moved, in page 7, line 26, Clause 7, to insert the following proviso:—

"Provided that the amount to be expended for sub-sections 3, 4, and 5 shall not, without the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, exceed two-fifths of the sum to be paid for the said site."

moved, in Clause 13, page 9, line 22, to leave out from "to," to end of Clause, and insert—

"Apply to the Charity Commissioners, under the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Acts, 1853 to 1891, for a scheme to be established by them amending the said scheme for the administration of the charity of the 'Trinity Chapel Site,' so as to provide for the future administration of the said moneys for the benefit of the mother parish of St. George, Hanover Square, or any ecclesiastical parish or district therein."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the increasingly serious reports with regard to impending famine in the North-West Provinces, Rajputana, and other districts in India, he will give the House the most recent information on the subject, and will state what steps the Government of India has taken to meet the distress and danger that may arise?

My right hon. Friend, in whose absence I answer the question, says—I have with me the latest telegrams about the crop and famine prospects. They are dated the 24th of July, and as they appeared in Saturday's newspapers, I do not know that it is necessary to read them. A further telegram is expected to-morrow; and thereafter weekly telegrams will be sent every Friday as long as cause for anxiety continues. The telegrams will be sent to the newspapers. As regards the preparations for dealing with famine, the Secretary of State is in telegraphic communication with the Viceroy, whom he has urged to take without delay every necessary precaution for the relief of distress, and from whom he has heard that adequate arrangements have been made for all contingencies anticipated. In all the threatened British provinces famine Codes have been issued, and plans have been drawn up for dealing with distress caused by famine. Funds are available for meeting the cost of relief; and in any district where relief operations are necessary, they will be begun on the scheme laid down in the Famine Codes. In two districts of Madras considerable relief operations have been going on for some months.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Government have received any Reports as to the condition of the Coolies in British Guiana since the removal of the late Inspector to a subordinate position in the hospitals, and whether the status of the medical officers is virtually fixed by the elective members of the Combined Court of Policy, although the Coolies are nominally under Imperial protection?

The late Medical Inspector of Immigrants, now Chief Medical Officer of the Colonial Hospital was succeeded by the present Medical Inspector of Immigrants in July, 1889. The usual Annual Reports as to the condition of the Coolies, both general and medical, have been received for the year 1889. Those for 1890 have not yet been received. The salary, £1,000 a year, of the Medical Inspector of Immigrants is permanently secured; those of the other medical officers are voted annually. There is no reason to apprehend that the Combined Court will not at all times provide whatever salaries Her Majesty's Government think necessary in connection with Coolie immigration.

I bag to ask the Secretary for War, whether he is aware that there is no permanent method of manufacturing ice at Trincomalee (Ceylon), where there is a garrison and hospital and only a temporary ice house erected, and furnished with ice from Colombo at the private expense of the Admiral for the time at the station, and whether he will consider the desirability of furnishing Trincomalee with permanent means of making ice, so necessary to hospital patients and the comfort of the garrison in a hot climate?

The question of securing a supply of ice for Trincomalee is now under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information concerning a slave trade which has sprung up between small places on the Red Sea Coast north of Suakin to the opposite coast north of Jeddah; and whether, as the slave caravans have to pass through Egyptian territory, Her Majesty's Government will call upon that of Egypt to carry out the terms of the Convention of 1877, which undertakes to prevent such transit of slaves?

Information has been received from Sir E. Baring of the existence of such a slave trade as that mentioned. It is, however, his opinion that the Egyptian Government is doing everything in its power to prevent it. The frontiers at Wady Haifa and other stations are carefully watched, and the surveillance at Suakin and other ports on the Red Sea Coast is, in my opinion, as efficient as it is in the power of the Egyptian Government to make it. They are also assisted by the gunboats of Her Majesty's Navy. Early in the year about 60 slaves were taken to the Governor of Suakin by Arab Sheikhs and liberated. The occupation of Tokar dealt a heavy blow to the slave trade, and immediately after the fall of Handoub important arrests were made of notorious slave dealers.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is the intention of the Government to carry out the recommendations of the Western Highlands and Islands Commission as regards lighthouses, by causing lighthouses to be erected at Tiumpan Head and at the entrance to Loch Carlowey, in Lewis; and if he is aware that only a few days ago a large ship went ashore in Broad Bay, Lewis, owing to there being no lighthouse on Tiumpan Head?

I have received information that the vessel referred to has been got off and left in tow of a tug, but I may inform the hon. Member that it is intended to erect a lighthouse at the entrance to Loch Carlowey in Lewis, and it is possible that the light may be completed this Session. There is no present intention of erecting a lighthouse on Tiumpan Head.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General, if a petition has been received by Her Majesty's Government from various representative bodies in the island of Lewis, praying that the telegraph system should be extended to the fishing villages of Tolsto, in Stornoway parish, Gravir and Crossbost, in Lochs, and to Shawbost, Brager-Arnol, on the west side of Lewis; and what his intentions are in reference to these petitions?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that I received a Petition on the subject to which he refers, and at once caused inquiry to be made. The result of that inquiry has just been reported to me, and I regret to say that at none of the villages mentioned would a telegraph office be self-supporting. I shall be glad to forward the Petition to the Scottish office, but I think it will be found that the whole of the grant placed at the disposal of that department for extension of the telegraph in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland for the current year has been expended.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain why the district of Ness has only two postal deliveries a week while the other districts have three; and if he can see his way to give all parts of the island equal facilities in this matter?

The post to and from Ness, in the Island of Lewis, already entails an expenditure which largely exceeds the revenue from the correspondence. The post to other districts, besides that of Ness, is restricted to two days a week, and having regard to the heavy charge which the mail service with the island as a whole entails on the Revenue, I regret that I should not be justified in sanctioning any increase in the frequency of the internal posts.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he has received a Petition from the Regent's Park Senior Cricket Association, asking for permission to erect a pavilion for refreshments and dressing accommodation on the junior ground; and whether he is aware that the lads playing on the ground have neither latrine, dressing, nor refreshment accommodation; and, if so, whether he will reconsider his decision?

I have received from the Regent's Park Senior Cricket Association a letter in support of the application made by the caterer who sells refreshments at the existing cricket pavilion for leave to build and work a new one on the junior ground. I shall inquire further into the matter, but at present I incline to think that no such necessity exists as should outweigh the objections sure to be raised by other portions of the public against the setting up of any more buildings in the park. It may, however, be true that additional latrine accommodation ought to be provided. I will look into that question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Manchester Watch Committee, who have lately revised the pay of the police force in their employ, will not grant any pensions, under the new scale of pay, to men who retire before the expiration of 12 months from the introduction of the new scale of pay, even though certain of the men have been in the police force for more than 25 years, which is the time fixed for their retirement; is this refusal in accordance with the terms of the Police Superannuation Act of last year; and are police officers entitled to a pension in proportion to the rate of pay they are receiving at the date of their retirement, and to retire at the expiration of 25 years of service?

I am informed by the Chairman of the Manchester Watch Committee that no Resolution has been adopted whereby any benefits which members of the Manchester Police Force are entitled to under the Police Act, 1890, in consequence of an increase of their pay, are to be withheld from them, and the Watch Committee have no intention of coming to any such Resolution. The answer as to the pensions in proportion to rate of pay will be found in Section 1 (a) and Part III. of the first schedule of the Police Act, 1890.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased work thrown on the Crofter Commission by recent legislation, and the probability that these new duties will further delay the Court in dealing with the applications for fair rents in the highlands and islands, the Government will appoint additional Commissioners who may be empowered to deal with the new duties, and so leave the original members of the Commission free to dispose of the applications for fair rents at a more rapid rate; and whether representations have reached him that the long delay in settling what are fair rents in the highlands and islands is injurious both to crofters and landowners, and that a prompt settlement is most urgently needed?

I assume that the "recent legislation" to which the hon. Member alludes is the Crofters' Common Grazings Bill, which is now awaiting the Royal assent, but it is no anticipated that the new duties imposed upon the Commissioners by this measure will make any very serious call on their time. I much regret that the Commissioners have not been able to overtake their work at a more rapid rate, but the hon. Member will understand that it would be practically impossible, even if it were thought altogether advisable, to introduce the legislation necessary to increase their number at so late a stage of the Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the great importance of the list of voters as published on the 1st of August being correctly drawn up by the overseers, and considering that the number of names respectively added to and struck off that list to form the final register can be easily obtained, especially for London, he will grant the Return to be moved for to-night in relation to the Revision of Voters (Metropolis)?

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, as all lists of voters are equally important, he will extend the Return to the registers for the whole of the country?

Undoubtedly, if the Return is granted at all it would be extended over the whole of the country, but I believe that it will be very difficult to obtain the Return asked for, and if obtained would be of a misleading kind.

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my question. I am certain that there would be no difficulty in obtaining a Return for the Metropolis.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether he has received a copy of a Resolution adopted by the Grand Jury of Westmeath, re-questing that the prison at Mullingar be re-established as a major prison; and, if so, can he now state the decision of the Government on the matter?

The Resolution mentioned was duly received and acknowledged. The Government would not feel justified in incurring the increased public expenditure which the proposal in regard to Mullingar Prison would involve.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can hold out any hope that the engineering branch of the telegraph service will be placed on the same footing as regards classification; and, if not, will he state the reason for withholding the concession?

The hon. Member has not stated in his question the branch of the postal or telegraph service with which he thinks the engineering branch of the telegraph service should be put on a level, and I am therefore quite unable to say whether any or what concession will be granted or withheld.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office will direct Consuls to report as to the working of the system of employing the police as school attendance officers in Switzerland and other foreign countries?

Considering that the system in question is inapplicable to this country, the Report proposed would not be of practical value, and would not justify the cost and trouble of procuring it, unless this House should desire to have it.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if the Government is aware that since June, 1889, legal proceedings have been instituted in the County of Londonderry by the Salters' Company, London, against 250 of their former tenants (purchasers in 1886 under the Ashbourne Act) for the recovery of arrears of rent and interest due 1st November, 1884, and 1st November, 1885; that decrees in all cases were granted, and thus the Company have either obtained payment or hold decrees capable of being at once executed for £2,500; that, subsequently, Mr. John M'Guiggan, of Ballynagaire, appealed, and that Judge Holmes, at the recent Derry Assizes, reversed the decree; but, as no appeals are possible in the other cases, will the Government enforce the decrees still outstanding, or take steps to provide that the money already paid under threat of legal proceedings being returned to those 250 tenant purchasers?

I understand that it is the case that proceedings were instituted, as stated in the question, to compel compliance with agreements which the tenants had entered into. The case of M'Guiggan appears to have terminated in the manner indicated by the hon. and learned Member. The Executive Court have no power to interfere in any way in the matter. In answer to a further question by Mr. T. M. HEALY,

Of course, I have no positive information to enable me to decide whether the appeal in the single case governed the decision in the other 249; but, whether or not, the hon. and learned Member knows perfectly well that it is a matter between the litigants themselves with which the Executive Government have no concern. Any representations on the subject from the 250 tenants should be addressed to the company.

Will the right hon. Gentleman address a question to the Salters' Company on the subject?

No, Sir; I cannot do that.

I beg to postpone until Thursday my question—To ask the President of the Local Government Board whether complaint has been made to his Department in reference to the neglect of the Wood-bridge Rural Sanitary Authority to carry out the Sanitary Act in connection with the supply of pure water to Otley, in Suffolk; how many cases of illness and death from fever have occurred in that district during the last two years; and will the Local Government Board use its powers to compel the Local Authority to proceed at once with the necessary works?

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will establish a telegraph office at Lewknor, a village between Tetsworth and Watlington, and where the wire passes the post office, seeing that the postmaster is willing to work the telegraph without remuneration till the receipts cover the expenditure, and the only expense would be connecting the office with the wire outside?

In reply to my hon. Friend, I am compelled to say that I could not accept an offer from the sub-postmaster to work without remuneration; but I shall be glad to establish a telegraph office at Lewknor if a guarantee be forthcoming to secure the Post Office against loss. I fear from what I have been able to ascertain that the wire to which my own Friend refers is fully occupied.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admirality whether, with reference to his recent statement with regard to the Naval Volunteers that he would be ready to consider any propositions which would give greater effect to the wish of the Admiralty to convert the Corps into a Marine Corps, he will allow enlistments to go on for the present, so as to maintain the strength of the present force, pending negotiations for its conversion into a Coastguard Naval Corps, or such other form as will meet the requirements of the Service and the views of the Volunteers?

I am anxious to treat the Royal Naval Artillery Volunteers with every consideration, but as their organisation is to be changed, to prevent misunderstandings, all future recruiting must take place under the new and not the old conditions.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been frequently called to the delay, by the Turkish Courts at Aleppo, in a case raised by Mrs. Braker, widow of a former British Consul (who had been connected with the Consular service for about 50 years); whether he is aware that a Turkish subject, residing at Aleppo, had forcibly entered into Mrs. Barker's house, and resisted for five or six years all her efforts to regain possession of her property by legal proceedings; whether the communications received allege improper influence being exercised over the local tribunals, in order to delay the hearing of the case; and whether, in view of the fact that two of Her Majesty's Consuls have reported favourably as to the justice of Mrs. Barker's case, and also as to the delay of the Turkish Courts, and that Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has reported to the same effect, instructions will be sent out to Her Majesty's representatives at Constantinople to press for the obtaining of a speedy hearing and decision in this case.

The case of Mrs. Barker has formed the subject of frequent correspondence. The questions in dispute have given rise to a long and complicated lawsuit. Mrs. Barker's opponent at one period attempted to enforce his claim by force, and was punished on the representations of the British Ambassador by dismissal from the Government Service. Allegations have been made on Mrs. Barker's behalf as to improper influence over the tribunals, but they have not been substantiated. Further instructions are not required, as the British Diplomatic and Consular officers, while unable to interfere with the action of the constituted Law Courts, have been unwearied in their efforts to assist Mrs. Barker to the extent of their powers. Recent information from Constantinople shows that Mrs. Barker is instructing her legal adviser in communication with the British Embassy.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Commissioners or Judges to be appointed under the permanent Act recently arranged with the delegates from Newfoundland for carrying out the modus vivendi are to be appointed by the British or by the Colonial Government; whether there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland from the decisions of the said Commissioners or Judges by the inhabitants of the west coast of Newfoundland; and whether the salaries of the Commissioners or Judges are to be paid by the British or by the Colonial Government?

Until the Draft Bill has been formally accepted by the Government of the colony, it would be premature to state the nature of its proposed provisions.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can state the date of the certificate or authority which was given by the Home Office, under which the body of the late James M'Henry was exhumed in St. James's Cemetery, Liverpool; who applied for such certificate or authority; what was the substance of the Report of the analysis of the contents of the stomach of the deceased; and whether there is any objection to producing such Report?

The exhumation order was granted on June 15 at the instance of the Director of the Public Prosecutions. The result of the postmortem and subsequent analysis is to point to natural causes as the source of the disease of the stomach found after death. I have no objection to showing the Report to the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that within the past few days one of the lightkeepers on Tuscar lost a hand through an accidental explosion of gun cotton, and would have remained some 16 hours without surgical attention but for having been taken off by the Cephalonia, whether, for use in cases of accident or shipwreck, Her Majesty's Government would consider the propriety of establishing telegraphic or telephonic communication with the more important of the lighthouses situated on rocks and islands round the United Kingdom?

I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the account of the accident referred to, as given by the hon. Member; but the injured man was, as a matter of fact, promptly taken off for surgical treatment, and I do not think this particular case could be quoted in support of the necessity of establishing the communication to which the hon. Member refers, however desirable it may be on other grounds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the coal supplied to Maker Fort, Tregantle Fort, and Picklecombe Fort by Messrs. Harvey is North Country or Scotch; if the contract with Messrs. Harvey calls for North Country or Scotch coal; and if he would make inquiries into the truth of the allegation that Scotch and not North Country coal has been supplied by Messrs. Harvey?

The contract with Messrs. Harvey with regard to the supply of coal to Maker Fort, Tregantle Fort, and Picklecombe Fort, is for North Country coal; and, on inquiry, it is reported to me that such coal has been duly supplied.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is any foundation for the statement in the Phoni tis Kyprou of the 26th June, to the effect that there was a serious error in the basis of the calculation of the average surplus revenue of Cyprus; whether the further statement in the same issue is correct that—

"If the difference between the value of gold and paper money were taken into consideration, Cyprus would now be paying to the Porte £40,000 instead of £92,000 per annum;"

The tribute was fixed at the value of £92,000 by Her Majesty's late Government in 1881–82 upon Reports of Sir Robert Biddulph made after an investigation of the subject both in Cyprus and at Constantinople. Her Majesty's present Government have had occasion to review the question, and are satisfied that the conclusions of their predecessors were correct, and that there has been no such error as the writer in the Cyprus newspaper imagines. As a matter of fact, only a small part of the five years' receipts were encashed in paper, and full allowance was made as to this in converting the payments into sterling.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he will direct the Board of Works, or cause the Railway Company, to remove the obstruction erected by the railway in the Little Brosna River, which now prevents the drainage of the Shinrone drainage district; and whether there are any means of compensating the riparian owners and occupiers for the damage resulting from the obstruction?

We have no powers to compel the Railway Company to do as the hon. Member requires, and the riparian owners and others have their remedy at law for any damage caused.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in connection with the new contract held by Messrs. Bramble Brothers for works and repairs of barracks, forts, &c, at Portsmouth, the rates of wages paid by them are for all mechanics at the rate of 6d., and for labourers at the rate of 3½d. per hour, whereas the rates of wages generally accepted and paid in Portsmouth are for mechanics 6½d. to 7d., and for labourers 4½d. an hour; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take in order to carry out the Resolution of this House of 13th February, that under future Government contracts the rates of wages paid should be those generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen?

Messrs. Bramble, the contractors for barracks, forts, &c, at Portsmouth, undertook to pay the wages generally paid in the district, and I have not received any notice from persons concerned that Messrs. Bramble have not fulfilled their pledge.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that Messrs. Turner & Co., who have taken a contract for work at Buckingham Palace, have sub-let a portion of the work to Messrs. Parker & Co.; and that, in connection with work under this contract, the mechanics employed are being paid at the rate of 8½d. and their labourers at the rate of 5½d. per hour, which is less than the rate of wages generally accepted as current in each trade for competent workmen; and what steps he proposes to take, in regard to this contract, to carry out the Resolution of the House of 13th February?

I have ascertained that there is a small piece of work, the cost of which is, I understand, less than £50, being executed by Messrs. Turner & Co. at Buckingham Palace. It is not a Government contract, nor is it to be paid for out of any moneys voted by Parliament. I have, therefore, no authority to inquire what wages are paid to the mechanics or labourers engaged upon the work, nor do I know.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that A. Lethbridge, contractor for work at the Royal William Victualling Yard, Stonehouse, Devon, sub-let the painting to William Randel and Prowse, of Plymouth; and what was the minimum rate of wages paid by Mr. Lethbridge to the men employed under his contract for the different classes of labour?

The contract with Mr. Lethbridge for work at the Royal William Victualling Yard, Stone-house, was for a lump sum of £745, including £52 for painting. No authority was given for sub-letting the painting or any part of the work, and it was believed at the time that the painting was being done by the contractor's own men. Further inquiry will be made. The contract being for a lump sum, the rate of wages paid by the contractor to his workmen was not reported to the Admiralty.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that on 29th April, 1889, the University for London Commission reported that—

"A reasonable time should be allowed to the Senate and Convocation of the University of London to consider whether they will apply to Her Majesty for a new charter in accordance with the suggestions contained in Report of the Commission";

"In the event of their applying for and obtaining such a new charter, no other University can now be established in London, and that the prayer of the petition of University and King's College be not granted";

I have to inform the hon. Member that the London University failed to obtain the sanction of Convocation to the draft scheme, by which they proposed to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Thereupon the Privy Council resumed their consideration of the Petition of University and King's Colleges for the grant of a charter, and after considerable discussion, requested the petitioners to submit an amended draft charter. This has just been done; but before the Committee report to Her Majesty, the draft charter as finally settled must be laid before both Houses for 30 days. It will then, of course, be subject to discussion in Parliament, and it will be for Parliament, and not for the Government, to decide whether it shall be accepted.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called to a statement in the Annual Report of the Science and Art Department just published, purporting to show from Returns received up to 10th May that the Council of the North Riding of the County of York (amongst other County Councils) has notified that the whole amount of their share of the residue under the Customs and Excise Act will be applied to technical education; and if it is the case that last year the North Riding County Council appropriated the whole of such share, and this year have decided to appropriate one-half to non-educational purposes?

The statement in the Annual Report was compiled from the best information obtainable at the time; but it is possible that subsequent changes have been made by the Local Authorities, in the appropriation of the grant, which have not been communicated to the Department.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, in view of the omission of the names of many counties which have granted money to technical education under "The Local Taxation Act, 1890," in the list on page 51 of the Report of the Science and Art Department just issued, a new and complete list can be prepared and separately issued?

The Department have received but very little further information since the compilation of the statement made on page 51 of the Report, and I think it would be better to wait till the beginning of next year, when a full and exhaustive list of the operations of the County Councils for the current financial year can be issued.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he can state the amount of the residue now applicable in Scotland, under "The Local Taxation (Customs and Excise) Act, 1890, at the discretion of the authorities named in the Act, in relief of local rates, or in aid of technical education; and how soon the grant will be paid?

The amount available for distribution is £48,051 15s. 2d., and it is expected that the grant will be paid in the course of this week.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what is the practice observed in transferring or removing members of the Civil Service from one office to another, or from one force or station to another in the same capacity, under the same Department, and subject to the same Board; if the person so transferred, either at his own instance or from any other cause, at the instance of the particular Board under which he serves, is subjected to any pecuniary loss or loss of seniority by reason of such transfer or removal; whether, when questions of promotion arise in particular forces or stations, the time served in the same capacity in a different port or station from that in connection with which promotions are to be made militates against a person so transferred, in considering his claims for promotion in connection with that force or station to which he may then be attached; and whether seniority and promotion throughout the Civil Service generally depends principally upon the length of service in each particular Department, and not upon the length of time spent in any particular office, force, or station, under the same Board?

To answer completely the question of the hon. Member would necessitate inquiry in each Department of the Public Service. I can, therefore, only undertake to reply in a general sense and subject to reasonable reserve. In the first place, men transferred in ordinary course are transferred in accordance with the exigencies of the Public Service. Secondly, men transferred on promotion would not lose seniority, and under reasonable conditions would receive an allowance in respect of removal expenses; but the same rule would not apply to men transferred for their own convenience or as a punishment. Thirdly, in the case of a man transferred the time served by him in the same capacity at the port or station which he leaves would not militate against the man so transferred. Fourthly, as a general rule, promotion in the Public Service is hold to depend upon merit.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when does the Board of Customs intend to fill up the vacancies which have been created in the third class of surveyors in London by the promotion of seven of them to the second class; what steps have the Board taken to have the whole of the import gauging done by first class examining officers as far as possible; and whether officers of this grade are being transferred to that duty from other duties on which they had hitherto been engaged, and their places filled permanently by second-class examining officers; and, if so, whether it is his intention that such duties should in future be regarded as of an inferior kind, and not requiring the services of first-class examining officers?

The hon. Member will see, on referring to the Treasury Minute of March 24, that the vacancies in the third class of surveyors were caused by the creation of three additional first-class and four additional second-class surveyorships,

"Which shall remain until such time as the whole of the existing third-class surveyors who may be fit for promotion shall have been promoted."

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will arrange for the insertion in the future Annual Reports of the Education Department of distinguishing marks showing the schools to which special grants have been made under Articles 104 and 105 of the Code, and the amount of these grants?

I will see what can be done in the direction indicated without unduly adding to the complexity of the information given in the Appendices to the Report.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the statement in the Appendix to the 46th Report of the Commissioners in Lunacy, as to the Yorkshire North Riding Asylum, in which the Commissioners say—

"We gather that there is not any Roman Catholic service here, although there are 72 patients of that faith";

The Report quoted was originally written by the Visiting Commissioners in the Visitors' Book at the North Riding Asylum, in order that it might come to the notice of the Visiting Committee, whose province it is, under Section 276 of the Act of last year, to deal with the subject of religious provision for the patients. I am informed by the Superintendent of the asylum that the Report was considered by the Committee of Visitors, who decided that the practice hitherto pursued of allowing Roman Catholic patients, when well enough, to attend, if they desire it, the services of the Roman Catholic Church at York be continued; and that care be taken to communicate with a priest in the event of any patient being seriously ill, or wishing to be visited by a priest. I am also informed that the priests have willingly visited the members of their Church, and have always attended when summoned.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the revenues in the Return of the Revenues of the Church of England (No. 287) are limited to the annual income arising from permanent endowments, and do not include rates levied under local or other Acts, in London and elsewhere, for the maintenance of the clergy, fees, pew rents, Easter, or other offerings, or income derived from voluntary sources; and whether, in Part 3 of such Return, column 2, the tithe-rent-charge is taken at par value, as in Part 2, or at its value in 1885–6, as in Parts 1 and 4?

I am informed by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners that certain fixed payments made to incumbents out of rates levied under the authority of Local Acts are included in Part 3 of the Return (column 9); but it does not include any receipts from fees, pew rents, Easter and other offerings, or income derived from voluntary sources, other than interest, &c, derived from benefactions permanently invested. The tithe rent-charges included under column 2 of Part 3 are entered at the "commuted amount" or "par value."

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can say when the telegraph line to Heylor, in Shetland will be established?

I regret that I am not yet in a position to afford the hon. Member definite information on the question of an extension of the telegraph to Heylor. The wire which passes within about two-miles of that place is already sufficiently weighted with telegraph offices, and it will, I fear, be a most expensive operation to provide a satisfactory means of communication. As soon as the inquiries have been completed, I will communicate with the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Attorney General whether the decisions of the Institute of Chartered Accountants are subject to be reviewed by the ordinary Courts of Law?

No general answer can be given to the hon. Member's question, as it depends upon the nature of the decisions and the circumstances under which they were given. If the hon. Member will communicate with me with reference to the circumstances of any particular case, I shall be pleased to render him any assistance in my power.

said: I am not quite certain as to the date up to which the Report of the Board of Trade under the Conciliation Clause can be prepared; but I believe it will be presented before the close of the Session.

May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he succeeds this evenng in getting the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule, he will proceed with the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill, seeing that the Bill is very much disputed, not only in this House but outside; and whether it does not come under the pledge recently given by the Government that contentious measures would not be proceeded with?

Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any Private Bills being taken after 12 o'clock?

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not give away the privileges of private Members.

I presume we may take it for granted that no new Bill will be introduced.

I hope that time will be allowed to take the Bills of private Members which have reached the last stage.

I will answer the questions which have been put to me when I make the Motion on the Paper.

Can the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs inform the House whether Miss Kate Greenfield has been released?

My information on this subject corresponds with what has appeared in the newspapers—that she has been removed from where she was and taken to the house of the Governor. Arrangements are being made for an inquiry as to her personal wishes, where there will be no coercion exercised with regard to her.

Mr. Speaker, Sir, may I very respectfully claim freedom of speech in order to call your attention to the Journals put before the House to-day, which contain a statement with reference to me which, if it were true, would make me ashamed of myself and my conduct as a Member of Parliament for the remainder of my days. It is stated that I, on Friday night, frivolously called for Divisions. I beg to say that the matter I took in hand—namely, the timber trade advocacy—was not known to me until two days previously. There had been a large meeting of the timber trade, and I was moved by a well known firm to take the matter up. I represented to them that they should not pass by the three Members for Hull and their county Members and ask me to do it simply because I was a Hull man, but I was told by my friends that, as I had been 45 years in the business, I was the best fitted to take the matter up. Being pressed to undertake the duty, at length I consented, although there were other matters which I wished to attend to. I went through my duties the other night with extreme reluctance and great regret, and although I had given notice of nine Amendments to postpone for three months the Bills in question, when I found that the feeling of the House was against me, I let five of the Bills go without challenge. I then believed that an hon. Member had spoken in the sense in which I was speaking, and so I named him as a Teller with mo, but the hon. Member immediately got up and said that he did not go as far as I did, and thereupon the House laughed, and I let the Amendment go. Another hon. Member on the other side of the House, with whom I had never before acted and of whom I ought to have been wary, then came across to me and said, "I will tell with yon, and I will stick by you to the last." I said, "Very well," and in these circumstances I thought it to be my duty to take one more Division. I gave to the Speaker the name of that hon. Member as Teller, and the Speaker called upon him, and that gentleman, showing that he understood the agreement he had made with me, stood up at once. The Speaker told him to stand up again. I had never before that night been in the position of only having one hon. Member with me. I thought it my duty to take a Division once more, and I stood up again, but the hon. Member did not stand up. If I had known that that hon. Member would not have stood up, I should not have troubled the Speaker and the House to divide. I then sat down, and in my club at 9 o'clock the next morning I found, on receiving the papers, that I was to be pilloried before the House and the country as having frivolously attempted to divide the House. I protest against that, and I say that I would rather have a Committee of the House—even of my political enemies, if you like—to go into the whole matter and show exactly what happened, and it will then be seen that I was moved by the timber trade of the country, and had no personal interest in the matter. In fact, I am a large shareholder in six of the companies I was opposing. But there, I was entrapped, if I may use the word without being unparliamentary, or cajoled, and if that will not do I will say seduced, into accepting the co-operation of an hon. Gentleman opposite—a cooperation I never asked for in my life, and which I never will ask for or accept again should I live to the age of Methuselah. The Papers bear the signature of the Speaker, but I' presume that was formal, and I wrote to the clerk to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he had not already signed them, kindly not to sign them until I had explained the matter. That is the treatment I have received for a week past. I ask the House kindly to accept my Motion that these two entries be expunged from the Journals. If the House will not do that, I ask for a Select Committee to inquire into the matter. If that be not granted, I will take the Chiltern Hundreds, and will go down to Boston and stand upon the question whether I did my duty in this matter or not. I will not be trampled upon by any one.

I must recall to the House the circumstances of which the hon. Member complains.

May I ask a question? [Cries of "Order!"]

There were upon the Paper on the occasion in question several Amendments applicable to several Railway Bills. The first of those Bills after a time came to the stage of Third Reading, and when the hon. Gentleman challenged my decision I asked him whether he had any other hon. Member to act with him as Teller, and, no Teller coming forward, I said that the "Ayes" had it. The Great Western Railway Bill next came before the House, and on the Question that the Bill be now considered, the hon. Member moved to leave out "now" in order to insert the words "this day three months." That was put and negatived. Then came the Great Eastern Railway Bill, and the same thing happened as had occurred with reference to the two previous Bills. I put the Question, and that Bill passed without any demur. There was then the Great Northern Railway Bill, which was exactly of the same character as the other Bills. It was not challenged, but was read a third time and passed. Then came the London and South-Western Railway Bill. I put the Question that the Bill be now read a third time. The hon. Member challenged it, and I thought after what had taken place I might properly employ the Standing Order No. 30 and ask the minority to stand up. The hon. Member stood up alone in his place, and the House was saved the trouble of a Division. The hon. Member complains that in the Journals of the House an entry is made that he had frivolously and vexatiously attempted to divide the House.

It does not say so. [Cries of " Order!"]

Order, order! I thought it was vexatious, and I put the Standing Order into effect. I have something more to say, and I desire to say it in the hon. Member's presence.

Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member, in the course of the remarks he has just made, referred to the treatment which he says he has received at my hands for a week past.

Hear, hear! [Cries of " Order!"]

I wish to say, in reply, that I will not notice any communication that comes from the hon. Member in his private capacity. I think that any complaints which he has to make against me should be made publicly in this House.

Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]

The House is aware that there is standing on the Paper in the hon. Member's name a notice of Motion charging me with an offence which I hope is new to me as regards any Member of this House—that of discourtesy. I have been on several occasions during my time in the Chair brought into relations that have been exceedingly unpleasant to me with several hon. Members of this House, but I am not aware that either on their part, and I can certainly say not on my own, have any private relations been established between us other than of a friendly kind. They have distinguished between the person and the office. Now, it is my duty, and a very painful one it is, to read to the House two communications which I have received during the last 48 hours from the hon. Member, and I think that the House will agree with me that a stop must be put to these communications between an hon. Member and the Speaker.

Hear, hear! [Cries of "Order!"]

I was away on Saturday on business, and when I came back I found a letter from the hon. Gentleman following a former communication, which was, as I think, so discreditable to the hon. Member and so insulting to myself that I do not think it becoming to read it to the House.

Yes, do.

I shall take my stand upon the two communications, which I will now read. The hon. Member, as the House will observe, has objected to some public action which I took, and I found this letter on my return:—

I feel bound to claim freedom of speech again, as a duly elected Member of this House. I protest against any attempt to prevent my discharging my duty to my constituents. I say that I have been obstructed by the officials of this House for a week past and more, and if the House will give me a Committee I will prove that I have been so obstructed. I have given notice during that time of Motions which impugned the conduct of the Clerks at the Table, and I have to ask why they were not printed. I have the courage of my opinions, and when anybody tries to prevent me doing my duty he will not find, wherever he sits, on this side of the House or the other, that I will submit to it. I therefore ask the House, even now, to appoint a Committee on the subject, or to listen while I give the other side of the matter which the Speaker has put before the House. Just now, when the right hon. Gentleman was giving an account of the last Division, he did not mention the fact that Dr. Tanner [Cries of "Order!"] did stand up and was called upon. After Dr. Tanner ["Order, order!"]—I beg pardon for infringing the Rules; I mean the hon. Member for Cork—had sat down, I went to him and said, "You volunteered in this matter. You have put me in a very unpleasant position "; and I then left the House. Having done all that I could in the performance of my duty, I thought it was very hard that my conduct should have been impugned. As to the other matter, I assure the Speaker that I had no intention of speaking rudely to him. If I spoke quickly it must be remembered that it was 12 o'clock at night, and I had had a great many other matters to attend to. I beg to apologise to the right hon. Gentleman, because never in my life have I intended to be rude, either to the right hon. Gentleman or to the clerks at the Table. But, at the same time, I have been spoken to by the clerks at the Table as if they were Members of Parliament, and I was a clerk. One of them the other day, when I showed him a notice of Motion, said, "Oh, oh." I said, "Do not say 'Oh, oh,' to me; I am responsible; toll me whether it is in order or not, and if it is I will go on with it." He was a clerk at the Table, and clerks are not Members of Parliament. I am proud of being a Member of Parliament, and I have never done anything to make my constituents ashamed of me. I will go before them if any one else concerned in the dispute will go before his constituents, and we will see what the result is. I shall come back here elected by a larger majority than before, and then I will no more be browbeaten than I will now. I ask the House to appoint a Committee, and I will prove everything I have said; or I ask the House to name a day to discuss my Resolution, and I will prove that every word I have written or spoken is true. I beg to move that a Select Committee sit to consider the question, or that the Journal of the House be altered immediately in accordance with what I have asked.

I doubt whether a more painful case than this has been before the House, I may say, during the whole of our Parliamentary history. If there is one office the dignity of which is valued by this House and by the country generally, it is that of the Speaker. I am only expressing the feelings which obtain universally in every part of the House when I say that you, Sir, have shown courtesy and impartiality to all sides of the House and to every Member of the House. You, Sir, have been obliged to appeal to the House against a Member of this House [Mr. ATKINSON: Oh, oh!] and you have said it is intolerable that during the whole of last week you have had to complain of the conduct of the hon. Member. I venture to think it will be the universal feeling of the House that the protection which you have asked at our hands must be accorded to you, Sir, unanimously. Without wishing to bear hardly on the hon. Member, without wishing in any way to show towards him any animosity, I still think the House will be of opinion that what you have said, Sir, must be marked, and must be marked in such a manner that it may be known that you have the support of the House. Therefore I feel it to be my duty to move—

"That the hon. Member for Boston be suspended for the rest of the Session, and be excluded from the precincts of the House."

I protest against that from a Liberal. He is not my leader.

I make no doubt that, after the painful scenes we have witnessed, not only today, but I may say for many days past, the House will feel that it was not even necessary that you, Sir, should make the statement which you have felt it your duty to make in order to convince the House that the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston has been a scandal to the House of Commons.

Order order! It is not true.

That being so, and feeling that it is our duty to vindicate your office, and to vindicate the character of the House of Commons, I think that all of us who have been witnesses of what has been taking place for many days past in the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston have no option but to support the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Not true.

May I not speak upon it?

Yes.

I wish simply to say it is a very convenient way of settling the Motion which stands in my name, but the moment I come back I will move it. I am not going to be silenced by anything of the sort.

I must ask the hon. Member to withdraw.

Is that in order? Oh, then, I will withdraw, but I will come back and prove my case to be what I have said it is.

then withdrew.

I feel it to be my duty to say that I do not concur in the Motion. I admit without reserve that Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances in which he found himself, had no other course open to him but that which he has taken; the House will unanimously sympathise with him in the position in which he found himself, and will feel that the conduct of the hon. Member has been in a high degree reprehensible. I think, however, that the Members of the House who have observed the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston will feel that his faults and errors are due rather to lack of self-repose and to incapacity for perfect self-control than to any disposition to be disrespectful to the Chair. The errors of the hon. Member are due to impulse and not to malice. In the scenes in which the hon. Member has borne a prominent and regrettable part he seems to have been moved by a feeling which he sincerely believed to be quite justifiable; he was intrusted, in some degree, with the care of an important interest, and that feeling, in his mind, operated perhaps to an extent which many of us cannot justly estimate. It has led him into acts and words with regard to the Chair which cannot be justified, and which the hon. Member himself in cooler moments will most deeply regret. As an Irish Member and one who has had to go through painful experiences in trying times, I wish to say that Mr. Speaker has been sometimes placed in difficult relations. But I feel bound to say that, however much we may have felt at the moment aggrieved by any action he took, we never doubted that his kindness of heart and dignity of disposition made him superior to anything like unfair or discourteous treatment of any Member. That unqualified testimony will, I hope, remove any doubt as to the feeling which animates me in the course I feel bound to take now. I think the Resolution is harsh, and that it is in excess of the necessities of the case. Any one who has observed the hon. Member for Boston will feel that he is rather to be compassionated than blamed. I think the justice of the case will be met by suspending the hon. Member for this Sitting, and that the lesson taught by that suspension would be sufficient. I therefore hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to mitigate the severity of his Motion.

I wish to say one or two words, because I also on one or two occasions have been brought in unfortunate conflict with the Chair. I concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), but for different reasons. I fear that such a dangerous precedent as this might be used in this way in the future. An hon. Member or some hon. Members might have a very important measure to bring forward touching the condition of the democracy, and it might possibly happen that the general feeling of the country was opposed to it. Then it might happen that that Member or group of Members, while observing the courtesy due to the Chair, would protest vigorously and at great length, and thereupon this precedent might be used to silence them. Without wishing to extenuate the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston, I beg to join in the protest so ably made by the hon. Member for West Belfast.

As I am closely connected with the constituency of the hon. Member, and as a large number of his constituents, through the dual operation of the franchise, vote in the Parliamentary Division which I represent, I venture to say a few words, although that reason in itself is not sufficient warrant for my intervention in this painful matter. I have been brought into close personal relationship with the hon. Member. We live in the same town, and I can assure the Speaker and the House that the conduct of which complaint is made is exactly that suffered by everyone who has been brought into association with the hon. Member for Boston. If the matter were not so serious it would be ludicrous, but I hope the House will see it is simply the habitual conduct of an impulsive man, which considerably detracts from the personal offence towards the Speaker in his official capacity. If there is any possible way in which the consituents of the hon. Member, as well as the dignity of the Chair, can be protected, it will be a happy escape from this unpleasant affair

I think it only right that some Member on this side of the House should make response to the generous sentiment to which expression has been given by hon. Members opposite. Everybody who knows the hon. Member for Boston must respect him for his honesty and independence of character; and no one can help having a vary kindly feeling towards him. We know the hon. Member has not great powers of self-command, but it is certain that in his conduct towards the Speaker he never has had the slightest intention of showing any personal rudeness or discourtesy. I am quite sure the hon. Member did not intend to use the words "false charge" in his letter to suggest that a deliberate mis-statement had been made against him by the Clerks on the Minutes. His only object was to say that the statement that he had "frivolously" pressed a Division was erroneous. With the greatest possible respect for the Chair, I think it is open to question whether the hon. Member acted frivolously in calling for a Division. Speaking with some years' acquaintance of the hon. Member, in which I have known his many good qualities, I am aware that the hon. Member is frequently given to making remarks which he certainly does not intend to be taken as discourteous. I therefore hope the Leader of the House will be satisfied with passing a censure upon the hon. Member's conduct, and will not proceed to the extremity of suspending him.

I am quite willing to bear witness that the Speaker has always treated every Member with the greatest possible courtesy, even at times when relations have been somewhat strained. The conduct of the hon. Member for Boston justifies its being reported to the House, but I must strongly object to the form of the Motion, which is an enormous innovation and of grave political significance. It is quite unusual in my experience to suspend an hon. Member for a first offence for the remainder of the Session, and that course might work in a most important manner. The precedent will be entered on the Journals, and may be taken to justify a suspension at the beginning of the Session in the future. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer either to withdraw his Motion or to so modify it as to limit the suspension to a single sitting, or at least to one week. Personally, I think a mere Vote of Censure would meet the case.

I have nothing but the kindest feeling towards the hon. Member for Boston, but we must not look at the matter as a personal question. We must look at what has occurred in the House. I go no further back than this evening. The hon. Member said the Chair had persecuted him for a week past on account of the Resolution he had put down in regard to the Chair. It is perfectly impossible that any representative Assembly respecting its Chairman can sit quiet and allow such words to pass without punishment of the peccant Member, and, if ever there was a case in which suspension should follow, this is the one. Members are suspended by the Rules of this House, and when an hon. Gentleman addresses the Speaker in such words as has been used this evening, he ought to be suspended. I will, however, suggest that it would meet the views of many hon. Members on this side of the House if some specific period of suspension were named in the Resolution. It is rather vague to say it shall last till the end of the Session. Of course, we hope the end is near, but we do not know.

With reference to the remarks which have been made, I feel very strongly some of the observations which have dropped from hon. Members opposite—that the hon. Member for Boston lacks, to a certain extent, the power of self-control, and that much of that which seems to be most offensive may be the result of sudden impulse on his part. I venture very respectfully to submit that the Motion I have made is not only a punishment—and I do not wish it should be regarded simply as a punishment of the hon. Member—but that it is a continued protection to the Speaker during the time the hon. Member may remain in the same state of mind as he is now. His particular friend (the hon. Member for Spalding) has told us that if we knew the ordinary ways of the hon. Member for Boston with his friends we should look in a more indulgent way on what has happened. But what we have to do is not to act in any spirit of resentment—though we should be bound to feel resentment at any insult offered to the Chair—we have to look to the maintenance of the dignity of the House, and I am bound to say that, in my opinion, it requires that we should persist in the substance of the Motion I have made. In view, however, of the suggestions which have been made, I will substitute a fortnight for "the end of the Session" if that would in any way meet the view of hon. Members opposite; but I distinctly wish that those who give their votes should not give them thinking this is a harsh punishment, but that it is a protection to the Speaker. I would move that the hon. Member should be suspended for the remainder of the Session or for a fortnight, whichever should first terminate. [Cries of "No!"] Then I would move it be a fortnight if that would secure the unanimity which is so desirable on the present occasion. I attach the greatest importance that it should not seem as if we were a divided House of Commons in this matter, and I will substitute this Motion, hoping that that substitution will do away with any belief that we are actuated by a spirit of anger, and show that our only desire is to protect the Speaker. I trust the Motion will be accepted unanimously.

There is another view in which the Motion should be considered, namely, that of sympathy with the hon. Member for Boston. Although differences of opinion have been expressed as to the details of the course to be pursued, there is no one who is not thoroughly earnest and loyal in supporting the Chair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not impute malice to the hon. Member for Boston. He imputes nothing but a temporary lack of self-control, and, when we consider the great gravity of suspending a Representative of the people for any considerable time, I think the Resolution might be amended. Had the hon. Member been allowed 24 hours for consideration the result might have been that he would have come and amply apologised for his temporary offence. I should have very much preferred suspension for this Sitting only, and I certainly think suspension for a fortnight is too severe a punishment. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will reduce the term to one week, in view of the fact that no one imputes malice or any desire to be disorderly on the part of the hon. Member.

I think that the House is acting very harshly towards the hon. Member, who, whatever his mistakes, has tried to do his duty as a private Member.

I approve of the course taken by the hon. Member for West Belfast, and think, if the conduct of the hon. Member for Boston had been judged simply from the speeches delivered from the two Front Benches, the impression conveyed would have been that the hon. Member had been actuated by malice. I hope I shall not be misunderstood. I deplore the conduct of the hon. Member during the past week, but everyone must have noticed that the hon. Member has been suffering from an abnormal amount of excitement, which has absolutely destroyed all his self-control. If the Resolution had been carried simply on the speeches from the two Front Benches it would have been grossly unfair to the hon. Member and to his constituents.

I appeal to my hon. Friends behind me, and hope that there will be unanimity on the part of the House with regard to this Motion. I hope so for the sake of the hon. Member for Boston himself, for I am afraid that if we are not unanimous the hon. Gentleman will believe there is a minority which will support him when he comes back to the House, and that might encourage him to persist in the course which he has pursued. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has amended the Motion to an extent which I think Members on this side of the House may fairly accept.

There is a feeling on this side of the House that it is desirable to have, if possible, a unanimous vote. Naturally, as far as the Speaker is concerned, we should feel pained if we were to give a vote which might be mis- understood. We wish to avoid that, but some of us feel that we must do so upon the present Resolution. May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the object he has in view—namely, the securing of the period of exclusion to the end of the Session—will be practically gained by suspension for a week instead of a fortnight? A Motion limiting the suspension to a week would be more in accordance with the Standing Order.

Having known the hon. Member for Boston all his life, and having been associated with him in Parliamentary and municipal matters for many years, I should like to say a word in favour of a modification of the Motion, which should be at once unanimous and considerate. I have had opportunities of forming some estimate of the influences acting on the hon. Member throughout the last few days; and when I use the word "considerate," I think it is the one which is most applicable to the case. My private knowledge of the associations of the hon. Member leads me to take the view that one week's exclusion will be sufficient to attain the object in view.

I desire to add a few words in the spirit of the observations which have been just addressed to the House. I do not think the hon. Member was actuated by a desire to outrage the House or the Chair, but his conduct is rather an expression of waywardness in circumstances with which many hon. Gentlemen sympathise, and such a punishment as a suspension for a fortnight would afford a grave precedent. I hope, therefore, that the House will, under the circumstances, accept the suggestion of the Member for West Belfast.

I wish to ask whether the Leader of the House will say that in his judgment it is necessary that the period should be a fortnight in order to protect the Speaker from further insult? If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I will support the Motion.

If unanimity is desired the shorter the right hon. Gentleman makes the period of suspension the better. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he cannot secure unanimity if the suspension for a fortnight is pressed.

It may perhaps relieve the House of some embarrassment if I may be allowed to interpose an expression of my own feelings in the matter in favour of the least period of suspension which is compatible with the feelings of the House. I need not say that I have no vindictive feeling towards the hon. Gentleman; the matter has passed beyond any personal feeling altogether. I respectfully suggest to the House that the hon. Gentleman is at this moment somewhat wanting in self-control, and that a short period of rest will be beneficial to himself and will save the House from any repetition of the cause of complaint. If that be the view of the House, I submit that a week may be substituted for a fortnight.

I rise to move—

"That, for the remainder of the Session, Government Business be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour though opposed."

My question was whether the right hon. Gentleman will stop all opposed Private Business?

I think the hon. Member must appoint his own sentinel. There may be a few Bills which are unanimously desired in every part of the House, and any promise of mine might frustrate the passing of such Bills. No new legislation of a controversial nature will be introduced.

What will be done with regard to the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill?

I have nothing to add to what the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant has already said on that subject.

I hope the Hares Bill introduced by the hon. and gallant Member for Thirsk will not be allowed to pass.

I also must oppose that Bill. It seems to me that there is no disposition to refuse to accept the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for, according to Moore's verse, with a little alteration—

"The best of all ways to shorten our days

Is to steal a few hours from the night."

I should like to ask whether the Government will take the Betting and Loans (Infants) Bills. There is, I think, a very general feeling in their favour.

I do not think it is in the power of a Minister, having obtained a concession from the House in regard to Supply on a distinct pledge that he would not persevere with it in the case of any important Vote after a given hour, to say when he obtains larger powers as to general business, that it is in his power to retract his pledge. I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman will say he will not persist against the general feeling of the House with any Vote. If so, no doubt no opposition will be offered to this alteration in his view. As to the proposal with regard to new legislation, I do not know what Bills have been passed by the House of Lords, but a most objectionable practice has grown up of sending down a batch of Lords' Bills after the general body of members interested in them has gone away. I would suggest the insertion of the words "and in the case of Bills already introduced" before "may be entered upon." This would prevent the application of the Motion to Bills not yet introduced into this House. I do not suppose anybody in the House would be so stupid as to oppose a Bill like that of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Agriculture (Mr. Chaplin) with regard to fertilisers, as it is intended to serve the interests of the agricultural community generally. There are Bills frequently introduced by the Treasury at the end of the Session which, like the Public Works Loans Bill of last year, contain a mass of contentious matter. I beg to move the Amendment I have suggested.

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that his Amendment is not necessary, for I will undertake that no new Bills shall be introduced during the prohibited hours.

No Lords' Bills.

No Lords' Bills. Of course the hon. Member is alluding to Bills which come from the Lords, and not the Lords' Amendments. As to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Derby, I do not quite understand whether it applies wholly to Government business or not.

I understand the difficulty to be in reference to Bills, not being Government Bills, that are not opposed. I know the difficulty there sometimes is of distinguishing between opposed and unopposed Bills, and I think the best course to take at this late period of the Session is to lay down that no business shall be taken except Government business.

I thought that was the view of the right hon. Gentleman. What I undertake is this, that if the House is fairly unanimous in proceeding with these Bills, we will not deprive private Members of their chance. We adopt this attitude not in the interest of the Government, but in the interest of private Members. With regard to the question of the right hon. Member for Derby relating to the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill, I had hoped that it would not be necessary to interrupt Supply. If we should be so fortunate as to finish Supply by Wednesday evening, we should be in a position to take the Education Bill on Thursday. However, seeing the interest hon. Members take in the Amendments, and in order to facilitate business, I will undertake that the Lords' Amendments to the Bill shall be taken, under any circumstances, on Thursday next as the first Order.

I wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Indian Budget will be the first Order on some early day?

Yes, Sir; I think the Indian Budget will come soon after the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill have been disposed of. If we should be fortunate enough to finish Supply on Wednesday night we would take the Education Bill on Thursday, and possibly we might take the Indian Budget after that or on Friday. I do not wish hon. Members, however, to regard this as a pledge, but merely as a contemplated possibility.

I beg to ask whether it is intended to proceed with the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill after 12 o'clock?

Yes, Sir.

In spite of the pledge that no contentious Bills should be taken?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly lightened the load with regard to the Clergy Discipline Bill. Probably to the first four clauses most people will agree, but it is more than likely that they will be discussed and opposed, and I would suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is worth while to run the risk of this after 12 o'clock in order simply to, pass the four clauses referred to.

I beg to ask when the Scotch Supplementary Education Vote will be taken?

Might I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be more convenient, as the Indian Budget has been put off till so late, that it should not come immediately after the discussion of the Lords' Amendments to the Education Bill. In view of an impending famine in India there may be very important matters to be discussed upon the Indian Budget.

In view of the statement made by the Chief Secretary, I beg to give notice that I shall oppose the discussion of the Training Colleges (Ireland) Bill after 12 o'clock, at a time when hon. Members cannot have an opportunity of fully expressing their views, and when no reports can reach Ireland.

I suppose the Order for the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Bill will be discharged?

Yes.

I have heard the statement of the hon. Member for South Tyrone with great surprise, because he allowed the Second Reading to pass without dissent. The hon. Member will have no difficulty in expressing his views after 12 o'clock. I hope the House will not be kept sitting late on Wednesdays.

I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

With regard to Wednesday I think we may sit till 6 or half-past 6 o'clock. I am not favourable to the House sitting later than half-past six on Wednesday evenings if it can be avoided. As to the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester concerning the Clergy Discipline Bill, I cannot believe there will be much opposition to the first four clauses, and it is very desirable that they should be passed. With regard to the Scotch Votes, I will endeavour to meet the views of hon. Gentlemen from Scotland as far as I can, but I cannot give a definite pledge as to the time when they will be taken.

I wish to move to add to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman,

"And that no other business to which notice of Amendment has been placed on the Paper be proceeded with after 12 o'clock."

Could not the Chancellor of the Exchequer cause these Bills from the Lords to be withdrawn entirely? I specially object to Order No. 39 on the Paper (Chartered Accountants Bill) being forced through in the small hours of the morning. That Bill, which is opposed by accountants throughout the country, was only introduced into the House of Lords about a week ago, and is a sample of a kind of legislation that ought not to be encouraged at this period of the Session.

I hope the Government will accept the Amendment. If it be rejected it means that we must take the trouble of stopping here till 3 or 4 or perhaps 5 in the morning in order to say—"I object."

I will endeavour to arrive at a compromise in the matter. It is because I wish to protect private Members that I hesitated to meet the views of the hon. Member for Dundee. But I will undertake, if it meets the general view, that no Private Bills at all shall be proceeded with after 1 o'clock.

As I find there is considerable opposition to the Chartered Accountants Bill I will not proceed with it this Session.

I would suggest that an exception should be made in favour of four or five private Members' Bills, which have reached almost the last stage.

After Supply is finished there may be an opportunity between 12 and 1 o'clock for these Bills to come on. Till Supply is finished, I must adhere to the view I have expressed.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not agree to the suggestion of my hon. Friend. If there is to be a massacre of innocents, let all suffer alike.

It really is not a kindness to private Members bers to keep these Bills in a state of suspended animation. It would be kinder, both to those who are promoting and those who are opposing particular Bills, that the exceptional rule should extend only to Bills which have been brought forward by the Government, and not to private Members' Bills.

There are 19 Orders of the Day apart from the Government Orders, and as to 16 of them it is absolutely impossible that they can pass this Session. On the other hand, there are three which have reached the Report stage, and I do think the Government might make some exception in their favour.

I would point out that even if the three Bills referred to by the hon. Member pass this House this Session there is no chance of their passing the other House, and it would be better to give them the "happy despatch."

I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby is under a misapprehension. Why should you at, this period of the Session deprive private Members of their chance of getting Bills through? I do not see why the private Members' Bills should not be left in the position they were in before. It is quite true that the chance of passing them is a small one, but why should private Members be deprived of that chance?

I merely rise for the purpose of stating that I strongly sympathise with the views which the hon. Member has expressed, and perhaps the statement of them will suffice.