I beg to ask the Postmaster General to what extent advantage has been taken of "The Savings Bank Act, 1893," which increased the limits of investments in Post Office Savings Banks?

I am glad to state that considerable advantage has been taken by Post Office Savings Bank depositors of the new Savings Bank Act which came into operation on the 21st December last. It appears that, in little more than two months, 29,400 depositors availed them- selves of the extension of the annual limit for Savings Bank deposits, representing an aggregate additional sum of £423,639. Nine thousand six hundred and twelve of these persons deposited £50 each in lump sums. During the first two mouths of the present year, £5,878,173 was deposited, a sum which exceeded by no less than £1,017,840 the amount during the first two months of 1893. As regards Government Stock, investments in excess of the old annual limit were made during the first two months by 1,500 persons, the excess amounting to £67,904 Stock. Four hundred and forty-eight of these investments were of £200 each. In the same period 424 persons made investments in excess of the former total limit of £300, the excess amounting to £32,147 Stock. Twenty-nine persons increased their total holding to £500.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many Veterinary Inspectors, either temporary or permanent, have been appointed in Ireland within the past 12 months; how many of these so appointed are Irishmen; and how many names are at present on the list of candidates seeking appointments as Privy Council Veterinary Inspectors?

There were no permanent Veterinary Inspectors appointed in Ireland during the period stated, but 12 temporary Inspectors have been appointed. The Veterinary Department has no official information as to the nationality of the gentlemen appointed, though it is believed that 11 out of the 12 are Irishmen. The reply to the concluding paragraph of the question is, 21.

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty the amount expended on labour and contract work between the 1st of April, 1893, and the 31st of March, 1894, on each of the following ships: Magnificent, Majestic, Renown, Powerful, Terrible?

The information asked for is contained in the Programme of Works in Progress on Ships Building appearing in the Navy Estimates for 1894–5.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the tea contracts for the Monaghan and Cavan District Asylum have been given for the last seven years to Mr. Robert Greveen, hotel keeper, Monaghan, who is not a tea merchant; whether he is aware that, in reply to annual advertisements for tenders, merchants sending samples rarely find them examined or tested, and, in consequence, many have ceased to take any trouble in the matter; whether he will take steps to secure open competition; and whether the Board of Control has any power over the disposal of such contracts?

The Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums inform me that the fact is as stated in the first paragraph, except that the trader named is a wholesale tea merchant. All contracts for the asylum are perfectly open, and are advertised in the usual manner in local newspapers; and, as regards the tea contract, I understand that all the samples sent in were examined by the Governors before the tender was accepted. The Board of Control has no responsibility in the matter of the acceptance of asylum contracts, which are dealt with by the Board of Governors.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state for the information of the House the tonnage in battleships launched in 1893 for the Navies of the United Kingdom, France, Russia, and the United States?

The tonnage of battleships launched in 1893 was as follows:—France, 29,929 tons; Russia, 12,490 tons; United States, 30,600 tons. No battleship was launched in this country in 1893.

In the absence of the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland, I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he has yet arrived at any decision with regard to the action of the Flitwick School Board in discontinuing the construction of the school buildings sanctioned by the last School Board of Flitwick and by the Education Department, and thereby imposing a heavy burden upon the rates of the parish; and whether he can communicate his decision to the House?

I am glad to say that the Flitwick School Board have now come to an arrangement with the Department, and undertaken to carry out the plans agreed upon without any further delay.

I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from firms in the United Kingdom interested in the regular arrival and prompt delivery of the mails from the British West Indies and South America; whether the incoming mail when it arrives at Plymouth, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., is detained for several hours owing to the discontinuance of provision for a special train, thereby delaying the delivery of letters in England and Scotland for a whole business day; and whether he will take such steps, by providing a special train when necessary, as will carry out the requirements of the contract, and ensure the earliest possible delivery of the West Indian and South American mails in the United Kingdom?

Such a Memorial has been received and duly answered. When the mails in reaching Plymouth miss the night mail train to London, they have to be detained for some hours to go by the next ordinary train; and the use of a special train for them is not, in my opinion, warranted unless an interval for reply by the next outgoing mail is to be obtained by that means only. The delay does not amount to a whole business day. In London, Bir- mingham, and other places it is only a few hours. In Scotland the letters, instead of being delivered late in the day after their arrival at Plymouth, are delivered the following morning. I am not aware of any provision in the Mail Contract requiring the use of special trains.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will institute an inquiry into the circumstances under which Fambisa, the husband of Queen Chi-kanga, was killed by the orders of Mr. Fort, the Chartered Company's Resident Magistrate at Umtali, on 8th January 1894?

The Secretary of State has called for a Report on the whole affair referred 1o in the question.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if his attention has been called to a report of the hearing of several summonses at the Lambeth Police Court on the 7th instant against parents for neglecting to educate their children, when one parent stated that she had taken her children to six schools in the neighbourhood, giving up a day's work for the purpose, and only obtained admission for one child, and that Mr. Williams, the District Superintendent, informed the Magistrate that there was great lack of school accommodation in Camberwell; and whether he will take measures to require the London School Board to provide the necessary accommodation?

My attention has not been called to the report in question. The parish of Camberwell forms part of the East Lambeth Division of the London School Board area. In the part of this Division which borders on West Lambeth there is pressure on the schools owing to a deficiency of school accommodation in the West Lambeth Division. The School Board have in their possession a site in Sub-division H of West Lambeth, and have been informed by the Department that they should proceed at once with the erection of a school in that sub-division. The Board are also about to build another school in Holland Road, in Sub-division Z of West Lambeth. The site has been scheduled in the Bill, which will be introduced this Session. When these schools are opened the pressure on the neighbouring East Lambeth schools will be relieved. I am not aware of any other deficiency of school accommodation which affects the parish of Camberwell, but I have directed the Chief Inspector to report on the Division generally.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any Reports against the reduction of engine-room complements carried out in 1892 have been received at the Admiralty?

Some adverse Reports have been received, and they have been considered by a Committee, who do not in consequence propose any modification of the general principle in accordance with which these complements were framed.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that a second error has been made of a sovereign in the pension of Warder Martin, of Portsmouth Prison; and if this is the same man who was last year called upon to refund a sum of money paid him by a mistake of the Treasury Department?

Yes; this is the same man who was last year called upon to refund a sum of money paid him through a Treasury mistake. As explained in my previous answer with regard to this case, this sum, amounting to £10 7s. 10d., is now being recouped by monthly deductions of 5s. 9d. from his pension spread over three years Martin's pension is payable at the end of each quarter, but by the universal rule he receives advances at the end of the first and second months of the quarter; the advance which was due to him last month, after a deduction of 5s. 9d. had been made, was £2 19s. 3d.; but as through a mistake deductions of 5s. 2d. only had been made during the 10 preceding months a further deduction of 5s. 10d. had to be made to rectify the error. The sum thus due to Martin was £2 13s. 5d., and this sum he has received.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if, in the event of the Government of India agreeing to charge an Excise Duty upon cotton goods manufactured in India, he will assent to a charge of a corresponding Import Duty upon cotton goods imported from the United Kingdom?

If the Government of India should be able to propose a countervailing Excise Duty upon cotton goods manufactured in India it would, in my opinion, remove a serious objection to the imposition of an Import Duty; but at present I can only say that such a proposal, if it is received, will receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Report on Trade Unions for the year 1892 is not yet out; whether he is aware that the Unions are rapidly issuing and sending out the Reports for 1893 before the Official Report of the Board of Trade has been published; and will he explain the cause of the delay?

The Trade Union Report for 1892 is now partly in the Press, and will be ready shortly. It is impossible to avoid delay in the preparation of this Annual Report. The Returns on which it is based are not wholly received by the Registrar of Friendly Societies, who lends them to the Board of Trade until the Autumn of the year following that to which they refer.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he can now state when the repairs of Bradford Barracks will be proceeded with?

A detailed examination of these barracks has just been made by the Commanding Royal Engineer and the Principal Medical Officer of the North-Western District, with the result that though the barracks are not of the most modern type there is very little to complain of. The buildings are substantial and in fair repair. The Hospital is not sufficiently warmed; but steps will be taken before next Winter to remedy this and some other small defects. During the recent coal strike these barracks were unavoidably overcrowded; but there is ample room for the three companies which ordinarily are stationed at Bradford.

I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

I shall be happy to show the hon. Member the Report on which my answer is founded.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Board of Control of the Waterford District Lunatic Asylum appointed a clerk of works without consulting the Governors of the Institution; and whether such an appointment can be made the subject of re-consideration.

The appointment of a clerk of works to superintend the erection of the additions which are now being made to this asylum was, I am informed, a necessary appointment, and one which devolved upon the Board of Control. It is the practice of the Board to consult Boards of Governors in the cases of all such appointments: but the Board of Control explain that they did not think it necessary to do so in the present instance, as the same clerk was appointed who had been nominated by the Governors to superintend similar work on a former occasion and who had given satisfaction in the discharge of his duties.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any of the Magistrates or Clerks of Petty Sessions in the Provinces of Connaught and Munster, and in the Counties of Donegal, Derry, Tyrone, Armagh, and Cavan, speak Irish, and how many; whether a procedure is adopted to secure that persons charged with offences have those charges and the evidence explained to them; have any civil proceedings been taken against or by Irish-speaking persons in recent times at Petty Sessions; how many persons speaking Irish only have been confined in gaols, lunatic asylums, and unions: how many are now confined therein; and how many of these officials speak Irish?

This question was only placed on the Paper on Saturday last, and it is quite impossible to reply to it at such short notice. To collect the information indicated in the question, it would be necessary to address inquiries to at least four Irish Departments—namely, the Local Government Board, the Prisons Board, Inspectors of Lunatics, and the Register of Petty Sessions Clerks, and, in all probability, the assistance of the Lord Chancellor and the Royal Irish Constabulary will have to be invoked. Besides, I would point out that the question does not define for what particular period the information is required. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will place himself in communication with me before repeating the question.

Under the circumstances, I should desire to give the right hon. Gentleman a few days' notice.

; I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether non-commissioned officers appointed Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers continue to serve under their Army engagements, and are subject to all penalties and privileges involved under such engagements; and, if so, what is the reason that they are excluded from the privilege of obtaining return tickets at single fares when proceeding on furlough?

Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers have the same military status as non-commissioned officers serving with Regular troops. The privilege of obtaining return tickets at single fares when proceeding on furlough is a concession entirely within the discretion of the Railway Companies to give or to withhold, and, as explained in my reply to the hon. Member for St. Helens on the 16th of last month, the Railway Companies have not felt themselves able to extend the privilege to non-commissioned officers of the Army serving as Sergeant Instructors of Volunteers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to the case of "Pridham v. Jennings," heard before the Magistrates at Stratton, North Cornwall, on Monday, the 12th instant, where the prisoner, accused of a trifling offence, elected to be tried summarily, and was so tried, pleading not guilty; the Bench disagreed, one Magistrate saying the accused ought to be discharged, and left the Bench followed by another Magistrate; the two remaining Magistrates committed the accused to take his trial at Bodmin Quarter Sessions, a long distance from Kilkhampton, where the accused and his witnesses live, and without railway communication; and did the Magistrates act within their powers by committing the accused after trying him with his consent under the summary jurisdiction procedure; and, if not, will he take steps in the matter?

I am in communication with the Justices, but have not yet received any reply. Perhaps my hon. Friend would postpone this question until Thursday, by which time I hope to have the necessary information.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he is aware that the ratepayers of the district through which the Clogher Valley Tramway runs, in County Fermanagh, strongly opposed its construction, fearing it would not prove a remunerative undertaking; and whether, since their anticipations have been realised, and they in consequence suffer a large pecuniary loss by reason of the baronial guarantee, any steps are likely to be taken to relieve them of the heavy tax imposed under "The Tramways (Ireland) Act, 1883"?

I am not aware of the circumstances stated in the first paragraph. I know of no method by which the burden on the ratepayers could be reduced except by a commutation, in some form, of the Treasury contribution to the guarantee. This would require legislation, and I am considering whether it would be possible to introduce a short Bill on the subject with a sufficient prospect of passing it into law.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the case of Mr. John Lee, a farmer residing at Corraduff, in the Parish of Loughkean, County Tipperary, adjoining Birr, King's County, who was charged by a landlord for shooting game on his land; is he aware that, although on the hearing of the case the charge was dismissed, Mr. Lee was soon after deprived of his gun licence, which he held for a number of years; and whether he will cause full inquiry into the facts of the case, and as to the ground on which Mr. Lee was deprived of his licence?

It is a fact that on the 1st February the licence held by this person was revoked by an Order of the Lord Lieutenant. The Order was not issued in consequence of the proceedings instituted against Mr. Lee at the suit of a landlord, and the District Inspector of Constabulary states he was not aware of these proceedings when the licence was revoked. As a matter of fact, the Police Reports, which were made prior to the revocation of the licence, contain no reference whatever to the prosecution of Lee for shooting game. But I intend to direct inquiry into the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Report of the Special Commissioner on the affairs of Dominica has yet been received; whether the Government has yet considered and come to any decision on the Report; and whether any probable date can be given for the presentation of the Report to Parliament?

The Report has just been received. The Secretary of State has not had time yet to study it, and therefore no decision has been, or can be, taken immediately on the important matter to which it relates. Later on in the Session there is no doubt the Report can be laid, though not at present.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether be has any direct jurisdiction or control over the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and whether it is through him that these Commissioners are responsible to Parliament; could he state the total amount subscribed by the public to the Balaclava Fund, the amount disbursed out of it to Balaclava veterans, the amount now remaining, the cost of management since 1890, and the number of Balaclava survivors in 1890 as well as now; could he undertake to lay before Parliament the accounts of the Fund, showing the expenditure and receipts, the names of the survivors, and the amounts they severally received, up to the date the balance was handed over to the Patriotic Commissioners, as well as a balance-sheet giving similar particulars during the time it has been administered by the Commissioners; and under whose authority was the balance transferred to the Patriotic Commissioners; was it that of the subscribers to the Fund?

The Secretary of State for War has only such indirect control over the Commissioners of the Royal Patriotic Fund as arises from his Ministerial responsibility for advice tendered to Her Majesty, and from the fact that he is their mouthpiece in Parliament. The Balaclava Fund was a private subscription, as to which I cannot undertake any responsibility; and as to which the accounts were published at the time the money was raised. I am informed that the total sum subscribed was £6,804 12s. 6d. That the committee of the Fund paid £3,766 12s. to Balaclava veterans; and transferred £2,949 19s. 6d. in February, 1892, to the Patriotic Fund, the small balance of £88 1s. having been absorbed in necessary expenses. The proceedings of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners to the end of 1892 are shown in their Report last presented, and the statement will be continued to the end of last year in their next Report to Her Majesty; but I am told that £2,800 remained available on December 31 last, out of which, as at present advised, the Commissioners pay the equivalent of 10 pensions of 7s. each a week; the number of men receiving now either that amount or smaller sums in aid of pension being 15. So far as is known the survivors do not exceed 74; but of that number some may be dead, whose deaths have not been reported. The Fund was transferred to the Commissioners by the original trustees as the best and most economical mode of applying the balance for the advantage of the beneficiaries.

In the absence of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he now prepared to announce the names of gentlemen who will form the Royal Commission on the Financial Relations between Great Britain and Ire-laud, the terms of the Reference, and the date of the issue of the Commission?

I am still unable to give my hon. Friend the names of the Commissioners; but the matter is engaging my active consideration, and I hope to state the decision very shortly.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that on the night of the 18th of November, 1893, the buoy on the Briggs Reef, in Belfast Lough, was driven by a north-easterly gale a considerable distance inshore of its proper position; whether this was notified to the Board of Irish Lights early on the morning of the 20th, in order that temporary measures might be taken to warn passing vessels of the danger; whether he is aware that no steps of the kind were taken, and that, misled by the misplaced buoy, the Betsy ketch, on the afternoon of 21st November, struck upon the wreck of the Emily steamer (which was lost on this shoal in 1884), the crew escaping with great difficulty in their own boat; whether he is aware that the attention of the Irish Lights Board has been repeatedly called to the danger to which vessels navigating Belfast Lough, and more especially the fishermen of Bangor and Groomsport, and the lifeboat stationed at the latter place, are exposed by the existence of this iron wreck; whether, although the cost of its removal would be very small, they have hitherto refused to take any steps for that purpose; whether, as the owner of the Betsy is a poor man, wholly dependent on the earnings of his vessel, which was uninsured, and was lost through the negligence of this body, anything can be done to compensate him; and whether, in view of these circumstances, the Government will take steps to place upon the Board of Irish Lights some representatives of the shipping interest of the Port of Belfast, who will have regard to the safety of the lives and property of those navigating the Lough?

I have received from the Commissioners of Irish Lights the following statement:—

"The buoy marking the Briggs Reef was reported to the Commissioners as being out of position, and when the weather permitted a steamer was sent to replace it. On the 24th November the commander of the Commissioners' steamer examined the position of the buoy, and found that the buoy had not drifted but simply stretched its mooring chain to the full length during the gale. The coastguard having reported the buoy as out of position, the Commissioners assumed it to be true and issued a cautionary 'notice to mariners,' and informed the Belfast Harbour Board; these steps were taken immediately the Report was received, and the Commissioners cannot admit that there was any delay, nor can they recognise any liability. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has, on a former occasion, represented to the Commissioners of Irish Lights that the wreck of the Emily on the Briggs Reef constituted a danger to the Groomsport Lifeboat; but the Commissioners were unable to acquiesce in the views of the Lifeboat Institution, and therefore have not advised that that wreck should be removed at the expense of the Mercantile Marine Fund. The Commissioners have received no other representations, nor is the wreck in navigable waters."

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the fact that the Betsy was outside Briggs buoy at the time she struck is consistent with the statement of the Irish Lights Board?

I have read the statement given me by the Commissioners.

But is not that statement inconsistent with the fact I have mentioned?

I can add nothing to the answer.

Yes, but this unfortunate man has lost his property——

Notice should be given of any further question.

Are we to understand that the Commissioners of Irish Lights gave notice to mariners that the buoy was out of position before they had ascertained whether that was so, and at a time indeed when it was not so?

They gave the notice in consequence of the Report of the coastguard. As soon as possible they sent their steamer to it, and found that the buoy had not drifted, but had simply stretched its mooring chain to the utmost limit.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the recommendations made to the Board of Trade by the Chambers of Commerce on the subject of re-constituting the Irish Lights Board?

The whole question of the position of the Irish Lights Commission is under the consideration of the Chief Secretary and myself.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the resolutions passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce of the United Kingdom, and of various Irish local Chambers of Commerce, with regard to the present unrepresentative constitution of the Board of Commissioners of Irish Lights, and urging the desirability of a reform of it; and whether the Government have any intention of introducing a Bill to reform this Board; and, if not, whether they will give facilities to private Members to bring in such a Bill?

:. I agree that the present constitution of the Board cannot be regarded as satisfactory. In saying that, however, I must not be taken as denying that there are many gentlemen on the Board who attend to the matters before them with great interest, great intelligence, and with administrative ability. I do not know that I shall be able to introduce a Bill at present, but the subject is receiving the attention of the Department concerned.

Will the Government give any facilities to a Private Bill dealing with the constitution of the Board?

Until I have seen the Private Bill I cannot answer the question.

One of my hon. Friends has given notice of a Bill, and as the Irish Members are practically unanimous on the subject, I hope the Bill will receive favourable consideration from the Government.

As it is not likely a Bill will be passed in a short time, can nothing be done to compel the Board to attend to duties which are now-neglected?

If any proper representation is made to the Board they will attend to it, I am sure.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a pledge given in reference to the military expenditure of the Straits Settlements by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons on 25th June, 1891, that if the revenues of the Colony should decrease so that they were less able to bear this contribution than they now are, the Government would feel inclined to review the situation; whether the revenue of the Colony has decreased from 4,409,927 dollars in 1889 to 8,817,890 in 1894; whether, in the same period, the military contribution has increased from 577,633 dollars to 842,100; and whether Her Majesty's Government are now prepared to review the situation?

The question of the contribution has been under the consideration of the three Departments concerned. A Report has been drawn up by the Colonial Military Contribution Committee, but has not yet been submitted to the Departments. This, however, will shortly be done, and it is hoped that a decision will soon be arrived at. None of the facts and conditions affecting the question will be lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can state the tonnage of the transport Bothnia, her speed, maximum number of adult, persons she accommodates, and the average cost per bead of their conveyance between the United Kingdom and India, including hire, coals, canal dues, and other charges payable by the Admiralty in respect thereof; also the average cost per head for similar voyages on Her Majesty's Indian troopships since they have been built, including crews' wages, victualling, coals, canal dues, repairs, maintenance, and other expenses incident to their employment, but excluding any allowance for interest on capital cost, depreciation, or risk of loss; also their average tonnage, speed, and maximum number of persons carried in each?

The Bothnia is a ship of 4,535 tons gross measurement: her maximum speed is 13i knots, and she carries on Indian service 1,127 adults. The average cost per head cannot be accurately stated until the accounts are closed, but approximately it will be £7 18s. 4d. The rate of hire was arranged at a time when rates were very low, and the case is so exceptional that no fair comparison of the cost of hired and Government troopships can be founded on it. The average cost of the Indian troopships since the commencement of the service has been £12 0s. 1d. per adult carried. But the employment of four ships making three voyages each, instead of, as formerly, five ships making fewer voyages, has reduced the cost of Indian troopships to £9 9s. 1d. per adult. The Indian troopships have,a maximum speed of 12 knots, but they are worked at a speed of 11 knots. Their gross tonnage averages 4,487 tons, and their maximum accommodation is 1,385 adults. There are, of course, advantages in Government troopships which are a set-off against the difference of cost.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the total number of days H.M.S. Amphion, Camperdown, Dreadnought, Edinburgh, Royal Sovereign, and Rodney were each out of harbour and at sea during the 12 months ending the 30th September last, and the total number of knots they traversed, with their aggregate complement of men and officers?

The figures asked for would take some time to read to the House, with certain necessary observations upon them. I propose to hand them to my right hon. Friend for his information.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he would state why the Irish Board of Works have withdrawn permits for carts and vans through the Phoenix Park; what is the explanation of the passage in their Circular which requires that, pending such arrangements as it may be found desirable to make, tradesmen's carts, vans, &c, will be allowed to pass through the Parkgate Street and Castleknock Gates on the drivers satisfying the gatekeepers, by the production of a voucher, that they require to deliver goods in the Park or in places conveniently served from Castleknock Gate; and that the use by carters of all except the Parkgate Street and Castleknock Gates will be discontinued; who is responsible for, and who took the initiative in, securing the proposed exclusion; how long has this right been exercised; if he is aware that its withdrawal would be a great inconvenience to the market gardeners and shopkeepers in the vicinity of the strawberry beds who supply Dublin with fruit and vegetables; and whether he is aware that the Board of Works, while thus restricting an old public right, lately allowed a road to be broken through the Park wall and a special entrance given direct from the new barracks into the Park for the sole use of the military?

Restrictions have alone been imposed for the prevention of heavy traffic through the side entrances to the Park, it having been found that a very serious abuse had arisen in consequence of the bad condition in which the roads along the north and south of the Park have been left by the County Authorities, owing to which traders' vans, wagons, &c, were using the Park roads exclusively. The object of the Circular was to discover how much of the traffic was absolutely necessary—i.e., for houses or public institutions in the Park, or for the district conveniently served from Castleknock Gate, and how much was due to the use of the Park roads as a mere matter of convenience and of necessity. The Board of Works, as statutory custodians of the Park, took the steps referred to in the general interest of the public frequenting the Park as a pleasure resort. The system of passes was in force for many years, but it would be difficult to ascertain exactly for how many. I will communicate with the Board of Works as to the extent of the alleged inconvenience to market gardeners in the vicinity of the strawberry beds, with a view to seeing whether any relaxation of the Rule now laid down is called for by the necessities of the case. Subject to the observance of the primary object of the Park as a pleasure ground, the garrison is allowed to use a portion of the Park for military purposes, and the Board of Works have recently allowed a gate to be opened into the new Marlborough Barracks for the convenience of the Military Authorities, and to reduce the inconvenience to the public of the occupation of the public and Park roads by regiments proceeding to the 15 acres.

As this pass system was instituted at the instance of the Grand Jury of the County of Dublin, will the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to again consulting that body?

I see no objection.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now able to state the result of his consideration of the claims to compensation arising out of the Featherstone Riots, and give the names of those who are to receive such compensation, and the amounts and date when the same is likely to be paid? The hon. Member also asked as to the accuracy of the statements in the papers on the subject.

The papers have not accurately stated the facts. I have been for some weeks in communication with my hon. Friend the Member for the Osgoldcross Division, and with his assistance (to which I am much indebted for the necessary local information) I have arranged the amount and the apportionment of the allowances which I intimated some time ago that the Government hoped to be able to make. I shall be happy to supply my hon. Friend privately with the details. The general result of the arrangement is that £100 will be paid to the families of each of the two men who were killed, and a further sum of £200 will be distributed among nine other men, who were more or less seriously wounded, and as to whom it has been established to my satisfaction that they took no part in the riotous proceedings which led to and justified the action of the soldiers.

I bog to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether tenant farmers in Ireland holding by lease, who desire to obtain a loan from the Board of Public Works for the improvement of their holdings, are required to register their leases and lodge them at the Office of Public Works; and, if so, when this rule came into operation?

Tenants holding by lease must satisfy the Board of Works, on application for loans from the Board of Public Works, of the registration of their leases when the latter are within the Registration of Deeds Act, 6 Anne, c. 2. Such leases require to be registered in order to give them validity, and to render loans made upon them secure. The leases have in all eases to be submitted to the solicitors of the Board of Works with a, view to the examination of the title—a requirement insisted on by all lenders on the security of leaseholds. The Rule of the Board respecting registration and lodgment of lease has always been in force as regards loans to lessees under the Land Improvement Act, 10 Vict. c. 32, and has since 1884 been enforced on applications for loans by tenants under the Land Law Act of 1881.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether a tenant farmer in Ireland whose tenure is leasehold, and who has a valuable interest in his holding, can obtain a loan for its improvement to an extent of five times the Poor Law valuation of the holding?

I am informed that a tenant farmer in Ireland whose tenure is leasehold can obtain a loan under the Land Improvement Act, 10 Vict. c. 32, to the extent of seven times the Poor Law valuation of his holding if he has an unexpired term of 40 years. If he holds for two lives or for an unexpired term of 25 years he can obtain a loan to the same extent, provided he furnishes satisfactory collateral security for its repayment. In the absence of such collateral security no loan can be made to him under the Land Improvement Act. A leaseholder whose tenure is less than two lives or 25 years unexpired can borrow under the Land Law Act of 1881, to the extent of five times the valuation, if he offers satisfactory collateral security, or if his landlord postpones the rent to the Board's loan, or if the rent of the holding is virtually nominal.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that since the transfer of the Admiralty Pier at Dover to the control of the Dover Harbour Board pier dues have been levied, as was not formerly the case, on the Belgian Mail Packets using that pier, and that a sum of £1,305 3s. 4d., for which no provision had been made in the Estimates, thus became payable from the Post Office to the Dover Harbour Board, involving the creation of a now charge upon a Vote of Parliament; and whether, in settling the conditions of the transfer of this pier from Her Majesty's Government to the Local Authorities, the circumstance was taken into consideration that this would involve giving power to those authorities to levy this large annual charge upon the Post Office Packet Service?

The Belgian Mail Packets are Government vessels, and as long as the pier at Dover was under the control of a Government Department that Department made no charge for dues to vessels belonging to another Government. After the transfer in March, 1892, the pier became part of Dover Harbour, and the Harbour Board decided, in pursuance of their Acts of Parliament, to charge these vessels with dues; treating them as essentially commercial vessels and engaged in carrying passengers and goods for profit in the same manner as the Calais Mail Packets belonging to the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway Company. This circumstance does not appear to have formed part of the conditions of the transfer.

Can the right hon. Gentleman suggest any answer to the last paragraph of the question. Was the probability of this charge taken into consideration?

I have said it does not appear to have formed part of the conditions made in March, 1892.

Yes, it did not form part of the conditions, but was it taken into consideration that charges of this kind would be levied?

As it formed no part of the conditions it evidently was not considered.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Mr. Mead, the Magistrate of the Thames Police Court, when trying on 14th March one of the girls at present on strike at the works of Messrs. Bell, match makers, at Bow, for window breaking, addressed one of the witnesses in the case to the effect that unless she was careful she would find herself in his Court; that it was disgraceful and scandalous that she should have interfered with other girls trying to earn an honest living; that she had no business at Messrs. Bells' gate; that she would neither work herself nor let others work; that she had tried to intimidate girls on their way to work, and that he would not allow it; and that if she were brought before him he would deal severely with her; and, if such words were used, what action he proposes to take in reference to a Magistrate who so addresses a witness with reference to whom or to whose action there was no evidence and no question before the Court; and whether the Magistrate's statement that the witness had no business at Messrs. Bells' gate is in accordance with the law as it relates to what is known as picketing?

I have been informed by the Magistrate that the witness in question, upon being asked in cross-examination what her object was in going to the factory, stated that it was to "hoot and holloa." At the end of her evidence he thought it only fair to point out to her that such conduct was wrong, and might bring her into trouble and cause her to be charged at the Police Court. He further explained that she and her friends had a perfect right to refuse to work for any individual, but that she had no right to try and intimidate others from doing the work which she thought proper to refuse to do. He said, further, that if cases of intimidation and violence were brought before him he should have to deal severely with them. He informed me that no question of legal "picketing" was raised, and that he did not in any way condemn that practice.

Did the learned Magistrate tell the girl she had no right to stand in the gate?

He told her she had no right to stand therefor the purpose of hooting and holloaing.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War will he explain why Staff Officers and Umpires employed at the Autumn Manaeuvres last year received no allowance or travelling expenses; and is he aware that, in consequence, many officers who would have been valuable and who were anxious to avail themselves of this practical training could not afford to do so?

I understand that in some cases the General Officers who were responsible for the expenditure of the money allowed for manœuvres, and who had a laudable desire to make it go as far as possible, made arrangements whereby certain officers, not on full pay, undertook the discharge of Staff duties, with acting Staff pay of 15s. a day, receiving tent accommodation and forage for their horses. I am not sure that the arrangement is free from objection, and I will look into the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland at what amount the Irish Church surplus now stands; what are the charges to which the fund is now subject; and what is the total amount of such charges?

As explained in an answer to the hon. Member for North Paddington on May 11, 1893 (Parliamentary Debates, vol. xii., p. 633), it is not possible to give a simple answer as to the amount of surplus on the Irish Church Fund. Figures and observations as to the receipts and expenditure upon the Irish Church Account in 1892–3 will be found on page 17 of the last Report of the Irish Land Commission [C. 7056], and on pages 1 to 9 of the audited accounts of the Church temporalities for the same year (House of Commons, No. 503 of 1893–4). A statement of the charges (capital liabilities) will be found on p. 10 of the last-named account. An estimate for 1893–4 will be found on page 80 [C. 7056], upon which it may be observed that the anticipated deficit of £49,000 will be more than covered by the proceeds of sales. Perhaps the most convenient course would be that the hon. and learned Member should refer to these Papers, and ask for further information upon any point which may still not be clear to him.

May I ask whether, in view of the forthcoming legislation, the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the Land Commission to make an estimate of the present value of this fund and of the receipts and charges?

I think it is desirable that some statement should be made in view of any demand which may arise.

Are we then to understand that evicted tenants will be paid out of the funds of the Church?

The hon. Member is not to understand anything beyond what I have stated.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Waterford, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he hopes to lay before the House the provisions of the Bill for the restoration of the Evicted Tenants in Ireland; and whether that Bill will be the first of the Government measures proceeded with?

I am not able to state the precise date. It will not be the first of the Government measures to be proceeded with. The first will be the Electoral and Registration Reform Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what grants were made by Parliament for the publication of Irish manuscripts in the year 1892–3; to whom were they made; and how have they been applied?

Under the Stationery Office Vote £200 was voted for 1892–3, payable to a committee for superintending the editing of the Brehon laws. Nothing, however, was spent in that year. Under Vote 6 of Class IV. of the Civil Service Estimates for 1892–3 there was voted £400 for researches into and publication of Celtic manuscripts included in the grant to the Royal Irish Academy. The Royal Irish Academy also spent in that year £267 for transcription, editing, and publication of the Annals of Ulster, which was recouped to them by a Vote of the same amount in 1893–4. There had been no Vote for this purpose in 1892–3.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that result fees are allowed for pupils in national schools under fifth class, and that pupils in Irish speaking districts remain in school after attaining fourth class, whether the Commissioners of Education are prepared to allow result fees for passes in Irish to pupils in all classes; whether tablets are used in national schools for instructing in Irish; whether the Com- missioners of Education are prepared to reduce the price of Irish books; and whether the Inspectors in Irish speaking districts speak Irish, and how many?

The Commissioners of National Education inform me that the existing arrangement limiting the award of results fees for proficiency in the Irish language to pupils in the fifth and sixth classes was only determined after mature consideration, and that at present they see no sufficient reason for altering the arrangement. Tablets are not used for instructing in Irish, but the primer of the rudiments of the language is supplied at the low price of 1½d. per copy. The Commissioners are not prepared to reduce the price of these books, which are now sold at first cost price. The Commissioners are not aware of the number of Inspectors who can speak Irish, but two of them are qualified to do so, having passed an examination in the language when candidates for Inspectorships.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the House any information respecting the reported collision between British and Portuguese forces on the Zambesi?

Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask him whether or not the Treaty gives such rights to each contracting party as are reasonable and necessary; whether it provides for the reference of disputes to arbitration; and whether there was a difficulty pending at the time the right was asserted by force?

I should be glad to have notice of questions as to the provisions of the Treaty. I have not the Treaty here, and it is not desirable I should inaccurately quote it. We have not yet heard definitely what has happened to give rise to this report of a collision on the Zambesi. Instructions have, however, been sent both by Her Majesty's Government and the Portuguese Government to prevent a recurrence of anything of the kind, if a collision has already taken place.

Is Mr. Johnston at present in Nyassaland, or is he on his way home?

Mr. Johnston is coming home soon. I am not sure whether he has left.

Are we to understand that no definite details have been received at the Foreign Office?

There have been various rumours that a collision has occurred, and certain information has been received which seems to make it probable that something has happened, but we have had no authentic or firsthand account of what has taken place.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress the negotiations with the Portuguese Government have made in regard to the delimitation of the Manica Plateau?

The Portuguese Government have been informed that the principle of arbitration is accepted by Her Majesty's Government.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, in a case of the "Commissioners in Lunacy v. Sherrard" recently tried at the Central Criminal Court, Mr. Justice Grantham stated that, in order to get a conviction for keeping two lunatics in an unlicensed house, it must be proved that the two persons detained were not only of unsound mind, but that they were treated by the defendant as persons of unsound mind; and whether any change of the law is proposed in order to guard against the danger of the confinement of persons of unsound mind in unlicensed houses?

I am informed that Mr. Justice Grantham did direct the jury in the terms stated in the question. In so doing he followed the ruling of the late Mr. Justice Stephen in "The Queen v. Bishop," which was upheld in the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. I am not aware that in practice the law has been found defective, but if any case of abuse is brought before me I will consider whether amendment is desirable and practicable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state to the House whether the reserve stores of guns and rifles, small arms, clothing, and accoutrements have been increased or reduced in amount during the past 12 months; and, in either case, to what extent?

The reserve of guns remains the same as last year. Those of small arms and accoutrements have increased to a considerable extent. As to the reserve of clothing, there is an increase in absolute amount, but it is fair to add that the Army Reserve has increased in strength. Returns will be furnished at the end of the present financial year showing exactly how we stand in regard to reserve stock. These will receive our careful consideration, and steps will be taken, should any be necessary, to place the reserve clothing on a thoroughly sound footing.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, to enable a comparison to be made between the old and the present system of remuneration to the Law Officers of the Crown, he will consent to a Return showing the effect of the Treasury Minute of December, 1892, in respect of fees received by each of the Law Officers during the year 1898, on account of contentious business, complimentary briefs, fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentious done by them as Law Officers, and special fees named in the Minute; whether the arrangement named in the Minute, in consideration of which the new system was sanctioned limiting the business in which a Law Officer may appear as counsel for a private client to cases in the House of Lords and before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, has been strictly observed in all cases, or, if not, in what cases has it been departed from, and what were the reasons for such departure; whether the abolition of the right to appear for a private client is limited to appearance in Court, or includes also Chamber practice; whether the abolition of that right has been modified by any regulation as to old or standing retainers; and, if so, what is the modification, and will he lay the terms of it upon the Table; and whether it is true that one of the Law Officers has been retained in the case of "Sutherland v. Sutherland," or in the Salt Union case?

I have been requested by the Attorney General to give the following answer:—I There are no longer any complimentary briefs to the Law Officers, and no fees from persons unconnected with the Public Service for business other than contentions are paid to them. No special fees have been paid to the existing Law Officers. The figures asked for were given on January 12, in answer to a question by the hon. Member, and there appears to be no reason for a Return. 2. The arrangement referred to has been strictly observed. 3. The arrangement in question is not understood to forbid giving opinions in Chambers. 4. It excepts retainers delivered before acceptance of office. 5. The answer to the last question is, yes; but in each of the cases a retaining fee had been given before the acceptance of office, and with reference to the litigation referred to in the question.

Do they come strictly within the Treasury Minute?

:I suppose so.

Is that so?

I have given all the information I possess.

Did I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that the retainer in the Sutherland case was given before the Attorney General took office? If so, is he aware that the late Duke of Sutherland died since the Government came into office?

I have given the information as I have it before me in the absence of the Attorney General. No cross-examination will extract from me knowledge which I do not possess.

I said I would mention to-day what the intentions of the Government were with reference to the Business of the House. On Thursday the 29th instant we propose to take the Civil Service Estimates first, and after them the First Readings of the Equalisation of Rates (London) Bill and the Conciliation (Labour Disputes) Bill. On Monday, April 2, we propose to take the Motion for the appointment of the Scotch Grand Committee, the First Reading of the Scotch Local Government Bill, and the First Reading of the Factories Bill. On Thursday, the 5th of April, we propose to take the First Reading of the Electoral and Registration Reform Bills.

With regard to the Business for Thursday, the 29th, do the Government propose to adjourn the discussion of the Civil Service Estimates before 12 o'clock, or do they only propose to take the First Readings the right hon. Gentleman mentioned if the particular class of Votes taken comes to an end before midnight?

I believe they are Bills which will not meet with opposition on the First Reading, and we shall hope to get them both. I do not think there is any body of gentlemen on either side of the House who will oppose the First Readings.

I think the right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in assuming that there is not the slightest chance of their being opposed, but,: at the same time, we shall desire to have statements made on the introduction of the Bills, and there may possibly be some discussion on those statements. We should like to know, therefore, whether the Government intend to adjourn the business of Supply at some comparatively early hour of the evening, so as to give us time to discuss the statements.

I think that would be quite reasonable.

When will the Railway Rates Bill be brought forward?

At present I do not think I can say anything with regard to other Bills.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking the Clerk at the Table to read the third of the Election Sessional Orders passed at the beginning of the Session.

Then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on that Order I propose to submit to the House the following Motion:—

"That this House resolves that the Earl of Rosebery—

"a Peer of Parliament, First Lord of the Treasury, President of the Council, Lord Lieutenant of the County of Midlothian, has by his speech on the 17th March in Edinburgh, infringed the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom by concerning himself in the election of a Member to serve for the Borough of Leith for the Commons in Parliament."

"I see it also reported that I have come here on an illegal visit, for the purpose of influencing the election for the Leith Burghs. I have a very great respect for the Leith Burghs, and I have a very great respect for their Representative, but I am bound to say that this visit to Edinburgh was planned before I knew that there would be an election for the Leith Burghs, and before I knew that their Representative would do me the honour of forming part of the present Government. I believe that I am strictly within the limits of my right in speaking within the City and County of Edinburgh at any time that I may think lit when there is no election for the city and county in progress. What are the disabilities of a Peer to be? I am denounced as being a lonely oligarch in an inaccessible House; but I begin to ask myself if I am not a sort of State prisoner, whose movements are watched, and who before he takes a ticket for any particular place must consider within himself whether an election for the House of Commons is being held within a certain radius of the railway station. All that is nonsense, and the Unionists know it to be nonsense."

seconded the Motion.

I must congratulate the Unionist Party upon the field they have chosen for their first attack in force upon Her Majesty's Government. This, apparently, is the ground which they are prepared to take, and I am not sorry that it should have assumed the particular form of an attack on the House of Lords. The noble Lord has said that this particular Peer who has committed this high crime and misdemeanour is not to be summoned to the Bar of this House. I thought that that was the particular form of collision between the House of Commons and the House of Lords which the Unionist Party desired to bring about; but the noble Lord having stated that he is not going to take that course, I should like to know what course the House of Commons is about to take when they have declared that a Prime Minister being a Peer has infringed the liberties of the House of Commons?

I said it was a protest on the part of the House.

But a protest which comes to nothing is not only insignificant, but undignified; and for the House of Commons to make a declaration of that kind would be about the most contemptible position to take up that could be imagined and to ask the sanction of the House to be given to. I have no interest, and the Party on this side of the House have no interest, in maintaining the right of Peers to interfere in elections. Quite the contrary. At present there are about 500 Peers, who are constantly every week and every day interfering in elections.

How?

In every way. On our side we have not one-tenth of the number of Peers who could interfere, and I do not think their resources are in proportion to those 500 who take such a large interest in election proceedings. I do not know; whether the noble Lord has ever beard of an institution called the Primrose League? I say that our interest is quite in the direction of fettering if we could the interference of Peers in elections. But let us see what is this Standing Order on which the noble Lord rests his case. First of all, it says, "No Peer or Prelate." I am glad to see that the Prelates are among them, because they should be careful on other days than week days, on which they might have influence upon any possible elections. I have known Prelates make addresses which certainly were intended to have, and probably had, a good deal of influence on elections on particular ques- tions which were at issue. What is forbidden to a Peer?—

"To concern himself in an election of Members to serve for the Commons House of Parliament."

"There seems to be a plentiful supply of carriages on either side, though the Conservatives have the preponderance;"

I was not a Peer, and I had not a carriage in use.

The noble Lord is acquitted, and he shall not be charged with infringing the liberties of this House. But Lord Salisbury, Lord Rothschild, and other noblemen and gentlemen connected with the Conservative and Unionist Party were mentioned; and on that statement a Motion was founded calling attention to the fact that Peers were concerning themselves with an election. I am not quite sure that the lending of carriages might not have a more potent effect on an election than speeches. I have known many people carried to the poll by carriages, but very few have been carried there by speeches. That Motion was very properly treated by Mr. W. II. Smith, the then Leader of the House, as a matter which the House ought to recognise as immaterial and as absurd, and the Member for Paddington, whose constituency was as near to that one as Leith is to Edinl urgh——

I was sitting for it.

Do not be in a hurry. The noble Lord treated the Motion as a proposition which was absurd, and laid down an interpretation of the Sessional Order which was, I think, very reasonable. He said—

"It was not for interference of this kind; it was for the action of Peers in forcing their nominees on the House of Commons, and, be-fore the days of the ballot, in using their territorial influence to force people dependent on them to support their nominees. That was the action of the Peers against which the House of Commons had always protested, and I feel confident that the hon. Members for Northampton and Cockermouth will not seriously argue for a moment that for all legitimate electoral purposes, such as taking an interest in Parliamentary elections, and in supporting within reasonable bounds one side or the other, Peers ought to be prohibited from showing such public interest."

I adhere to every word of it.

It almost passes the bounds of the ridiculous when we come to the question of the Lord Lieutenant. The Lord Lieutenant may make a speech in the county on election matters. There are some Lord Lieutenants who are scrupulous on that matter; but the particular instance which the noble Lord gave was a very unfortunate one, because the Lord Lieutenant of Derbyshire came to make a speech against the unfortunate representative of the City of Derby, and, in order to promote the bringing forward of the candidate who was intended, but did not succeed, in turning him out. I will give the noble Lord such an example as will, I think, overthrow his theory as to the reading of the Sessional Order. Lord Lieutenants canvass their own counties in their own interest, and sit as Members of those counties. We have known many of them in this House.

That is a Commoner. Not if the Lord Lieutenant is a Peer.

The Sessional Order says nothing about the Lord Lieutenant being a Peer. It is the Lord Lieutenant qua Lord Lieutenant; and I say it is the commonest thing in the world for a man who is Lord Lieutenant, and who is told that he is not to use the authority derived from his commission to influence the election of any Member, yet to use that authority in order to get himself elected. We remember Sir Robert Anstruther in this House, we remember Lord Kensington, we remember Mr. Biddulph, all of whom were Lord Lieutenants of the counties for which they sat. Therefore, this point is absurd, and if it were necessary to add anything to its absurdity it would be to state that Lord Rosebery is not Lord Lieutenant in the place where he spoke. I am not going to argue upon technical points. We are arguing this question upon very much broader grounds. The noble Lord challenged me on the subject of Lord Beaconsfield's speech at Aylesbury.

It was an agricultural dinner.

What did it signify what the dinner was? It was in the principal town in the county, where the poll was to take place on the next day, and the noble Lord said the Eastern Question was immaterial, and that it was one in which the farmers would not take an interest. It was, however, the whole question of that election. It was immediately after the agitation had commenced, which was called the "Bulgarian atrocities." I well remember the last speech which that distinguished man made in this House. It was in answer to a speech which I had made, and he disappeared that night from the House of Commons and went to the House of Lords. It was on the 11th of August: and in September, when the Bulgarian atrocity agitation, as it was called, was at its full height, and when the whole country was in a state of ferment about it—that election turned on that question, and on no other—Lord Beaconsfield went to Aylesbury and made a very powerful and an effective speech, which I have not the slightest doubt greatly influenced, and probably decided, that election. Let us, therefore, have no cant in this matter.

It is not cant.

It would be very extraordinary, and I should be extremely surprised, if the Leader of the Opposition is going back to Edinburgh to say that he endeavoured to persuade his Party to move a Vote of Censure upon Lord Rosebery going last Saturday to Edinburgh, and I should like to know whether he expects that that will advance the Conservative cause in Scotland? I say, Sir, that this is a trumpery proceeding—a proceeding petty and contemptible. I am only delighted if the Unionist Party are going to adopt tactics of this description. I propose myself to meet that Motion as it was met by Mr. W. H. Smith when it was made on the subject of Lord Salisbury sending his carriages to carry voters to the poll. The noble Lord has said that Leith is so near to Edinburgh, and it is said that a Peer cannot make a speech in St. George's, Hanover Square, when there is an election going on at Greenwich, because Greenwich is in the neighbourhood of London. Is that the doctrine laid down? We shall, as I say, treat this matter as Mr. W. HI. Smith did, and I move to omit all the words after the word "that," in order to add "this House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day," so that we may transact some business which will be worthy of the House of Commons.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by congratulating himself and his Party that we had chosen this subject for our first attack in force upon the Government of which he is a Member. It is perfectly true that we have not hitherto been occupied in attacking the Government. Our function hitherto has been in supporting them; and, so far as my recollection carries me back through the week since my right hon. Friend took Office, it appears to me that it is upon us, and upon us almost alone, that he has had to rely in the critical Parliamentary moments through which he has had to pass. It is a most ungrateful return for the services which we have rendered that he should make this sort of retort upon the Constitutional address of my noble Friend, and that he should make a speech which, though it began jocosely, ended in a storm of fiery indignation, the cause of which I could not very easily fathom. I think my noble Friend has been extremely well advised in bringing before the House of Commons a crucial and critical example by which we may for ever test the doctrine whether a Peer may or may not take part in Parliamentary elections. If we decide to-night that the action of Lord Rose-bery in speaking at Edinburgh during the Leith election was not an action which comes within the fair meaning of the Sessional Order, well and good. Let it henceforth be known that every Peer may do everything he likes, may speak where he likes and when he likes, in regard to any election whatsoever, and that the Sessional Order which we still go through the form of passing at the beginning of each and every Session is not worth the paper upon which it is printed. That doctrine, which will be the result of the decision to which the right hon. Gentleman wants to bring us to-night, may be a good or a bad doctrine, but I maintain that at all events it is a new doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman has taken the trouble to bring forward two precedents on his own side. I will examine those precedents, and bring precedents from the other side. The first and most important precedent to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was the precedent of Lord Beaconsfield in 1876, when be had been raised to the House of Lords, and when, in consequence of his accession to the Peerage, a vacancy was created in his county. Lord Beaconsfield did no doubt go down to speak at an agricultural dinner, as was his wont, while the election consequent upon the vacancy was going on; but was that speech a Party speech? Was it an attempt to interfere with or to influence the election which was going on? The right hon. Gentleman says it was such an interference.

I said it was a Party speech.

He bases that statement upon the fact that the Bulgarian atrocity agitation was, as he says, at its height, and that no man could speak upon that question without trenching upon Party politics, and without influencing those who had to determine the issue of the election. The right hon. Gentleman's history is at fault. In 1876 the Bulgarian agitation was not at its height. It had begun, but it was not then a question which divided the two great Parties in the State. On the contrary, though the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian had no doubt even at that date taken a very strong line upon the subject, he was not the Leader of the Party, and those who were the Leaders of the Party had not at that time identified themselves with the right hon. Gentleman's views on foreign policy. I am not sure that if we examined the speeches the right hon. Gentleman made at that time we should find he had finally given in his adhesion to the movement which was afterwards headed, with such successful electoral results, by the late Prime Minister. I have not been able to personally verify the fact that I am now going to state to the House, but it has been given to me by a friend in whose accuracy I have perfect confidence. He informs me that at this very meeting the Liberal M.P. for Bucks was in the chair, and that Lord Carrington was present and spoke. "Hear, hear," says the right hon. Gentleman. Why, he knew it! The right hon. Gentleman knew this. [Sir W. HARCOURT: Both candidates were there.] I am sure if the House had known that the right hon. Gentleman knew that——

Perhaps the light hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that Lord Beaconsfield alluded to the candidates and said, "I hope the best man will win."

If the right hon. Gentleman never makes a greater Party speech than that when he takes, part in a contested election, I am sure we shall be very well satisfied. It is perfectly evident from the facts I have given, from the people who were there, from the character of the speeches, and from the character of those who spoke, that the dinner was really what it professed to be —an agricultural dinner, not a Party meeting, and not one that could by any possibility he said to have been started in connection with Party politics. The next precedent the right hon. Gentleman alluded to was, that in 1886 some carriages of Peers were used at an election in the East of London. Whether it he right or not that carriages should be used in that way, at all events no objection has ever been raised that I know to that course. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman, "if yon don't object to carriages, why should you object to speeches? Surely, to carry voters to the poll in a couple of broughams would have more effect on the result of the election than all the speeches of all the Prime Ministers in the world." I do not know what estimate is formed by gentlemen opposite of Lord Rosebery's oratory. I feel it is not my business to put any electoral valuation upon it. It would be quite out of place, quite out of order, to make any comments upon Saturday's speech—a very interesting attempt to explain the unexplainable, and possibly one which the right hon. Gentleman is right in thinking could not have influenced a vote. Whether his estimate of the actual speech of Lord Rosebery be a sound estimate or not, my objection is not to the particular speech or the particular man, but it is to a man who is a Lord of Parliament, and not merely a Lord of Parliament, but the most important Lord of Parliament now living, inasmuch as he is the First Minister of the Crown, going down to make a speech in a town which the right hon. Gentleman has not attempted to deny cannot be, for electoral purposes, regarded as unconnected with the burgh in which a contest was going on at the time. The right hon. Gentleman has given his precedents and I have dealt with them. I will now give him a precedent on the other side. I am informed that the late Mr. Wardle, Member for Derbyshire, died on February 16, 1892. The present Duke of Devonshire had recently succeeded to the Peerage, and, long previous to Mr. Wardle's death, had fixed a date, that fell during the course of the contest for the vacant seat, as one on which he would receive an address in Derby. The receipt of an address in Derby did not necessarily carry with it a controversial speech, but so anxious was the Duke of Devonshire not to infringe what, until the right hon. Gentleman spoke to-night, we had been in the habit of supposing were our rights—the rights of the House of Commons—that he put off his meeting until a date when the election was over, and when no suspicion could possibly be entertained that he was using his special advantages for making a speech within the county of which he was lord lieutenant at a time when an election was proceeding. If you ask me whether I personally and individually attach very great value to, or am inclined to fight an arduous contest fur, these privileges which the right hon. Gentleman wants to give up, I say it does not appear to me to be a matter of transcendent importance. I confess I watch with astonishment the action of the gentlemen who wish to extend the privileges of the Peerage. I have always supposed up to this time that hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to curtail, not to extend, the privileges of Peers, but I now gather that is not so. I learn from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman that he desires to see the whole House of Lords taking an active part in the contests in the various parts of the country with which they are connected. If the right hon. Gentleman desires that, it is not for us to object. The Peers are by their character and position men, in the majority of cases, who naturally have considerable interest in the places where they live. He has told us the majority of the Leers would be desirous of exercising their influence rather on our side than on his. If he wishes to make it easier for them to exercise their influence why should we interfere? This, I think, I ought to add. Lord Rosebery has now convinced us finally that the Sessional Order we pass every time we assemble must be acknowledged to be a farce. Many of us have long suspected it would not hold water; now the thing is conclusively demonstrated. I invite the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, to put a Motion on the Paper rescinding it, and if he does I shall consider that, at all events, he has acted a consistent and logical part—a part which, whether it be or be not for the dignity of the House, is for our interest as a Party. If there be a general consensus of opinion that it is desirable to increase the privileges of the House of Lords, and that we must withdraw from the position we have occupied—namely, that Peers must refrain from interfering in elections, we must abandon that doctrine, and henceforth it will be the right, and if the right then, undoubtedly, the duty, of every Lord of Parliament to do what he can to return to this House that candidate who happens to agree with him in general politics.

I do not propose to enter upon the grounds on which this Motion has been made, but rather to discuss it in the spirit displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposi- tion, and to ask the House whether there are not some very broad Constitutional grounds upon which we ought to come to the conclusion that this Sessional Order is obsolete, is unfounded, and should not be put forward as a claim of a privilege we do not possess. This House, no doubt, has some inherent privileges which can control all our actions within the House; it has also some privileges which can control persons out of it. We are a High Court of Parliament. We object to be libelled, and we have inherent power to punish the offenders who are guilty of contempt towards us. But we have no inherent privilege by which Ave can punish persons by mere Resolution of the House. The right and privilege with regard to contempt does not depend upon Resolution. No Resolution of the House enables us to summon anyone here unless we have a legal right and a right which will be sanctioned by a Court of Law. If we summon the editor of the paper who has libelled this House to the Bar, we can compel him to appear; and if he is brought to the Bar, a Court of Law would say we were justified in our action, because it was alleged he had been guilty of contempt. But such a Resolution as that we are dealing with now is simply inoperative, and there is no power of enforcing it. It is an empty Resolution. If a Member of the House of Peers refuses to come here we cannot bring him here. The old practice was that if we thought a Peer had offended we communicated with the Peers; we made complaint to the Peers to deal with their Member because he had infringed our rights. But it is simply a mere idle form we go through when we declare there has been a Breach of Privilege and yet not be able to enforce any punishment.

I said, "I would not summon him to the Bar."

With groat respect to the noble Lord, let me say you cannot summon Lord Rosebery to the Bar or anywhere else. We have no remedy. All we can say is that, in our opinion, our Privileges have been broken. I think the House will see there is no substantial ground for saying that the interference of a Peer in an election constitutes a Breach of the Privileges of this House. In olden times there was a statutory enactment that no great man or other should interfere with the freedom of election. Men with feudal power came to the Court-houses and terrorised their retainers. Against that interference Parliament protested. Then in later times, in 1631, when the Peers of Parliament held boroughs in their hands and wrote letters commanding the return of certain persons, came that protest upon which the Resolution of 1802 was founded, that Peers should not interfere in elections —that is, to the extent of dominating electors so as to prevent the due exercise of their power. Then Peers had such power; now they have not. Interference in elections is either due or undue interference or it is not. If there is undue interference you find your remedy under the law. A Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church lately unduly interfered in an election and the law set him right. The Resolution we pass every year is an obsolete and a meaningless Resolution, and the time will come—next Session, I hope—when the House of Commons will have to say whether the period has not arrived when we should cease altogether to go through this form of protesting without foundation and without having the power to give any effect to our protests. The Resolution does not add to the dignity of the House or to the protection of its Members.

said, that nothing gave him greater pleasure than to come forward in order to defend the natural and proper rights of Peers, and particularly those of Lord Rosebery. The noble Lord opposite had asked whether this Sessional Order was a reality or a sham. He thought that the noble Lord had realised that not only the Leader of the Opposition, but every other Member in that House, was convinced that the thing was an utter sham. There were many absurdities connected with the House of Commons which he should be glad to see swept away. For instance, at the opening of a Session the Beefeaters were seen walking about the Palace of Westminster with their lanterns, and people were told that under some ancient Order of the House which had not been repealed—because no one had taken the trouble of repealing it—they were looking to see if Guy Fawkes was to be found upon the premises. The Order which was now under discussion was precisely as absurd and ridiculous as that directing the search for Guy Fawkes. Any Order of the House was absurd when they had no sort of power to give effect to it. The noble Lord had drawn a terrible picture of Peers sweeping through the country and carrying Conservative Members at every election by their resistless eloquence. He was not afraid of this sacred band of 500 Peers appearing on public platforms. What be was afraid of was of Peers using surreptitious influence. If the Peers came out into the open he should be delighted to see them on election platforms: but it was absurd for the noble Lord to contend that when a Peer appeared on a public platform everyone would fall down and worship him, and vote for his candidate.

Does the hon. Gentleman deny my proposition?

What is it?

That proposition is, that Peers may appear on platforms if the Resolution is done away with.

said, that he, for one, had not the slightest objection to the Peers appearing on every public platform in the country. He went further than that. Three Members of the Conservative Party bad brought in this Session Bills to enable Peers to sit in the House of Commons, and he himself had brought in a similar measure last year. He was in favour of Peers being allowed to sit in the Representative House provided they did not seek to pop out of one House into the other whenever it stated them, but undertook during their lives to give up their right to sit in the other House and to abide their chances of being elected to the Commons at the poll. He did not wish to impose fresh disqualifications upon the Peers, but merely to remove those which at present surrounded them. He wanted them to have the fullest rights that every other citizen of the country possessed—no less and no more.

said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer always reminded him of the Psalmist because of the vigour with which he attacked a man, turned his way upside down, and broke him to pieces like a potter's vessel. These qualities bad been strikingly exhibited in his reply to the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Motion was contemptible—a Motion, be it observed, which affirmed one of the most solemn of the Sessional Orders passed at the beginning of each Session of the House. The right hon. Gentleman bad also said that sending carriages to elections was of more importance than Lord Rosebery's speech—in other words, that one Rosebery was not worth more than one or two broughams. He wondered what the admirers of the Prime Minister would say to that. The only explanation or defence that had been put forward for the appearance of Lord Rosebery at Edinburgh was that the meeting had been planned long before the election was expected. In that case the plan ought to have been altered, and Lord Rosebery ought to have pursued the same honourable course that the Duke of Devonshire had done, who, finding that an election was coming on at the time fixed for him to address a meeting, excused himself from attending the meeting on that ground. It was now said that the Sessional Order had no validity and ought not to exist. The Conservatives had heard that with pleasure. If the Sessional Order forbidding Peers to interfere at elections were dropped the Conservatives would gain ton to one by the change, for there were 10 Conservative Peers to one Liberal. Therefore, when the next Session arrived, the question would arise whether they should any longer continue this Sessional Order, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had described as nothing less than a sham.

said, that his right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Bury had treated the matter as being of really no great importance, and in that he agreed with them. He, however, should wish to guard himself against going the lengths of the doctrine that bad been laid down by the right hon. Gentlemen. In former times, no doubt, there had existed a jealousy on the part of the House of Commons of Peers interfering in Parliamentary elections; and although Peers could not be summoned at the Bar of the House, and although a Message to the House of Lords complaining of the conduct of their Members might be illusory, the House of Commons in days gone by had complete control of the matter in their own hands, because they determined, through their Election Committees, whether an election was a good or a bad one. There might be a question whether an Election Petition could not even now be presented against an election, in case of a Peer having exercised direct influence over an election. He regarded Lord Rosebery's speech at Edinburgh as perfectly immaterial; but if the noble Earl had gone into the Leith Burghs and had appeared upon the platform side by side with Mr. Munro-Ferguson during the election, and had made a speech, that would have been an interference with the election which, in the event of Mr. Munro-Ferguson being returned,a Committee of the House of Commons in the old days might have held justified them in setting aside the election. In these circumstances, the House ought not too hastily to give up the power which they possessed in this matter, for the Courts of Law, following the old Common Law doctrine of the ineligibility of Peers to interfere in elections, might void an election so affected.

said, he hailed with pleasure the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin, that there was a protection in the Common Law against the interference of Peers in elections. He did not intend to press his Motion.

said, that mention had been made of the historic occasion on which Lord Beaconsfield addressed the Agricultural Association of Bucks. He happened to have been present at the dinner, and he would tell the House what occurred there. It was perfectly correct to say that the Member for the county, Mr. Lambert, was in the chair; but in his opening remarks he said it was the practice to exclude political matters on such occasions, and he hoped that that practice would be observed on that occasion. Lord Carrington replied to the toast of the House of Lords, and adhered most strictly to the rule excluding politics from the dirners of the Agricultural Society. Later on the toast of the Prime Minister was given, and Lord Beaconsfield replied. He said he would certainly not break the rule by introducing politics, and he was sure the company did not wish him to break it. At that there was much cheering, and Lord Beaconsfield asked, did the cheering indicate that the company desired him to talk about politics, which was replied to by still louder cheering. Lord Beaconsfield then proceeded to deal with political topics; and if Lord Carrington's features were any evidence of his feelings, he certainly regarded Lord Beaconsfield's action as a breach of the ruling of the chairman.

Does the Government intend to do anything about the Standing Order?

If the House passes to the Orders of the Day, that expresses the opinion of the House on the matter.

No, it does not.