rose to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment." It was, he felt, a serious responsibility to ask the House to disagree with an important change made by the House of Lords; and, under ordinary circumstances, any Member doing so would be bound to state his reasons very fully and in ample detail. The present case was, however, exceptional and peculiar. The clause known for shortness as the Betterment Clause was objected to on the Second Reading, but was referred to the Committee. It was passed by the Committee after careful inquiry, though by a small majority only. When it came back to the House it was again challenged, but after a full discussion was supported by a very largo majority—in fact, nearly two to one. Under these circumstances, and as the subject had been so recently before the House, it was not necessary for him to go at length into the matters then discussed, and that appeared to him the more unnecessary, because he thought he should be able to show the House that the Resolution taken against the clause in the House of Lords was really based upon a misapprehension of what the clause did. The Resolution adopted by the Lords said—

"That this House, before assenting to the Second Reading of this Bill, desires to express its opinion that proposals for the assessment of capital values instead of annual values, and for creating new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation such as are contained in Clause 41 of the Bill, ought not to be embodied in a Private Bill, but, if found just and equitable, should be based on general principles laid down by Parliament."

He did not wish at present to enter into the question whether this ought to be done by a Public or a Private Bill; but what he did wish to point out was that this clause neither proposed to substitute assessments of capital value instead of annual values, nor did it create any new and arbitrarily-defined areas of taxation. In fact, it created no area, of taxation whatever—either arbitrarily or otherwise. Then there was another objection to the clause—that it was considered to be an attack upon the rights of property. It was nothing of the sort. It was simply an attempt to adjust the payment for these improvements in a fairer manner than would otherwise be done. The improvements in the Bill had been passed both by this House and by the House of Lords as desirable in themselves, and the question arose how they were to be paid for. They all agreed that the great bulk must be paid for by the property liable for rates in the Metropolis; but they asked that some part should be borne by those who were benefited pecuniarily by the expenditure of their fellow-citizens. They were about to spend a largo sum of public money; and if the result was that certain houses were in consequence of that expenditure largely increased in value, they should contribute, not the whole, but a part, of that improvement, which was due to no action, no expenditure of theirs, but by the action and expenditure of the County Council as representing the ratepayers generally. It was sometimes said that if the property was improved the Council would be recouped by the rates. But so they should be if a man improved his property at his own expense. Take two cases. One man spent £1,000, and improved his house to that extent; he paid the rates on it. Another man had his property improved £1,000 by the expenditure of the ratepayers. He also paid on an additional £1,000. They both paid the same addition. Was it fair that the man who had spent his own £ 1,000 should pay more than the other, where the improvement was due to the money of the ratepayers? Surely that was manifestly unfair. Others said that the County Council should recoup itself by extra purchases. Long experience had shown that this was impossible. They had to pay for the land, the houses, and the trade interest, and they always found that the trade interest ran away with the whole profit, and more. The only case in which any profit was made was in that of Northumberland Avenue, where there were no trade interests to be bought up. It had been objected to him in conversation by several opponents that perhaps no property would be actually benefited, though there might be a general convenience; but the answer was that, if no property was actually benefited, no property would pay. Then the question arose—Were the County Council proposing any unfair mode of ascertaining the value? He did not understand that the clause was attacked on that score. The Board of Trade wore to appoint an arbitrator, the County Council were to convince him that there was an improvement, and unless they did so no betterment would have to be fixed. In the previous discussion in the House it was shown that the principle of betterment was not new. It was applied as long ago as the Fire of Loudon, though he admitted that it had been superseded by a different principle. What was that principle, and why was it proposed to change it? He was not concerned to prove that there were no objections to this plan; they did not say that betterment was perfect. There were objections to every system of taxation and of rating. All that could be done was to choose that which most nearly approached to equity and justice. He would therefore ask the House, and he would very respectfully ask the House of Lords, not merely to look at betterment in the abstract, but to compare it with the alternative. Under the system of our predecessors the cost of a local improvement was borne, half by the district, say the parish, and half by the Metropolis at large. But our Metropolitan Divisions were of very irregular shapes; and, even if they were symmetrical, it would often happen that those out of the district benefited more by an improvement than those in it. An improvement in the south of a district might be of little or no special advantage to those in the north; and yet, under the old system, they were called upon to contribute heavily towards it. Under the proposed system no one would be called on to pay more than the general rate, unless it could be shown that his house had been actually improved in value, and then only to the extent of a portion of that increase. The amount involved in the present instance was small, but the principle was important. If it could be shown that in any details the plan proposed was unfair, by all means let it be amended. The only object the County Council had, or could have, was to do justice as between different ratepayers. What they asked the House to affirm was the principle. They did not say that it was perfect, but they thought it was much fairer than the alternative plan. He would not, under the circumstances, go more fully into details; but he asked the House, he would not say to support the County Council, but to support their own Committee and their own decision, and he did so because they were satisfied that the plan in the Bill was equitable in itself, and fair to the ratepayers generally.

said, he could not throw himself into any violent passion against the general principle of betterment, or against the application of it in this particular instance; but, at the same time, he did not see how those hon. Members who had hitherto voted against the particular application of the principle embodied in this Bill could alter their action now. On the contrary, their attitude had been confirmed and strengthened by the decision of the House of Lords' Committee. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the London University had put his case forward with his usual moderation and fairness; but he had admitted that, in fact, the betterment principle was anovel principle, or one to be re-introduced after the lapse of a long period of time. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it was also a principle which in itself had many opponents; and however much they might wish, in the abstract, and theoretically, to give effect to the general idea of betterment, that the principle in its application was full of difficulty. The right hon. Baronet had said that to give effect to this principle by Public Act would cause delay. He must ask the right hon. Gentleman had not the course followed by the supporters of this principle of attempting to give effect to it by Private Acts of Parliament led to us much delay as would follow from the introduction to that House of a Public Act of Parliament? Ever since the constitution of the London County Council, that Body had tried to tack on a Betterment Clause to every one of the public improvement schemes it had brought forward. What had been the result? So far, it had found itself unable to carry into effect any one of the proposals, and, at least, a delay of five or six years had followed on their persistent attachment to this principle. He did not blame them for their attachment to Betterment, but he said that so long as they refused to allow any London improvement scheme which did not have among its clauses a Betterment Clause, so long experience had shown in the past they were unable to carry such London improvement. He regretted and deplored that result. So long as they persevered in this particular course this must happen—that Committees of that and the other House, in sanctioning the particular application of the betterment principle, must, to some extent, follow the individual predilections and individual prejudices of Members of these Committees. That was, at all events, the lesson of the past. It was the precise result of what had occurred hitherto in the history of this matter. It was very unfortunate that the question of betterment had become, very stupidly, a Party question; but anyone who looked at the proceedings of the Committees which had considered this principle could not deny that the Members who sat on such Committees were largely influenced in their decisions by the accident of belonging to the particular Party to which they were attached. What would be the result of that? In one Session of Parliament they might get a particular London improvement carried out to which the betterment principle would be made applicable, and in a subsequent Session and subsequent Parliament another London improvement might be carried out in which that principle would be rejected, so that instead of there being a stable, consistent, and permanent system on which these improve- ments were carried out, they would have a capricious, piecemeal, and absolutely unfinal system. He believed most honestly that the bulk of the Conservative Members for London would be glad to see this question settled. He believed most of I hem would agree that landowners ami occupiers had, under the Lauds Clauses Act, too often received far too much compensation because of public improvements, and would also agree that changes in the law were necessary; but they differed from the methods of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they considered that these changes ought to be carried out by Public Act, deliberately passed through that House, and not in a piecemeal fashion by means of a Private Act. If hon. Members opposite would only introduce a Public Bill into this House giving expression to their views on this subject, it would meet with no unfair opposition, and an end might be put to this stupid controversy. But so long as the London County Council unwisely tried to secure their end by proposals in Private Bills, it would be their duty, on public but not on Party grounds, to oppose such a policy. He should, under the circumstances, vote against the proposal of the right hon. Baronet to re-insert the clause.

said, he had hoped the House would have escaped another Debate on the betterment principle, which was affirmed at the last discussion by a majority of 2 to 1. He had still more hoped that criticisms on the attitude of the London County Council on the general matters with which it had to deal would also have been avoided. He should not reply to the last observations of the hon. Member for Chelsea, further than by saying that in regard to this question the London County Council was aware that upon it the House had confidently and distinctly declared its opinion. The House of Lords was in sharp contradiction with the House of Commons, and the point was what should they now do in reference to the action of the Peers in throwing out the Betterment Clause without discussion on its merits, but merely on the ground that it was not a suitable subject to be dealt with in a Private Bill. Two grounds were alleged for that action—namely, that the clause contained two new principles, neither of which, however, Was, as a fact, to be found in it. The complaints were that it constituted an assessment of capital value, and that it created arbitrary areas for taxation. So far from its being a clause for the assessment and taxation of capital values, his hon. Friend the Member for St. George's-in-the-East (Mr. Benn) had placed upon the Paper certain Amendments which distinctly provided that in the case where there was a betterment of £200, £100ouly was to be charged, and that at the rate of £3 per annum. That was a very different thing from the assessment of capital value. Then, as to the arbitrary delimitation of areas of taxation, there was no such thing in the clause; but even if there wore it would be a very proper provision to introduce in Private Bill legislation, and many instances might be cited in which limited areas had been subjected to special taxation because of the benefit they had derived from particular expenditure. The principle was included in Bills promoted in 1890 and 1892, and it met with the full approval of the right hon. Gentleman who, in the last Conservative Administration, filled the Office of President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Ritchie); and in those years it was rejected not because it was unsuitable in a Private Bill, but on its merits. But now, they had a very excellent opportunity of experimentally applying the principle; and that high authority, Lord Morley, the Chairman of the Lords' Committees, said that it would be extremely difficult by a Public Act to lay down principles which would apply to a variety of cases which depended entirely on local circumstance, and that, therefore, the subject was one which might legitimately and rightly be left to Private Bill legislation. The same view was taken by the Lord Chancellor; but in spite of these opinions the Lords, by a very slender majority, threw out the clause. He agreed with the Lord Chancellor that they were bound to accept that action as a pronouncement of the House of Lords against the principle of betterment—a pronouncement made without examination of the principle which the House of Commons, after careful and continuous examination for many weeks, had affirmed. They regretted that the House of Lords had not examined, into the question, and he now called upon the House of Commons to stand by its guns and to send the Bill back to the House of Lords for the re-insertion of the clause. This was the second time in which a Bill of great importance to London had been sent back from the Upper House mutilated and destroyed, and the people of the Metropolis had already suffered very great loss through the action of the Peers. This was not a Party question, for hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches were numbered among the supporters of the principle; and he would impress upon them that it was neither fair nor just nor right to the people of London that the House of Lords, without the slightest examination, should mutilate and destroy their Bills. He appealed to the House of Commons to support the decisions of its own Committee, to stand up for its own decision, and to stand forward as the protector of the London ratepayer in a most just reform.

hoped that a further conference between the two Houses would result in the reinsertion of the clause, if only for experimental purposes, in order to ascertain how the principle of betterment would work. They nearly all approved the principle, and they only differed as to the method of giving effect to it. Before a general Bill dealing with it could be introduced, it was desirable that they should have some experience of its working; and by the Bill now before the House they were given an opportunity of trying within the next few years whether the valuation of betterment could be equitably adjusted. Let them not reject the principle from this Bill, because it was a good one, and he believed that if it had been applied to the Black wall Tunnel Scheme a considerable portion of the expense of that undertaking would have been defrayed by owners, the value of whose land had been increased twenty-fold by the improvement. The London County Council were perfectly right in seeking to stop the continuous accumulation of debt, and in trying to levy a portion of the charge for improvements on those whose property was benefited. The very fact that a Bill for the equalisation of rating in the Metropolis had been introduced showed that the limit of the taxation of occu- piers had been reached, and he thought it would be very unwise to prevent the application of the betterment principle in this case.

As Chairman of the Committee which considered this Bill I desire to intervene for a few moments in the Debate. The hon. Member for the Hoxton Division of Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) has complained of the Bill being mutilated and destroyed by the House of Lords; but that is a mere figurative expression, for all we have to consider is the omission of a clause which provides for the application of the principle of betterment to the improvement authorised by the Bill itself. The area to which the principle is proposed to be applied is very small, and as the total amount it is suggested it will be possible to recover is only £5,000, the mutilation of the Bill appears to be extremely problematical. The interpretation which the Lord Chancellor gave as to the action of the House of Lords being a pronouncement against the principle itself is not binding upon the House of Lords. That House simply decided that it would not consider the novel principle of betterment in a Private Bill on the ground that it ought to be dealt with by general legislation. In so deciding it was perfectly consistent, because on a former occasion a very strong Committee of its own Members reported that it was impossible that the principle could be fairly applied to individual eases. And when the hon. Member for Hoxton referred to the fairness with which the principle was to be applied, I could not help bearing in mind that the area to be subjected to the charge was not the parish which the witnesses declared might be considerably benefited, but was to be that area immediately abutting on the proposed new roadway. When it was proposed to apply the betterment principle to the Strand Improvement Scheme, the idea was dropped because of the difficulty of fixing the limits within which it should be applied, and I venture to assert that those difficulties are still more marked in the present case. Here we have a roadway the houses upon which are to be made liable to the special charge, and the owners will only be able to dispute the charge by going before an arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. Possibly the houses immediately abutting on the roadway will be enhanced in value, and so, too, may those which happened to be corner houses in streets immediately adjoining. Then on what principle of justice is one set of houses to be arbitrarily assessed for the improvement and the other set of houses to escape? The principle of application in this case is absolutely inequitable. Another objection to this proposal is that while the benefit to the property may be of only a temporary nature, and be exhausted in a few years, the charge is practically a permanent one. The only true principle upon which such a charge as this can be imposed is in the nature of a quinquennial assessment of rents, and under such a plan as that property which really benefits by a public improvement can be made to bear its fair share of the burden in the form of increased rates. On the grounds I have stated I hope the House will support the House of Lords in the rejection of the clause.

I do not propose to discuss the principle of betterment on the merits of this particular case. My right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board has stated on a previous occasion the views of the Government in regard to this matter; the question on that occasion was fully and thoroughly discussed, and the House, by a large majority, approved the insertion of the principle in this Bill. The Government adhere to the view which was taken by them on the Second Reading of the Bill. There ought to be a fair opportunity afforded of trying the principle of betterment, and I think that the House ought to give this power to the County Council, so that, as far as practicable, there shall be an extra portion of the cost of great public improvements placed on the shoulders of those who most largely benefit by their construction. I may remind the House that while the Betterment Clause was rejected by the Lords by the very narrow majority of 51 to 36, it was affirmed by the House of Commons by 216 votes against 118, and I hope that in these circumstances the House will disagree with the Lords' Amendments.

It might be supposed that the betterment principle only affects Loudon, whereas it is a matter of principle which affects the country at large, especially the large urban constituencies. I have been connected for many years with the management of one of the largest Municipalities, which has spent between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 in street improvements, and I affirm that it is absolutely impossible to adjust with any equity and fairness the charge of betterment on the adjoining property. It is impossible for anyone to estimate how much property immediately abutting on the roadway to be improved has been benefited, or how much a mile away or more has been benefited. Let us take the case cited by the hon. and gallant Member for Woolwich (Colonel Hughes), the tunnel constructed at Blackwall. He said it had raised the assessable value of adjoining property. But it will probably do more than that; it will cause the conversion of agricultural land into building land, and land even a quarter of a mile distant from the tunnel will benefit. Where, then, is the line to be drawn for the delimitation of the betterment area? It certainly would not be fair, simply to include the property immediately adjoining the tunnel. The same difficulty arises in the case now before the House, and I say the only way to overcome it is for the County Council to buy the land for some considerable width on each side of the roadway and to take care that the price paid for the land on the proposed street is the price of the back land before an attempt is made to construct the street. That laud could be re-sold, and thus the real improved value of the laud is obtained by the public, and not by the owners of the land. The question of betterment is in this way avoided. This is the principle which, if I remember rightly, was adopted by the Metropolitan Board of Works with reference to Northumberland House and the adjoining land, and this has been the system followed by the Municipality with which I have been connected. We have paid largely for public improvements by buying back land and selling it at a higher price than we gave for it.

said, the whole question of recoupment had been dealt with by the Committee. They had had the figures worked out in reference to the recoupment schemes of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which showed that every scheme, with the exception of the Northumberland House scheme, where the Board of Works were able to enter into negotiations with one purchaser for the undeveloped land, had been carried out at a great loss. To carry out the principle of recoupment, it would be necessary to buy the back property. They had to compensate every tenant on each property; they acquired the property, and then they had simply the freehold of the land loft, and that had to recoup them for the whole of the outlay they had incurred. However, it was not necessary to go into that question to-day. It was considered in the Committee for eight or nine days, and the result was that it was decided to recommend to the House the betterment principle. The right hon. Member for Manchester had said that the Bill had not conic down to them in a mutilated form. There was no other proposal for improvement in the Bill, and yet the Committee sat for the time he had mentioned. Why was that? Because of the fight on the vital principle of the Bill contained in the clause struck out in the House of Lords. It came to this—were they in London to have great improvements, or were they not? Could they have some relief for occupying tenants, or could they not? Rents had gone up, and rates had gone up at the expense of occupying tenants alone, and improvements which were required were at a standstill because they could not burden occupying tenants with further rates.

thought it time that attention should be directed to the Motion before the House, the discussion having turned on the principle of betterment, to which few Members were opposed if it was correctly applied. That principle itself was not involved in the Motion. The question was whether or not the particular method proposed should be adopted for carrying out the principle? Unfortunately, the question had taken a Party turn, the London County Council being supported by the present Government in all their measures, whatever their tendency. The question was, as the House of Lords had said, whether they should improve the principle of betterment by means of an entirely now tax—whether the experience of 200 or 300 years should be ignored, and they should have a restricted area of taxation rather than that which had been adopted in the Metropolis for so many years? The right hon. Baronet opposite had said that the two grounds taken by the House of Lords were not well-founded. He had said that the House of Lords were wrong in saying that this clause attempted to assess capital values, but he had not attempted to prove his contention by argument. The right hon. Baronet's argument was that if the House of Lords were right, and if a capital tax were going to be imposed, he should be with them, and he did not argue for the clause as against the objection of the House of Lords. He (Mr. Kimber), therefore, claimed the right hon. Baronet as a supporter of his argument that the House of Lords were right in saying that the clause involved a capital charge. As to the other point that the House of Lords took—namely, that; the Betterment Clause created a new area of taxation—hon. Members opposite denied that this was so; but they did not attempt, by reference to the clause, to show that that was so. Not only was it a new defined area, but a map was produced showing the limits of the application of the Betterment Clause, and that was actually a part of the Bill, and was signed by the Chairman of the Committee.

said, the taxation would not be levied on that area; but if there was property within that area that was bettered, that would have to pay.

did not think that was an answer. The map showed that the area was a specific one for taxation. Reference had been made to the Committee. He happened to have been a Member of it, as he had been of the previous Committee which had considered the Betterment Clause two years before. The authority of the Committee would not be taken as great, for the reason that it was a Committee of nine, and they were divided on the principle of betterment by five to four, and amongst the five was a member of the Loudon County Council who were promoting the Bill. The decision of the Committee was the decision of the London County Council; nothing more, and no more authority could be attached to it. The hon. Member for Shoreditch said this was never discussed in the Lords at all; but he (Mr. Kimber) was present and heard the discussion, and the question could not have been more deliberately discussed. The question was fairly gone into; the clause was described in fair and accurate terms, and the decision was given after due deliberation. The hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) said that all the London County Council desired was to do justice to the ratepayers; but if he might be allowed to say so, the question of justice, in the opinion of the London County Council, was not always the same as the idea of justice amongst the ratepayers of the Metropolis. If a man was bettered by £20 or £200 capital value, and if the charge on that at the ordinary rate was not enough, they could double the charge, or increase it. At any rate, they should give him the benefit of the principle of the annual revision and value which they had had in force for so many years—even centuries—in the City of London. Why had not the Council adopted that plan? Because they wanted to attack a particular class—namely, the ground landlords. No wonder that in that they were supported by the Government of the Prime Minister, that right hon. Gentleman himself having been so closely associated with assaults against the classes, and with attempts to sow dissensions between them and the people. As an example of the injustice of the clause, if a man had two properties within the limited area, one of which was admittedly worsened and the other bettered, while he was taxed with regard to the bettered property he was not allowed to set off anything in respect of the worsened property. Moreover, he was not allowed an appeal. As a matter of fact, three-fourths of the House had not had an opportunity of examining this matter, and must be taken as not understanding the particular kind of betterment now proposed. Private Bills were not circulated like Public Bills, and hon. Members did not come down at 3 o'clock to discuss them.

said, they all agreed that if betterment could be fairly adjusted it was a fair pro- position. He differed rather from some of his hon. Friends, who held that the subject was one which could be better dealt with in a general Bill than in a special Bill. It seemed to him that the question of betterment was so peculiar to the particular district in which it occurred that it was better to consider each case specially in this way than in a general Bill. He, therefore, asked himself whether the proposal in the present measure, as an experiment, was fair and reasonable? The improved value which would attach to the property in the street when this bridge was constructed, and which would be added at the public cost, would be carefully ascertained and adjusted, and half the amount on a 3 per cent, scale would be added to the taxation of the property. He could not but think that that was a reasonable and fair proposition as an experiment. Looking at it from the point of view of equity, it must commend itself to every reasonable-minded man. He acknowledged that he had a certain sympathy against the County Council, but that very fact induced him to look at this matter rather more carefully than he should otherwise do. He had opposed several of these schemes—notably that in the Strand—as being unfair; but the present proposal was framed so as to cause the least possible amount of mischief, and if, when it was adjusted, it proved to be a fair experiment, it would have done something to show how the principle of betterment could be adopted. They all agreed that if property was improved by public works and at public cost the owners of that property should, in some equitable measure, share the burden of the cost in a greater degree than others whose property was not thus individually improved.

said, it was not necessary to trouble the House with any explanation respecting the Amendments which stood on the Paper in his name. They had been framed to carry out a pledge given to the hon. Member for Wandsworth (Mr. Kimber) to destroy the mortgage character of the charge, and to put it in the form of an annuity. He therefore moved them as printed.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk (Mr. H. S. Foster), I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty how many accidents to Her Majesty's ships, due to incorrect charts, have happened since 1st January, 1890; and why he proposes to reduce the expenses of the Hydrographical Department (Vote 6, page 73), and spend only two per cent, more upon coast and other surveys?

(1.) Since January 1, 1890, there have been 30 accidents of more or less importance, referable to incorrect charts, to Her Majesty's ships. Nineteen of these accidents were in British or Colonial waters, and six of them happened to surveying vessels in the course of explorations. (2.) There has been no reduction in the Hydrographical Department. The decrease of cost is entirely due to the retirement of officials whoso places are filled by juniors. (3.) The number of ships and officers employed on surveying duties could not be conveniently increased at present.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has power to issue an Order giving Boards of Guardians leave to grant, where desirable, outdoor relief to members of a Friendly Society without deducting all or any allowance received by them from such Society; and, if so, whether he will at once issue such Order?

The question whether Boards of Guardians, when determining the amount of out-relief that should be given to a person who has been a member of a Friendly Society, should exclude from consideration the amount which the applicant may receive from that Society has been considered from time to time by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, as well as the Local Government Board, and I may draw attention to a letter of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, written in January, 1870, in which the whole question was very ably discussed. I am advised, however, that the Local Government Board are not empowered to issue such an Order as that referred to in the question. It is also to be borne in mind that if such an Order were issued it could not be limited in its application to the one class of thrift indicated—namely, contributing to a Friendly Society. At the same time, I may state that it is not unusual for Boards of Guardians to take into account as the income of the person a portion only of the weekly sum which he receives from a Friendly Society. The subject is one of considerable difficulty, and, as it has been brought under the attention of the Royal Commission on the Aged Poor, I think that the Local Government Board should wait for the Report of that Commission before taking any legislative action in the matter.

If the Local Government Board have no power to modify the Order of July 24, 1847, how is it that the predecessor of the right lion. Gentleman issued an Order which took away the powers of Boards of Guardians in this matter?

I must ask for notice of that question. I am investigating the case to which the hon. Member alludes, and I am distinctly advised by the legal advisors of the Local Government Board that they have no power to issue an Order such as that suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would cause a Return to be presented to the House of Most-Favoured-Nation Clauses in existing Treaties of Commerce and Navigation between Great Britain and Foreign Powers, bringing up to date the information contained in Parliamentary Paper, Commercial, No. 11, 1886?

Yes; a fresh Return will be prepared and presented.

I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether there are any reasons why the wives of petty officers and seamen of the Royal Navy, residing at the Naval ports, should be compelled to attend the dockyards at a specified hour and day in order to draw the allotments left for their support by their husbands, whilst on foreign stations, with the Admiralty; whether he is aware of the disadvantages and evil results that have been experienced through the enforcement of this system; also the inconvenience and expense occasioned to those who have young children, by reason of the necessity of making some provision for their care whilst absent; and whether, viewing these circumstances, the Admiralty will concede to those residing in these localities the privilege of cashing allotments at local post offices, as is enjoyed by the wives of those petty officers and seamen who are resident in parts of the country other than those referred to?

I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will allow this question to stand over for a time. I am inquiring into the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will explain in what way the 4th paragraph of the final Protocol to the International Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the United States, for the reciprocal protection of trade marks, has become inoperative; and whether anything is proposed to be done to give effect to the intention of the parties to the Convention?

The paragraph referred to is by no means inoperative, but it is not fully effective as regards certain American marks, such as words having reference to the character or quality of goods, or geographical names; these are not at present within the scope of our law. Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the United States Government upon the subject, but I am not at present in a position to make any statement as to future action.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can state when the Consular Reports having reference to the Angora trials and the imprisonment of Armenians in various parts of Asia Minor will be laid upon the Table of the House?

I can give no pledge as to the presentation of these Papers. It is probable that the publication of them would not at present benefit either the Angora prisoners or other Armenians, whose welfare, as I stated last Thursday, must be the first consideration in any step of this kind.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he is aware that, as stated in an Inverness newspaper last week, on a recent Sunday evening an attack was made upon the village herd, who is deaf, in Kingussie, by a resident holding a most prominent position; as the assault was to the effusion of blood the case was reported to the police authorities who were to take action; witnesses were found and summoned to appear at Inverness on Wednesday last, but somehow or other the case seems to have been quashed; and whether he can explain why the criminal escaped punishment in this case, while the cottars of Besneray are suffering two months' imprisonment for an assault which was not to the effusion of blood?

The assault to which the question of my hon. Friend refers consisted in a slight cut inflicted by an umbrella. The information was lodged by the brother of the person struck, and the Fiscal on receipt of the complaint ordered a prosecution, the trial being fixed for the 26th ultimo. On the 22nd the Fiscal received a letter from the brother stating—

"That I wish to withdraw, as I hereby do withdraw, the charge, and I hope you will not take further proceedings in the matter."

In these circumstances, I think the Fiscal was quite justified in withdrawing, especially as the person struck made no charge. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland has already described the serious nature of the offence committed by the cottars of Besneray, and I do not refer to it again.

Do I understand that the Public Prosecutor may exercise his discretion as to the withdrawal of cases of this kind?

Yes, I hope so, within reasonable limits.

In that case we may anticipate class legislation.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he be now at liberty to say whether the officer next in command is to be permitted any discretion in the execution of orders when it appears inevitable that such orders will result in the loss of life and property?

At the same time, I will ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether all orders given by a superior officer in Her Majesty's Navy to a Captain of a ship are always subject to the paramount condition "with due regard to the safety of Her Majesty's ships"; and, in case obedience to such an order would entail a collision with a friend or endanger a ship in any other way, is it the duty of any such Captain to avoid that danger by forbearing to obey such an order; is it a Regulation of Her Majesty's Navy that in case it appears to the Captain of a ship that the course ordered by his superior officer would endanger his ship, it is the Captain's duty (such orders notwithstanding) to take such steps as may be necessary to avoid any such danger, and is not the responsibility for so doing thrown entirely on the Captain; and is it, further, the Captain's duty, when time or circumstances do not admit of the Admiral's permission being obtained, to take such steps without such permission?

The Minutes (which are voluminous) of the Court Martial on the loss of the Victoria have reached the Admiralty and are being printed with a view to their full consideration by the Board. Meanwhile, it seems undesirable to give any answers which might be interpreted as referring to officers concerned in the events which led to the Court Martial.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the accommodation provided for their passengers by the Victoria Steamboat Association is frequently limited to closely packed standing space; whether any Rule exists limiting the carrying capacity of these river steamers; and whether steps will be taken to compel this Association to pay more regard to the comfort of the people, especially on Sundays and holidays?

The steamers referred to by the hon. Member are carefully measured and surveyed by officers of the Board of Trade under the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts, and the certificates granted indicate, in each case, the maximum number of passengers to be carried and the limits within which the steamer may ply. The certificate is required to be put up in some conspicuous part of the ship, so as to be visible to all persons on board, and, if the certified number of passengers is exceeded, the owner or master is liable to a heavy penalty. The question of comfort (as distinct from safety) is not one in which the Board of Trade have power to interfere. We have had no complaints.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Inspector in the employment of the Association did not appear to know how many passengers the steamboats were authorised to carry? Will he give instructions that full information on this point shall be plainly marked on each steamer as in the case of tramcars and omnibuses.

In the present state of the law the Association is bound to exhibit on board each vessel belonging to them the certificate of the Board of Trade fixing the number of passengers authorised to lie carried by such vessel.

May I ask whether any steps are taken to compel Steamboat Companies not to carry more than the authorised number of passengers? Have the Board of Trade officers any instructions on the point? What remedy have the passengers in case of overcrowding?

In all cases where the fact that a Steamboat Company has carried more than the authorised number of passengers on board their steamboats is brought to the notice of the Department steps are taken to enforce the law on the subject. Of course, the Board of Trade cannot keep Inspectors to go on every vessel, but Mercantile Marino officers and Superintendents of the Ports between which the vessels ply will at once inquire into any complaints made to them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to receive evidence from the Members of the House and others as to the absolutely dangerous condition of these steamboats on holidays, and especially on fine Sundays, and the impossibility of anyone being able to ascertain the number of passengers they carry?

I shall be glad to receive such evidence.

Will the right hon. Gentleman re-issue the Order issued by his Predecessor at the time of the Jubilee Review in order to prevent overcrowding?

Is it not the duty of piermasters to count the number of passengers on any steamer which appears to be overcrowded, and to institute prosecutions in cases of overcrowding?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if his attention has been called to the complaint of the men working in the quarries owned by Maclean & Co., at Cullipool Easdale, that their wages are paid only once in three months, and that a deputation of the men who waited upon Maclean & Co., asking for payment once in six weeks, was informed that they would pay the men "when they saw proper," and that anyone refusing these terms would "be compelled to clear out of the houses immediately," and that the spokesman "would beat once dismissed"; whether he is aware that the houses referred to were built by the men and their forefathers; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made; and, if the facts are as stated, he can suggest any means by which such conduct may be prevented?

There has not been time to obtain information for a detailed answer to this question, but I am informed by telegram that Messrs. Maclean & Co. have offered to pay their men on an eight-weeks' term—the same as at other quarries in the neighbourhood—if they will return to work for the current quarter, and that the men have asked time for consideration before giving a final reply.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he will name a day for the discussion of the Bill for the better provision for the equalisation of rates as between the different parts of London?

I am sorry that I cannot satisfy the very laudable curiosity of my hon. Friend. I wish I could name a day.

The regret is shared not only by myself, but by the majority of people at the East End of London, who are waiting anxiously for this relief.

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the statement that the name of J. W. Hobbs, a convict, is still on the Commission of the Peace for the Borough of Croydon, and that that of Jabez Spencer Balfour is still on that for the County of Surrey; and, if so, whether he will take steps to have these names struck off the lists of Justices of the Peace?

I am informed that both these names will shortly be removed from the Commission of the Peace.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to a report on proceedings of the Glossop Town Council, in which it was resolved to publish a list of the names of those parents who had memorialised the Education Department in favour of having free education provided for their children, the object being, according to the report, to prevent other parents presenting similar Memorials in future; and what action the Education Department proposes taking to put an end to such proceedings?

My attention has been called to a newspaper report of a meeting of the Glossop Town Council or a committee of the Council, when a Petition from the parents of about 200 children for free education which had been referred to the School Attendance Committee by the Education Department was discussed. According to this report, a motion to publish the names of the parents in question was moved in the following words:—

"I think it would be better, and to prevent anything of this in the future, if we ask the Press to publish the names of the petitioners. I move that the memorialists' names be published in the public Press."

The motion was carried, and the names published accordingly. I have received a protest against this method of proceeding from several parents. The Department does not in any way discourage reasonable publicity in inquiries so as to ascertain that Petitions are bonâ fide. But if attempts are made directly or indirectly to discourage parents from assorting their just rights to free education for their children under the Act of 1891 such a course can only load ultimately to an alteration of the law so as to give fuller facilities to parents on this subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the steamer Blue Bell, from Antwerp, delivered at Butler's Wharf, Southwark, S.E., on the 17th of July last, 10 "casks cement" (so called), and that each cask contained a soldered tin case with 10 revolvers in it, on which there was no mark whatever: whether the Customs Officers on finding these revolvers, as they were not marked, had to pass them; whether the 10 casks have been since shipped, said to be for Manilla, marked "La Puenta," Manilla; and whether the Government will bring in a Bill, or propose such an amendment to the Merchandise Marks Act as will protect the British wrorkman from unfair and fraudulent foreign competition?

The Commissioners of Customs inform me that the facts generally are as stated by the hon. Member. The pistols bore no marks rendering them inadmissible under the Merchandise Marks Acts, and on amendment of the documents of description the goods were delivered out of charge. The Customs are unable to trace the shipment of the casks. There is nothing fraudulent in the importation of unmarked pistols.

And is it not the fact that cutlery and other articles are imported in large quantities unmarked, and deprive English artisans of their means of livelihood?

The Act only provides that where goods are marked with the place of origin they shall be honestly marked. It is not illegal to import unmarked goods.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that at 3 a.m. on the 30th ultimo a Sheriff's bailiff, named John Daly, made an illegal seizure of cattle, the property of Patrick Casey, a tenant of Mr. D. O'Connell, at Feeromoyle, County Kerry; that the bailiff, on being called upon to exhibit his authority, assaulted the tenant and his son, who, for acting in self-defence, were arrested, taken in custody to Cahirciveen, 10 miles distant, detained there in the bridewell for two days, bail being refused, and finally discharged at the Petty Sessions on the following day, on the ground that the seizure was illegal; whether it was legal to place the cattle, not in a public pound, but in a private building, the property of the Sheriffs bailiff, and to detain and sell them after the seizure had been declared illegal; and whether the police, before affording protection to the bailiff, adopted any means to satisfy themselves whether he was authorised to make the seizure?

It is a fact that on the date and at the hour mentioned a Sheriff's bailiff made a seizure of cattle as stated, but it is not true, I am informed, that the bailiff assaulted Casey or his son. They were arrested for attempted rescue of the cattle and conveyed by car a distance of 10 miles to Cahirciveen, where they were remanded by a local Justice on the charge of attempted rescue, and detained in custody for 33 hours. Bail was not refused. The Magistrates at Petty Sessions refused informations on the ground that the warrant on which the bailiff acted was not addressed to him personally. It would not, I am informed, be illegal to place cattle, seized under a writ of fi fa, elsewhere than in a public pound, provided the seizure be regularly carried out. But, if the seizure were made under an illegal warrant, as the Magistrates appear to have decided in the present instance, the whole proceeding would seem to have been illegal, and the detention of cattle in any place was a wrongful act. The police evidently acted on the assumption that the warrant was in all respects regular; if they had been aware of the illegality in it they would not have acted as they did. As, however, it is expected that a civil action will be taken against the bailiff and the Sheriff in connection with this seizure, I do not think it expedient at the present stage to discuss the action of the police on the occasion.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Sheriff was called upon to show his authority, and refused to do so? Would it not be as well to issue instructions to the police warning them against assisting in illegal acts of this kind?

Undoubtedly their action is to be regretted on this occasion, and the attention of the officers concerned has been called to the matter. I cannot say if the police demanded to see the Sheriff's authority.

Wherein was the illegality of the seizure?

The illegality arose from the fact that the warrant did not contain the name of the bailiff' to whom it was addressed. That is a requirement which ought to be complied with.

Was not the warrant addressed to a certain bailiff or his assistants?

In this case the name of no bailiff was inserted; hence the illegality.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Dublin Port and Docks Board pay a large annual sum to the Collector of Customs for collecting their warehouse rates; and whether this is the same officer who has to sanction or refuse the use of any other trader's warehouse?

The Collector of Customs at Dublin has been appointed by the Dublin Port and Docks Board to collect the dues payable to that Board. These dues are not confined to warehouse rates, and the warehouse rates are not in any case collected by the Collector of Customs. The power of sanctioning or refusing the use of premises as bonded warehouses at Dublin, or at any other port in the United Kingdom, rests with the Board of Customs in London, subject to the control of the Treasury, and not with the collectors at the ports.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the 51 non-Government Customs warehouses in Ireland are situated: how many in Belfast, how many in Dublin, Cork, &c.; and why they are granted in Belfast, and not elsewhere?

The largest of the Customs bonded warehouses in the Port of Cork—situated on the Custom House Quay—is the property of the Crown, and is rented by a local firm, by whom it is held available for the general accommodation of bonders; but the Board of Customs have no information, as to whether, on this account, Cork merchants prefer to bond iu London or elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any Reports have been received from General Officers and Colonels on the Staff commanding the chief Garrison Artillery stations at home and abroad on the working of the reorganisation of that branch, and with what results; and whether any further extension of these changes is contemplated? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentle- man whether Returns have been asked for, or have been sent in, from the chief Garrison Artillery stations at home and abroad, giving the number of specialists required as position finders, telephonists, dial members, signallers, and the like; and whether such Returns will be laid upon the Table, or be issued with the Army Estimates next year? Further, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the length of foreign service in the Garrison Artillery: whether it is the case that 46 companies are abroad and 21 at home, so that two-thirds of all ranks are constantly on foreign service; and whether he will consider any scheme for lessening the long periods at which companies are kept at the same foreign station?

I would ask leave to answer the three questions of the hon. and gallant Member together. Reports on the working of the reorganised system of Garrison Artillery have been received and are now under consideration with a view of ascertaining whether any changes are necessary. To assist in this inquiry Returns have been called for and received as to the number of specialists required as position finders, telephonists, dial members, signallers, &c, but it is not usual to present such detailed Returns to Parliament. Any results arising from their consideration will be shown in the Army Estimates. It is the case that there are 46 companies of Garrison Artillery abroad and 22 at home. This is an incident of the Service, and it is difficult to see how the proportion can be lessened under existing conditions, but every consideration will lie given to the subject.

Is it necessary the force should be kept so constantly on foreign service?

I have said it is a necessary incident of the Service, but I do not think the men are kept longer abroad than those in any other branch of the Service.

My question had reference rather to the companies.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has seen in The Times of 8th August a statement of the terms of a proposed Convention between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Transvaal relative to the cession of Swaziland to the South African Republic; and whether the terms are therein correctly stated, and were communicated officially or unofficially to the Press; and, if so, why the conditions of the new Convention were not first stated in the House of Commons in answer to repeated questions on the subject?

I have read the article in The Times. It appears to contain a fairly accurate account of the history of the Swaziland question. But I would point, out to the right hon. Gentleman that the terms of the Draft Convention—which I may mention is not yet signed—are not stated; nor, indeed, could they be, for they are not yet public. I repeat what I have said more than once, that, as soon as the Convention is signed, I will make a full statement to the House on the subject, and lay Papers.

Are we to understand the statement is correct; and, if so, was it communicated officially to The Times?

Certainly not officially. There was some correspondence with The Times, but not as to the terms of the Convention.

Can the hon. Gentleman explain how it is that the terms of the Convention were known to The Times before they were communicated to the House, and that my questions on the subject were not answered?

As far as the terms stated in the article are concerned, I had already stated them in Debate in this House on the Vote on Account. But, I repeat, they are in no sense complete.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the Militia is below its establishment in officers; and, if such is the case, if he would cancel the Order 2209, of 27th July, 1893, that deprives officers of their mess and lodging allowance after 12 months' service, inclusive of all broken periods of service?

It is the case that the Militia is below its establishment of officers. The Circular Letter referred to involves no new Regulation. It merely draws attention to the provisions of Articles 210 and 504 of the Militia Regulations, which, there was reason to think, were overlooked or misunderstood. The allowance referred to is a special allowance to cover the cost of coming up for a short period of service, and 12 months is a very liberal limit. When an officer's employment extends beyond a year he receives the ordinary allowances of his rank.

Could not the allowance be given in the case of officers who, having served 12 months, are willing to continue provided no other officer can be found to take his place?

So far as I am aware, no such case has arisen.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true, as reported in Reuter's telegrams, that Malietoa made war upon Mataafa last month at Samoa, whereupon the foreign warships then intervened and stopped the fighting, and that Mataafa and his chiefs surrendered; if he can state whether Mataafa and his chiefs are prisoners; and, if so, in whoso custody; what is going to be done with them; and whether the English Government will take the necessary steps to secure their personal safety?

The statement made in the first paragraph is correct. According to the latest information received Mataafa and his chiefs were on board H.M.S. Katoomba, and their personal safety is therefore assured. The ultimate decision with regard to them will be the subject of consultation between the three Treaty Powers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Chelsea Commissioners have yet allocated the whole of the additional grant of £5,000 for Special Compassionate Campaign Pensions; what number of applicants have been awarded such pensions under the grant; and what number of applications have been held over for consideration next year?

The Commissioners of Chelsea Hospital have awarded the whole of the additional grant of £5,000 a year for special campaign pensions; and the actual payment of the pensions will be made very shortly; 381 applicants have been thus provided for, and 571 cases are held over for consideration next year.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Return giving the particulars of all cases of agrarian crime tried at the recent Assizes in Cork, Limerick, Clare, and Kerry, the Return to show the names of the persons committed for trial, the nature of the offence with which such persons were respectively charged, the place and date of such offence, and the result of the trial?

On the 7th instant I stated, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, the number of cases of this kind tried at the Assizes referred to and the result of the trials. The detailed information for which the hon. Member asks, including the names, has already been published in the Press, and I certainly do not think any public advantage would be gained by granting the Return asked for.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he can explain why the grand totals of the Gross Estimates for 1893–4, and for 1892–3, are not shown in the Civil Service Estimates, as is done in the Navy Estimates and the Army Estimates; and whether it is the fact that the grand total of the Civil Service Estimates for 1893–4 is £19,436,953, as against £18,901,637 for 1892–3?

I am not aware of any reason why the summary at the beginning of the Civil Service Estimates should not state the gross and net totals of all the Classes added together in the same way as the Abstract now states them for each Class; and I will give instructions for carrying out the change in the next year's Estimates. The figures in the second paragraph are correct.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a Report from Captain Slacke, Divisional Commissioner for Ulster, respecting the organised attacks upon Protestants at Bundoran upon Sunday the 23rd July; have any persons been made amenable for the injuries inflicted upon Mr. Boyle, one of the Evangelists, the Rev. Mr. Templeman, Miss Templeman, his sister, and Dr. Atkinson; what extra force of police were drafted into Bundoran after the occurrences; and is it the fact that as many as 140 Constabulary were on duty there on Sunday the 30th July?

Was not the question of these disturbances discussed in the House last week on the Motion of the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell); and did not the Chief Secretary state that the occurrence had been grossly exaggerated, and the case was only brought forward for the purposes of political capital? Is it necessary, therefore, to answer any further questions on the point?

I desire to ask whether the discussion on that occasion was not closured?

I think that was the fact—that the discussion was closured. The answer to the first paragraph of the question is in the affirmative. There is no evidence forthcoming as to the assaults committed upon the persons named in the second paragraph, as the assailants were unknown to them, and in neither case did the police witness the assaults. Summonses have been served, however, for hearing at Petty Sessions to-day upon four men for other assaults arising out of these proceedings. On Sunday, July 23, and during the following week, the entire number of police on duty at Bundoran was 32. On July 30 the force was augmented to 118 men, and during the following week this number was reduced to 10 men, the strength of the local force. On Sunday, August 6, an extra force of 40 men was drafted into Bundoran, and since that date the local force alone has been employed.

Does not the Report of Captain Slacke state that some persons were seriously assaulted?

The Report is a confidential one, and I must decline to answer any questions respecting it.

If the suggestion of the lion. Member is correct, can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any clue as to how the hon. Member for North Fermanagh became aware of any of the contents of this confidential Report?

How many of the 118 men were actually on duty on the Sunday when the attack was made?

To the best of my recollection, I stated on Friday that the number was about 28.

As to the disorder which followed the holding of the meeting, may I ask whether the disturbance was not really provoked by certain posters being displayed about the town stating that the object of the mission was to "convert the benighted Catholics of Bundoran from the errors of Popery."

On that point I should like to ask whether it is not the opinion of the Constabulary Authorities in the district that that placard was circulated by those who desired to create a disturbance—that, in fact, the placard was entirely of a bogus character?

I have no reason to suppose that the Constabulary have taken that view of the matter. No observations have been communicated to me by them upon the authenticity of this placard.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Nationalist organ in the district rather indicates that this view was taken by the Constabulary Authorities?

We have heard all this before.

Again, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can state how the hon. Member for North Fermanagh could have obtained access to the confidential document of Captain Slacke?

I will, with the permission of the House, explain that I have never had the opportunity of seeing Captain Slacke's Report; but I am in possession of the fact that a number of respectable inhabitants of the town of Buudoran communicated with Captain Slacke, who took down fully the details they communicated to him.

I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-laud whether he has received copies of resolutions passed at a mooting of Royal Irish Constabulary Pensioners, recently held at Enniskillen, respecting the winding-up of the Constabulary Force Fund; and whether, having regard to the unanimous feeling existing throughout the Royal Irish Constabulary Force, as to the desirability of winding-up the Fund, the Government will adopt the necessary means of effecting that object?

I have answered several questions on this subject already, and I have only to say now again that the matter referred to in the question of the hon. Member is receiving the attention of the Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when, and under what authority, was the Walney Lighthouse at the entrance of the harbour of Barrow erected; what is the revenue annually received from same; by whom contributed; and on what basis of charge; what is the cost of maintaining the light; and how is the surplus, if any, applied?

At the same time, may I ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a charge of 3d. per ton is now levied on all vessels entering the port of Barrow, for maintaining the Walney Lighthouse, which is now practically useless to vessels entering the port; whether the Lancaster Harbour Commissioners receive the revenue derived from this lighthouse, amounting to several thousand pounds yearly, and, less the trifling cost for upkeep of the lighthouse, expend the same for purposes totally unconnected with the lighting of the Port of Barrow; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into this matter, and take steps to remove the burden imposed upon the shipping entering this harbour?

Walney Lighthouse is a local light under the control of the Furness Railway Company, and in no way under the authority of the Board of Trade. I have asked the Railway Company to give the information asked for by the lion. Members for East Belfast and Barrow-in-Furness, and I will communicate to them the reply.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any communication has yet been received from Vienna respecting the export of hay from Austria-Hungary; and whether exception will be made in favour of those who have made contracts before the exportation was prohibited?

We have not yet received the final answer of the Austro-Hungarian Government; but I regret to say that the result of the representations which we have made does not indicate a disposition to make any exceptions whatever.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has received any intelligence as to the cause of the disaster at the Ffrwyd Colliery, near Wrexham?

The Inspector has been telegraphed to, but up to the present no reply has been received. Perhaps the hon. Member would put his question down for to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the fact that the newest s and largest torpedo gunboat or catcher 2; Niger was unable, during the manœuvres, to keep up with the Royal Sovereign at a speed of less than 15 knots; what is the speed the Niger was designed to attain; whether a speed of less than 15 knots is considered adequate for a torpedo catcher; and how many of these; vessels, with the possible exception of the Rattlesnake, can be relied on to dis- charge the proper functions of a torpedo catcher?

No official confirmation of the reports quoted in the first part of the question have been received. The Niger was designed to attain a speed in smooth water of 19¼ knots forced draught, and 17¾ knots natural draught. My answer to the third question is, "No." In regard to the fourth question, all, with proper management, can fulfil the duties for which they were intended as torpedo gunboats. The House is aware that a different class of smaller size and higher speed are being built for service as torpedo boat destroyers or catchers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what was the number of recruits enlisted during the first six months of 1892 and 1893 respectively; and whether the Infantry of the Line is now below its authorised strength; and, if so, by what number of men?

The recruits enlisted in the first six months of 1892 wore 19,683, or 18,202, if those for Colonial corps are excluded. During the same period of 1893 there were enlisted 16,472, or 16,288 without Colonial corps. The difference is partly accounted for by the restrictions placed on special enlistments. The Infantry of the Line at home and abroad, according to the latest Returns, was 1,417 below its authorised number.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the Chief Justice of the Bahamas has been absent from the Colony; whether he has been receiving half-pay during the whole of his absence; whether he is aware that the House of Assembly has refused to vote any further money for this purpose; whether the Secretary of State has ordered that he shall continue to receive half-pay from the Crown Funds of the Colony; and bow long it is intended that this arrangement shall continue?

The Chief Justice of the Bahamas has been absent from the Colony since the 6th of June, 1892, and has been receiving half-pay during the whole of his absence. As the local law makes no provision for payment from the general Revenue of the salary of an officer on leave beyond nine months, the Secretary of State has ordered that since the expiration of that period the Chief Justice shall receive half-pay from the Crown Funds. The House of Assembly has not been asked to vote any money for the purpose. The Legislative Council and House of Assembly of the Colony have passed Resolutions deprecating the return of the Chief Justice. The case has been referred to a Committee of the Privy Council, and the present arrangement will continue until the Committee have heard and reported on the case.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether the Board in sanctioning any scheme for the treatment of sewage by Local Authorities invariably stipulates (and is required by Act of Parliament to do so) that the effluent must be passed over a certain acreage of laud before entering streams of rivers, whatever the degree of purification the effluent may have undergone by chemical or mechanical means; whether the acquisition of such land is, in many cases, very difficult and costly to the ratepayers; whether some sewage schemes most urgently needed have been delayed in consequence of the stipulation of the Hoard that land shall be acquired, regardless of the undertaking on the part of the Local Authorities to purify efficiently without land; and whether he will cause tin inquiry to be instituted by a Departmental Committee or otherwise into the recent improvements (since the Rivers Pollution Act was passed) in the chemical and mechanical treatment of sewage where applied and maintained in an efficient manner, with a view to relaxing the present uniform rule as to the acquisition of land in cases where the Local Authorities will undertake to apply such efficient treatment to the satisfaction of the Board, and subject to penalties which may be imposed by the Local Government Board (if necessary under the authority of Parliament) to prevent any imperfect application of the treatment so sanctioned?

It is the invariable practice of the Local Government Board to decline to sanction a loan for any scheme of sewerage or sewage disposal unless it provides that the sewage shall be purified by being passed through land before being discharged into a river or stream to which the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, applies. They consider that the requirements of that Act would be contravened unless the sewage is so purified. The Board are fully aware that by means of chemical and mechanical treatment very much may now be done to aid in the purification of the sewage, and they, therefore, approve of a very much less area of land being provided when the authority propose to adopt such treatment; but they are not of opinion that these means alone, without the passing of the sewage through land, are sufficient. The acquisition of land for the purpose referred to is, no doubt, in some cases attended with difficulty, and it must increase the cost of the scheme. It is also the case that delay has in some cases been occasioned where sanctions to loans have been withheld pending arrangements being made for the acquisition of land. I have considered the question as to instituting an inquiry, but, apart from the difficulty of securing the services on such a Committee of men of the necessary scientific and practical knowledge who could give the requisite time for such an inquiry at places at a distance from London, I am not prepared at present to say that such an inquiry is necessary. The Inspectors of the Local Government Board, in connection with inquiries which they have to hold with regard to sewerage schemes, are carefully watching the processes which are proposed in aid of land.

Arising out of the question, may I ask whether the Reports of the Inspectors on the local inquiries could not be laid as a whole on the Table, so that we may know the result of their observation?

We cannot depart from the rule as to confidential Reports.

Can I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the case of a Local Authority having proved to demonstration that the chemical process can purify sewage equally well to that which is done by the chemical process plus the land treatment, the Department will not relax their stringent rules, and allow that Local Authority to employ the chemical treatment without land?

When it has been proved to demonstration then that case will arise for consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the evidence given by official witnesses before the Committee on Public Accounts, vide Second Report, July, 1893, pages 51 to 56, relative to the loss of stores in South Africa in 1886 to 1890, and to the treatment awarded to Major Richards, the officer in charge, who appears to have been placed on reduced half-pay of 4s. 6d. per day; whether it is a fact that the Ordnance stores were kept at three stations, Fort Napier, Pietermaritzberg, and Durban, 50 miles apart, so that, in the opinion of the Accountant General (Q. 1196), the most efficient officer could not have controlled mistakes, nor have prevented them altogether; whether he is aware that the Accountant General admits that the charge was too extensive (Q. 1137); that a man could not be held responsible for everything that went on at these different stations, and there ought to have been more officers in charge (Q. 1139); that the stations were so far apart that they could not fairly be placed under the charge of an officer at one of them (Q. 1140); and also that Major Richards reported that he was short-handed and required more assistance (Q. 1170), as stated before the robbery of arms by Natives took place; whether he is also aware that the Secretary of State for War and H.R.H. the Commander-in-Chief by letter, 8th January, 1892, recommended that Major Richards be brought back after 12 months on the first vacancy for re-employment, and that the Treasury refused their sanction; and that, on 8th April, 1892, the Accountant General wrote that His Royal Highness is still of opinion that the mitigating circumstances are such as would justify a relaxation of the severe punishment which has been inflicted upon Major Richards by placing him on a reduced rate of half-pay; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, and the time that has elapsed, he will reconsider Major Richards' hard case, and recommend that he may be allowed the proper half-pay of his rank?

The extenuating facts referred to in the lion, and gallant Member's questions were duly considered when it was decided to recommend Major Richards' restoration to full pay; but, other serious deficiencies having been subsequently brought to light on his giving over his charge, the Secretary of State was unable to persist in his recommendation. Coder all the circumstances, I am not prepared to revise the rate of retired pay granted to him.

Has the right hon. Gentleman read the evidence given before the Committee on Public Accounts?

I have read that, and a great deal more than that.

I beg, in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman s reply, to give notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Army Estimates if they are ever reached, and move a reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether it has been represented to him that the voluntary school managers at Eastbourne are prepared to supply 1,000 now school places; whether the plans of these proposed schools show sufficient area, playgrounds, &c, according to the Rules of Schedule VII. of the Code; whether it is satisfied that the promoters of these schools have at their disposal sufficient funds to complete them within a reasonable limit of time; if the representations made to him on these points are satisfactory; whether any proposal has been made for the provision of the 311 places remaining out of the 1,311, the final notice for which expired over a fortnight ago; whether a further deficiency of 365 places will be shortly created by the closing of the Wesleyan school; whether any substantial proportion of the 1,334 free places demanded by the parents in January last, the first notice for which was published on 20th March, has been supplied; and whether, in view of the deficiency both of school places, and of free school places, he will now give effect to the final notice, and set up a School Board?

The Committee of Voluntary School Managers have submitted plans of two new schools. The buildings proposed would accommodate 461 children each, or 928 in all. One of these plans satisfies the Rules of the Department, and has been approved. With regard to the other, the proposed site is too small for the school proposed to be built upon it. Her Majesty's Inspector has suggested another site which he thinks would be satisfactory. As to the third school which is necessary, the managers inform the Department that steps are being taken to secure a site. The closure of the Wesleyan school at the end of the current school year will cause in March next a further deficiency of 365 places. It has been pointed out to the voluntary managers that if at any time the Department is satisfied that the accommodation required by the final notice is not being provided with due despatch, it will be their duty under the Statute to order the formation of a School Board, and that in consequence of the closure of the Wesleyan school the Department will also be empowered to create a Board under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 1870 without issuing any further notices, and will be justified in suspending such action only in the event of immediate steps being taken to supply the impending deficiency otherwise. As regards the funds at the disposal of the Committee of Managers, they stated about a mouth ago that, in addition to the gift of the two sites to which I have referred, the sum of £6,850 bad been guaranteed, and that further donations were still coming in. It is obvious that, in order to supply the total impending and actual deficiency, this sum would have to be very considerably supplemented. As regards the question of free education, so many places have been freed since the Department issued their first notice in March for 1,334 children, that the number in the final notice now being issued is reduced to 567. The requirements of this notice will be satisfied if the new schools required (which, of course, must be free schools) are provided. Under all these circumstances, the Department is very carefully considering the question whether duo despatch is being used in accordance with the Act.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state out of what fund the medical attendants to the Royal Irish Constabulary are paid in the several districts in Ireland, whether from Government sources or from a fund subscribed for the purpose by the members of the Force?

The allowance to medical attendants of the Royal Irish Constabulary is paid out of the Constabulary Vote.

On behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is now in a position to state when South Wales will be afforded postal communication with London more nearly equal to that enjoyed by other and competitive districts?

Some time ago a proposal was made by the Railway Company for the improved service to which the hon. Member refers, and it was understood that the terms then mentioned represented little more than the bare cost which the altered train arrangements would involve. But the outlay required was of necessity large, and in view of the comparatively small increase of Postal Re venue I did not feel justified in pressing the scheme on Her Majesty's Government. No agreement was made with the Railway Company, and I think no good purpose would be served by my laying Papers on the subject on the Table of the House. As a matter of fact, most of the communications with the Company were verbal.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if the, Departmental Committee inquiring into the system of classification of pay adopted in Her Majesty's Dockyards have yet reported; and, if so, will he lay the Report upon the Table of the House; and when will the Return giving the rates of pay, and number of men at each rate, and the number promoted on the 1st November from a lower to a higher rate of pay, be furnished to the House?

The Report of the Committee alluded to is of a confidential nature, and it is not intended to make it public; but a statement of the decisions of the Board of Admiralty as to the future rates of wages, &c., will be laid upon the Table as soon as the necessary proceedings have been completed. (2.) The Return mentioned in the second paragraph of the question has been sent to the printers to-day.

Will the statement be laid on the Table before the Estimates are brought in?

I can hardly say that.

Well, I shall object to the Vote for shipbuilding until we have the Report.

The right hon. Gentleman need be under no apprehension. The statement will be made public cither before or at the time the Vote is brought on.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the interference of the police in a strike in the tailoring trade in the City of Cork; and whether he is aware that the police interfere and prohibit, under threats of arrest and prosecution, persons who wish to speak to and explain to the imported workmen the questions at issue between themselves and their employers, and who have proved by recent prosecutions in that city, under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, were doing nothing in contravention of that Act; if so, by whose orders or instructions the dolice so interfere in such cases?

I do not think there is any foundation for the allegations contained in the question. I have watched this matter very closely, and I have drawn the attention of the authorities to it.

I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, with reference to the recommendation of Stonehaven by the Parliamentary Committee on Harbour Accommodation of 1884, as being from its geographical situation and natural advantages one of the seven places in Great Britain where improved harbour accommodation was most urgently needed and most effective in the interests of the shipping and fishing of a large stretch of coast, whether the fishermen of surrounding fishing ports have recently sent to him copies of resolutions passed unanimously at meetings held by them in favour of improving Stonehaven Harbour: and whether he has any scheme in consideration whereby the money may be found for improving Stonehaven Harbour?

In reply to the hon. Member, I have received resolutions from three fishing ports in Kincardineshire in favour of a Harbour of Refuge at Stonehaven, the construction of which, on the Estimate of the Parliamentary Committee of 1884, would cost from £80,000 to £100,000. I regret to say that there is no fund at my disposal out of which any payment can be made towards such an undertaking. I may point out that there are other harbours similarly situated to Stonehaven, and that the question of a Harbour of Refuge on the East Coast of Scotland was settled by the Committee of Experts who sat in 1884, on whose recommendation a Harbour of Refuge is now in course of construction at Peterhead. If the authorities at Stonehaven have any smaller scheme in contemplation which would come within the scope of the assistance given by the Fishery Board, such a scheme would be considered, with others of a similar nature, when the Fishery Board has funds to undertake a fresh work.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state whether the German Government instructed the German Consul at Talcahuano, Chili, to make inquiry of the officers and men of the German barque, Thekla, into the alleged sinking of the steam trawler, Dogger Bank, by the Thekla, in April last, or if any other steps have been taken in the matter?

As I stated in reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member on 1st dune last, Her Majesty's Government are in communication with the German Government with regard to the case referred to, but at present have no definite information as to their action.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the reference to the passages in which Sir David Barbour recalled his evidence given before the Gold and Silver Commission, and had changed his views as to the amount of uncoined silver in the form of ornaments or in hoard in possession of the Native population of India?

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether this is not an attempt to continue Tuesday's Debate on Indian Currency through the instrumentality of a question; and whether, in those circumstances, the question is not irregular?

In the Debate referred to a very definite statement was made with reference to Sir David Barbour's evidence, and in the circumstances I think it would be competent for the right hon. Gentleman to answer the question.

The question has been put under some misapprehension. I made no such statement with regard to Sir David Barbour. I did refer to Sir David Barbour having said he had changed his opinion with reference to the hoarding of coined money—rupees—but, having looked at the report of my speech, I do not find any indication of my having made any such statement as Sir David Barbour having recalled his evidence given before the Gold and Silver Commission, and having changed his view as to the amount of uncoined silver. I said, "I am not going into the question of uncoined silver," and I also said—

"To quote Sir David Barbour's evidence in 1888 against the plan which he sent to England, after recommending it and passing it through the Legislative Council in India, is ready unfair."

I did not intend to say that Sir David Barbour had changed his views as to the amount of uncoined silver.

Perhaps the House will allow me, as a matter of personal explanation, to say that I only placed this question on the Paper because I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say across the Table during the Debate that in regard to the amount of uncoined silver Sir David Barbour had changed his views. I am very glad to find that that is not so, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the question is no allegation against him.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any conclusion has been arrived at as to the extra allowance of £100 for Third Secretaries in the Diplomatic Service?

Pending the settlement of the new arrangement, Third Secretaries will be permitted, if they pass the examination in International Law, to draw the extra allowance of £100 as formerly.

Will the extra allowance date from now, or from the commencement of the year?

It will operate in this way. Anyone entitled to apply for it, but not having applied for it during the last few months, will be enabled to apply now.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will furnish a statement, supplementary to the Navy Estimates, giving particulars of dimensions, speed, cost, and armament of the vessels proposed to be built or re- constructed, details as to which are not given in the Navy Estimates now before the House?

I have to-day laid on the Table a description of the two first-class battleships, Majestic and Magnificent. As I stated on July 28, in answer to a question of the noble Lord the Member for the Ealing Division of Middlesex (Lord G. Hamilton), the details of the design of the first-class cruisers have not yet been completed; but as full a description as practicable will be furnished before the Shipbuilding Vote is taken.

The right hon. Gentleman has failed to answer my question. Is he aware that as to a large number of vessels proposed to be constructed or reconstructed no details appear in the Navy Estimates? Will he furnish those details? I will call attention to the cases of several of them.

I will look into the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause a special inquiry to be made as to the cause of the boat accident at Port Talbot, by which over 20 persons have lost their lives; and whether he will take stops, by legislation or otherwise, to secure that all boats hired out to pleasure parties shall be registered and placed under the control and inspection of a Local Authority?

There will necessarily be an inquest in the case of the persons who unfortunately lost their lives in connection with the boat accident referred to, and I will obtain from the Coroner a copy of the depositions taken by him. From the reports which have appeared in the newspapers, it does not appear that, if the boat in question had been licensed and had been under the inspection of the Local Authority, the accident would have been avoided. All Urban Sanitary Authorities are empowered to license pleasure boats and to make bye-laws enforceable by penalties with regard to the boats and the persons in charge of them.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having referred in the House to an official document relating to public affairs—namely, Mr. O. M. Edwards's Report on the Welsh Colleges, and in view of the fact that a Petition for the Incorporation of a Welsh University awaits the sanction of the House, he will lay Mr. Edwards's Report in its entirety upon the Table, in accordance with the rule that an official document referred to by a Minister must be produced?

If I understand the hon. Member's point it is this. He asked me a question yesterday as to a confidential Report which I have never cited, road from, or quoted in any speech in this House. It was therefore necessary for me to allude to it yesterday in answer to a definite question from him on the subject. He now suggests that, in consequence of this allusion, I am bound to lay the Report on the Table. The plan is ingenious, but it does not seem to be in accordance with the Rule of the House. I am unable to lay the Report on the Table.

May I call your attention to this matter, Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the document in question in this way. He did not state that it was confidential and refuse to refer to it at all, as the Chief Secretary for Ireland did to-day in another case, but he said—

"I do not propose to lay it on the Table, but I am quite willing to inform the bon. Gentleman that the Report consisted mainly of information rather than recommendations;"

and then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—

"Mr. Edwards did not report in favour of the inclusion of St. David's College, Lampeter, in the Welsh Universities."

That was the very point. I understand from those words of the right hon. Gentleman that Mr. Edwards reported in favour of the exclusion of the College from the scheme, but his words are ambiguous. I beg leave to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the following point. In May's Parliamentary Practice it is stated —

"It has been admitted that a document which has been cited ought to be laid upon the Table of the House, if it can be done without injury to the public interest."

The document I asked for is an official document, which has been referred to and cited, and it is not pretended that it would be injurious to the public interest if it were produced. I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with the practice of the House that the right hon. Gentleman should refer to a document which at the time he does not say is confidential, and should afterwards refuse to lay it on the Table on the ground that it is confidential?

The general rule of the House is well understood, that if a Minister refers to public documents or Despatches he should lay them before the House; but confidential documents, or documents of a private nature passing between officers of a Department and the Department, are not necessarily laid on the Table of the House, especially if the Minister declares that they are of a confidential nature. It would be a precedent dangerous to the Public Service to say that they ought to be laid. As I understand, what passed in this case was that the right hon. Gentleman only quoted a document so far as to say that Mr. Edwards did not report in favour of the inclusion of Lampeter College, and I think the House may take the word of a Minister when he says that the document was not confidential to that extent. If the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council now says that the document is generally of a confidential nature, I have no hesitation in saying that he is not bound to lay the document on the Table.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the new agreement entered into with the Government of the South African Republic in reference to Swaziland needs, or has received, the sanction of the Volksraad; and whether its terms will he submitted to the judgment of Parliament before being finally ratified?

The Convention has not yet been signed by Sir H. Loch. It will subsequently require the ratification of the Volksraad. So soon as the Convention has been signed, I will make a statement to the House on the subject, and lay Papers including the agreement; and this will, I hope, be before Her Majesty's final and formal ratification is despatched from this country.

; Is it true that the British protectorate of Swaziland is being relinquished in favour of the Transvaal Republic?

The British protectorate over Swaziland has not been relinquished in faxour of the Transvaal, for Great Britain never had, or professed to have, a protectorate over the country.

I beg to give notice that I shall draw attention to this subject on the Colonial Vote.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make arrangements this year for Members to view the Fleet and Dockyards at Portsmouth?

It has never been the practice for Her Majesty's Government to make any special arrangements for parties of Members to visit the Fleet or the Dockyards, nor could the cost of such visits be properly charged to Navy Votes. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord G. Hamilton) entertained a party of Members at Portsmouth last year at luncheon at his own expense, and arrangements were made to visit the Royal Sovereign and the new cruisers. The question whether invitations of such a character should be given in any year appears to me to be one for the private consideration of the First Lord of the Admiralty. The present summer has been darkened by the loss of the Victoria, and has not seemed an appropriate time for an entertainment like that of last year.

May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman could arrange for Members to visit the Fleet and Dockyards without anything in the nature of an entertainment?

Not only any Member of this House, but any taxpayer in the country, can visit the Dockyards without any special arrangements when a request of that sort is made.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, as he has announced the intention of the Government that Her Majesty should be advised to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into and report upon the question of the financial relations of Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer, whether the Government will either appoint a Committee to inquire into the financial relations of Scotland to the Imperial Exchequer, or will extend the terms of Reference so as to bring the case of Scotland before the proposed Royal Commission?

I think there will be much inconvenience in associating any inquiries that must necessarily partake of an historical character in respect to the finances of Ireland and Scotland, and they ought not to be dealt with by the same body. In regard to any separate measures in respect to Scotland, I have no doubt that if the public opinion of Scotland should be sufficiently declared in the sense of desiring such an inquiry, the House of Commons and also the Government will pay due attention to that expression of opinion.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that Scotland at present pays to the Imperial Exchequer nearly £1,500,000 per annum beyond her fair share of taxations, and whether it is not high time that Scotland should be allowed to manage her own affairs?

; Scotland is, no doubt, entitled to speak with great authority on that subject; and if it does so speak, I have not the least doubt that its views will have due consideration given to them.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House when the Report of the Gresham University Committee is likely to be made?

It is hoped that the Report will be presented before the end of the year.

I wish to ask the Chief Secretary if his attention has been called to the extraordinary language of Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords on Tuesday in reference to the Redemption of Kent (Ireland) Act, 1891?

Order, order! It is a Rule of the House not, to refer to statements made in the other House.

I understand, Sir, the noble Lord said that a Bill which was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester was not a Government Bill, though it had the names of Mr. Arthur James Balfour and the Attorney General for Ireland on the back of it.

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to ask whether the Bill was a Government Bill or not?

I wish to ask whether the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has been called to this language—

Order, order! It is a very wholesome Rule in this House not to allude to statements or Debates in the other House of the present Session, as to do so might bring the two Houses into collision. If the hon. and learned Gentleman likes to ask whether the Bill was a Government Bill or not, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will give him an answer.

Then I will ask the Chief Secretary whether the Redemption of Rent Act was not a Government measure?

I believe there is no doubt about that. Lord Salisbury has, no doubt, forgotten it.

I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. Whether it is the intention of the Government that the remaining stages of the Home Rule Bill are to be carried by the same automatic proceeding that was adopted in Committee; and, if so, whether the Prime Minister would, for the convenience of Members on both sides of the House, state what days he proposes to fix?

I do not think that is a fair question to put, because when a Minister makes a Motion he judges of the circumstances of the time, and it is impossible that he can say beforehand what he will do when a certain date arrives. It is not in accordance with the dignity of this House that questions like that should he asked or answered.