Canada by Boards of Guardians during the year ended 31st December, 1890, was 375. In the year preceding the revision of the conditions of emigration, the number of pauper children sent to Canada was 166. The year 1890 shows an increase of 209 on that number.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the system of appointing persons to posts on the Civil Service, to be paid out of allowances for clerical assistance granted to Heads of Departments, is intended to apply to only such posts as should be held by Civil Service Writers, and to cases of meeting emergencies, or whether it is intended to appoint persons, without their having first passed an examination, and the usual inquiries having been made with reference to them by the Civil Service Commissioners, as accountants, and to other staff posts which, according to the recommendations of the Civil Establishments Commission, were to be reserved for the best clerks of the Second Division?

I think that my hon. Friend will see on consideration that it is not possible for me to give an answer to his question determining what will be the policy of the Treasury in the future; but I shall be quite ready to answer any question of fact in particular cases.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any of the proposals contained in the Treasury Minute of 15th July last have yet been carried out as to the commuting by cash payments the pensions named therein; if so, will he state what payments have been made?

Yes, Sir; two of the proposals made in the Minute of July 15 last have been carried out, and payments have been made to the Paymaster General of the Supreme Court ex parte the Duke of St. Albans and the Marquess of Downshire.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of a man named Edwards, who was sentenced at the Surrey Sessions in 1888 to 14 years' penal servitude for stealing a small quantity of spirits, valued at 2s. 9d.; and, if not, whether he will have an inquiry made, with a view to reducing the sentence or granting the man (who still asserts his innocence) a pardon for the remainder of the sentence?

Yes, Sir; this case was considered by me in 1888, and I then decided that the sentence might be treated as one of seven years, which will allow of the convict's release, if his conduct is good, after five years and five months. Though the embezzlements were petty, they were extensive and systematic, and the man's record was a bad one, he having been four times previously convicted—once of forgery, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused to Mr. Tweedy, farmer, and others, of Heighly Farm, Morpeth, through the non-delivery of letters; and whether anything can be done to remedy the grievances complained of?

I quite appreciate the inconvenience to which the hon. Member calls attention. But the postal service in the locality is already carried on at a heavy loss, and I should scarcely be warranted in effecting improvements at still further outlay. If the persons immediately concerned would arrange to have their letters taken charge of at a house within the official delivery, some, at least, of the inconvenience now felt would be remedied.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board how many and which Quarter Sessions boroughs have appealed to the Local Government Board (under "The Local Government Act, 1888," sections 35 and 38) from decisions of the County Council with respect to the declaration of highways to be main roads, and how many and which of these appeals have been decided; what are the guiding principles upon which such decisions have been founded; in how many and in which cases is the result of the appeal to establish connecting links within the boundaries of the borough between the different main roads converging upon that borough; and in how many and in which cases does the arbitration of the Local Government Board leave the said boroughs without any main road leading to the railway station, or to the harbour (in case of a sea port), or to the market place, or to any place which may be regarded as the business centre of the borough?

The Local Government Board have received appeals under the Local Government Act from nine Quarter Sessions boroughs. They have given their decision in the case of Dover, Carlisle, Grantham, Scarborough and Banbury. With regard to the principles on which the Board base their decisions, and the details of the several decisions at which the Board have arrived, I can only state generally that, before coming to a decision, there has in each case been a local inquiry by one of the Inspectors of the Board, the representatives of the borough and of the county have had full opportunity of submitting at the Inquiry any representations which they deemed necessary, and the decision of the Board has been given after full consideration of the circumstances of each case.

The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last paragraph of the question.

No, Sir; there are details into which I cannot enter as to the decision of the Local Government Board. They are reserved for future inquiry, and I do not think it would be convenient that I should state in this House all the decisions we have reserved for future consideration.

Persons feeling themselves aggrieved can have recourse to a local inquiry, and in that case would it be inconvenient for the Local Government Board to give reasons for their decision. If so, what remedy can the right hon. Gentleman suggest?

I am afraid there is no remedy after the Local Government Board has come to a decision and issued an Order. There are no means by which, the question can be re-considered.

I will call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is correct, as stated by Mr. Roberts, Secretary to the East London Licensed Victuallers' and Beersellers' Association, in a letter to the Morning Advertiser of 11th March, that it is "a notorious fact" that the Whitechapel district

"Abounds in she beens and bogus clubs where intoxicating liquors (generally of a most inferior quality) may be obtained at all hours;"

I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that there are in all 20 clubs, established for various objects, in the Whitechapel district, but it is not within the knowledge of the police that these are bogus clubs. It has, however, come to the knowledge of the police that intoxicating liquor was being sold at private houses in this district, and special observation has been kept, with the result that proceedings were taken during the past year against 15 persons for illegally selling intoxicating liquors, and convictions followed. In addition to this, 26 persons who were found on such premises were summoned and convicted. I have called the attention of the Commissioner to the hon. Member's question; but I have no reason to believe that the police are otherwise than vigilant in the exercise of this particular duty.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that, on a bill advertising a meeting of Parliamentary electors at Sunbury on the 11th instant and addressed by the honourable Member for the Uxbridge Division of Middlesex, and other Conservative Members of Parliament, it was announced that tickets for reserved seats might be obtained on payment of 1s. each from Mr. Trotter, Post Office, Sunbury Common; and whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Service that postal officials and premises should be used for the advantage of a political party?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I am aware that no such meeting as he mentions was addressed by the hon. Member for Uxbridge Division and other Conservative Members, and that in matter of fact no such meeting took place at all. The Sub-Postmaster of Sunbury Common assures me that his name was inserted in the Bill to which the hon. Member refers without his knowledge or consent. The Bill was not exhibited in the Post Office, but in the Sub-Postmaster's shop.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if it is correct that on the last meeting the two working men who are members of the Joint Committee of the Durham County Council desired to raise a question as to the conduct of the police at Silksworth, and whether the rest of the members rose and left them unable to form a quorum; whether up to date a single person has been arrested, or charged, or summoned by the police for throwing stones, earth, or any other missile on the occasion of the recent baton charge; and how many police were present on that occasion?

The Vice Chairman on the occasion in question is abroad, so that I have not been able to obtain the information from him; but I am informed by the chief constable that one of the members of the Committee made some remarks on the conduct of some of the policemen at Silksworth, referring to a quarrel between three constables in their lodgings. The reply given was that, this being a question of discipline, it had already been disposed of by the chief constable. The conduct of the police in relation to the strike at Silksworth was in no way impugned. Some further questions were also asked and answered as to the number, lodging, and expense of the police at Silksworth. There was a full quorum of the members of the Committee present until the business before it was concluded. No person has been arrested, charged, or summoned in connection with the mêlée on the 25th of February. The missiles came from all parts of a tumultuous crowd, most of whom were strangers to Silksworth. The number of constabulary of all ranks was about 150, of whom 45 took part in the charge.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will let the Committee on the Incidence of Light Dues meet, without any longer seeking to bind the ship-owning members to give up their conviction that light dues should fall on the Consolidated Fund, in accordance with the recommendation of Select Committees of this House?

The Committee to which the hon. Member refers was instituted on the suggestion that a Committee on which the shipping interest should be represented should be appointed to consider the incidence of the present system of light dues and the possibility of substituting a tax on shipping for them. If the shipowners insist, as I understand they do, on the justice of these matters being paid for out of the Consolidated Fund, I do not see that such a Committee would serve any useful purpose.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he intends to introduce a new clause into the Savings Bank Bill, by which he will set an example of providing banking reserves in the proportion which he considers necessary, in face of the fact that his liabilities to the public alone for deposits amount to over £112,000,000?

No, Sir; I have no such object. The question of my hon. Friend assumes an analogy between the deposits in the hands of bankers and those in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners. I should be prepared at the proper time to show the fallacy involved in the view that such an analogy exists.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the number of persons attending the British Museum during the evenings since the trustees opened it to the public; and what has been the average attendance after 6 o'clock p.m. in this and other National Institutions?

The total number of persons who have attended the British Museum during the evening since the evening opening was established in February, 1890, is 73,412—average per evening, 264. From February, 1890, to December, 1890, there was an almost unbroken decline from a monthly average per evening of 635 to an average of 90; the average for January and February of this year has been 120 and 160 respectively.

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Penrith (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners are aware that the governing body of St. Paul's Schools have not yet carried out Clause 35 (1) of the Scheme under which they are appointed, by having a modern department for about 500 boys; and whether they are aware that the present building and grounds cost nearly £150,000 for 1,000 boys, and were provided to give effect to the provisions of the scheme of this trust and charity—a classical department for about 500 boys, and a modern department for about 500 boys; whether the Charity Commissioners have sanctioned the action of the governing body in acquiring a site of about 4a. 2r. 20p. in West Kensington, Fulham, for erecting a school for 400 girls under the said scheme, before they have provided a modern department, for which the present expensive building was erected; and whether the cost of such site, having no frontage, is £15,250, or nearly £3,300 an acre, whereas building land in Fulham, with frontages, and ripe for building purposes, can be easily obtained for about £1,500 an acre; and whether the Charity Commissioners will intervene to prevent this expenditure of charity money?

The Charity Commissioners have received complaints that Clause 35 (1) of the Scheme for St. Paul's Schools has not been carried out, and are in communication with the governors on the subject, whose final explanation they have not yet received. The order of priority in which the various schools and departments to be maintained under the scheme are to be established is, by the scheme itself, directed to be such as the governors may deem most expedient. The Commissioners have before them an application from the governors to purchase the site in question, but before sanctioning the purchase they have required to be furnished with satisfactory evidence of the value of the site.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the date of the communication, referred to by the Auditor General in his Report on the Imperial Defence Act, addressed by the Colonial Office to the Government of Queensland, respecting the non-ratification of the Australasian Agreement by that Government; whether any remonstrance or representations on this subject have been made to the Government of Queensland by any of the other Australasian Colonies who were parties to and who have ratified the said Agreement; and whether the correspondence will be presented to the House?

A Despatch was, on October 31st last, addressed to Queensland and the other colonies concerned. The Secretary of State is not aware whether any representations have been made to Queensland by the other colonies. It seems hardly worth while to print the Circular Despatch of October 31st, but a copy of it shall be furnished to my hon. Friend.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can explain on what grounds the grant of 12s. per efficient Volunteer is held to be enough for the provision of the equipments required under the regulations in the cases of country battalions; if he is aware that the lowest charge at which these equipments are procurable is 18s.; if he can make a distinction in favour of battalions whose detachments are widely scattered; if he is aware that the regulation which limits this grant of 12s. to efficients on the previous October will adversely affect those corps which were below their strength at that time; if also, in the case of the Volunteer Artillery the grant of 5s. has been found wholly insufficient, and, without including valises, does the required equipment cost fully 11s. 6d. per man; and if he can make a substantial increase upon the allowances alluded to?

The special grant for the equipment of the Volunteers was intended to complete their equipment with which they were already partially supplied, and not to completely re-equip the Force. As regards the Infantry Volunteers, the articles deficient were taken to be braces, pouch, mess-tin, haversack, water-bottle, and carrier. These it was estimated last year could be obtained for 12s. A rise in prices has since taken place, and the sums are somewhat insufficient. Accordingly, the grant of 12s. will be increased to 15s. for those corps which wear buff, and to 13s. for those whose accoutrements are black or brown. As regards Artillery Corps, they were understood to be already in possession of a waist-belt and pouch, a frog, and a sling. The remaining equipment can, it is known, be obtained for 5s. Consequently it is not intended to increase that amount. Great-coats will, in many cases, be issued in kind, to the advantage of corps concerned. The grant of 30s. sanctioned for all future cases of increase of establishment will be made retrospective to April 1st, 1890.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his proposals for a more frequent publication of the accounts of Joint Stock Banks are confined to the London Banks, or whether they extend to all the Joint Stock Banks in the United Kingdom?

My appeal for more frequent publication of the accounts of Joint Stock Banks was made without any distinction as to the locality of the banks; but I mainly had the London banks in view. I am glad to say that I have every reason to believe that the London Joint Stock Banks will consent to monthly publication. With regard to the country Joint Stock Banks, I understand, though they have the matter still under consideration, that they are in general reluctant to adopt a monthly publication, but would consent to a quarterly publication instead of half-yearly publication as at present in vogue.

I am informed that the action of the London banks will rather depend on what the country banks propose to do.

I understand that the London Joint Stock Banks have practically agreed to a monthly publication, subject to their agreeing on the particular form of account.

May I ask whether the country banks have not unanimously decided for a three-monthly publication?

I understand that that was the recommendation of the Committee, but the country Joint Stock Banks themselves have still to be called together with reference to the final conclusion.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General when his promise of increase of salary to the second class telegraphists, given in July last, is to come into operation in Liverpool; whether such clerks in Liverpool have been ordered to refund payments made to them on the faith of such promise; and whether the increment has already been granted to clerks in some towns; and, if so, why these towns are preferred to Liverpool?

I am not aware of such a promise as that alluded to by the hon. Member. In July last I promulgated the scheme sanctioned by the Treasury, which changed the annual increment of second class male telegraphists throughout the Post Office Service from 1s. 6d. to 2s. a week. In order to do this it was necessary to fix a common date from which the new scale giving the new increment should commence, and to adjust the sums payable under the old system up to that date. I believe that in some few instances this rule was not properly observed, with the result that some incorrect payments amounting to a few pence had to be adjusted. I am not aware that the course indicated in the last part of the question has been adopted in any instance. The method of adjustment followed at Liverpool was adopted in every case in the application of the improved scales, and was in accordance with the Treasury Rules on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps will be taken in the coming Census to secure the enumeration of persons in London who will not be returned as having slept in any dwelling house or lodging house, but who may spend the night in the streets or in places not likely to come under the notice of the enumerators?

The Instructions to the enumerators require them to take an account, so far as possible, of any persons who may have been in their district during the night of the Census, although they may not have slept in any house. The period of the year makes it very improbable that any large number of houseless persons will be passing the night in the streets on the night in question.

What is the nature of the information those persons will be called on to give the enumerators?

I presume the enumerators will ascertain as far as they can the same information from people in the streets as from people in houses.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether in view of the triennial elections of School Boards in Scotland now commencing, he can give the House any information as to the duties of returning officers at such elections; whether, looking to Section 53 of "The Elections (Scotland) Corrupt and Illegal Practices Act, 1890," repealing the 14th section of "The Elementary Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," it is now the duty of the returning officer (or of any and what other authority) at such elections, in every case of equality of votes, to determine which candidate is to be deemed duly elected; whether, looking to the repeal aforesaid, there is now any authority (under the existing provisions of the Education Acts affecting Scotland) for returning officers to hold or declare the candidates having the majority of votes duly elected, or to determine in every case of equality of votes which candidate is to be deemed duly elected, as was the law under the Act of 1872; if the 14th section of "The Elementary Education (Scotland) Act, 1872," is to any extent repealed, what are the duties of returning officers in relation to the matters above referred to; and whether any and what subsequent legislation takes the place of the directions given to returning officers in the Act of 1872?

The duties of Returning Officers at School Board Elections are prescribed by the General Order of October, 1890, issued by the Scotch Education Department in virtue of the powers conferred on the Department under the Education Acts. Paragraph 20 of that Order provides for the case of an equality of votes. The Returning Officer is also, in pursuance of Paragraph 21, to make a return of the result of the poll and of the names, with place of abode and designation, of the persons elected, which must necessarily be based upon the number of votes obtained by the respective candidates.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in recommending to Her Majesty the names of persons to be appointed on the proposed Labour Commission, the Government will consider the desirability of placing on the Commission one or more women, having regard both to the large extent to which working women and their trade organisations are interested in any amendments of the laws relating to labour which may be suggested, and also to the fact that some of the questions likely to be dealt with by the Commission affect working women and children in a special and peculiar way?

The Government have very carefully considered this question, and they have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, it is not advisable that women should be placed upon the Commission. All interests will doubtless be fully represented before the Commission.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his answer must be regarded as final, or whether it will be of any use to bring before the Government further evidence in the matter?

Yes, Sir; I think my answer must be regarded as final.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the following facts relating to the case of William Lay cock, recently imprisoned for an alleged poaching offence by Hon. Harbord Harbord, at the North Walsham Petty Sessions; that Laycock was only served at 4 o'clock on a Monday afternoon with the summons requiring him to appear the following morning at 10.30; that, owing to this short interval, he was unable to obtain legal advice or secure the attendance of several witnesses material to his defence, and his application for an adjournment was refused; that the alleged offence was committed in Antingham Wood, which is within the jurisdiction of the Cromer Bench, and not of the North Walsham Bench; that the summons averred that Laycock was, "about the hour of 7," in a certain plantation, the property of Right Hon. Charles, Baron Suffield, which averment was found at the trial to have been altered to the defendant's disadvantage to "10 minutes past 7;" that the Hon. H. Harbord is the agent of Mr. Mundy (lessee of his brother, Lord Suffield), who prosecuted Laycock; and whether, having regard to the above facts, and to the fact that Laycock is an illiterate man, unable to read, he will advise a re-hearing of the case to enable him to be properly advised as to his defence, and to bring all his witnesses into Court?

I am informed by the Clerk to the Justices that the summons was served at 4 o'clock the day before the hearing. The question as to time of service was not raised before the Bench, and no intimation was made by the defendant that he wished to procure legal assistance. Had he applied, an adjournment would undoubtedly have been granted for that purpose. The offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the North Walsham Bench. The summons averred that the offence took place about the hour of seven, and was not subsequently altered. I am informed that the Chairman is not the agent of the lessee. I have no power to order a re-hearing of the case. The man's imprisonment is now at an end.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in consideration of the very great interest taken, both in and outside the House, in the Mines (Eight Hours) Bill, he will move the suspension for Wednesday, 18th March, of the Standing Order which prevents the continuance of any Debate upon Opposed Business after 5.30 p.m. on Wednesdays?

The Government have come to the conclusion that it would not be right to ask the House to suspend the Standing Order in this case. A great necessity should be made out for the suspension of the Standing Order on Wednesday, as the early rising on that day is a great relief to the strain on hon. Members and the officers of the House.

Is it not the fact that on Wednesday the 19th of June, and Wednesday the 3rd of July, the Standing Order was suspended?

I have no doubt that the hon. Member is perfectly accurate in the statement he has made as to the suspension of the Standing Order.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether with a view to prevent the waste of time caused by counts out when Private Members' Motions are being discussed, the Government will consider the advisability of asking the House to alter the Standing Orders governing business on Tuesday nights so as to allow Private Members' Bills to take precedence of Motions, and on Friday nights, so as to allow more than one Division to be taken on Motions or Amendments on going into Committee of Supply?

A strong case should be made out before any attempt is made to revise the Standing Orders of the House. At present I am not prepared to undertake that task.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if there is any shed or open air shelter in Clonmel, Galway, Kilmainham, or Tullamore Gaols, where prisoners can take the two hours' exercise as required by the Irish Prison Rules?

The General Prisons Board report that the prisons mentioned, in common with others, contain no exercise sheds, the exercise being given in the open air, but sheds are available there for shelter from showers should the necessity arise.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the amount payable from the Constabulary Force Fund to the widow of a pensioner is calculated upon the amount of pay drawn by him while serving in the Force, and also upon the amount of pension drawn by him as a pensioner; if he is compelled to subscribe to the fund while serving in the Force; and whether if he does not subscribe when on pension his widow or his children have no claim upon the fund?

The amount payable from the Constabulary Force Fund to the widow of a pensioner is calculated upon the amount of pay drawn by him while serving, and (except in the case of pensioners who retired before April 1st, 1867) an addition is made in respect of the amount of pension drawn. All officers and men of the Force appointed prior to the Constabulary Act of 1883, are compelled by Statute to subscribe to the fund so long as they are actually serving. Subscription to the fund on the part of a pensioner is voluntary. It is the case that a married member of the Force must, in order to secure the existing claim of his wife or children against the fund, subscribe when on pension. The claim otherwise lapses.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the relief works are about to be commenced at last in the County Cavan; and whether he will include among those works the roads for which presentments were refused by the Grand Jury, owing to the promise of the Government to start relief works?

I have not, as yet, been able to obtain Reports on this question; but in regard to the last paragraph, I have to say that I would strongly advise any Grand Jury to construct the works which they think are required in a county without consulting the action the Government may think it necessary to take.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the condition of a vast proportion of the population of the Gweedore district of Dunfanaghy Union; whether any part of Ireland can show a worse condition than is to be found in the Meenacladdy, Bloodyforeland, and Brinlack portions of this district; what measures he proposes for the relief of this misery; whether his attention has been called to the consequences that must result next year owing to the fact that no seed potatoes have been provided for the Gweedore district, and whether he purposes making provision to prevent the famine that must ensue next year if seed be not promptly provided now; and whether it is by any fault of the Poor Law Guardians of the district that no seed has been provided; and, if so, whether he can compel this Board of Guardians to perform their duty in this crisis, or whether he will take steps to save the people from the consequences of their neglect?

Careful attention is being paid to the condition of the Gweedore and other districts in the Dunfanaghy Union. Serious injury must undoubtedly result to the Gweedore people if they persist in their refusal to apply for seed potatoes. No blame appears to attach to the Board of Guardians in the matter. On the contrary, the Guardian who resides in the district had the necessary notices posted, detailing the steps to be taken to obtain a supply of seed; but not a single application was made. It is said that the parish priest, the Rev. James M'Fadden, has taken upon himself the responsibility of advising his people not to apply for any seed from the Guardians, and, if this be so, upon him must rest the responsibility for the results. The time within which seed potatoes may be obtained has been extended in this and certain other Unions up to April 2.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has considered the deep distress prevailing among the numerous small farmers in Kiltullagh and Ballinlough, in the Castlerea Union, County Roscommon; and what measures he proposes in order to afford them relief?

The condition of this district is engaging the attention of the Government.

said: For the general scheme of railway construction in Ireland the Government are, on the whole, responsible, and primarily, of course, the Irish Government. The work, however, has to be constructed and negotiations carried on with the Board of Works, who are not under the Irish Government. Those are not circumstances which, in the ordinary course, would lead to a successful prosecution of novel and arduous business; but the Board of Works, as a matter of fact, have shown the greatest zeal and energy in carrying out the instructions or recommendations which I have made to them, and not only am I personally, but the public also, under a deep debt of gratitude to the Board of Works for what they have done in the matter.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government are in a position to give the House any information, in addition to that which has appeared in the public Press, as to the seizure of a British vessel on the Limpopo River?

Information has been received from the Acting Governor of the Cape, and indirectly from the Consul at Delagoa Bay, that the steamer Countess of Carnarvon had been detained by a Portuguese in the Limpopo River on a charge of smuggling, and was being sent to Delagoa Bay. We do not know any more at present.

I beg to ask whether the Lower Limpopo traverses territory admitted to be Portuguese; whether, by the laws of the Portuguese Province of Mozambique, through which lower river flows, no vessel may import arms or ammunition, either into the Province or through the Province to the interior, without a licence; whether the Countess of Carnarvon had that licence; whether, before the vessel is condemned as prize, there will not have to be a condemnation by a tribunal, at which it will be open to the owner of the vessel to appear; whether there is any Convention or Treaty now in force by which the right is secured to Her Majesty's ships to import arms and ammunition by the Limpopo, or to navigate that river to the sea; whether the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has approved of the alleged concession to exercise power and sovereignty in Manicaland granted to the South Africa Company by Mutassa, and whether the Charter granted to that company does not preclude them from exercising such power and sovereignty in Manicaland until such approval is granted; whether Manicaland does not form part of the territory where it was agreed by the Convention of last November?

The lower waters of the Limpopo are in territory recognised to be Portuguese; the importation of arms and ammunition into the Province of Mozambique is prohibited; we are not aware of the circumstances in which the Countess of Carnarvon was seized, except that it was on a charge of smuggling. If detained on that ground only, legal proceedings would have to be taken, and we should suppose that the persons charged would have an opportunity of defending themselves. In a case of smuggling there is no question of "prize." There is no Convention at present entitling Her Majesty's subjects to import arms by the Limpopo. The Secretary of State has not approved of a concession to the South Africa Company to exercise power and sovereignty in Mutassa's country, nor is the company doing so. Mutassa is an independent Chief, and is still governing his own territory. He has granted concessions to the company, and with his consent their police are keeping order among their own people. Manicaland, until its frontiers are surveyed and defined, is a loose geographical expression; and it cannot be at present declared to what extent it is affected by the terms of the modus vivendi. The question of the importation of arms is separate, and is not affected by the modus vivendi. The company's agents, as well as certain Portuguese officials, were at Mutassa's kraal before the date of the modus vivendi agreement. The capture of the latter took place shortly after that date, but before its signature was known in Manica.

I desire, with the leave of the Speaker, to draw attention to a personal matter of some importance to me, though I am ill-disposed to intrude my personal affairs on the notice of the House. On Friday night the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Wharton), whom I have always regarded as a friend, asked a question relating to some private legal proceedings in which I have been engaged at Sunderland. Now, I believe it is unusual, and certainly it would be very inconvenient in many cases if it were the practice, to ask questions in the House concerning the private affairs of other hon. Members. But even if it were the practice, it is only fair that notice of the question should be given in accordance with the practice of the House, so that the Speaker, or the other officials of the House, might have an opportunity of pronouncing whether it was a proper question or not. Still more unusual is it that such a question should be asked without any notice whatever being given to the Member most concerned. But on Friday night the question I refer to was not on the Notice Paper, but was nevertheless put in such circumstances. It was put at the end of the list of questions, and the Home Secretary bad evidently rehearsed the little play, because he rose at once with an answer pat to the question and gave it. I think, therefore, I have a right to complain of the course taken by the hon. Member for Ripon, especially in not giving me notice. I have sent the hon. Member notice that I intend to bring the matter forward to-day—to all the addresses I could find—the Oxford and Cambridge Club, the Carlton Club, and the House of Commons—the only addresses which appear in the books to which I have access. The only excuse, if any, the hon. Member can offer for raising the question on Friday was that a few nights before I had drawn attention to the conduct of the police of the County of Durham in regard to the famous baton charge. That charge took place on the 25th of February, and the proceedings in which my name was introduced related to an affair on the 20th February, so that the hon. Member could not even plead that justification for bringing the matter before the House. I hope the House will permit me to say, first, that it is quite correct that the case was tried before a Bench packed with my political opponents, and that I failed to sustain a charge of assault against the police. ["Oh!" and cries of "Order!"] Hon. Members opposite say "Oh." I make no complaint of the Magistrates who adjudicated on that occasion, but I may tell the House that the Magistrate who was in the chair was a gentleman whom the miners of Silksworth rejected for the County Council in favour of their own secretary; that the Magistrate next to him was a gentleman whom I defeated for the Borough of Sunderland, and that the two other Magistrates on the Bench "were openly and notoriously my political and personal opponents. ["Order, order!" and a VOICE: "Monstrous!"] "Monstrous," says an hon. Member opposite. Well, I will still further earn the censure of that hon. Gentleman by making another statement—that I do not think, considering the weaknesses of ordinary human nature, that the conduct of the Magistrates is much to be condemned or complained of on the occasion; but I will say this, that the evidence before the Magistrates——

Order, order! The hon. Member is entitled to complain of a question concerning him being put to the House without proper notice having been given, but he certainly would not be in order in re-trying the case in this House.

I shall not, of course, seek to re-try the case; but I suppose I may be permitted to say that the evidence upon the case will be tested in another Court, composed of competent men of legal training—[Cries of "Order!"]—and, in these circumstances, I will venture to ask the hon. Member for Ripon to withhold his opinion until the facts—the real facts—have been placed before him and before the House.

In rising to move the Resolution which stands in my name on the Paper, I may say I have heard that great objection has been raised to the Motion. But may I point out that the Parliamentary Session has already extended five weeks longer than is usual at this period of the year? The Motion is necessary in regard to Public Business, and is, therefore, made in the interests of the House and for the convenience of hon. Members, so as to enable the Government to prorogue Parliament many weeks earlier than usual—in July, in fact. Morning Sittings in April are, I may remind hon. Members, not unusual. There were three Morning Sittings in April, 1889; seven in May of the same year; four in April, 1890; and seven in May of that year. I am asking the House to give the Government seven Morning Sittings in the month of April, and this, I think, the circumstances of the case fully justify. The Government propose to proceed with the Irish Land Purchase Bill as the principal business directly after the Easter holidays, and I shall propose to take it on the first Thursday after the House has re-assembled unless some urgent business intervenes. The Budget will not be taken until some days later. It is important we should proceed with the Land Bill from day to day as, in order to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on the question, the whole energies of the Government and of the House ought to be devoted to the Bill. I beg to move the Resolution on the Paper.

There is no doubt that so much business is thrown upon the House that it is very difficult to find time for dealing with it. But it has been pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that it is possible to overcome this trouble by adopting a system of derogation—a system which has been entirely ignored by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is now asking us to give him the time of private Members up to Easter. What for? For a number of small Bills; and yet the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is very much behindhand in the matter of Supply. Why does he not attempt to put forward Supply? Simply because he is now doing what, with all respect to him, I must say he always does do—he is making a muddle of the business of the House. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cry "Oh!" Possibly they have not had the experience of former Sessions. Well, I am content to take the experience of this Session alone. We were told in the Queen's Speech that there was to be a Tithes Bill, a Land Bill for Ireland, a Free Education Bill, and a Small Holdings Bill. I imagine that the Free Education Bill and the Small Holdings Bill have entirely disappeared from the Government programme. Certainly, the right hon. Gentleman said nothing about them. He said he wished to Prorogue the House in July. Up to the present time we have passed the Tithes Bill through its various stages in this House and have sent it to the Lords. The Irish Land Bill has been read a second time, and various other measures have been carried. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman cannot for a moment complain that he has met with any sort of obstruction from this side of the House. Now, if he were to say: I am anxious to Prorogue the House in July, and, therefore, I will give up the Small Holdings Bill, and the Free Education Bill, and will only attempt to pass the Land Bill, and I will devote these Morning Sittings to the discussion of the Estimates, I imagine we should be able to look with favour upon his present proposal. But that is what he has not done. We are told that up to Easter the Government intend to take these Morning Sittings simply for the sake of pushing forward a few small Bills, and the right hon. Gentleman in his speech said it depended upon ourselves—it depended upon whether we passed the Vote on Account to-night—whether we should or should not get the proposed Easter holiday. He told us that it was absolutely necessary that that Vote should be agreed to to-night, and so it is, unless the House of Lords are prepared to do what they have done over and over again—to suspend their Standing Orders, and to pass the necessary Bill in one or two days. The right hon. Gentleman knows there is nothing more easy than for a Government to induce the House of Lords to do this, and, no doubt, if we do continue the Debate on the Vote on Account after to-night, that will be the course which will be adopted. I quite admit that the Government have a right, by long usage, to ask for one Vote on Account every Session; but unfortunately they do not limit themselves to a single Vote. We know they have asked for repeated Votes on Account in past Sessions. We have a right to discuss every shilling of public expenditure on these Votes; but when these claims upon us are made so frequently, it becomes absolutely impossible for us to adequately discuss them. I can only say that if we give this Vote on Account to-night, the right hon. Gentleman must understand that if he asks us for further Votes on Account later in the Session, we shall discuss them as though we were debating the Estimates. I hold that the consideration of the Estimates ought not to be put off until the close of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that after Easter he is going to take the Land Bill from day to day. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that there is the Budget to bring in and matters connected with it, and I do not see, therefore, how, in the months of May and June, the Government will be able to devote any time to Supply. The fact is Supply will be postponed until July, and then it will not receive the discussion which ought to be devoted to it. Now, personally, I should have no objection to Morning Sittings being generally adopted by the House as part and parcel of the scheme for the management of its business. I never, myself, have complained of counts-out taking place. I have always thought that if an hon. Member wants to bring forward a Motion, he ought to be able to induce 40 of his Colleagues to attend and help him make a House. I never yet understood why the Government were expected to make Houses on private Members' nights. The original idea was that on Friday night the Government might hope by 10 or 11 o'clock to get into Committee of Supply and then would be able to get a considerable number of Votes passed, but when Effective Supply is not put down, I do not see why the Government should be called upon to make a House. It was once said—I think by Lord Palmerston—that the business of a subordinate Member was to make a House, to keep a House, and to cheer Ministers. Well the Government could send down a few subordinate gentlemen to help make a House, and if it sent down 10 it might legitimately be expected that the Opposition would supply the remaining 30 to make up a quorum. Now if from the beginning of the Session the Government would have Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays, and pledge themselves to devote those sittings to the discussion of Supply, I think it would be a very good plan, because then there would be no inducement for Conservative Members to obstruct the "Estimates, as the ordinary Government business could not possibly be interfered with. They would know perfectly well that in the end the House must sit on Tuesdays and Fridays until the Estimates were all passed. If the right hon. Gentleman would make a proposal of that sort I would support him, but I would object to the right hon. Gentleman always speaking of the Standing Orders of the House as if they were like the laws of the Medes and Persians, and yet interrupting and altering them to make them suit his convenience. I do not think at present that the business of the House is in such a condition as to justify the right hon. Gentleman in asking for these Morning Sittings, and I shall vote against his proposal unless we have an assurance that instead of the small Bills he has said he will take, he will put down the Estimates for discussion on Tuesdays and Fridays up till Easter, and give a reasonable number of days during the months of May and June for the discussion of similar matters.

I think the right hon. Gentleman draws rather largely on the pliability of the House, and I was rather amused at the nature of the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. The right hon. Gentleman did not go back to what took place in earlier years as to morning sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. All the precedents which the right hon. Gentleman quoted were precedents which he has himself set. In regard to Morning Sittings, as well as in other respects, if the right hon. Gentleman had gone back 10 years he would have found that the Government were then much more moderate in the drafts they made on the patience and the willingness of the House. The strong point in the case of the right hon. Gentleman is that he declares he is animated by a desire to bring about the Prorogation in decent time in the month of July. I hope the month of July does not mean the 31st of July. I am disposed myself to give every reasonable assistance to the right hon. Gentleman. I make the concession to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he was right to a great extent in his contention that the House will derive advantage, in the case of an extensive and complicated measure like the Land Bill, from as much continuity as possible. But there are two things which I missed entirely in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and upon which I wish seriously to press him. One is that he did not give any assurance that it is the serious intention of the Government to put forward Supply at an early date and—whether the Prorogation be in July or in August—not to allow Supply to drift to the latest weeks of the Session. I think the House is entitled to have an explicit declaration from the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. The right hon. Gentleman slipped, if I may say so, with great facility and adroitness over the whole subject of keeping a House on Fridays. Now there is some misunderstanding on that matter. The obligation of the Government to keep a House on Fridays never did arise altogether or mainly out of the belief that it would be able to get effective Supply on that day. Undoubtedly that point was reported upon by the Committee that recommended the present plan, but the obligation arose in this way—that before the Order was made which required Supply to be taken as the first business on Fridays, it was necessary to make a Motion every Friday, "That this House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next," and on that Motion all the miscellaneous Motions were made by private Members which are now made on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. The consequence is that it is always an obligation of the Government to keep a House on Friday nights, and when the change was made to the present system, that duty of the Government was recognised explicitly, and it is a total mistake to speak of the Government as being under no necessity to keep a House on Fridays. And over and over again on, I must say, the very rare occasions when the Secretary to the Treasury failed to keep a House on the Friday, the unfortunate Secretary to the Treasury, whoever he was, on coming down on the Monday had to stand before the House morally in a white sheet and make his apologies for having been unable on the occasion to fulfil the duty of the Government. Any attempt to deny or extenuate that duty was never made. It is an extremely difficult thing for private Members to make a House at 9 o'clock, but with the obligation of the Government recognised with regard to Fridays, they have at least one chance in the week, and that is the least to which they ought to be reduced. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I have used him unfairly, but on these two points we are entitled to ask for assurances which it is sincerely to be trusted he will be disposed to give.

The hon. Member for Northampton made a proposition which is worthy of a little more consideration than has been given to it. The hon. Member suggested for the block of business in the House a remedy which is sometimes proposed by Railway Directors when there is a block on the railway. They sometimes proposed a double line, one for goods traffic and the other for passengers. The hon. Member for Northampton suggests that the Government business should go on the ordinary lines, but that a new line in the shape of Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays should be created in order to enable hon. Members to discuss Supply to their hearts' content. He pointed out that under these circumstances there would be no obstruction, since delay with the Estimates would not affect the ordinary business of the Government. But I think the hon. Gentleman will see that if the plan he suggests were adopted, it would take from the Government a great deal of their present responsibility and control with regard to the Estimates, because to establish the practice of taking Supply at Morning Sittings would be something equivalent to the course of business in Grand Committees. It has been found impossible for the Grand Committees to be conducted on Party lines, and for the Government to be certain of a majority, and consequently, if this were applied to Supply, the Government would have to consider themselves discharged from responsibility for this important business. I should like to know what would happen if, on some occasion when an hon. Member should find himself in a temporary majority in the Committee of Supply on Tuesday or Friday, the hon. Member were to get up and propose to diminish the Army by 30,000 troops? Supposing a proposition of this kind were carried, what would be the position of the Government of the day—unless, indeed, the hon. Member for Northampton accompanies his proposition by a further suggestion that the Government shall have the right to re-introduce any Vote on the occasion of the Report to the House. Let the House consider the position in which we find ourselves. The House, this Session, met at a much earlier date than usual, and it cannot be said that the Government have forced on the attention of the House any undue amount of public business. And, although we have been sitting for a considerable time, up to the present no practical progress has been made with Supply. We have, of course, not yet approached the questions arising out of the Budget, and we have two important Bills before us, one of which has not yet been approached in Committee. That makes it necessary for the Government to make this demand on our time at a confessedly early period of the Session, that not unnaturally leads to the wail that private Members are being robbed of their privileges. I venture to say that what is wanted is not more time. There is, under ordinary circumstances, quite sufficient time to deal with the ordinary business which is introduced by the Government, and also full time for the discussion of any important questions brought forward by private Members. But what is wanted is a better disposal of the time we have. The hon. Member for Northampton says there has been no obstruction during the present Session. Well, of course, one's definition of obstruction varies very much according to the side of the House on which one sits. But it will be the opinion, I imagine, of the great majority of the House that, at all events, much too great space of time has been given to unimportant matters, and that important matters have, consequently, been put aside; and, therefore, I submit to the House, for consideration at the proper time, the possibility, the desirability, of so amending the Orders as to give to the majority some greater control over the disposal, the division, of its time. In the American House of Representatives, where they found themselves face to face with a similar difficulty, they met it by a plan under which a Committee, which was called a Committee on Rules, reported to the House what time, in their opinion, should be allotted to the discussion of particular stages of Bills or particular Resolutions; and when that time was exhausted, then the vote on the Bill or on the Resolution was taken. I am perfectly convinced that a system of that kind would, in the long run, be found to work here, because, knowing exactly what proportion of the whole time of the House is allotted to a particular measure, the Opposition would arrange its discussion, and would take care that its strongest arguments and its best speakers have the opportunity to which they are entitled. Without some such disposal of the time, I am perfectly certain we shall continue to have these Resolutions of the Government in every Session, and probably at an earlier period in every Session, and that private Members will still continue to be without the facilities they desire.

I should not have interfered in this Debate but for an observation made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian with regard to the obligation of a Government to keep a House on Friday night. I think the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten altogether what manner of man he was some years ago. I remember in days gone by when he was Leader of the House his contention was always the exact reverse, and now I am only too delighted to welcome him as a convert to my own views. It is perfectly true that when the alteration in the Rules of the House was made, whereby Supply was placed at the head of the Paper on Fridays, and the Motion for an Adjournment until Monday was got rid of, it was stated by Lord Palmerston that that would give Members of the House the full rights that they would have on any occasion when Supply was put at the head of the Paper. That was my contention, but it was resisted by the right hon. Gentleman on a memorable occasion, and when a Motion that "Mr. Speaker leave the Chair" had been agreed to, he refused to make the ordinary Motion from the Ministerial Bench that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply. I fought that question with him before your predecessor (Mr. Denison) in the Chair, and he was good enough to decide in my favour, and declare that it was an obligation of the Government on such an occasion to renew the Motion for Supply. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was defeated. When Mr. Speaker Brand was in the Chair the same question again cropped up, and the right hon. Gentleman again refused to renew the Motion that "the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply." I myself then put a Motion on the Paper and argued it to the best of my ability. I was opposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, and Mr. Brand decided that, though there was no absolute obligation on the part of the Government to renew the Motion, it was, at all events, customary and, as a matter of course, ought to be done. Now we have tonight this position: The right hon. Gentleman, having changed sides in the House, has taken up the position which formerly he resisted. What I contended was that Her Majesty's Government were bound to make a House on Friday; and particularly when the House met again at 9 o'clock. But I never heard it contended that the obligation of the Government was to go further than that. They are only bound to keep a House for a reasonable time, and it cannot be expected that they will sit for two or three hours for the benefit of the speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway. My object in rising was to express my satisfaction that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian has taken the proper view that the Government are bound to make a House, but to add that they are not bound to do more than what is reasonable in this matter. If they keep a House for about an hour after 9 o'clock, I do not think they are called upon to extend their efforts any further.

Sir, there are two distinct questions: the making of a House on Friday, and the keeping of a House for the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, and the point raised in the setting up of Supply a second time. The First Lord of the Treasury said that there was no understood obligation on the part of the Government to set up Supply a second time, and the point which we wish to impress upon him is that the Government should make and keep a House until the Question is disposed of, "That the Speaker leave the Chair." As to the present state of business, I think you cannot point, in the last 10 years, to a 16th of March when the business of the Government was advanced up to this point. Three of the principal measures of the Government have been read a second time. One of the measures to which they attach great importance has passed through Committee of this House, and is coming from the other House, and in all probability the Amendments of the Lords will be disposed of before we adjourn for the Easter holidays. With reference to Supply, all the Supplementary Votes have been obtained except one or two. The great Votes for the Army and Navy have been obtained, and I think it would be difficult to find a year in which Supply has made the progress which it has made this year. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman when he proposes that the Speaker shall leave the Chair for the Civil Service Estimates? With all deference, I would suggest that some Votes should be taken before the Easter holidays. Are we to understand that the Irish Land Bill will not be taken until the Thursday, and that Monday and Tuesday will be taken for Supply after the Easter holidays?

Can the right hon. Gentleman state on what day the House will be asked to consider the Lords Amendments to the Tithes Bill?

I wish to say a few words on behalf of hon. Members who, like myself, have to attend to other work besides that of this House. When I became a Member of this House it met at 4 o'clock. The hour was then brought down to 3, and it is still more inconvenient when 2 o'clock is fixed as the hour of meeting, though that inconvenience may not be felt by hon. Members who come from a distance and leave their business behind them. It is felt, however, by hon. Members who are at home in London and have their ordinary business to attend to. I think the object of the Government might be attained without inconvenience if they met at 3 o'clock on Tuesdays and took Government Business up to 8; the House might adjourn for half an hour as usual, and the evening sitting would commence at 9 and go on until 12. By this plan the Government will have as much time with private Members, only half an hour less than now, and we shall not be kept here until I. There have been five Counts-out this Session, and the Government have been attacked in the newspapers for not preventing them. I suggest that the Standing Orders should be altered, so that the effect of a count may be not to adjourn the House, but to pass to the next Order of the Day. In this way we shall escape from uninteresting subjects and dull speeches, and take up the next business of interest, or go on to Supply, for which Members will be ready to stop.

I would point out that the course pursued by the hon. Members of the Government in counting out the House is one which retards Public Business. For four Friday nights I have put down a Motion regarding the grievances of Scotland. On three occasions the House was counted out. If the opportunity had been allowed me I could have dealt with the grievances of Scotland in one night's Sitting and in one speech; whereas I will now have to seek opportunities in Supply, and perhaps be compelled to make 20 speeches and take 20 Divisions. It is the junior Members of the Government who prevent Members coming in after dinner, when they see that there is no chance of getting Supply; and, of course, Members on this side of the House never think of leaving their dinner, or the Smoke Room, or Reading Room, because they expect the Government to keep a House. When you count out the House you will not prevent dull speakers from making speeches on the different Votes in Supply. The business of Supply is lengthened mainly because the Government allow the House to be counted out. Hon. Members must dine, and the half hour taken by the Chairman or Speaker is not sufficient. I think the course which has been adopted is a very unwise one, and prevents fair discussion.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Civil Service Estimates will be taken first after Easter? There are several Motions down with regard to the Diplomatic Service of the Foreign Office, and we could hardly have a satisfactory discussion on the first day after the holidays. With regard to the suggestion thrown out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham in reference to the method adopted by the House of Representatives at Washington, I venture to suggest that it would only have the effect of making the majority of this House more tyrannical by putting larger opportunities of oppression into their hands. As to the other argument of my right hon. Friend, there would be no more danger of the Government being caught by a sudden Division in Supply than on a Bill. Why should not the Government keep a majority for Supply on Tuesdays and Fridays just as they will for the Irish Land Bill when it is in Committee?

With the permission of the House, I will now reply to the questions that have been addressed to me. I have to thank hon. Members for the extremely valuable and varied advice I have received from them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian that when the Counts-out took place there was such an obvious want of interest in the subjects before the House that the Counts-out were almost inevitable; but I do not see why hon. Members on the other side should have left the House at that particular time. To ask the Government to keep a House in such circumstance would be to increase against the Government the stringency of the existing Rule to an unreasonable extent. It is the duty of the Government to make a House for the first Motion on going into Supply on Fridays, and that they will continue to do. But it is only reasonable that hon. Members who make Motions should have some support from their own friends. The hon. Member for Caithness indicated that Liberal Members could not be expected to keep a House for Liberal Motions. If that be so, it is rather hard to expect his political opponents to do that which his own friends will not do. As to Supply being in a forward state, that is owing to the fact that, as Easter comes at an unusually early period this year, the Government are under the necessity of getting Supply as early as possible. The Government will certainly do what they can to make a House at 9 o'clock on Friday. As to the complaints about Votes on Account, we took two such Votes last year, one on March 21 and the other on May 23. There is no record in the last 20 years when so few Votes on Account were taken by any Government as by the present Government. I hope to be able to take the Lords' Amendments to the Tithe Bill on Friday next, but as the hon. Member is aware, the last stage of that Bill has not as yet been passed by the other House. Therefore I am not able to give any positive assurance, but I may refer to the matter to-morrow. As to the Civil Service Estimates, I hope we shall be able to get the Speaker out of the Chair on Monday next. The Civil Service Estimates will be taken on the Monday after the holidays. The hon. Member for Caithness has complained that he has not been allowed to make one speech instead of many. If the hon. Member would confine himself to one speech full opportunity will be given him to make it in lieu of the many he promised for other occasions. We should be only too glad to purchase the hon. Member's silence for the rest of the Session on these terms, and I hope for that purpose we shall have the cordial support of Members on both sides.

We are asked to grant £150,000 to make good a possible deficiency. The Royal Irish Constabulary have their pensions voted direct by Parliament. The amount this year is £305,388, but this fund forms no part of the superannuation fund at all; it is a separate fund called the Police Reward Fund, or the Constabulary Force Fund. It was created originally by fines of the police, and by a reduction of their pay by 10s. per cent. The time has actually not arrived when the fund is insufficient to meet its liabilities. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says that contingency may arise, and yet we are asked, without having a single fact or figure placed before us, to vote this £150,000. I would submit to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee that we are, at all events, entitled to know the present condition of the fund. Parliament is entitled to know exactly what are the assets and liabilities of the fund. If there is a deficiency let Parliament annually vote the sum. I think this is a dangerous precedent, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Vote this evening.

I am not surprised at the view which is taken by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt there have been laches in the past, and while the present Government believe that no obligation has been incurred, past Irish Governments have allowed the idea to grow up in the Force that practically there is an obligation to meet any deficiency. The Force is uneasy with regard to the solvency of the fund, and the unhappy position is this, that while the members of the Force have been encouraged to believe they are safe, Parliament may theoretically, nevertheless, reject the responsibility. I think that would be a very serious thing for Parliament to do. It does not seem to me to be a good suggestion that we should leave the matter open from year to year, neither getting the benefit of freedom from liability nor increasing the confidence of the Force. I must say I think the course we have taken is the soundest course. We are not going to hand over the money, but we are going to say we have provided for any deficiency. We have at all events taken a course which is somewhat inconvenient to ourselves, as it raises the expenditure of the year, but we have done so because we think it is the soundest course we can adopt. I cannot state exactly what the assets are; but I can say that few questions, if any, have given us more anxiety, and there are few which we have examined in greater detail. We should not feel justified in taking a smaller sum than this. I think the right hon. Gentleman will do me the justice to believe that if I had not thought it wise and necessary to increase the expenditure of this year, which is already very large, by asking Parliament to assent to this sum, I should not have given my assent to this Vote. I cannot accept the view that the Vote ought to be withdrawn, as it would give the impression to the Force that Parliament was doubtful about its obligation to pay. Parliament should either repudiate that obligation or pay; but it would be unwise to halt between the two opinions.

The right hon. Gentleman has told his story clearly, although he has not given the details my right hon. Friend has asked for. But it is clear from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that nobody feels more strongly than he does how unfortunate has been the story of the past. As far as I can see, the concessions that have been made to the Constabulary have been made by the Executive and not under statute. We have been objecting very much to a large liability being laid upon subsequent Parliaments with regard to ships and guns; but in the case of ships and guns, the policy can alter from year to year, and we thought that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of reviewing it. With all respect to my right hon. Friend, I do not see the same objection in this case if we are quite certain that the scale of gratuities, allowances, and rewards, is fixed for ever—at any rate that the maximum is fixed. I think it is not only desirable, but absolutely necessary, that the Secretary for Ireland or the Secretary to the Treasury should speak most positively on this point. Nobody knows better than those who have been at the Irish Office what great pressure is put on the Government to increase the allowances for gratuities of this sort; and if the Government acquiesces in what I cannot but describe as the self-denying policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in putting all this sum on himself in one year, it should be on the distinct understanding that there shall be no increase at all in these allowances. I cannot help paying a tribute on this subject to the great financial and administrative abilities of Sir Robert Hamilton, and pointing out that if he was not the first to see, he most clearly, of all who had preceded him, saw through the objects of the administration of the fund, for it was while he was at Dublin Castle, in 1883, that the liabilities of the Fund were brought to an end.

We are fully alive to the dangers which have been pointed out. Undoubtedly there has been laxity in the administration of the fund in the past, but whether this is due to the Irish Government or the Treasury I will not pause to inquire. But the members of the Constabulary Force are in no way responsible for the regulations. They are bound by statute to contribute to this fund. The amount of the gratuities is settled for them, and we are bound in honour to see the transaction is a prudent one. If the transaction is financially rotten the burden should fall on the Government and not on the men. The lesson, however, will not be thrown away on the Irish Government or on the Treasury, and the Committee need be under no apprehension that the evils which have occurred in the administration of the fund in the past will be repeated.

I will supply the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton with full details in regard to the assets and liabilities, but he is acquainted with the character of the gentlemen who have been inquiring into these questions, and he may be assured that the Estimates have been very carefully scrutinised.

It seems to me very astonishing that there is not a single Irish Member in the House when this Vote is being discussed. We have frequently to complain that we are persistently voting money for Ireland, and I think we ought to have some statement from the Irish Members as to whether they consider this Vote legitimate and proper.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government have any intention of introducing the Bill with regard to superannuation? It was introduced two years ago, but not last year, and, as a Member of the Royal Commission, which took a great deal of pains to see that superannuation should be put on a proper basis, I am anxious that the question should be properly dealt with.

It is a source of regret to the Government that they have not been able to deal with this question. I have this year again been over some of the clauses of the Bill, endeavouring to see whether we can secure the most indispensable conditions without putting into the Bill provisions which would excite opposition, such as we might not eventually be able to overcome, and which would greatly delay the progress of the measure. We will endeavour to pass that Bill whenever we see a reasonable chance of making progress with it.

Under this Vote is an item of £1,000 as a pension for Sir J. P. Hennessy, granted on account of ill-health. I wish to know whether his Excellency is not well enough to resume his duties; whether he is the same person as the hon. Member for Kilkenny; and how it happens that a pension as ex-Governor does not disqualify for a seat in the House of Commons while a pension in the Civil Service does disqualify? Under what statute is the exception made?

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he could not bring in some Bill throwing the burden of pensions for ex-Governors upon the colonies? At present, while it is laid down as a principle that we are not to pay the salaries of the Governors of most of our colonies, we are called upon to pay for their pensions. I always understood that the theory of a pension was that it was deferred salary, and if the colonies pay one portion of the salary, why should they not be called upon to pay the other portion which is given under the guise of superannuation allowances. I have not the slightest doubt that the hon. Member for North Kilkenny is labouring under such ill-health, as, though it permits him to take part in the proceedings of the House of Commons, would not justify him in risking his valuable life in the colonies. I am not in the least complaining of this, still, as there happens to be in this Vote a pension of £1,000 per annum for him, said to have been granted on the ground of ill health, I should like to know what sort of certificates are demanded before Governors obtain these pensions, and how long the certificate remains in force? Does it have to be renewed every year, or does the certificate relieve from service for the future altogether. Possibly, under the influence of the excellent atmosphere of this House, his Excellency's health may so improve as to enable him to again undertake the functions of the Colonial Governor, and I want to know whether it is possible to call upon him to do so? Speaking generally, I think we ought to have some sort of understanding about this matter. I have seen a good many diplomatists, and other Civil servants, going about in what appeared to me to be a most enviable state of health, and yet they have been for many years enjoying pensions.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also tell us upon what principle these superannuations are granted. I see that an hon. Member of this House (the Member for North Kilkenny) has obtained a pension of £1,000 a year for 20 years' service upon a salary of £5,000; whereas a very distinguished Colonial Governor—Sir Hercules Robinson—perhaps one of our most distinguished Colonial Governors—has, after a service of 35 years, and after receiving a larger salary of £7,000, only been granted a like amount of pension. That seems to me to be somewhat inconsistent. In one case, I admit, the retirement was on the ground of ill-health, and the other on the ground of age; but the age of the two retiring Governors did not differ very much, Sir Hercules Robinson being 65 years of age, and the Member for North Kilkenny 56 years. As to the question of ill-health, if an hon. Member can go through an exciting election contest such as took place in North Kilkenny at the end of last year, and can undertake the fatiguing business of this House, I do not think his condition is so serious as would seem to be implied by the granting of a pension of £1,000 a year on the ground of ill-health. There are a few other pensions in this Vote which are open likewise to observation. I see there is one pension of £900 a year granted upon a salary of £1,250, and another pension of £700 only granted upon a salary of £2,000. In the one case there was 31 years' service, and in the other 32 years' service. It is very difficult to understand the principle upon which these superannuations are granted, and I think this Vote, therefore, requires a little explanation. I am not opposing the Vote, nor am I suggesting that the pensions are unjustifiable. I am only asking for information upon the points I have mentioned.

The hon. Member for Islington was wrong in stating that there is any difference between a pension in the Civil Service and one in the Colonial Service. A Civil Service pension does not disqualify for a seat in the House of Commons. The Treasury has the power to call up for service again servants who have retired on a pension on account of ill-health. All these pensions are defined by statute; and, as to the case of Sir H. Robinson, he received the highest pension which the statute provides for ex-Colonial Governors.

I was for over 20 years in the Public Service myself, and when I retired I was told by the Prime Minister of the day that if I had a pension granted to me—which I did not—it would have to be abandoned if I entered the House of Commons. That Prime Minister was a Conservative. I think the general opinion amongst Civil servants is that they cannot retain their pensions and sit in the House of Commons. Surely there ought to be one rule for everyone, and unless I receive a more satisfactory explanation, I shall move the reduction of the Vote.

Evidently a Tory Minister has done one good service, because he has saved his country from paying a pension to the hon. Gentleman opposite, who apparently has done very well without it. But the Secretary to the Treasury did not answer my question, namely, why these pensions are not paid by the colonies. I can only repeat my contention that they are a portion of the salary which the colonies are called upon to pay.

Until the hon. Member or someone else alters the law, the Treasury must continue to pay the pensions of Colonial Governors. The duty is imposed by statute. The hon. Member for Islington will find it most distinctly stated in Acts 32 & 33 Vict that Civil Service pensions do not disqualify for seats in the House of Commons.