I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, whether it would be possible to grant to the senior quartermasters and riding masters, most of whom have been promoted from the ranks for long service and good conduct, the honorary rank of major after 20 years' commissioned service, such as is granted to officers in other branches?

A very few years ago the position of quartermasters and riding masters was thoroughly considered and changes were made which were very advantageous to those officers. The rank of Major was then attached to certain of the more important appointments held by them, which was thought to be more satisfactory than making the rank a mere result of long service. It is not now considered desirable to re-open the question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in reference to the case of Sergeant Boyd, Royal Irish Constabulary, who admitted at Bangor Sessions, 20th February, that he procured a specimen of the handwriting of an accused woman by getting her to write a "love letter" to one of the policemen in the barrack, whether he is aware that the District Inspector in charge of the case said that the sergeant had acted by his (the Inspector's) directions, and that he (the Inspector) took all the responsibility; and, if so, what steps do the Constabulary Authorities intend to take with regard to the Inspector's action?

The Constabulary Authorities report that, as already stated, the sergeant acted on his own responsibility in asking the woman to write what is called a "love letter." The statement of the District Inspector referred to had regard to his direction that a specimen of the woman's handwriting should be obtained.

The right hon. Gentleman says the statement of the District Inspector had regard to a direction to obtain a specimen of handwriting; but did the Inspector say that legal means should be used to procure the writing? The whole case is this: that the sergeant obtained it by giving no warning of the intention to proceed against the woman.

I think, certainly, that the view of the hon. Member is the right one, that when the District Inspector gave directions to obtain a specimen of her handwriting, it should not have been obtained on such terms. I may say at once it should not have been so obtained, and there is, in fact, a rule against it. I think no person ought to be called on to do an action that might incriminate that person.

As this woman has suffered considerably, and was prematurely confined in consequence of the charge made against her, and as her husband has been put to considerable cost in defending her, and the Attorney General has directed there shall be no prosecution, what is to be done in the way of compensation and to satisfy this sergeant and others in the force that such conduct must not be repeated?

I take it that the object of the hon. Member is to provide against a recurrence of what certainly ought not to have taken place in this case.

Punish the man.

I do not think it is necessary to do more than has already been done in the matter. I do not think that it sets up any claim on behalf of the woman or her husband.

This is one of the typical cases of administration in Ireland we shall have to bring to the attention of the House on the Vote on Account.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the fact that, in the twelve months of 1890–91, there was a decrease of the area under crops in Ireland of about 163 square miles; and, if so, what steps the Government will take to prevent this annual decrease of the food producing area of Ireland.

I am informed that the decrease in the land under crops in Ireland in 1891 as compared with 1890 was, including meadow and clover, to the extent mentioned in the question.

And can the Government suggest any means to check this narrowing of the area of cultivation?

Well, Sir, I am afraid that when cultivation does not pay it is not continued.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been directed to a speech delivered at Preston by the Rev. G. Steele, Her Majesty's Inspector for that district, to members of the Church of England, and reported in the Lancashire Evening Post of 22nd February, in which the following passages occur:—

"If they had a School Board he did not see how or in what manner it would be likely to help them any more than the methods they had already. … He asked why should not the Church, Roman Catholic, and Wesleyan and other denominational schools .… agitate for, or claim a share of, support from the public rates, just as Board Schools did;'

and whether the speech in question is one which is sanctioned by the regulations of the Department, which direct Her Majesty's Inspectors not to take sides in the denominational and political controversies of their district?

The highly condensed report of Mr. Steele's speech from which the words in the question are taken gives, I am told, an erroneous impression of what was really said, and Mr. Steele informs me that his recommendation to denominational bodies to agitate for a share of the rates was withdrawn as soon as made; but I cannot help thinking that, as a public officer who might be called upon to advise the Department concerning the very question which he was engaged in discussing, he committed a grave indiscretion, to which his attention must be called.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say what are the regulations of the Department?

They are clear enough, providing that an Inspector shall not take such a course as appears in this case to have been taken.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been drawn to a circular of the Express Bank, with offices at 121, Stephen's Green, and 32, York Street, Dublin, in which the following statements, among many attractive paragraphs, appear:—

"A promissory note is signed by you for the exact amount of your advance, plus the stamps, and is payable with interest at the rate of 60 per cent. per annum at such time as is therein specified, so that you receive the exact amount, and repay it along with interest calculated at said rate up to period of payment. We have been asked, 'Cannot you have a sliding rate between the bank rate and 60 per cent. per annum rate?' The Director, after an experience of 31 years, says 'No. The National Discount Company and others have tried it and failed;'"

and whether any legal means exist of preventing such a high rate of interest as this; and, if not, whether the Government can take steps to prevent the enforcement of such a claim for interest, especially in the case of purchasers under the various Land Purchase Acts?

My attention has been called to this circular by the question of the hon. Member. It is a matter in regard to which the public must protect themselves. The law has in recent years placed no limit to the amount of interest which a person of full age may undertake to pay.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department whether he is aware that the Board of Guardians of Nenagh Onion have received a communication from the Netley Military Hospital, to the effect that John Kelly, a private soldier in the "Connaught Rangers" regiment, who had been a lunatic, suffering from dementis, but who had sufficiently recovered to allow of his being removed, would be sent to the Union Authorities at Nenagh, under the care of two guides, on the 15th March, 1892; whether some other provision could be made in such a case as this, to avoid sending a soldier out of hospital on a long journey at this inclement season, and in so infirm a state that it required two guides to take charge of him; and, having regard to the fact that there is no proper provision available for lunatics at Nenagh Union, will he have inquiry made into this case of John Kelly's removal?

The man referred to is a harmless lunatic, and he is transferred to the Union to which he is chargeable under the provisions of the Army Act. His condition was not such as to preclude travelling, and an insane soldier is always accompanied by an escort.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire as to how far the grant of £15,000 to the English University Colleges has stimulated the teaching of the arts and sciences within those colleges, and as to whether such a grant should be increased or otherwise?

Yes; I will lay the Report on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is the case that the Hon. M. H. Herbert has been appointed to the Post of Secretary of Legation at Washington; and if the appointment was offered to any Secretaries of Legation serving elsewhere; if not, on what grounds Mr. Herbert has been promoted over the heads of ten Second Secretaries and 14 Secretaries of Legation?

Mr. Herbert has been appointed Secretary of Legation at Washington, not over the heads of ten Second Secretaries, but of six, two of his seniors having been promoted, one having been offered promotion, which he refused, and one being at present unemployed. Mr. Herbert has not passed over the heads of 14 Secretaries of Legation, as all Secretaries of Legation are on an equality as regards rank, and he will take the lowest place amongst them. In the opinion of the Secretary of State, Mr. Herbert, who has had more than three years' service at Washington, is specially qualified to fill the post, which requires an unusual amount of discretion. Mr. Herbert was in charge of the Legation at a critical period, after Her Majesty's Minister had received his passports, and has for the last year performed the duties of First Secretary to the entire satisfaction of his superiors.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary, War Department, if it is intended to conduct the training of the Londonderry Light Infantry at Portsmouth this year; whether the training for the last 36 years has taken place always in the City of Londonderry, and been of a satisfactory and efficient description; and, if so, whether he will consider the advisability of reconsidering his decision to take the troops to Portsmouth, at an estimated cost of £2,000; and whether he has received a letter from the Corporation of Londonderry strongly urging the training may take place as usual in the district of Londonderry?

The Londonderry Militia is not Light Infantry, but Artillery. It has trained at Londonderry for a great many years. In case of mobilisation it would take part in the defence of Portsmouth, and it is essential that regiments should, from time to time, train at the fortifications they would have to defend.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Scottish Education Department propose to order the election of a new School Board at Port Glasgow to fill the place of that which has been declared illegal by the Court of Session?

I have nothing to add to the latter part of the answer I gave yesterday to the hon. Member.

But when will the right hon. Gentleman be able to say what course will be taken to fill the place of the School Board declared illegal?

As soon as the matter has received adequate consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a military expedition from Lagos is in contemplation, with the object of compelling the Egbas and Jebus to open the roads to the interior of West Africa, and to establish a British protectorate over these independent tribes; and, if so, what force it is proposed to employ in this expedition?

There has been no intention of establishing a British protectorate over the tribes referred to; but it is necessary to require them to observe the Treaties they have made respecting freedom of trade, which, in the case of the Jebus, were only very recently entered into. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the Governor of Lagos, but it would not be in the public interest to make any statement at present on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether negotiation has been tried and will be tried to the utmost possible extent before resorting to violence?

I cannot undertake to answer any further question without notice; negotiations have been tried.

Will the right hon. Gentleman lay copies of the Treaties on the Table?

I cannot answer that question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the effect of the Sanitary Order Amendment Order (Gibraltar), 1891, is to alter the constitution of the Board of the Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar, and to deprive the ratepayers and inhabitants of Gibraltar of their former representation on such Board; and whether such Order was put into force without notice to the ratepayers and inhabitants, and without any reasons being given for any change in the constitution of such Board; and, if so, whether the said Order will be withdrawn?

By the Sanitary Order Amendment Order (Gibraltar), 1891, the number of the members of the Board of Sanitary Commissioners of Gibraltar representing the ratepayers and inhabitants has been diminished from eight to four. The Order was put in force without notice; but the reasons which rendered the measure necessary have since been published in Gibraltar, and it is not proposed to withdraw the Order.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the four Members were elected?

I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information I have.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the excitement in the district caused by the discovery of the murders at Rainhill, he is in a position to give any information beyond what has appeared in the Press?

No, Sir; I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the Press. Communications have been addressed to the authorities at Melbourne pending the completion of inquiries by the Lancashire police.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of the assistant overseer of Horbling, Folkingham, who was fined by the Revising Barrister at the Revision Court held at Billingborough, in the county of Lincoln, in September last; whether a political agent has any right to ask the overseer for information as to the politics of persons on the overseers' lists; and whether in this case there was any justification for the action of the Revising Barrister in fining the assistant overseer on the statement of a political agent, unsupported by evidence, and without calling on the overseer and assistant overseer for their testimony?

I gather from the newspaper report that in the case of the assistant overseer of Horbling the Revising Barrister deducted 5s. 6d. from the overseer's expenses for neglect in forwarding the lists upon application being made to him for them. The same report states that the assistant overseer was heard by the Barrister in Court in answer to the complaint before the disallowance was made. There is no obligation on the part of an overseer to answer inquiries as to the politics of persons on the overseers' lists.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the. Home Department if he will lay a Paper upon the Table of the House containing names of Superintendents, Inspectors, and Sergeants of Police who hold a free pass on railways, or on any railway?

Superintendents, Inspectors, and Sergeants of the Metropolitan Police are not provided with free passes on railways, but when travelling on duty a pass is given, for which payment is subsequently demanded by the Railway Company.

The fight hon. Gentleman has confined his answer to the Metropolitan Police. Can he say what is the practice in other forces?

That is information which should be obtained from the chiefs of other police forces.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he could see his way to inquire into the circumstances of the charges brought against Mrs. Beecroft, of Stockport, by the police, and on account of which her child has been sent to a reformatory for five years?

I have received a report as to the circumstances of the case of Mrs. Beecroft, of Stockport, and her child. The Magistrates' Clerk informs me that the child was convicted in February last year of stealing a purse, and her father was bound over for her good behaviour. The following month the mother was convicted of receiving a purse, three other charges against her being withdrawn. In the house a quantity of stolen property was discovered by the police. On the 9th of February this year the child was again convicted on her own confession of stealing a purse, which she alleged she had given to her mother. The case was clearly proved, and the Magistrate sentenced the child to detention in a reformatory.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware of the heavy sickness that prevails among the telegraph staff employed at Moorgate Street Buildings, being a higher average by nearly 50 per cent. than in any other office; whether the clerks have frequently petitioned the authorities, pointing out the unsanitary conditions under which they are compelled to eat their luncheon, and praying for time to partake of their other meals; whether this is the only office in the telegraph service where systematic overtime prevails among the senior clerks, who perform duty for seven days a week for eleven months in every year; and whether, having regard to these facts, he will concede the same privilege to these clerks of 20 minutes for meals, already granted to officers in similar offices, abolish systematic overtime, and obtain a report from the medical officer as to the alleged sanitary conditions?

I apologise for not being in my place when this question was called, and perhaps I may be allowed to explain that my delay was due to desire not to omit any answer, but notices of these questions only appeared this morning, and considerable reference had to be made. No; I am not aware of such heavy sickness. The whole force employed at Moorgate Street Buildings consists of ten persons, and, except in the case of two who are constitutionally weak, the absence from illness is below the average. The second paragraph of the question I must answer in the negative. Only one petition is remembered in recent years, and that was for leave to obtain their dinners outside—a request which, of course, could not be granted. It is a rule to which no exception is allowed that telegraphists are not to leave the building until their duty for the day is over. This is not the only office where systematic overtime prevails amongst the senior telegraphists; and this must be so whenever, as in Moorgate Street Buildings, an office is open on Sunday. It would obviously be impossible to have a junior in charge on Sundays or at night. But the seniors, indeed, so far from objecting to the overtime, are pleased to get it. For one meal in the day they have already, not 20, but 30 minutes. The seniors would make it a ground of complaint if overtime were abolished, and there is no reason whatever to believe that the condition of the Moorgate Street Buildings is unsanitary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention was directed to the case which was brought before Judge Boyd, on the 10th ultimo, of certain tenants on the Dowling estate, who were evicted for one year's rent, including the hanging gale, and the wife of the evictor put in their holdings at a sum about £100 per annum less than the evicted tenants were paying; how much rent has she paid to the Court during her tenancy; what was the amount due from her on surrendering her title to the Court, on the understanding that her sons would be returned tenants and all arrears wiped out; what is the rent now to be paid by the Messrs. Dowling's present tenants; and what was offered by the evicted tenants?

The matter referred to comes in no way within the cognisance of the Executive Government. It is in the hands of the Receiver Judge, who presumably dealt with it in his discretion.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is his intention in the present Session to introduce any measure for making a change in the paper currency of England or any measure having for its object the increase of banking reserves, in accordance with schemes he has propounded elsewhere?

I am in negotiation with the Bank of England respecting a revision of the existing agreement which exists between the State and the Bank. In the introduction of a Bill relating to the Bank of England I shall take the opportunity of making a full statement with reference to my views and intentions in respect of the matters to which the question of the eight hon. Gentleman alludes.

I do not quite understand. Will that Bill deal with the subjects mentioned in the question or not?

I will make a full statement on that occasion, and the right hon. Gentleman will then see whether the Bill will deal with the subjects mentioned in the question or not.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether it is true that Her Majesty's ships Royalist and Cruiser have recently been cruising amongst the Solomon Islands and inflicting punishment on natives for outrages committed on British subjects; whether any native villages were shelled or burned; and if he would lay upon the Table Papers explanatory of these operations?

No reports have been received of the Royalist or any other cruiser having acted at the Solomon Islands as indicated in the question. The Royalist arrived at Sydney early in December, and was refitting there at the date of the last report from the station.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table a Memorandum on the "Financial Proposals relating to the Shipbuilding Programme of 1889" that will show what modifications require now to be made in the Memorandum of 11th March 1889 (Parliamentry Paper No. 67)?

I have directed a Memorandum to be prepared as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, and will have it laid before the House next week.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has considered the Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and. Tolls; and whether the Government intends to propose legislation based on any of the recommendations of that Report?

I have had the Report of the Royal Commission on Market Rights and Tolls under my consideration. The recommendations of the Commissioners have reference to questions of great importance, and with respect to which there was amongst the Commissioners themselves considerable difference of opinion. I cannot give any undertaking that the Government will be in a position to propose legislation on the subject during the present Session.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether there has been any precedent for the promotion to the post of Admiral of the Fleet of Sir Edmund Commerell, passing over an officer of long and good service, his senior in the Service; and whether the selection of Sir Edmund Commerell was contrary to the submission of the Board?

Promotion to the rank of Admiral of the Fleet is by selection. For many years past the officer so selected has been the senior on the list. Admiral Sir Edmund Commerell was second in seniority on the list, but he had, in my judgment, the most distinguished record of war service of any officer on the active list. He has been five times specially gazetted for distinguished service in the field, has received a V.C., has been seriously wounded, and on several occasions his services have been warmly acknowledged by the Admiralty. He was, therefore, selected to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Admiral Sir Provo Wallis. As regards the second part of the question, I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. Perhaps he will explain.

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt permit me to postpone my explanation for a day.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that considerable numbers of working men who have been employed in temporary relief works in districts where work has lately failed through the depression of trade will, in consequence, be deprived of their Parliamentary franchise; and whether the Government propose to take any steps in the matter?

I do not find from the information received by the Local Government Board that, taking the whole of England and Wales, there is any appreciable number of able-bodied men in receipt of relief from Boards of Guardians on account of their being out of work. There are, so far as I am aware, only two districts in which the number of able-bodied men so relieved appears to be considerable. As regards the question as to the Parliamentary franchise, there is no intention on the part of the Government to propose an alteration of the law under which a person who receives relief as a pauper from a Board of Guardians becomes disqualified for being placed on the register of Parliamentary voters.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether in the written statement to him made by Eggleton before his execution the convict reiterated that he was knocked down senseless and remembered nothing that subsequently occurred; and whether any, and what, evidence has been submitted to him tending to contradict that assertion?

I must take the opportunity afforded by the hon. Member's question to express my strong protest against being asked in this House to give an answer upon an isolated and selected circumstance which is presented by itself to Parliament apart from a great mass of other facts and circumstances, all of which should be kept in sight if any just estimate is to be formed of the weight which ought to be attached to the circumstance in question. It is impossible that I should in answer to a question adequately present the result of a great body of evidence which has received the close attention of the jury, the Judge, and myself. The hon. Member is aware of the conclusion to which all three have arrived; and I must respectfully decline to enter upon any partial discussion of the evidence.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain that I only put down this question on the Paper in response to the expressed willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to provide the information. I have no intention to enter into a discussion now, but if I see fit I shall renew the discussion at a later period.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will inform the House what are the terms of the contract with Messrs. De La Rue for the supply of letter cards?

There is no regular contract with Messrs. De La Rue for the supply of letter cards, but there is an agreement made with that firm to supply them in packets of ten, and tied in bundles of 100, at the rate of 12s. 4d. a 1,000 if ordered in quantities of 1,000,000 or upwards. The firm stated that they had, to some extent, to work in the dark in fixing this charge, and that they would be willing to re-consider the price on the occasion of a second order. In accepting these experimental terms regard was had to the fact that the manufacture of the cards was troublesome, as they had to be perforated singly, while the gumming and drying each entailed two operations. The ultimate profit to the Post Office is reckoned to be 1s. 4d. a 1,000.

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that this contract has come to an end?

The contract has not come to an end. It is still existing, but subject to revision upon each order given. We are hardly able to say yet whether the price is too high or not; but we have every reason to believe it is not.

I do not think it necessary to enter at great length into the reasons that compel the Government to place this Motion on the Order Paper. I have from time to time kept the House informed of the difficulties we have been in in complying with the law in finishing the whole of the Financial Business before the end of the financial year; and, as the House knows, the Government obtained facilities for carrying on that Business, so far back as the 4th March, The Government, from various causes, have not been able to take full advantage of the time which has been placed at their disposal. I have just refreshed my memory with what took place with regard to the days; and since the 3rd March, when we obtained Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays for Financial Business, there have been eight Government days—that is to say, Mondays and Thursdays, and Tuesdays and Fridays. Of these, eight days, three, and three only, were wholly devoted to the discussion of the Financial Business which we desired the House to deal with. On the 4th March, the first day after obtaining the facilities a Private Bill occupied nearly half the Morning Sitting. On the 8th March another Private Bill and a short discussion on the Mombasa Privilege Debate occupied the whole Sitting. On Thursday, the 10th March, the Eastbourne Bill, a Private Bill, and an Adjournment moved with regard to the famine in India occupied up to past 10 o'clock at night; and On Friday, the 11th March, when we had a Morning Sitting, a Private Bill and a further discussion upon the Privilege question raised with, regard to the votes of Members of the House occupied till nearly 5 o'clock. And yesterday, as the House knows, there were two Adjournments moved in which very interesting and important questions were raised, but questions which, of course, had nothing to do with the Votes on the Estimates which we asked the House to discuss. The House will, I hope, understand that, I am not at all criticising or complaining of what occurred. I only state facts; and the result of these facts is that, of course, a great deal of time which the Government had a right to expect to be at their disposal for the purpose of their necessary business has, as a matter of fact, been allocated to other business. Under these circumstances, on the last day on which we can deal with the Estimates before the Appropriation Bill is introduced, it is not entirely unexpected and not unnatural, and I hope, not unreasonable, that we should ask the House to give us further facilities for completing our work. This Resolution practically gives the Government time for taking operative Supply at 9 o'clock at night, for continuing after 12 o'clock, and also taking after 12 o'clock, irrespective of the Twelve o'Clock Rule, the Committee of Ways and Means, which has to be taken before the introduction of the Appropriation Bill. I hope we may be able, in the course of the afternoon, to finish the Vote on Account and to finish the Supplementary Estimates; and, of course, if we are fortunate enough to get through that business, that programme shall not interfere with the Debate on the Resolution which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Sutherland with regard to the operation of the Crofters Act in the Highlands. So far as we are concerned, we are very anxious to hear, and disposed to listen to, what the hon. Member has to say upon that subject, and will be ready to give our own views upon it. I beg to move the Resolution.

The right hon. Gentleman, from my experience of him, is not a man of sanguine disposition, and, therefore, I imagine he can hardly think, after recent Debates in this House, that the Irish Members would be disposed to grant him any exceptional facilities unless he shows them to be essential. The meaning of his Motion is that the right hon. Gentleman is to be allowed to prolong the present Sitting to any hour he pleases, and to force the House to take any business that may be on the Paper. We have had experience of late Sittings of this House, and we had one last night; and the use which the right hon. Gentleman made of that Sitting was, that after he rose and invited me to carry into effect the Notice of Motion which I had previously given, he sat in his place and silently saw me put to silence by the use of an Order of this House, which, if not strained, was certainly severe.

Order, order! I do not know to what the hon. Member refers by a "severe exercise of an Order of the House." I must ask the hon. Gentleman to explain what he means.

The explanation I have to give is that the Rule of the House which forbids a Member to speak twice on a question under Debate with the Speaker in the Chair—a Rule which, to my knowledge, is waived at every Sitting of the House—was put in force in my case.

Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is entirely out of Order, and quite irregular in alluding, as he has done, to what occurred last night. I am in the recollection of a great proportion of those hon. Members now present that when that Amendment was moved I waited and called for a Seconder. The hon Gentleman rose and said he supported the Amendment, and when he sat down I put the Question. Having seconded the Amendment, of course it was impossible for the hon. Member to speak again. When he passed my Chair I expressed my regret that under the circumstances he was not to be allowed to speak again if he wished. He said, as I understood, that he was under a misconception, but added he would rise in his place. When he did rise I told him, I hope courteously, that he was precluded from speaking again. What he means by "an undue exercise of the Rules of the House" I am at a loss to conceive.

My observations, Mr. Speaker, were not directed either to show the discourtesy of your ruling or to show that you are not perfectly within your technical right, but they were directed to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury.

Perhaps I may be allowed to explain. It was not my fault that the hon. Member was prevented by the Rules of the House from taking part in the Debate when he rose in his place, and I publicly expressed my regret that he was so prevented, and I assure him that that regret was very sincerely felt. It was not my fault.

I know it is Mr. Speaker, and not the right hon. Gentleman, who has to deal with the Orders of this House. I think it would be a serious matter for us if he had to deal with them. But I hold that I am unquestionably within my right in pointing out that this Rule of the House has recently been frequently waived by consent of the House in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Scarcely a night has passed that he has not spoken a second time in Debate. I am not arguing against the Speaker's ruling, but I am speaking of the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. I and my hon. Friends have always agreed to waive that Order in favour of the right hon. Gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to convey the least disrespect or discourtesy to you; I was simply explaining that the consideration which we have shown to the right hon. Gentleman was not shown to me. The Motion before us is not to be justified by any reference to what happened in former days whether as regards Public or Private Business. It is a Motion which concerns this evening; if it can be justified at all, it must be justified by the urgency of the financial business which stands on the Paper to-day. The Government have got every penny of money which they need up to the 30th March. The consideration of the business which he asks to take is the financial business of next year. He asks us to vote money which does not become payable until the month of April or May; and that the hours of private Members should be abolished in order to bring forward the consideration of that financial business is absurd. There is not the shadow of ground that can be alleged for this extraordinary Motion; and I shall move an Amendment to insert after the word "Business," the words "relating to the present financial year."

I am one of those who, differing from many of my friends, have supported the Government hitherto in the demands they made upon private Members for extra facilities for the financial business of the year, and I have steadily endeavoured to do so up to this point of the right hon. Gentleman's proceedings; but I am obliged to part company with him now. As my hon. Friend who has just sat down has pointed out, the so-called financial business before us to-night consists of two separate parts. There is, in the first place, a matter which is urgent—namely, the last of the Supplementary Estimates. Why is there urgency in the Supplementary Estimates? Because all the Votes passed during this year—that is, all the Supplementary Estimates, the Excess Votes, and so forth—must be passed, not only before this financial year closes, but in time for their being embodied in the Appropriation Bill, which must have a certain number of days in order to be passed through its different stages before the end of the financial year. But the Vote on Account, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend, is not for this year but for next year; and it is quite sufficient for the Government to be put in funds on the 31st of March, in order that they may start with their coffers full on the 1st of April. There is no such urgency relating to the Vote on Account as applies to the Supplementary Estimates. And what is this Supplementary Estimate? I wish to say in the most emphatic way that I thank the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury for the way he has dealt with that particular Estimate in order to meet the convenience of Scotch Members, and realising the fact that this is a Vote on which there would, very probably, be a good deal of expression of opinion—of adverse opinion. But now we have that Scotch Supplementary Estimate coming on after the Vote on Account. Now the Vote on Account might open up every sort of subject, and it will undoubtedly be discussed at great length; and the Scotch Members are to be kept waiting until all hours in the morning—until the Vote on Account, which is not urgent, has been disposed of. In addition to that, there is another Scotch grievance accidentally supervening which is dealt with by the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland, who is bringing it forward this evening, which is a Motion of great importance, and in which we are all much interested. All these inconveniences are owing to this fact—that this Vote on Account has got out of its place, instead of being put after urgent business for the year. I would, therefore, appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, even now, he cannot postpone the Vote on Account to some other day—next week or the week after, any day allowing special time for its discussion before the 31st of March? But the Amendment of my hon. Friend hardly meets the case. I think the only solution of the difficulty would be to postpone the Vote on Account till some future day, in order that we may have a full discussion.

Sir, perhaps the House will allow me to begin what I have to say with a personal explanation as to the question raised by the hon. Member for West Belfast. The hon. Member appeared to think—and I am sure he does think—that he has some grievance against me because, unfortunately, as I think, to the interests of the Debate, he was ruled out of Order last night when he wished to make a speech on the subject of the Irish Teachers' Pension Fund. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I, at all events, always listen to him with pleasure, and I am perfectly aware that on that subject he is the most competent authority in the House from the point of view of the opinions he entertains, and I regard it as a great loss to the House that the hon. Member had not an opportunity of expressing those views.

Why did not the right hon. Gentleman get up and say so? If he had, the House would have allowed me to speak.

The hon. Gentleman did not rise at 12 o'clock when the subject came on; he waited until it was nearly half-past 1, and it was then he was ruled out of Order. I confess that at that hour my desire may have been to bring the Debate to a conclusion. Now, Sir, it is true that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition have always been in the habit of asking the indulgence of the House when they desired to make additional explanations which would not be in Order if the strict Rules of Debate were enforced. But when this is done it is for the advancement of business and for the convenience of the House, and it is only because it is absolutely necessary to the conduct of our business that the Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition are allowed a latitude which other Members, however important and distinguished, are not allowed.

The right hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that he had just invited me to speak.

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I did invite him to speak. I expressed the opinion, which I still entertain, that I should be very glad to hear what he had to say. I would willingly have made an appeal to the House, but the hon. Gentleman himself made no appeal. The usual practice in such a case is for a Member who thinks he has a special claim to have the ordinary ruling set aside in his favour to rise in his place and ask the indulgence of the House. The hon. Member made no such appeal.

Could I do more than argue, so far as courtesy permitted, the point of Order?

The hon. Member confuses two things. He argued that he had a right to speak; he was overruled on that point by the Chair. But he made no appeal to the House to relax the Rules in his favour. He never asked for indulgence. I can assure the hon. Member that there is no man in this House to whom I would more gladly give indulgence than the hon. Member. The hon. Member and I have too long been antagonists in many hard-fought Parliamentary battle for me to entertain any other feeling for him than one of personal regard, and I trust that on his side the hon. Member will entertain no feeling of rancour towards me. Now, Sir, I come to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs. The case of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs and of the hon. Member for West Belfast is this. They say—"We grant that the Supplementary Estimates must be finished to-night, but then it is not absolutely and legally necessary to finish the Vote on Account—therefore postpone it." Well, Sir, I admitted last night, and I admit again, that the laws of legal stringency in regard to time applicable to the Supplementary Estimates do not apply to the Vote on Account. But, Sir, if the Vote on Account is delayed there will be a Parliamentary inconvenience, and therefore the position is very much the same as if there were absolute legal stringency. Now, Sir, I take up a paper containing the dates on which Votes on Account were taken since the year 1880, and I find this is the state of things. Votes on Account were taken on 8th March, 1880; 6th March, 1881; 24th March, 1882; 15th March, 1883; 20th March, 1884; 16th March, 1885; 19th March, 1886; 21st March, 1887; 15th March, 1888; 22nd March, 1889; 20th March, 1890, and 16th March, 1891. And, Sir, I find on looking back that the view which I take on this question has been taken by a Gentleman who is a very much higher financial authority than I can pretend to be—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. In the year 1881 the right hon. Gentleman moved for urgency under the Rules then existing for dealing, among other things, with the Vote on Account. As early as the 14th March in that year the right hon. Gentleman made his Motion. Rules of Urgency had been instituted in order to deal with the obstruction prevalent at the time, and in order to obtain urgency a Member was obliged to get a majority of three to one in his favour, so that to obtain the assent of the House to his Motion the right hon. Gentleman required more than the ordinary Party majority. The right hon. Gentleman beside me (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) informs me that the House in 1881 did not grant the right hon. Member for Midlothian the privilege which he claimed. The right hon. Gentleman, however, obtained a majority of 84, and, speaking as one of the highest financial authorities in the House, this is what he said—

"I rise in my place as a Minister of the Crown to declare that the Votes in Committee of Supply in respect of Excesses for the year 1879–80, the Supplementary Estimates for 1880–81, Vote I. for the Army, Vote I. for the Navy, and the Vote on Account for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments are urgent, and that it is important to the public interest that the same should be proceeded with without delay."

Well, Sir, it was important, as the right hon. Gentleman then declared in the public interest, that these Estimates should then have been proceeded with without delay—and they were proceeded with without delay—I am at a loss to understand why the public interest which influenced the right hon. Gentleman should not equally influence us. I am bound to say, owing to the causes to which I alluded in my opening speech, the financial business of the Government, which is practically the business of the country, has been thrown so much into arrear, that I think it is a reasonable and a modest request on our part to ask the House to give us the same facilities to get our business as far advanced as has usually been done on previous occasions. I freely admit that there may be some inconvenience to the Scotch Members, partly because the Scotch Vote is the last, and partly because the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutherlandshire is endangered. Still, the urgent condition of Public Business necessitates our proceeding with this Motion even though it causes that inconvenience.

The right hon. Gentleman has made out no sufficient case of urgency entitling him to deprive the Scotch Members of the opportunity gained by them in the ballot for debating the Crofter Question. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to show any urgency for the Vote on Account, and I see no reason whatever why the very moderate proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs should not be accepted. I cannot see why the Votes were transposed and the Vote on Account placed in front of the Supplementary Vote. I hope the sense of the House will be taken on this matter, so that a precedent of this kind may not be established without protest.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now consent, seeing he has the right to proceed with his Evening Business after 12 o'clock, to leave out the latter part of the Resolution, which is as follows:—

"And that the provision of the Standing Order 56 be extended to the Sitting this evening."

I beg to move that these words be omitted.

The right hon. Gentleman must have felt, when the figures in the Division were announced, that this was one of those occasions upon which a gracious thing might very well be done. It is not even pretended that we can force the hands of the Government by a Division, but this is one of those occasions on which the minority have got a case—a case founded upon reason, and I. think very good reason. What is the change that we on this side ask? It is a change that I fancy to some on the other side would be as convenient as it would be to us. The Government propose a departure—I will not say from an understanding, but from the hopes held out by them some time ago. About a fortnight ago, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House asked us to take Morning Sittings on Tuesdays and Fridays. I feel certain that the right hon. Gentleman and those sitting beside him will admit that this proposal was met in a spirit of courtesy and consideration by those sitting on this side of the House. No one will fail to acknowledge that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian met in that spirit proposals calculated to carry forward the Business of the House and the general Business of Parliament—a spirit in which I hope such proposals will always be met. But there was, on the other hand, laid down as a condition on this side, that private Members, at this early period of the Session, should not lose the power of discussing questions of general interest. That was freely acknowledged on the other side, the right hon. Gentleman saying, indeed, that in case of great pressure he might require more time. Now, Sir, we maintain that this is not a case of great pressure, and, on the other hand, we maintain that the private Members' business, which it is proposed to-night to push into a corner, is business of a very exceptional sort. It consists of the interests and it concerns the aspirations and the warm hopes of a population which in extent is nearly one - half of Scotland. The crofters have been extremely unlucky during this Parliament. I doubt if they have had one thorough set debate on the subject on which they care most. Parliament has recognised that the matter which concerns them is a matter on which they still ought to have something done. If I recollect aright, there was one debate on the Address and one upon a Motion for Adjournment. But debates of that description are always unsatisfactory, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should recognise that none of those exceptional opportunities have this Session been taken by those who act on behalf of the crofters. Now there is chance of discussing their grievances, and it would really be an act of grace towards the crofters, if the right hon. Gentleman and his followers will let them have their opportunity this evening. There is another set of Members who are seriously inconvenienced. The Scotch Members have been looking forward to this opportunity to have a free discussion on the financial arrangements between themselves and the Treasury. On this point I do not speak as an opponent of the Government, because I personally approve of the Vote which the Government intend bringing forward this evening. It is for that reason quite as much that I desire to hear that subject discussed at a time when the speeches may be listened to and reported. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say as to why our request should not be granted, and why the hopes of the crofters should be disappointed? It is that the Vote on Account is an urgent matter. The right hon. Gentleman quoted the proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1881. That proposal was defeated, not indeed by a majority; but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was only able to obtain 296 votes in support of his proposal, whilst in a full House 212 votes were given against him, that proposal was lost. The right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. A. J. Balfour) voted in the successful minority; but I do not desire to place much weight on that circumstance. Undoubtedly there was a very strong feeling indeed in the House on that occasion that the Vote on Account was not urgent. The right hon. Gentleman has given us the history of the last ten years with reference to the Vote on Account. In six out of the twelve cases which he cited, that Vote was passed. I would conclude by saying that I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the real strength of the case that has been put from this side of the House, and that he will give us some really serious and tangible reason why our request should not be complied with. I am quite certain public time will be saved if he makes this concession, and that the precedence which he gives the Scotch Vote in the afternoon, and the respect which he pays to the Crofters' Question in the evening, will be repaid with interest in the saving of time.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite has appealed to me to give further and stronger reasons for the course which the Government are adopting. I thought, I confess, that I had made out a case, and quoted the very high authority of the right hon. Member for Midlothian, which I could have supplemented by quotations from his speeches, and I gave certain dates during the last ten years on which the Vote on Account has been taken. It may be that one-half of the Votes on Account were taken at a later date, but they were never taken at a date so late that they could not be embodied in the Appropriation Bill. If we do not press this to-day we shall not be able to embody it in the Appropriation Bill. It is rather a long business to explain, but as Friday happens to fall on the very day of the month which it does this year, it becomes necessary to get through this financial business rather earlier in the month than in some other years, and the invariable practice has been that the Vote on Account shall be passed in such time that it can be dealt with by the Appropriation Bill. It has been argued that if we pass this Resolution we shall deprive the crofters of a discussion at 9 o'clock of interesting and important subjects in which they are deeply concerned. But the Crofters Motion is not more than endangered. The discussion on the Vote on Account is a pure innovation. No question was formerly raised upon it except the propriety of bringing forward the Vote on Account at all. We have already discussed the Vote for four hours last night, and surely it may be possible to conclude it with another half hour or an hour's discussion. As to the Scottish Estimates, if these are all finished, as they easily may be, by ten minutes to seven, the Crofters' Motion will then come on. If those assurances are not sufficient I will make it obligatory to allow the Crofters' Motion to come on after the other business is finished.

I am not going to make a speech, but I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. This is a matter which really turns upon the urgency of the Vote on Account. The right hon. Gentleman says it is urgent, because if it is not passed to-day it cannot be included in the Appropriation Bill. Is it necessary that the money voted under the Vote on Account should be included in this Appropriation Bill? That is the point. It must, of course, be included in some Appropriation Bill. It must be well known, surely, if there is any legal necessity in the case of a Vote on Account, that the moneys voted in that account must be included in the present Appropriations in Aid.

The legal obligation in the two cases is not identical, but there is a public convenience, endorsed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and endorsed by the practice of the last ten years, for finishing the Vote on account in time to include it in the same Appropriation Bill with the Supplementary Estimates.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that there can really be no saving of time by the pressing of his Resolution, because if the Resolution of the hon. Member for Sutherlandshire (Mr. Sutherland) is not allowed to be brought forward the Scotch Members will discuss the question when the Vote for the Crofters' Commission comes on.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir George Trevelyan) made an appeal to the Leader of the House to give facilities for the Crofters' Vote coming on. I think he made his appeal to the wrong quarter of the House. It is the Liberal Unionist section of the House that can after all decide any question on a Division. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) is unable to be present through illness. I notice, only in to-day's papers, that the hon. Member for West Birminghan has accepted the leadership of the Radical Unionist Party in Ross and Cromarty. If there are any Radical Unionists in Ross and Cromarty, or among the crofters generally, they will be more interested in the Crofter Question coming on to-night than with any other business that can happen in this Session of Parliament. I appeal not to the Leader of the House, but to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), who is the Representative of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham at the present time as I take it, and I ask him is the Liberal Unionist section of this House going to follow the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the right hon. Gentleman having adopted the leadership of the Radical Unionists of Ross and Cromarty the other day, are they going to desert the cause now?

I very much regret that the First Lord of the Treasury will not come to terms in this matter. If he will adopt what we now propose we, on our part, will agree that at 11 o'clock the Debate shall cease, and the Government can then take any Vote they wish. For three years we have been unable to get a discussion on this subject. One year we allowed the Estimates to go through Committee till 3 o'clock in the morning. On another occasion my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire got a night; but, when the occasion came round, part of it was taken for the Tithes Bill and another part for the Land Bill. The Vote on Account contains the Vote for the Crofters Commission. It would save public time if the right hon. Gentleman were to waive this point and give us two hours for discussion. He has said the old practice was not to debate the Vote on Account. I know it was not. It was the Fourth Party who began the thing, and it is absolutely necessary now, because the Fourth Party are governing us, although their sins are finding them out. The Treasury Bench is now taking up the whole of the time of private Members from the beginning of the Session onwards. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he comes to this compromise, that he will get on with business without having to fight us in this fashion.

The First Lord of the Treasury is entirely responsible for the long discussion on this Motion. He admits that the legal stringency of the Vote on Account is not equal to the legal stringency of the Supplementary Estimates. But he would have expressed the matter more correctly if he had said that in one case there is a legal stringency and in the other there is none. And yet, entirely without necessity, I may say, he chooses to reverse the order of these Votes, and deprive the Scottish Members of the time which was allotted to them several days ago for the discussion of a subject in which they take a very great interest. And unnecessarily and wantonly the right hon. Gentleman brings the Vote on Account into the foreground. He professes to have a precedent, and quotes the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian asked the House for urgency for certain Votes in that year. He did not put the Vote on Account in the first place, he put it in the last place; and he put the Supplementary Estimates in the first place because there was a legal necessity that they should be passed. How did the House deal with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman. The House did not accept the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman, and so that forms no precedent which binds us at the present moment. The First Lord of the Treasury says the Votes were taken as early as possible. Well, suppose they were, they were Supplementary Estimates, and the Vote on Account came afterwards. As too often happens, the interests of Scotch Members are entirely and unnecessarily sacrificed by this proposal to the transitory convenience of Members sitting on the Government Benches. And, although I fear we have no chance of besting them on a Division; I hope that even now the right hon. Gentleman will see the reasonableness of what I say, and the unreasonableness of wantonly transposing—of wantonly disturbing—the order of these Votes, and that he will give us the Supplementary Votes as desired.

The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury surely cannot exactly recognise the nature of I his own proposal. He has told us he had no objection to the Scotch Vote coming on at 9 o'clock. But, if this Resolution is passed, that will not rest upon his will or objection. You, Sir, will leave the Chair without Question put, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire will be precluded from bringing forward his Motion. It is therefore absolutely absurd to hold out the slightest prospect, if this Motion is carried as it stands upon the Paper, of my hon. Friend having the least chance of bringing on his Motion at all. I must put in my protest altogether against the course pursued by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I do not want to repeat what has been said, but, as a matter of fact, the circumstance that the right hon. Gentleman finds himself in this position at the present moment is entirely due to his own mismanagement of business. The right hon. Gentleman tells us there is no reason why this Vote on Account should take more than an hour or a couple of hours to debate. The general Debate last night went on from 8 o'clock on a general question of procedure, but practically the Vote did not come on for debate until half-past 11. The whole of the first part of the night was taken up with a Debate on a point of procedure with regard to the Estimates. I protest that it is the function and duty of this House to be the guardian of the public money, and to ask us to vote £3,000,000 of public money with no more consideration than half-an-hour's discussion, and that for the most part devoted to the composition of the Kitchen Committee is a satire upon the functions of this House. The right hon. Gentleman has admitted there is no legal obligation whatever for passing this Vote on Account to-night. There was no reason whatever why he should not have closed his Supplementary Estimates, had he adopted the course of bringing them on first last night. The whole matter would have been discussed before 12 o'clock, and he might then have gone on with his Vote on Account. But he chooses to flout us by withdrawing the promise that this afternoon should be devoted to Scotch Business. I shall take every means in my power not to aid the right hon. Gentleman to gain one minute of time by his unjust proceeding.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman I have broken no promise.

No; the right hon. Gentleman has a very diplomatic way of expressing himself. Everyone on this side of the House—every Scotch Member—believed we were to have this afternoon specially devoted to this Scotch Supplementary Estimate.

That was because every Scotch Member naturally believed we could get through the other business last night.

That is a matter that was never brought under consideration.

It was yesterday.

But never before.

The original indication I gave was that Friday should be devoted to the consideration and discussion of the Scotch Vote; but that was conditional on the other business preceding it being carried through.

There was no earthly necessity for, or reason why, this Vote on Account should have been interpolated before this remaining Scottish Supplementary Estimate. If it were a matter relating to constituencies in Ireland or Wales the right hon. Gentleman would be more cautious. I hope the Scotch Members will do their best, if we go into Committee, to compel their Vote to be taken in its proper place, and the other Vote to be postponed and taken at a later stage of the proceeding.

I appeal to the sense of fair play of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury as to whether it is right that the Scotch Members whenever the Business of the House is not sufficiently far forward, should be deprived of a fair opportunity of discussing the Scotch Estimates. I appeal to him on another ground. The right hon. Gentleman has suspended the 12 o'clock Rule, and has it in his power to give what time is necessary for the discussion of that Vote if the House were to sit long enough into to-morrow morning. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's consciousness for fair play, and tell him that we all understood yesterday, or certainly this morning, that the opportunity was not to be taken from my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherlandshire of bringing on this important discussion on the Crofters' Question. It does happen, Session after Session, that whenever this House gets into a tight place with regard to time, it is neither Wales nor Ireland, but persistently Scotland, which is knocked to the wall for want of time. Was there not sufficient time to have called us earlier together instead of waiting till the middle of February before the assembling of Parliament, with the result of telling us now that there is such a hurry that there is no time for a single Scotch thing to be taken up by this House? At this period of the Session surely it is unprecedented that we should have our time taken from us through no fault of the Scotch Members. In the name of Scotland I protest against such a proceeding.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are deliberately wasting the time of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton (Sir George Trevelyan) has made an appeal to the generosity of Members on this side of the House and to the First Lord of the Treasury. I may say the right hon. Gentleman opposite would have been in a better position to make that appeal if he were oftener in his place, and others with him who, by their position, ought to attempt to control the conduct of hon. Members opposite, above and below the Gangway. What took place yesterday? A great portion of the Sitting was thrown away on a frivolous discussion about post cards which was carried on by hon. Members opposite. They knew perfectly well there were important questions coming on, and, in the early hours of this morning a very considerable portion of the time of the House was wasted, with the result that hon. Members were kept here listening to a Debate which eventually the Members below the Gangway declined to carry on. They now appeal to us to show that generosity which they, on their part, should exhibit to the Government and to this side of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury will stick to his Motion, and will not feel it necessary to exhibit any generosity which, I say, is more than hon. Members opposite deserve.

The rebuke to the Scotch Members, which has just been administered, falls with singularly bad grace from the lips of the hon. Member who has just sat down, for he and his countrymen have occupied the time of this House for the past twelve years. On account of the policy of hon. Members who sit on the Government side of the House, the House would not grant the just demands of the Irish people. On this occasion the Scotch Members of the House are taking a leaf out of the book of the Irish Members. They have learned by experience that this House will not attend to the wishes of any nationality unless that nationality asserts itself. And the intention of the Scotch Members is to assert themselves and protest against the action of the Government in robbing Scotch Members on another two occasions of one day; in the one case for a Debate on a subject in which they had taken a great interest—namely, the distribution of money in Scotland in a way in which the Scotch Members do not wish it distributed; and, in the second place, for bringing forward a matter of the greatest importance with regard to the interests of our Highland fellow-countrymen. I think the Scotch Members are now quite right, and I hope they will persist in the course they are pursuing.

As an English Member I have been witnessing with some dismay the Scottish Party carrying into their business the same vigour as the Irish Party generally show in this House. I appeal to the generosity of the First Lord of the Treasury to give the Scottish Members the time they want for the discussion of matters appertaining to their country. I certainly think the grievance last night was one which deserved much more consideration and discussion than it did obtain. I read with care the Debate we had before on that £90,000, and I was anxious that we should have some Ministerial explanation or a statement as to how the discrepancy arose. But that was not given. Now, to-day, Sir, when Scotch Members have an important Vote to discuss, and are anxious that the time of the House, which was more or less pledged to them, should be given up to that Vote, the Supplementary Estimates are put in place of it. That, I submit, is not a method of proceeding with the Business which is calculated to soothe the susceptibilities of Scotch Members. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Scotch Members the opportunity they desire, and so prevent another national grievance arising.

I would point out, Sir, that Scotch Members are Members of an Imperial Parliament, and are, therefore, as much interested in the general Business as the English Members, and they should not therefore stand in the way of the progress of the general Business, so that they may gain some Party advantage against the Government. Such a course is unworthy of Scotch Members. Last night we had to listen to discussions on letter cards, and the question whether teetotallers should be on the Kitchen Committee, and Members had to sit for hour after hour listening to what was little better than mere drivel, every Member of the House not really discussing the matter in hand, but thwarting the Business of the country. We find the Leaders, or those who look upon themselves as Leaders, trying to raise separate feelings, whether Irish, Welsh, or Scotch, against the progress of Business in which Scotchmen, Welshmen, Irishmen, and Englishmen are interested alike, and when such scenes as that of last night occur, it is time that right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench below should speak out. We have had much delay and much obstruction in the last ten years, and I think I remember many occasions when right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have felt it their duty in some respects to forward the general Business of the House. What have we got to do now? This Vote on Account would have been passed last night, so far as the general sentiment of the House was concerned, but for the wishes of three or four Gentlemen. Why should it not be be passed now? Why should we not get on with the Business we have to do, and get to our Scotch Business tonight? To do so there must be a desire for forwarding Business. I ask right hon. Gentlemen sitting below me to take their fair share in furthering the general Business of Scotland and the country.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down used a very unfortunate phrase when he said we were having this discussion because an important Scotch question is coming on to-night. It is just the opposite. It is because of the extreme danger that it cannot come on to-night that we are having this discussion. The danger is that the Sitting will be prolonged into the small hours of the morning; and, therefore, many Scotch Members do not take the view of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. We do think that our Scotch Business is squeezed into a corner—is unnecessarily postponed. We have had no explanation to-night why the Vote on Account has been placed before the Supplementary Estimates. It would seem the most natural thing in the world that, as the other Supplementary Estimates have been disposed of, this remaining one should be placed before the Vote on Account. I can speak impartially on this question, because I have some notices on the Vote on Accounts. I entirely disagree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Elliot) that Votes involving millions of money should be passed over in half-an-hour, for though some questions are of trivial importance others are of great importance. While avoiding anything unseemly in the assertion of national rights, I hope Scotch Members will, more than ever they have hitherto done, stand and act together, and insist that their questions shall not be thrown into the background, as have been too frequently the case.

I cannot help thinking it would be a very great advantage if the House could now come to the practical Business. I have waited to hear the views on this subject of hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman can do otherwise than feel that the Members for Scotland have reasonable ground for making a charge of breach of faith. There are two things in which they are interested—one is the Supplementary Estimate and the other is the Motion of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Sutherland (Mr. A. Sutherland). I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will feel that if there were an attempt to force on the arrangements as they stand at present no practical good would be done. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be possible that he should take the Resolution he has now put on the Paper, and so modify it as not to make it impossible under the last words to take the Crofters' Resolution to-night; then we could get on to the Vote on Account. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree when we get to the Vote on Account that Progress shall be reported, and that the second part of the Supplementary Estimates interesting to Scotch Members shall then be taken, I am quite sure the Scotch Members will not abuse the opportunity they have on that Vote. In reference to the Vote on Account, the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, has seen that it would be possible to take it on a later day; and, I from what he knows of the House of Commons and what I know of the House of Commons, that Vote would go through much more easily than is likely under other circumstances. I think the House will feel that they are delivered from considerable difficulty, and it would possibly be easy to forward the Vote on Account if that course were taken. Under these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman might proceed with the Business on the Paper, omitting the words "Standing Order, No. 56," which are objected to by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) as excluding the Crofters' Motion, and we might amicably go on with the Scotch Supplementary Vote, and have the Crofters' Debate in the evening. I think I will not be saying too much if I say the Vote on Account would not suffer if that course were pursued.

The right hon. Gentleman has made an appeal to me of which I have nothing to complain. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that if the Vote on Account is postponed, we should get on quicker than if we take it at this time; but if we should get it in a shorter time than otherwise, it would be at a more inconvenient time. It is for that reason, and not from a desire to force on the House any particular Business, which is, possibly, objected to by a large section of the House, that I must adhere to my intention of taking the Vote on Account to-night. I am compelled, however reluctantly, to say we must endeavour to do this, notwithstanding the brighter prospects which the right hon. Gentleman holds out if the Vote were postponed. But the right hon. Gentleman made another suggestion in which I should like partially to meet his views. The hon. Member for Glasgow pointed out that if the Resolution is carried as it stands, it would prevent the Crofters' Resolution coming on to-night. I think that might be met by the insertion of the words, "unless the financial business of which notice has been given is previously concluded." If that will conciliate hon. Members opposite, I will move the addition of those words.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. E. D. Elliot) treated the House of Commons as if he were a pedagogue, and asked why the Vote was not taken last night. The reason was that it was a Constitutional occasion to challenge the administration of Ireland. There have been many occasions on which we have not received satisfactory replies to our questions, and I shall have to raise them again on the Vote on Account, and it is probable that they will give rise to lengthened Debates.

The House has been taken to task by the hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. R. D. Elliot) for not having passed the Vote last night, but we hon. Members who have charge of the Public Purse do not approve of voting large sums of money without any discussion. The reason I rise is that I have on other occasions protested against the suggestion that we should pass Votes on Account without consideration of them. The Government come to-day to ask for a vast sum of money, which will last for some months; at the end of that time they will come for another Vote on Account, and they will then say, as they do now, that it is not the proper time to discuss matters arising in Supply; that we must wait till Supply proper comes on. If we accept the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, we shall be driven from all reasonable discussion of the grievances which our constituents desire us to bring before the House till the dog days. In former days Votes on Account were not asked for in this fashion. The Party in power have so mismanaged and muddled the Business that we are obliged to put off all discussion of effective Supply till the hot days of July and August, when Members are exhausted by long attendance, and there will be no effective discussion whatever. Hon. Members on this side have made appeals to the generosity and fair play of the Party opposite; but I think they have seen enough to know that they must not expect generosity and fair play from their political opponents. There are important Amendments down to the Vote, and I would ask if it is reasonable to ask us to forego the clear constitutional right of discussing them in order that a Vote of millions of money may be passed in half-an-hour. Owing to the mismanagement of the Government the House has spent time day after day discussing what Business we are to take, and then we are told we must not object if the time for discussion is cut short.

I fear we are losing our time, and perhaps a little of our temper, over this matter. I rise to make a suggestion which will, no doubt, involve some amount of sacrifice all round, but at the same time it may meet the wishes of hon. Members on both sides. We are first to discuss the Vote on Account and any Amendments put down to it. Several hon. Members say it will occupy more than this afternoon; but I think, with their help, we might possibly finish it this afternoon.

There is not the least chance.

It has been laid down over and over again that the first Vote on Account is a Vote which ought to give rise to no discussion, except on matters of pressing importance. It is evident that the Vote must be got, and unless it be urgent matter which cannot be postponed, discussion on several subjects is rather an abuse of power than a proper use of it. Supposing that were done, and the Scotch Vote were taken without discussion on the understanding that the Report of the Vote should be discussed, the Crofters' Resolution would be taken this evening. I understand that the discussion on the Scotch Vote will not be a financial discussion, but one on the policy of the disposal of the money; and if Monday were given to the Report of that Vote it would satisfy the demands of the Scotch Members. Then we might finish the Vote on Account this afternoon, take the Scotch Vote without discussion, and take the Crofters' Resolution to-night. That is a solution of the difficulty; but it will, no doubt, need some sacrifice on both sides.

After the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman I cannot remain silent. The right hon. Gentleman's idea is that the Vote on Account should be finished by 7 o'clock, and I gather that it is not altogether impossible that hon. Gentlemen will accede to that. If that were done and the Crofters' Resolution came on at 9 o'clock, that might go on, as was suggested by the hon. Member below the Gangway, for two hours. We might then take the Scotch Vote till 1, without very great strain on the attention of the House. We might get the present stage of that Vote, and if that were done I would undertake that the Scotch Business should come on at 10 o'clock on Monday, which would give two hours more. That would give two hours to-night—not unreasonable hours—and two hours more on Monday; and under the Rules of the House the discussion need not stop at 12 o'clock. That would give, at any rate, four hours altogether. If that programme were carried out, the Business would be: Vote on Account till 7 o'clock; Crofters' Resolution 9 to 11; Scotch Vote 11 to 1; finishing Supplementary Estimates, and then taking a Vote in Committee of Ways and Means. Monday—first business, Small Holdings Bill—I would stop that at 10 o'clock—then go on discussing Report of the Estimates. I think the House will see that I have made a concession, and I hope that hon. Members will fall in with it.

So far as concerns the matter in which I am more immediately interested—the Scotch Supplementary Estimate—I think the proposal of the First Lord of the Treasury would sufficiently meet the necessities of the case. It is not a very convenient arrangement; but admitting, as I have always done, the urgency of the Supplementary Estimates, I, for my own part, should consider that was sufficient. Whether the arrangement as to the Vote on Account is satisfactory or not I express no opinion.

With regard to the Vote on Account, I hope the First Lord of the Treasury will not understand that we pledge ourselves to finish the discussion by 7 o'clock. The Amendment I have to move is one involving life and death, and that within the two months before I should have another opportunity of bringing the matter before the House.

So far as I understand the proposal of the Leader of the House, we are to give up everything and the Government make no sacrifice whatever. So far as we are concerned, we have not wasted the time of the House. It is the Government who have wasted what time has been wasted. Last night they occupied the time by not giving way on the question raised by the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Fowler), and it is not right that we should be asked to give up our time in the way suggested.

With a view of giving effect to the suggestion which was made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney), I beg to move to amend the Resolution.

I think that requires some explanation. If the Vote on Account is not voted at 7 o'clock, at 9 o'clock the Speaker will leave the Chair, and we proceed. But, if it is voted, what will happen at 9 o'clock?

The Crofters' Debate will be taken until 11 o'clock.

Then what kind of a quandary will the House be in at 11 o'clock? The Member for Sutherland will have moved his Amendment, and the Main Question and the Amendment will both be before the House. Will the Speaker then take his departure, and leave the House with both Questions before it?

I do not rise for the purpose of preventing any arrangement, but I think the House should always be very careful in setting precedents in matters of this kind. If you once pass a Resolution of this kind it becomes a precedent. Without regard to the particular questions raised here, you must remember that this Resolution establishes a precedent in the House of Commons for fixing hours at which particular Votes or particular measures shall be concluded. You say one measure shall be concluded at 7 o'clock, and another taken at 9 o'clock. So far as I know, the House has never yet attempted to do its business in that form. I think there is a good deal of danger in adopting a precedent of this kind, because it would give an excuse to some Government in the future to set to work to fix particular hours for particular measures as a matter of course. I see a very considerable danger, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider that there is some risk in establishing a precedent of this kind. I speak entirely without regard to the particular question raised, but it seems to me that to fix a particular hour for Committee of Supply is to deal in a very serious manner with one of the privileges of this House. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will regard this with a view to the future as much as to the present. It would be very convenient for a Government to be able to use that power but to my mind the proposal is pregnant with serious consequences.

I only proposed this in order to meet the wishes that have been expressed; but if the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt), speaking as he has a perfect right to speak as the representative of those sitting behind him, thinks that on the whole the dangers of course overbalance the advantages I have no desire to press it unduly.

I see no advantages whatever in the course proposed. The right hon. gentleman comes forward with a proposal which he tells us has been devised for the purpose of letting us have a Debate upon a Scotch question. That proposition is simply a delusion. The result of that will be that the crofter question for which a place was obtained four weeks ago by ballot will be put upon the shelf, and that the Scotch Vote, on which all the Scotch Members are interested, and which involves a sum of £110,000, will be relegated to the latest hour of the night, and may not be reached until 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. What is that but an insult to the Scotch Members? The Scotch Members should be in a position to give to the country their reasons for assenting to, or dissenting from, the proposals of the Government, and though I intend to support the Government on that Vote, that is no reason why I should assist the Government in virtually stifling all discussion in the matter. I think the Amendment is not only useless, but may land us in a very dangerous position.

I rise to move the reduction of the Vote for the Treasury in order that I may enter my protest against the Treasury, and more particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, obstructing what the right hon. Gentleman himself declared was the policy of the Government by refusing to give effect to the proposals of the Board of Trade for the reduction of the renewal fees on patents. Late last Session, in Committee of Supply, I directed attention at greater length than I usually address the House on this subject. In regard to the time of the Committee I shall not repeat the details; but I might remind hon. Members that largely in consequence of the wise legislation initiated by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, in making the terms of payment easier and spreading them over the 14 years of the duration of the patent, there has been of late years a large and rapid increase in the Revenue, so that for the year 1890 the surplus of receipts over expenditure was £110,000; but the fees are still higher than in any other country on the face of the globe. In the United States they average only 8s. 5d. a year for 17 years, while in the United Kingdom they are £11 a year for 14 years. In the United States the total sum for a valid certificate of patent is only £7 10s.; in the United Kingdom, for a patent which merely gives a locus standi for a lawsuit, the charge is £154. In the United States the number of applications for patents is double the number, while the patents issued, the income from the fees, and the expenditure, are all more than double those in the United Kingdom. The States also have a Patent Fund of £650,000, while we have no such fund. Last July I quoted letters showing that the fees charged in this country, after the fourth year, cripple the poor inventor, the struggling mechanic, the industrious artizan. Numerous memorials from inventors and manufacturers, largely signed, have been sent to the Board of Trade against this tax on brains. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has assisted in voting money for technical education; while on the other hand by these heavy fees on patents, he taxes those who are applying that technical education in the progress of inventions on which the manufacturing and commercial prosperity of the country largely depends. After I had spoken the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt) supported my appeal. He observed.

"These fees are a tax on inventions, which, after all, constitute one of the greatest sources of national wealth, and it seems to me that a more inexpedient tax than this could not be imagined. Inventors, as a class, are poor men, and one result of these high patent fees is that in order to be able to pay the fees they are in too many cases compelled to place themselves in the hands of rich men, who secure the greater portion of the profit of successful inventors."

Then the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) made a very fair and sympathetic reply. He admitted that the estimated surplus for 1891 was £116,500, but urged that more money would have to be spent on the abridgments of the specifications, and some on the re-construction of the Patent Office. The right hon. Baronet then said.

"My view is that we should consider whether a reduction may not be made in the tees charged in the interval between tour and eight years, so as to extend the cheap protection now given for four years to a longer period. I think that what should be done is to make the fees low for a certain number of years, during which the patentee can continue to look about for opportunities to work his patent."

Now, in reply to a question put by me on Monday last, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the President of the Board of Trade made no promise that the fees would be reduced. That is a singular version to give of an expression of views by a Member of the Government, the head of an important Department, which I certainly accepted as a promise at the time, and on the strength of which I withdrew my Motion to reduce the Vote for the Board of Trade. Are we to understand that it is a mere "pious opinion" which the President of the Board of Trade expressed, and that what he said did not bind the Government? That clearly was not the view of the right hon. Baronet himself. The President of the Board of Trade showed that he considered he had given a promise, for, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own statement, the President had submitted proposals to the Treasury for the reduction of the fees, which proposals he would not have submitted if he had not considered that the Government were bound in honour to carry them out. I believe that the proposals of the Board of Trade would have been satisfactory to the class of men on whose behalf I mainly contend for this reduction. Those men are the pick of the working classes; men who observe the defects of the machinery amongst which they work, and endeavour to remedy them by their ingenious inventions; men who, after spending their days in the workshops, devote their nights to study, attending technical schools and classes, and endeavouring to work out unsolved problems in mechanics, in chemistry, and in science. How inconsistent it is to tax such men to swell this surplus of upwards of £100,000! Why should the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after granting large sums to advance technical education, show this grinding and obstructive spirit in declining to reduce the tax levied by the Patent Office on those who are technically educated? I think the right hon. Gentleman does not adequately appreciate the importance of the subject. I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from letters I have received from inventors in all parts of the country, that great interest is felt in the question by large numbers of intelligent men, and that the course taken by the Government is being closely watched. Unless I receive an assurance that the subject will be satisfactorily dealt with, I shall be compelled, however reluctantly, to divide the Committee.

The hon. Member is really representing the action of the Treasury in alight which, I venture to think, is not entirely just. He speaks of the obstructive policy of the Treasury. He bases his remarks largely upon a reply I made to a question which he put the other day as to whether these fees would be reduced in the course of the present financial year. I told him that certain proposals had been submitted, but I said no more than that the fees would not be reduced during the present financial year. I will not enter into the general argument which the hon. Member has put, before the House, but the policy of reducing these fees has been accepted by my right hon. Friend, and, as the hon. Gentleman suggested in the question he put the other day, I have also assented to his general policy. But the hon. Gentleman will see—and probably thisishiscontention—that the fees for patents are to a certain extent in the nature of a tax. It is a tax which he wishes to see repealed. But the repeal of taxation and the lowering of fees are general steps that can be taken only under certain conditions; and the granting of relief must of course depend, to a great extent, upon financial considerations. I think the hon. Gentleman will scarcely be entitled to say that it was obstructive policy on the part of the Treasury that they did not assent immediately to taxation being repealed, but waited to see what was the state of the finances. The Treasury in this sense is simply the general taxpayer of the country. What we have to see is that we have sufficient means for carrying out what the House assents to. Whether we can part with a source of income and repeal a tax is a matter which must be carefully weighed when the financial arrangements for the year are made. There is no intention to go back from the general spirit which we have indicated. There is no wish to obstruct the repeal, but it must be dependent, to a certain extent, upon financial considerations.

I wish to bring under the notice of the House a fundamental question. I venture to say it is a matter of as great importance as that which the hon. Member for Dundee has raised. The inventors of patents are very much indebted to the action the hon. Member for Dundee has taken during the last Session and this, and what I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade is, "What is a patent?" Friends of mine outside the House might think I was labouring under softening of the brain after 15 years' connection with patents, and having expended something like £50,000 in relation to patents, when I ask such a question.

Order, order! The Question before the House is the reduction of the Vote. So far, the hon. Member's observations are not connected with that Vote.

Could I put myself in Order by moving a reduction?

There is a Motion before the House.

I am sorry to interpose in a discussion upon a matter of such importance as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee has brought before the Committee; but it was my intention, when you first took the Chair and read the Vote which is now before the House, to rise at once for the purpose of moving that Progress should be reported. We have had a long discussion to-day upon the course of business, and I regret that the attempts that we made to arrive at an amicable and reasonable arrangement of business for one reason or other failed. We are left in this position: that while the matter of the disposal of this evening has been undoubtedly decided by the vote of the House, yet there is one matter of which this House has still control, and that is whether the Vote on Account should take precedence of the last Supplementary Estimates. Now, we have fully stated our views on this subject earlier in the day. The Supplementary Estimates, the last of which is now before us, have taken constitutional precedence at this time of the year. There is no doubt urgency on legal grounds in passing the Supplementary Estimates. It so happens that the last Supplementary Estimate, which has been kept back by the First Lord of the Treasury on purpose that the Scottish Members should have an adequate opportunity of discussing it, is now the only one which we have to deal with, and it is one certainly which will not be properly dealt with if it is allowed to dangle at the end of the Vote on Account, and to be brought on in the small hours of the morning. The Vote on Account is undoubtedly subject to no such emergency. The Vote on Account refers to the business not of this year, but of next year; and the First Lord of the Treasury, in the course of his remarks, having spoken of the necessity for embodying the amount of this Vote in the Appropriation Bill, I asked him explicitly across the Table whether he could say that it was necessarily legal that it should be embodied in the Appropriation Bill. He could only say there was a great inconvenience in not proceeding with it. The right hon. Gentleman cannot say there is any legal necessity of urgency in regard to the Vote on Account, that there is that urgency on the other Vote. I appeal to the House that on that ground we should have the best hours of this day, and not the worst, for the purpose of discussing a Scottish question of the greatest importance, and which is urgent, and that the Vote on Account should be taken at such other times as the House can find to be convenient. It is for that purpose, and not for any purpose of delay, that I shall conclude by moving that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

I am almost ashamed to address the House again, as I have nothing to say which I have not said before; and, listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I think he has merely repeated to the Committee what he had formerly said in the House with the Speaker in the Chair. I have endeavoured to prove to the House that it is of great public importance that a Vote on Account should be taken. I shielded myself behind the opinion expressed by the very highest authority on the subject, and I would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to allow us to bring the Vote to a conclusion.

In the whole of this protracted Debate we have never heard one word from the right hon. Gentleman to explain why the natural order which was always followed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian, of bringing the Supplementary Estimates to a conclusion before taking the Vote on Account, has not been followed in this case. It was the natural order. It is admitted that for the one there is legal urgency, and for the other there is no legal urgency. That is putting the cart before the horse; and the right hon. Gentleman cannot be surprised, if he chooses to have that method, that the locomotion is of a very tardy character. If the right hon. Gentleman put the horse before the cart he would find that our business would go on much more rapidly. I believe even now it would be a very good thing for him to allow the Scotch business to come on in that which is its legitimate Parliamentary place. What the great public inconvenience would be caused by postponing the Vote on Account for three or four days the right hon. Gentleman has not stated. I do not know myself—I do not think he will find it very easy to answer what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling has proposed, that the Parliamentary proceedings should be taken in their Parliamentary order. I must say I think there is good foundation for his appeal upon that subject.

It was understood some days ago that this Scotch Estimate would be taken on Friday at a convenient hour when there should be a discussion; but the Scotch business has been put out of its proper place, and we have lost the opportunity of having an important discussion; and it appears that we are likely to lose the opportunity of another discussion. This management of Scotch business will no longer be tolerated by the Scotch Members in this House. They will be found as capable as any other section of the House to assert their rights and safeguard the interests of their constituencies.

If the First Lord of the Treasury could only have told us that he had something to say, instead of saying that he had nothing to say, he might be able to get on with the business. The right hon. Gentleman has not told us why this unusual course has been taken.

I did not happen to be in the House when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling was speaking, and did not know of that point. As to why this course has been adopted, I wish to say, in reference to that that I have always stated during the whole week and in the hearing of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it would be a highly inconvenient course if we were to take the Supplementary Vote before the Vote on Account, and no individual Member ever said a word of protest against it.

The right hon. Gentleman's statement is, to some extent, satisfactory; but still he does not say why this should be done. This Estimate should have been taken last year; but, in order to wind up the Session earlier, it was postponed, and now it is to be taken in the morning instead of in the evening at a convenient hour. This is a new policy brought forward by the Government, and they must expect that it will be opposed by a large section of the Scotch Members There is no reason in the world why this Vote on Account should be taken to-night. I do not think such a course as has been taken will tend to facilitate Public Business when the right hon. Gentleman has no reason whatever to give for the course—not a single legitimate decent argument why this Vote on Account should have preference.

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is because the Scotch Members feel that they have not received that courteous and considerate treatment which they think they had a right to expect from the right hon. Gentleman that they have found it necessary to make themselves not altogether pleasant to the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

The right hon. Gentleman has not announced any reason or advanced any argument whatever why this transposition of the Votes should have taken place. It was the expressed intention of the Government to have taken the Supplementary Vote last night if possible. It is perfectly plain, that from the state and condition of the House at the present moment, that more interest is taken in the Scotch Supplementary Estimate than in the Vote on Account, because there are more Scotch Members present; and I think that, after the curtailment of time that has taken place, it would be very injudicious of the Government to further curtail the time at the disposal of the Scotch Members.

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not know that the question we had been pressing upon him when the Speaker was in the Chair was why the Vote on Account had got precedence of the Scotch Supplementary Vote. However, he appears now to have that point brought home to him, and I think the answer he has given is a very regrettable answer, because, although I am sure it was not intended by him, it is an evasive and a disingenuous answer. He said a few days ago that he proposed to set down Scotch Votes for today; but at the same time intimated that the Vote on Account was to be taken, and I say that is a disingenuous answer. The essence of the arrangement was that Scotch Members were to have an allotted time for the discussion of the Vote in which they take so much interest. It was not the essence of the arrangement that the Scotch Vote was to be postponed till after the Vote on Account. No honest man can say that that was the meaning of the arrangement which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman and which was accepted by us, and I do not think that this is a thing which the right hon. Gentleman would seek to press upon anyone except his own countrymen. Last year we were promised ample time for discussion, and now the time is taken away from us. It is a very great injury and a very great injustice, and certainly will not in the long run be calculated to save time or to advance the interests of the Government.

It is important to take the Scotch Vote first, because, if the money is given to Scotland in relief of local taxation, we will then protest against the action of the Treasury in voting money for the Irish teachers in Ireland in spite of our resistance. We want to know what is to be done with the Scotch money before we discuss the Irish Estimates.

If the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House will look at his own answer to the Member for the Stirling Burghs on Monday last, he will see that, however he may have guarded himself, it was a fair deduction on our part to assume from his answer that this afternoon was to be devoted to the discussion of this Scotch Vote. I have consulted the Times and read his answer. It is perfectly true he did not say absolutely that the day would be assigned to Scotch Members. He guarded himself at the end of his statement by making the arrangement conditional upon the progress of Public Business throughout the week, but he did not make the Scotch Vote to-day depend upon the passing of the Vote on Account last night. He said nothing about that.

Read my answer.

Unfortunately I have not brought the library file of the Times with me.

Here is what the right hon. Gentleman said:—

"On Thursday the Government will take the Vote on Account, and on Friday they will take the Scotch Vote for Education."

Read on.

That is all.

The right hon. Gentleman now says that he is departing from the arrangement because it is obviously to the convenience of the House. What is his reason—sic volo, sic jubeo. There is no other reason that I can see. When the right hon. Gentleman has longer experience of his office, he will see that this is not the best way of getting business through this House. It is nothing less than an insult to the Scotch Members. We do not ask them to give up Government time. Let him consult those who have gathered here to-day in expectation excited by his own words.

The Scotch Members were brought down this afternoon at the invitation of the right hon. Gentleman expressly to discuss a most important question affecting Scotland. It is quite true the right hon. Gentleman qualified his statement by the language of a general condition; but this condition must be construed according to the reasonable practices of the House, and I venture to say that, with the exception of the right hon. Gentleman, no Leader of this House would ever construe promises in the manner in which he has done. It is impossible to carry on the business of this House, if promises deliberately made are to be cast aside at the whim of the right hon. Gentleman. He casts us aside because we have only 70 votes; if we had 500 he would not do it. The people in Scotland are taking note that the treatment they are now receiving is only consistent with what they generally receive at the hands of a Tory Government, by whom Scotch business is either pushed into a corner or taken in the early hours of the morning. The Scotch people are getting an object-lesson as to the necessity of some arrangement by which Scotch Members may transact their business without the incubus of the right hon. Gentleman. If he desires to make any progress let him come at once to the business of the afternoon.

moved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair," but the Chairman being of opinion that the Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House, declined to propose the Question thereupon to the Committee.

I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100. The Treasury has been very deficient in affording us information in supplying documents or in making any calculation with regard to this sum of £90,000, which was voted at 2 o'clock in the morning, after most of the Members were away. They first made a set of calculations in 1879, then they made another set of calculations, and, at the end of last year, they made still another set of calculations. I think that is a very gross case of bungling on the part of the Treasury. The second point is, that, having made these calculations, they rushed the Vote in the House of Commons, and, when asked for their calculations, said they were not yet made out. They have been asked in what mode the calculations were made, and they have not been able to supply the information. The whole allotment of the £90,000 has been grossly bungled by the Treasury. They have not been able to put any Papers before us to enable us to check this calculation either by ourselves or to submit it to some actuarial examination. It would be a good thing to reduce this Vote by £100. It would make the Treasury more careful in future. And if they take power to allot the money to Ireland after consultation with the Irish Members, they will see they have been doing wrong, and will put it next time in a more businesslike manner.

I beg to support the Motion of my hon. and gallant Friend to reduce this Vote. I am supporting the hon. Gentleman's proposal for a reduction of the Vote because I think we have had nothing sufficiently satisfactory in the way of explanation.

I do not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a satisfactory answer. I have taken some interest in the matter of inventions, and last year the President of the Board of Trade (Sir Michael Hicks Beach) promised a deputation which waited on him more than was asked; but I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer refuses to allow him to carry out what he promised. I hope the hon. Gentleman will go to a Division unless he gets a promise from the Treasury that the President of the Board of Trade will be allowed to fulfil his promises. As I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said that it was possible that something might be done some day, but at present the Treasury refuse to sanction it. I think we are entitled to some definite statement from the Treasury as to what they intend to do.

To a certain extent the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer modifies the statement he made on Monday last. To that extent I am glad to accept it, but the right hon. Gentleman is not sufficiently definite as to the time when that which he admits is the policy of; the Government is to be carried out. The plans submitted to the Treasury by the President of the Board of Trade would be satisfactory to the poor inventors, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make such representations to the Treasury that in the incoming year effect will be given to them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to state that the policy he announced last June will be carried out; if not, I shall be compelled reluctantly to divide the House.