I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, with regard to the case of Surgeon Lea, of H.M.S. Ringarooma, who, doubting the mental fitness of Captain Johnson for the command of the ship, had him put on the sick list, whereupon the captain put the doctor under arrest, from which he was released almost at once by the senior naval officer of the port; what was the finding of the court martial convened by Admiral Bridge to try Surgeon Lea; whether he is aware that the court ruled that they had not anything to do with the question of the captain's health and refused to hear evidence on the point of his mental fitness, and also refused Surgeon Lea's offer to produce medical evidence; whether telegrams and reports have been received at the Admiralty from Sydney, where the court martial was held, and what decision has been come to on the question; what length of service has Surgeon Lea had; and whether it is a fact that his record is an untarnished one?

This question is still under consideration, and I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will postpone it.

I beg to ask the Representative of the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the fact that the French Postal Authorities have authorised the formation of a cyclist staff' for the delivery of telegrams, and have contributed a sum sufficient to pay for the hire-purchase of the machines; whether he is aware that in isolated cases London postmen use their own machines for travelling between distant offices; and, whether he will authorise the establishment of cyclist corps in this country for the more speedy delivery of telegrams and express letters in the large towns and along the country roads, and contribute towards the cost of the machines required?

—The Postmaster General has no official information as to a cyclist staff having been authorised by the French Administration of Posts and Telegraphs for the delivery of telegrams. In a few cases London postmen use their own machines for the collection of letters. The question of the use of cycles for postal and telegraph purposes has been for some time under the consideration of the Post Office, and they are already being tried in certain localities.

I beg to ask the Representative of the Postmaster General—(1) whether he is aware that large numbers of plain (or private) postcards, bearing adhesive penny stamps, are only delivered abroad on payment of a fine of 3d. (or 30 centimes) in every case, solely on account of the absence of the printed words "post card" on the cards delivered; and, whether the Post Office will make arrangements with Foreign Post Offices that the required words may be written by the sender, or omitted, so that large quantities of private post cards may not be disqualified for use in Foreign correspondence, and the recipients heavily fined for the senders' want of knowledge of the rules. The hon. Member further asked (2) the Representative of the Postmaster General, whether, referring to the hon. Member for Canterbury's question in the House of Commons on 8th April 1895, requesting the Postmaster General to state under what authority, statutory or other, the fine levied on the delivery of an unstamped post card amounts to four times the deficient postage, whereas insufficiently stamped letters and newspapers are only charged double the deficiency, and to the correspondence,which has since passed between the hon. Member and the Post Office, dated; the 29th of April, the 11th of May, he 24th of May, and the 11th of June, the supports the course taken by his predecessor against any reduction in the fine complained of; and, if so, upon what ground?

With respect to the first question, the Postal Union Convention requires that a post card shall have the words "Post Card" clearly printed upon it. The Postmaster-General cannot alter the requirements of the Union, and foreign post cards which do not conform to these requirements will be liable to be surcharged as letters. With respect to the second question, the essential feature of the private post card is that it must be prepaid. The rule is very clearly explained on page 6 of the "Postal Guide," where it is stated that a private card without a stamp is not a post card, but a letter. The hon. Member is aware that the authority for the rule is the Treasury Warrant of August 24th 1894.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has made any arrangements with the East London Water Company with regard to reverting to the constant service system, with a view of preventing an increase of the disease and sickness which is so prevalent at the present time?

I understand that the Company have now extended the hours of supply from about six in the morning until about five in the afternoon daily, thus giving a continuous supply of 11 hours. In reply to the other part of my hon. Friend's question, I am much obliged to him for his courtesy in giving me ample notice of his intention. But I do not think there is anything I can add to the statement which I made in reply to another question on Friday last.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether his attention has been drawn to the number of fatal accidents which have recently occurred to women who have descended from balloons in parachutes; (2) and, whether he will issue an order making it illegal for any performance to take place in future by which the lives of the performers are risked by these senseless exhibitions?

I have seen in the newspapers reports of the accidents referred to. I can only repeat what has been more than once stated in this House by my predecessors, that, however foolish and degrading such exhibitions as the hon. Member mentions may be, there is no power to interfere with them by law, except in the case of children under 14.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that, owing to a clause inserted in recent specifications for line-of-battleships, sent to the shipbuilders in the East End of London to tender, that the said firms have found it impossible to tender; and, whether he will adopt means to expunge that clause from all future specifications, so as to place the shipbuilding firms of the East End of London in the position they hitherto enjoyed, by which they will be able to tender for future contracts?

I have had the question of the forms of tender for battleships under my most anxious consideration for the last few weeks. That is all I am prepared to say at the present moment, but the hon. Member may rest assured that I am giving the question my personal and earnest attention.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the statement made on the 21st June last by the Secretary of State for War in the late Administration, that the resignation by His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge of the Commandership in Chief of the Army would take effect on the 1st of October, the name of his successor in that position will be announced now or before discussion in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates?

The name of His Royal Highness's successor will be announced before discussion in Committee of Supply on Army Estimates; and the Secretary of State for War will make a statement on the subject in another place this evening.

Are we not entitled to hear that statement which is going to be made in the other House by the Secretary of State?

I think the hon. Gentleman will understand that upon a subject of this importance it is not desirable to anticipate a statement which will be made shortly by the Secretary of State.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can say when H.M.S. Minotaur will take up her station as training ship in Cork Harbour?

A large number of preliminary arrangements have to be considered before a training ship can be stationed at a fresh locality. These arrangements are now under discussion, and no conclusion has yet been arrived at.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to station this training ship in Cork Harbour was announced early last March by the late First Lord of the Admiralty? Can the hon. Member give any reason for the long delay that has taken place?

There may have been some private communications ; but I am not aware that any announcement to that effect was made in the House.

May I remind the hon. Member that the announcement was contained in the statement of the late First Lord of the Admiralty which was made in the House on the 7th of March?

Further questions were put by the hon. Member, and answers given on behalf of the Admiralty; but no decisive answer is reported. There are many important preliminary arrangements to be considered, and no final decision has yet been arrived at.

Do I understand the reply to be that no final decision has been arrived at with regard to the transfer of a ship to Cork Harbour?

I think the hon. Member must give notice of that question, which is different from the question on the paper.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the Channel Squadron will visit Queens-town this year?

It is not contemplated that the Channel Fleet will visit Queenstown this year.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will make inquiry into the conditions of granting pensions to the Scottish police, with the view to placing the Scottish police on the same footing as the English police in respect of their pensions?

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been drawn to the inequality as regards retiring pensions between the English and Scotch county police forces. And, if he will give his consideration to the subject, with a view of removing the inequality which the Scotch police complain of?

In reply to this question and to a similar question by the hon. Member for Peebles and Selkirk, I have to say the Secretary for Scotland will consider this subject, and if the hon. Members have any representation to make to him on the matter, he will be glad to receive it in writing.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether, in accordance with Section 54 of the Government of India Act, 1858, the fact that orders were sent directing the actual commencement of hostilities beyond the external frontiers of India, were as regards the Chitral Expedition, communicated to both Houses of Parliament within three months after the sending of such order; and, if not, why this has not been done?

No communication under the Act has been made to Parliament as regards Chitral. The orders sent for the advance of a force to relieve the Political Agent in Chitral have not been held to be of a nature to fall within the provisions of Section 54. An examination of the precedents shows that the Section has never been held to apply to cases such as the present, where the operations have been carried on with frontier tribes, and not an organised Power beyond Her Majesty's Indian Protectorate. The only cases in which the consent of Parliament has been asked since the Act of 1858 was passed, are those when hostilities were carried on in Abyssinia, Afghanistan, Egypt and Burma. As the House has already been informed by the right hon. the First Lord of the Treasury, papers relating to the Chitral Expedition, including the most recent instructions, will be laid on the Table of the House as early as possible.

asked whether the noble Lord considered Chitral within the external frontiers of India?

Yes.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury whether the papers relating to Chitral would be laid on the Table before the Indian Budget was introduced?

replied in the affirmative, but added that he did not think the Indian Budget should be taken until Supply was finished, and he hoped that would not take very long.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether the troops now in Chitral are to form a permanent force of occupation; if not, which regiments are to be withdrawn; and can he state an approximate date when such withdrawal will take place?

There will be a permanent force in Chitral territory, consisting of two native infantry regiments, two guns of a mountain battery, and one company of sappers. What particular regiments will be selected I cannot say, but the Government of India, I understand, propose to withdraw the Pioneer battalion now there. Thus the addition to the force in the whole Gilgit Agency will be one regiment, one company of sappers, and one mountain battery. The withdrawal of the Pioneer regiment will take place as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the dangerous state of Newcastle Pier, County Down, which is now a total wreck; whether his attention has been called to the last Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, where it is reported by the divisional officer of the district that a good harbour at Newcastle would undoubtedly give a great impetus to the fishing industry on this coast, and, again, that it would be very valuable for landing fish and for refuge; and, whether, considering the danger to which the fishermen are now exposed and the urgent necessity for a harbour at Newcastle, he will consider the desirability of sending an independent engineer to report to him on the matter?

said, that before the right hon. Gentleman considered the question he should like to ask him to give this matter his most favourable consideration, seeing that the Government were so anxious to foster the fishing industry of Ireland.

I am afraid that I must refer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend behind me to the offer that was made by my predecessor on the 10th May last, to which no reply appears to have been received. What Sir John Hibbert said on that occasion was as follows:—

"The Pier is vested in the County Authorities and its ruin is due, not to faulty construction, but to their neglect to make timely repairs. If the Grand Jury is prepared to present for the amount required, the Government on their side would be willing to assist by making a loan repayable in a term of years, and the Engineer of the Board of Works would make the necessary report and estimate, under the provisions of the Act 16 and 17 Vict. cap. 136."

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would consider the matter during the recess.

I will certainly consider it.

asked whether the Authorities upon the spot were agreed that the ruin of the pier was due to its faulty construction by the Irish Board of Works.

That I do not know, but I will make inquiries into the matter.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the fog siren on Mew Island, at the entrance to Belfast Lough, whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights, after their long experiments, have yet come to a decision as to the improvements to be made; whether he is aware of the damage recently done to shipping on the county Down coast by reason of the inadequacy of the siren on Mew Island, and if he is aware of the constant dread of master mariners sailing to and from Belfast when entering or leaving Belfast Lough during a fog; and whether something will be done without further delay to remedy this dangerous defect.

As the result of the experiments with fog sirens, recently made at Mew Island, the Commissioners of Irish Lights have, with the view of remedying the defect complained of, recommended that a second fog siren be established at Mew Island. This recommendation, having been approved by the Trinity House, has been sanctioned by the Board of Trade, and I am informed by the Commissioners that the work will be proceeded with at once.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the Board of Works in Ireland were, at the Castleconnell Petty Sessions, on the 5th instant, fined in the sum of £1,820 and costs for having failed to provide a Queen's gap in two feel weirs on the Shannon; that the magistrates, in imposing this heavy penalty, acted on a decision of the Irish Court of Queen's Bench; and that such decision was based on the repeal of s. 41 of the 5 & 6 Vic., c. 106, and other enactments by The Statute Law Revision Act, 1892; (2) whether, seeing that the Statute Law Revision Acts are confined to repealing enactments which have become obsolete, and are understood to effect no practical change in the Law, he can explain how it happened that important enactments, such as those referred to, were repealed in this way, with the consequences described; (3) who is the official responsible for this repeal; and (4) whether any Vote for his salary appears on the Estimates?

The facts are stated in the first paragraph with substantial accuracy, except that the decision of the Queen's Bench Division was not based upon the express repeal by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1892 of Section 41 of the 5 & 6 Vic. c. 106, but on the implied repeal of this Section by the 9th Section and 3 following of the 26 & 27 Vic. cap. 114. With regard to the second paragraph of the Question, the repeal of this Section by the Act of 1892 was, under the circumstances, and according to the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, correct. Statute Law Revision Bills are prepared under the superintendence of the Statute Law Revision Committee, and any doubtful points affecting Ireland are referred to the Irish Attorney General. As to the concluding paragraph, both the salary of the Attorney General and the expenses of the Statute Law Revision Committee are provided for in the Estimates.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that though Towns Commissioners in Ireland are by s. 99 of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, enabled to put Part III. of that Act into operation, and consequently to acquire lands for the purpose, neither that nor any other existing Act constitutes them a corporate body for the purpose of having the land vested in them, with the result that the land has to be leased or conveyed to individual Commissioners with resulting inconvenience and law costs whenever such Commissioners cease to be Commissioners; (2) whether he is aware that s. 4, ss. 7, of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871, made provision for such cases, but was inadvertently repealed by The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878; (3) Whether under s. 67, ss. 3, of The Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, other bodies putting the Act into force are constituted corporate bodies for the purpose of holding lands; and (4) whether he will introduce a Bill reviving s. 4, ss. 7, of The Local Government (Ireland) Act, 1871?

My attention has been, called to doubts which have arisen upon the point mentioned in the first paragraph of the question, but I am informed that no case of the kind referred to has come within the knowledge of the Local Government Board. The facts are as stated in the second and third paragraphs of the question, save that I am unable to say that the repeal of s. 4, ss. 7, of the Act of 1871 by the Act of 1878 was inadvertent. I hope to be able next Session to propose legislation in the direction suggested in the fourth paragraph of the question.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that two bodies of Town Commissioners had acquired land for the purposes of this Act, and that in the cases of those two bodies the question arose?

No such cases have come within the knowledge of the Local Government Board. I am not otherwise able to answer the hon. Member's question.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the Local Government Board had had applications from the Middleton and Skibbereen Town Commissioners?

I am not aware of that fact. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly repeat the question I will have an inquiry made in the meantime.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether it is the practice of local authorities in England acquiring land under Section 57, Sub-section 1, of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, specifically for the purposes of Part III. of that Act to obtain from the Local Government Board their consent, as provided in Section 57, Sub-section 3, to the appropriation of the rate for the purpose for which it has been acquired, or whether the local authorities have dispensed with such consent; and, whether, if such consents have been dispensed with, such action of the local authorities is legal?

In no case has a local authority applied to the Local Government Board for their consent to the appropriation of land under the circumstances mentioned in the question. I am not prepared to say that the action of the authorities in dispensing with such consent is illegal, or that any intervention on the part of the Board is necessary in such cases where the consent is not obtained.

inquired whether the Local Government Board had taken advice on the question, and, if so, whether they were satisfied with the advice received?

We have taken the opinion of our own officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is in a position to report the result of the departmental conference with Sir J. B. Thurston, Governor of Fiji, as to the practical working of the native taxation scheme and the objections that have been urged against it; and, whether any reforms in the mode of raising the revenue in the Crown Colony of Fiji are contemplated?

Owing partly to the change of administration and partly to the ill-health of Sir John Thurston, the conference has not yet taken place. I am, therefore, unable to make any further statement at present. My predecessor in office, dealing with a similar question, said that he had no intention of making any alteration. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Sheriff-Substitute Gebbie, at Dumbarton, on the 5th inst. in a case under the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Act, 1895, in which he expressed his opinion that the Act was uncalled for and unnecessary, and would not accomplish any good purpose, although it would materially add to the expenditure of the country, and cast upon the officials a very large additional amount of work, as well as causing very great inconvenience to jurymen, called from their homes and business to act upon such inquests; whether it was within the province of the Sheriff Substitute, on such an occasion, to make any such remarks or criticism upon an Act so recently passed by the Legislature, and which was only coming into operation; and, whether the Government intend to take any notice of the conduct of the Sheriff-Substitute?

I have referred to the Sheriffs remarks complained of. The statute made large alterations in procedure, and in such a case it is not unusual for a Judge to give his view of the operation of an Act. The remarks made do not suggest that the Sheriff will not loyally carry out the provisions of the Act, and they are not so clearly beyond his provision as to present a case for my interference.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the repeated delays in the mail service to the North of Ireland, via Stranraer and Larne, occurring chiefly between Carlisle and Stranraer; whether any steps will be taken to secure regularity; and whether he will consent to the return on the subject on the Paper for this day?

The working of the Stranraer and Larne service is carefully watched day by day, and if any serious irregularity occurs representations are made to the companies in fault. Such representations have been made during the present month, and it is hoped that they will have a good effect. There is no objection to furnishing the return asked for by the hon. Member, and it is now being prepared for the four months from April 1 to the 31st ult. ["Hear, hear!"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the difficulties of applying Section 14 of the Factories and Workshops Act, 1895, to the shirt industry of Londonderry and its neighbourhood; and whether, before deciding to apply the section to this district, he will consider representations from those concerned in the manufacture?

The section will come into force on the 1st January next, and I have no power to suspend or modify its application. This could only be done by an Amending Act. After the careful consideration given to this question by the Grand Committee in the last Parliament, I cannot think that it would be right to propose any amendment of the section, at any rate until fair trial has been given to its operation both in Londonderry and elsewhere.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, under what authority the Commissioner of Police for the City of London has made regulations determining the course to be pursued by some omnibuses passing through the City, preventing these omnibuses traversing Cheapside; whether the Home Secretary, on the 27th July, 1895, approved of these regulations; whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to the provision contained in Section 11, Sub-Section (2), of The Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, prohibiting the Commisioner of Police and the Secretary of State from limiting the number of Metropolitan stage carriages that may pass down any street in pursuance of their ordinary trade; whether these regulations violate the above provision, in that they limit the number of Metropolitan stage carriages that may pass down Cheapside; and, has he withdrawn, or does he intend to withdraw, his approval of these regulations.

The regulations were made under Section 11 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, and were approved by me on the date mentioned. My attention was drawn to the provision of the Act quoted, which I do not think is violated by the regulations in question, although the point is not absolutely free from doubt. The regulations were made for the public convenience, and I do not intend to withdraw my approval from them. Regulations equally open to the objection raised by the hon. Member were approved by my predecessors in 1877 and in 1891; and if there be a doubt as to their legal validity, it must be settled by the Law Courts. ["Hear, hear?"]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Parish Council for St. Clears, in the county of Carmarthen, petitioned the Standing Joint Committee for the use of the magistrates' room for the purpose of holding their meetings in it (the Secretary of State for the Home Department having determined that the room was suitable for holding such meetings), and the Council being therefore entitled by Law to the use of the room; whether he is aware that this decision was communicated in June of the present year to the Standing Joint Committee, and they again declined to grant the Parish Council the use of the room; and, whether he will state the course the parish council should adopt in order to enforce their legal rights?

It is the case that my predecessor determined, under the power conferred on him by the Local Government Act, 1894, that the room in question was a suitable place for holding the meetings of the Parish Council; and that this determination was in June last communicated to the Standing Joint Committee. Apparently through a misunderstanding as to the effect of this decision, the Committee did not give effect to it. I am now in communication with the Committee, and I am in hope that a friendly settlement will shortly be arrived at in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether Mr. England, Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Queen's College, Cork, was at the end of last year retired from that position under the "65 Rule," which at that date was considered to apply to the case of Queen's College Professors; (2) whether, since then, in the case of Dr. Moffatt, of Queen's College, Galway, it has been decided that the "65 Rule" does not apply to Queen's College Professorships; (3) what loss in salary Professor England has suffered by his compulsory retirement; and (4) whether it is intended to compensate him for the injury he has sustained by the mistaken application of the rule to his case?

Mr. England was retired on December 22, 1894, when he had attained his 69th year of age and his 42nd year of service. The emoluments of his appointment were returned at £464. 10s., and he was awarded a pension of £309. 13s. 4d.—the maximum pension he could become entitled to. With regard to the second paragraph, the application of the Order as a matter of policy to the Queen's Colleges was referred to the late Lord Chancellor, who held that the regulations contained in the Order "ought not" to apply to these colleges, and the Treasury have since appointed a Committee to inquire whether any, and what, age limit should be applied for compulsory retirement in them. I am not, however, aware that the Committee has yet made its Report. In reply to the last paragraph of the question, I am disposed to concur in the opinion expressed by my predecessor, who had a similar application before him, viz., that, under all the circumstances, the case presents no feature of hardship, and that it is not one in which any special recommendation could be made to the Treasury. ["Hear, hear!"]

asked whether it was the fact that Professor England was compelled to retire under a rule which was subsequently held not to apply to his case?

No, Sir, the rule does apply to his case.

asked whether it had not been held in Dr. Moffatt's case that the rule did not apply?

No, Sir, I believe not.

said, that he believed that Dr. Moffatt was reinstated, and that the warrant was withdrawn in his case.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to lay upon the Table the Report of the Commission dealing with the 65th Rule?

said, that he would consider the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he will lay upon the Table of the House copies of the communications between himself and the Land Commission relating to the proposed legislation on the Land Question recently referred to by him?

I have considered the case to which the hon. and learned Member referred me as a precedent, and have come to the conclusion that there is not sufficient analogy between that case and the present one to render it incumbent on me to depart from the ordinary rule in these matters. The communications now in question were departmental. It is not the practice to publish correspondence of that nature, and it does not appear to me that any public purpose could be served by making an exception in the present instance.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an assurance that in future he would give up having any such communications? [Cries of "Order!"]

I do not think that it would be expedient under any circumstances to undertake not to make departmental communications.

Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend that Judges of the High Court in Ireland are officers of this Department?

It is the Land Commission which is a part of the Government.

I would ask whether, as a fair rent can be fixed in these Courts as well as in the County Courts, Mr. Justice Bewley considered that it would be proper——

Order, order! That does not arise out of the question.

On the point of order——[Ministerial Cries of "Order!"]

The hon. Member should give notice. I have already said that in my opinion it is not, a question arising from the question on the Paper.

The better course will be that I should raise the whole question on the salary of the right hon. Gentleman, and I therefore beg to give notice that I shall do so.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill next Session dealing with Private Bill Procedure in Scotland?

I am unable to give any undertaking as to the legislative proposals for next Session; but I can assure the hon. Member that the subject he refers to will have careful consideration.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland—(1) whether he was correctly reported in the Belfast News Letter to have said on the 18th of July, in speaking of his opponent in North Derry, Mr. Houston, Q.C., that Dr. Houston had one great advantage in coming to the constituency. The time was short, therefore they would see little of him, hear little of him, and learn little of him, and that was his chance. If they saw as much of him, and knew as much of him as his profession did, they would hunt him from their quarters; (2) whether he is aware that, on the 22nd of July, Dr. Houston attempted to address a meeting at Limavady, but was prevented from, speaking by a mob of several thousands of Mr. Attorney's supporters, who repeatedly pelted Dr. and Mrs. Houston with stones, eggs, and other missiles; and, (3) whether any steps have been taken, or will be taken, to bring to justice the instigators of and ringleaders in this riot?

asked whether this question, concerning an election dispute was a proper one to put upon the Paper?

Was not the right hon. and learned Gentleman at the time in question a Minister of the Crown?

I remember that the question was brought under my notice before it was put down, and I expressed my opinion to the hon. and learned Member that it was very undesirable to put such a question on the Paper, but that I could not say that it was out of order.

You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that I said that I only put it down under a strong sense of public duty. [Ministerial laughter.]

I have not seen the newspaper report referred to in the first paragraph of the question. If it be to the effect indicated, it is entirely inaccurate and conveys a false impression as to what I said on the occasion, and in this connection I may observe that when the matter was first brought under my notice, before the meeting of Parliament, I at once informed the learned Gentleman named in the question that the report was entirely inaccurate, and assured him that I had not made, nor intended to make, any reflection on his private character or professional honour. With regard to the second paragraph, a report has been made by the police, stating that Dr. Houston attempted to address a meeting on the date mentioned, but was prevented from doing so by the shouting and hooting of about 150 persons composing part of a crowd of five or six hundred surrounding him. The police also report that there was no rioting, as alleged, but that two or three eggs, which did not come from this crowd, were thrown at Dr. Houston and his party. Two stones are also alleged to have been thrown on the occasion into the carriage conveying Dr. Houston's party, one of which is said to have lightly struck his conducting agent, without, however, inflicting any injury whatever. The police have been diligently investigating the matter, but have been unable to obtain any satisfactory evidence upon which to institute proceedings. A statement was made to the police that a stone was seen to have been thrown by a particular individual on the occasion, but no legal evidence could be obtained to establish this. The district inspector applied to the magistrates at Petty Sessions, on the 13th instant, for instructions as to bringing up this case, and stated the nature of the evidence forthcoming, but the magistrates came to the conclusion that the evidence available was insufficient and that it would not be advisable to have any prosecution, and further expressed the opinion that the police had done their duty in endeavouring to bring the offenders to justice.

I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to the subject on the question of the right hon. Gentleman's salary.

Is it the law in Ireland, that in the case of stone-throwing, the evidence of a second witness is necessary?

In this instance the report was made to the police by a person who did not allege that he himself had seen the stone thrown. In such a case, the evidence of another witness could not be dispensed with.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will inquire into the distress reported to exist in certain portions of County Clare, with a view to the opening of relief works, should such a measure be necessary, to afford employment during the coming winter?

No reports of the existence of distress in Clare at the present time have reached the Local Government Board, and I am glad to state that the Board see no reason to anticipate abnormal distress in the county during the coming winter. The condition and prospects of the poorer classes will, however, be carefully reported upon by the Board's Inspector from time to time.

:I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will take an early opportunity, next Session, to bring in a Bill to remedy the omission from the Irish Education Act of 1892 of powers to local authorities to levy a rate, or otherwise provide funds, to defray the expenses connected with the putting in force the compulsory clauses of that Act, which omission has hitherto rendered the Act inoperative?

An amending Bill in the direction indicated by the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be necessary, and I shall consider, during the Recess, the question of the propriety of introducing such a measure in the next Session of Parliament.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, at the recent investigation held by Dr. Clibborn, Local Government Board Inspector, into charges against Dr. James Matthews, dispensary medical officer of Cavan, contained in letters purporting to be written by the persons alleged to have been neglected, or by their near relatives, it was proved on oath that the letters were not written by the persons whose signatures they purported to bear, nor by any person authorised to do so on their behalf; that it was also sworn to by those persons that they had made no complaints to anyone alleging neglect against Dr. Matthews; and that it was also proved on oath that the writer of the letters referred to was one John Byrne, one of the relieving officers of Cavan Union, and that he had written them and attached the signatures without authority? Whether if the facts are as stated, it is the intention of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland to direct legal proceedings against Byrne? And, whether it is the intention of the Local Government Board for Ireland to allow the Cavan Board of Guardians to retain the services of an officer proved to have been guilty of such conduct.

I am informed that two letters were received at the office of the Local Government Board complaining of neglect on the part of Dr. Matthews; that these letters were sent, in the ordinary course, to that gentleman for his observations, and that subsequently the letters, together with Dr. Matthews' explanation, were forwarded to the Dispensary Committee, who considered it absolutely necessary that the matter should be fully investigated. The Local Government Board accordingly directed their Inspector to hold a sworn inquiry into the truth of the complaints, and as the result of the inquiry went to show that the charges were fully substantiated, Dr. Matthews was called upon to resign his appointment. It is a fact that Relieving Officer Byrne stated at the investigation that he had not written one of the two letters referred to in the question, but had written another at the request of a man named Patrick Reilly. The Board's Inspector saw no reason to doubt the accuracy of the relieving officer's statement, and the Board did not consider it necessary to take any further action in the matter.

Is not a minute of the evidence on the subject in the possession of the Local Government Board, and will any further notice be taken of Byrne's conduct?

The matter has already been the subject of investigation, and the result is what I have already stated in answer to the question on the paper. If the hon. Member will give notice of his further question, I will endeavour to answer it.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether his attention has been called to the action of the paid Vice-Guardians of the Killarney Union in evicting from a labourer's cottage at Ballybar, on Tuesday last, a labourer named Sheehan, notwithstanding that his rent was fully paid up; and, whether he can state the reason for the eviction of this man.

The Local Government Board have been informed by the Clerk of the Union that Sheehan owed 23 weeks' rent at the date of his eviction, but that the immediate cause of the eviction was brought about in this way. Upon the plot of land attached to the Guardians' cottage, occupied by Sheehan, stood an ornamental gate, the property of the owner of the land, to which neither the Guardians nor the labourer had any right or title. Sheehan refused to allow the owner to take away the gate and the Vice-Guardians were advised that the simplest course, under the circumstances, was to resume possession of the plot and hand over the gate to the owner. The Vice-Guardians informed Sheehan that this course would be adopted, but he persisted in his refusal, and they then recovered possession of the plot.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has received a communication from the Town Commissioners of Down-patrick, through their chairman, with reference to the training of the 5th Battalion of the Royal Irish Rifles at Downpatrick, where they have their quarters; whether he is aware they have been quartered there for 24 years, and that about 18 years ago a suitable drill ground was acquired there, and that from a sanitary point of view, and for a good water supply, it has always been considered one of the best drill grounds in Ireland; and, whether, considering that a first class rifle range lately used by the regiment is within easy distance of the place, he will consider the desirability of directing that future trainings shall take place at Downpatrick?

The communication referred to has been received. There is nothing to be said against Downpatrick from a sanitary point of view; but unfortunately the range cannot safely be used with any modern rifle; and it cannot be made safe. Two public roads cross the danger area. Under the circumstances, and with every desire to meet the wishes of the inhabitants of Downpatrick, the Secretary of State is unable to sanction the training of the battalion at a place where the men cannot have proper musketry instruction.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what has been the result of the consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown with respect to the complaints of certain British subjects in Honolulu, who were arbitrarily arrested and harshly imprisoned at the instance of the authorities of the Republic of Hawaii for alleged complicity in an attempted restoration of the deposed Queen?

The Report of the late Law Officers was received, and instructions founded upon it were sent to the British Commissioner at Honolulu. It was subsequently ascertained, however, that some of the complainants had lost their right to British protection through having become naturalised in the Sandwich Islands. As regards the remainder, the Commissioner has been instructed to obtain and to forward fuller information than is at present available about the status of the applicants, and the illegality of procedure, undue severity of sentence, or hardship of treatment from which they are alleged to have suffered.

:I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the Drainage Works on the Shannon, near Battle-bridge, which it was promised by the late Government would have been commenced early in April, have not yet been taken in hand; and (2) whether he can state the cause of the delay, and how soon the work will be begun so as to afford employment to the people in the adjoining district of South Leitrim, which is in an impoverished condition?

The delay is caused by the fact that the occupier of a mill has sent in a claim for compensation which the Board of Works are advised is quite unreasonable, and more than the funds available would permit of their spending on compensation. The Board hope that he will soon come to terms, and the works will then be commenced immediately.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will direct one of Her Majesty's Consuls in European Turkey to inquire into the alleged massacre of Mussulman villagers by Bulgarian marauders?

The question is one for discussion between the Turkish and Bulgarian authorities, and an official investigation on the spot by a British Consular Officer would be out of place unless it were requested by the Porte.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, when the Return, ordered to be printed on 6th July, of the Magistrates appointed by the late Government will be circulated?

I understand that the Return referred to will be forwarded to the printers to-morrow.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what steps have been taken to erect the new post office at Portadown?

The Postmaster General has to-day received a telegram from the Irish Board of Works stating that tenders for this service had to be invited a second time, that they are due on the 28th instant, and that it is expected that one can be accepted immediately after that date.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether the President of the Council has recently been brought into new relations towards the great spending departments concerned in Imperial Defence; and, if so, what is the nature of those relations; and whether the changes at the War Office, announced by the late Government for 1st October, are to take place?

replied that it was true that the President of the Council had recently been brought into new relations towards the great spending departments concerned in Imperial Defence, but he was not in a position to give a more detailed answer. The matter was receiving the most careful consideration of the Government.

asked the Under Secretary of State for War whether the wording of the proposed new by-laws in respect of Artillery practice seawards in the vicinity of Plymouth Sound had been so amended as to preclude the possibility of power being given under the said by-laws to shut up either entrance to Plymouth Sound?

Correspondence with the local authorities is still taking place as to the wording of the proposed by-laws; and it is hoped to be able to remove all reasonable cause of objection on the part of those who navigate the entrances to the port.

said, he wished to put a question to the Leader of the House with regard to the Notice of Motion standing in the right hon. Gentleman's name as to the business of the House. If the Motion were carried as it stood, it would prevent him from proceeding with the Motion he had on the Paper as to the introduction of a Bill dealing with evicted tenants in Ireland. The Chief Secretary had stated that the Government objected to anything in the nature of contentious legislation on the subject being introduced this Session, but would be prepared to favourably consider any non-contentious proposal. In consequence of that he gave notice of his Motion for leave to introduce a Bill to re-enact the 13th Clause of the Land Act of 1891, which he thought everyone would admit would be a non-contentious Bill. He handed in this Notice of Motion before the right hon. Gentleman handed in his, and he wished to ask him whether, on behalf of the Government, he could see his way to make an exception of his Bill, so as to enable the House by a non-contentious measure to deal with a limited portion of the question of the evicted tenants in Ireland.

replied, that he thought to permit the hon. Member alone among private Members to introduce his Bill would be extremely inconvenient and lead to great difficulty. But the Government had no objection to themselves introducing a short Bill re-enacting the l3th Clause of the Land Act of 1891, on the distinct understanding that it was not put down in the Orders until the Appropriation Bill had passed its various stages and the measure was accepted as it stood. [Irish cheers.]

asked whether the Arms (Ireland) Act would be included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, in view of the pledge of the First Lord of the Treasury that no contentious legislation should be introduced.

said, there was nothing in the Bill which was not included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act last year.

intimated that if the continuance of the Arms Act was proposed, its discussion would occupy several days.

asked the Under-Secretary for War whether, having regard to the statement made on June 21st last by the Secretary of State for War in the late Administration, that the resignation by his Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge of the Commandership-in-Chief of the Army would take effect on October 1, the name of his successor in that position would be announced now or before discussion in Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates? In asking the question the hon. and learned Member said he wished to call attention to a very objectionable variation from the ordinary practice of the House. A Minister of the Crown was perfectly entitled to refuse to answer a question, but the Under Secretary for War went further, and told him a statement would be made in the House of Lords in which the question he had put down would be answered, and he was to get his information there. As a Member of the House of Commons he objected to obtaining information anywhere but from his place in Parliament.

pointed out that a question of Order did not arise in the matter.

No, but it is a question of practice closely bordering on privilege. [Ministerial cries of"Oh!" and Opposition cheers.] What he wanted to know was, whether what the Under Secretary did was usual or not. In his own experience he had never known such an answer to be given.

said, the hon. and learned Member was under a misapprehension. He asked whether, before the Army Estimates were taken, a statement would be made as to the new Commander-in-Chief, and he informed him that a statement would be made in both Houses. The hon. Member then pressed him as to the nature of the statement, and he said it would be better not to anticipate it. If the hon. Member now pressed for further information, he had not the least objection to stating that when His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge relinquished the Commander-ship-in-Chief of the Army that Field-Marshal Lord Wolseley would assume the position.

asked when the Government determined to appoint Lord Wolseley, and whether they were aware that in 1889 Lord Wolseley made a public apology, which was read in that House by Mr. Stanhope, Secretary for War, in reference——

Order, order ! The hon. Member must see that that is a question of which he should give notice.

Tomorrow, Sir.

referring to the motion down in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury relating to the Business of the House, asked whether there was any precedent for or advantage in proceeding with it before the Debate on the Queen's Speech was disposed of.

said, there were precedents in large numbers. He intended moving a motion to-day giving precedence to the Queen's Speech to-morrow, and in the event of the Queen's Speech going over perhaps it would be better to deal with motion as to the business of the House that night.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman based his Motion entirely on the view that a Private Members' day could not be taken for the Queen's Speech unless it was appropriated by special Resolution?

No, Sir. It is a fact that a Private Members' day cannot be taken for that purpose, but I gave a distinct pledge on Friday, in answer to the hon. Baronet opposite, that I would move this Resolution to-day, and as some Motion of the kind is required, I think that is a reason why that pledge should be strictly observed. I beg to move—

"That for the remainder of the Session no Notice of Motion for leave to bring in a Bill be given except by a Minister of the Crown; that Government Business do have precedence every day, be not interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the Sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; that whenever the Committee of Supply stands as an Order of the Day Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair without question put; and that, so soon as Government Business has been disposed of, Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without question put."

I trust that the House generally will accept this proposal without much discussion, because it will be felt universally that the Motion is devised in the interests not of the Government merely, but of all sections of the House, and as much in the interests of the Private Members as of the Government. When a person holding my Office is obliged to take special privileges of this kind for the Government it is very common for Private Members to declare that their rights are being infringed. But I very much doubt whether any large section of Private Members at the present time have any overmastering desire beyond that of finishing the business of the year, and of then proceeding to enjoy a well-earned holiday. Of course this proposal involves a certain amount of sacrifice of two kinds, a sacrifice, in the first place, of the right of proposing Bills—I will not say of carrying Bills, because of that there would be a very slight prospect—and, in the second place, the sacrifice involved by the House consenting to sit, on some nights, later than 12 o'clock. I do not believe that the first of those privileges is one which in August, in fine weather, and after the labours of a General Election, anybody will be very anxious to retain. As regards the enforced sitting up after 12 o'clock, I do not desire that the House should understand that we mean to press the Estimates to any undue hour in the morning. I think we shall be able to get through our necessary work without putting that great strain either upon the officers or upon the Members of the House. But in order that the Estimates should be readily got through everybody is aware that it is convenient to suspend the 12 o'clock rule. Under those circumstances I beg to recommend the House to adopt, in its own interests, the Resolution I now submit. ["Hear, hear!"]

On the point of Order, will the right hon. Gentleman put the Motion in separate propositions?

I propose to put it as one question.

said he wished to make an appeal to the Government. As they had already made a concession to those who were in distress in Ireland he thought that a similar concession might be made in regard to England. In view of the probable distress which would occur in this country during the coming winter, the Government might spare time to pass a short Act carrying out the recommendation of the Committee appointed to inquire into the distress arising from want of employment, that those men who were compelled under exceptional circumstances to apply for Poor Law relief should not be disfranchised. The recommendation of the Committee was in the following words:—

"Your Committee believe that this provision may have a salutary effect as a check upon ordinary Poor Law claims, and may thus foster independence of character and prevent unnecessary burden falling on the rates. But in cases of exceptional distress they do not see why it should be difficult to discriminate between the deserving man, forced to become dependent upon public aid, and the ordinary claimant for parish relief. Your Committee, therefore, are of opinion that it would be both humane and wise to exempt the former class from the disability as regards the Franchise, whether Local or Parliamentary."

He was fortified, in making tins request, by the remembrance of the words used by the Prime Minister in the House of Lords on the 6th of July, four days after the Report of the Committee was issued, on which occasion he said that there was very much to be clone in alleviating the condition of those who, by no fault of their own, were cast into misery in these great vicissitudes of trade, and there was much to be done in revising the operation of the Poor Law.

said, the question of disfranchisement was scarcely touched upon by the Committee, which, owing to a change of Ministry, was dissolved, and he had understood that it was to have been reappointed this Session. He hoped the appeal made by the hon. Member would be attended to by the Government as speedily as possible. The Committee omitted to make a discrimination between those of the unemployed who could have obtained work, but did not work, and those who could not obtain work and were willing to work. That was where the Committee would like to take up the thread of the subject when they were reappointed.

protested against the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule, and asked to what hour of the night the discussion on the Estimates would continue?

asked what Bills the Government proposed to introduce during the present Session. He wished to know further whether Supply would be taken continuously, and in what order, and whether the Civil Service Estimates would be taken first, and in what order, because shortly before the Dissolution a suggestion was made that the more important of these Estimates should be taken first, the ordinary course being so far departed from. Then as to the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman, he ventured to suggest that the first paragraph was somewhat of a novelty and an anomaly, and was unnecessary, because the object in view was really secured by the second and third paragraphs so far as Private Members advancing business was concerned. The first part of the Motion was therefore unnecessary, and would prevent Private Members from exercising the privilege of introducing Bills with the view of having them printed and circulated in the country during the Recess.

wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in support of the point raised by the Member for the Harborough Division of Leicester, whether he did not base his refusal to do anything to carry out the recommendations of the Report of the Committee on the Unemployed on the ground that the principle involved was contentious; whether it was not a fact that an Act of the kind recommended in the Report was passed by the Conservative Government in 1880 so far as Ireland was concerned; and whether, as regarded Ireland, that principle had not been sanctioned more than once since by the Liberal Party. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman further whether he did not think that, under the circumstances, this would not be a good opportunity to apply a principle which had been found useful and uncontentious in Ireland to Great Britain as well? Further, whether as regarded medical relief, in 1885 the very exception with respect to the Franchise was not made in Great Britain by a Government of the same complexion as the one now in power?

said, the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman represented a number of important aspects on the point of procedure. He admitted that for an omnibus resolution of this kind there were precedents, but he thought the Government would be well advised if in motions of the kind they put each proposition separately. There was no precedent, however, for interposing a Motion of this character in the Debate on the Queen's Speech. At the same time, he held that the rule the Speaker had laid down was one which greatly enlarged the privileges of Members, because, as he understood, the Speaker had ruled that the time of private Members could not be taken away in future by the Queen's Speech without a special Motion in that behalf. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] This was the first occasion when a Minister of the Crown, supported by the high authority of the Chair, had declared it to be necessary that during the Debate on the Queen's Speech it was necessary to make a Motion to take time. In 1882 the Debate on the Queen's Speech lasted a fortnight, and it went on day after day uninterruptedly the whole time. There had been times when other Governments were in distress for time, but this course had not been followed. In 1881–2 the then Government were most anxious to get to the passing of the Coercion Act, but in that day, notwithstanding their hurry and alleged urgency, did not set aside the Queen's Speech for a Motion to take time. The course taken by the Government, therefore, was anomalous. So far as he knew, it had always been the constitutional practice that the humble Address in response to Her Majesty's gracious message should have precedence of all business in the House of Commons. But now, for the first time, Her Majesty would have the satisfaction of contemplating the fact that, while in all previous Parliaments of her reign the Address in response to her gracious Speech had had precedence of all business, a Conservative Administration, supported by the largest majority ever returned to that House, had made an innovation upon this time-honoured practice. What was the advantage of this extraordinary innovation? The advantage of it, except so far as it might be considered a slight on the Sovereign, was absolutely nil, because the Government might have made the motion immediately after the Debate on the Queen's Speech. The advantage the Government sought, from their own point of view, was hardly worth upsetting the practice of 700 years for, and at the same time implying a slight on the Sovereign, for that was what it amounted to. They might be told that the Royal Address and the dutiful reply to it were only a matter of form; but he ventured to say that, at least as far as a Tory Ministry was concerned, this was a remark that could hardly be respectfully made, and the course taken was one, moreover, which would start a precedent that might have important results in the future. He had always understood that the Conservative Party, before they were contaminated by contact with their Liberal Unionist allies—[Laughter]—attached the greatest weight and importance to the maintenance of those ancient rights and forms; and he was amazed to think that it should be a Conservative Government—even though in alliance with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—who for the first time made a departure from the ancient usages and practice of the House. [Laughter.] The Government, by this motion, not only proposed to take full time, but to place the House under a rule in debating the Queen's Speech which it had never been put under before; for the Address had never before been discussed under the rules of urgency—under the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. It was the first time, he believed, that any Government had ever placed the House in manacles in discussing the reply to her Majesty's Speech, and if the Government had any precedent for their action they ought to have cited it before adopting such a course. Again, the hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire had pointed out a most remarkable confusion so far as the practice of the House was concerned, namely, that Her Majesty's Faithful Commons were to be deprived of any opportunity of even introducing Bills. It was true that one Bill had escaped the operation of the rule, but what did the Government propose to do? And here was the fifth innovation, that so soon as Government business was disposed of the Speaker was to leave the Chair without question put. Of course there were precedents for that, but who had ever known a Minister make such a Motion on the third day of the Session? After the Government had had a free run up to 12 o'clock, private Members, who had borne the burden and heat of the day, were to be deprived of the few minutes after midnight. This was the most manacling Resolution ever introduced by a Minister, and its importance was this, that when they passed Resolutions in times of supposed urgency, they were afterwards cited as precedents in times and on occasions when there was no urgency at all. The Government had, he understood, given notice of a Bill in connection with the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and they proposed that it should be discussed after midnight under this Resolution. That would be a very strange departure. The right hon. Gentleman had said that no Bills except purely Departmental Bills of a non-contentious character should be taken. The word "Departmental" covered a multitude of sins. They had heard from the Chief Secretary that communications from Judges were departmental, and now they heard that the, introduction of a Bill which must lead to great contention was also to be defended on the ground that it was purely departmental. He had explained, defended and justified the course he and his friends took on this Bill in former Sessions, and he had given notice to the late Government that if they introduced the Bill this year he should oppose it; and he would now ask the Government whether, if they were so anxious to wind up the business of the Session, it would not be possible to arrive at some modus in this matter. The suggestion was thrown out that every one was anxious to get away. Some people were not anxious to do so. They had spent a great deal of time and money in getting into the House and they were anxious to use the House to the advantage of their constituents. He certainly was not anxious to get away. On the contrary, he was not anxious to turn the House to account in the interest of his constituency and the country generally, though they all meant different things when they used that latter expression. They were now met, so far as Ireland was concerned, after three years, in which they did not succeed in winning for their country one rag of a Parliamentary Measure. [Ministerial Cheers.] He was glad to hear those cheers, and relying upon the cordial concurrence that seemed to exist on the subject between himself and hon. Gentlemen opposite, he founded on that statement this argument. Here they were now after three years. The Irish Members have come back like giants refreshed to address a fresh demand to the Government of England. So far as his experience went it did not matter much to their country which Government was in. The result to Ireland seemed pretty much the same, and in conclusion he would invite the Government, if they desired that they should go back to their constituents in a pleasant frame of mind, to make some arrangement whereby some satisfaction might be given to the minor and moderate claims of Ireland. When they gave time to the Government, it was always the plan of the Irish Members to insist on some kind of quid pro quo. The mere re-enactment of the 13th Clause of the Land Act of 1891 was entirely insufficient, and, therefore, he would press strongly on the Government that if they hoped for a safe passage and an easy deliverance, even upon the. Estimates, they should be prepared to give some assurance to the Irishmen who had come there and spent their time in the House, getting so little for their country, that they should not go back empty-handed to their country.

With reference to which my hon. and learned Friend has said, I should like to state what I know of the practice of the House on the Motion for the Address. I find in the Journals that on Tuesday, March 13, last year, when the Address was under discussion, I made this Motion—

"That the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned Debate on the Address in answer to her Majesty's Speech have precedence this day over Notices of Motion."

Notices of motion?

Of course, Tuesday is a day for Notices of Motion. Therefore, but, for that Order, anybody who chose to place a notice of motion on the paper would have been in a position to prevent the Motion for the Address being proceeded with. I find, also, that this Order was made on the same day—

"That the proceeding on the Address in answer to her Majesty's Speech, if under discussion at 12 o'clock this night, be not interrupted."

I do not think there can be any doubt that the principle laid down is one that has governed the practice of the House. There was even a still more remarkable exception with reference to the Debates on the Address in 1884. When the Address was under discussion precedence was given to a motion of censure upon the Government, and the Debates on the Address were interrupted and suspended until that motion was disposed of. Therefore it is quite plain that the Debates on the Address do not have an absolute command of the time of the House, as seems to have been the impression that prevailed in some quarters of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] With reference to this motion generally, I think it is a motion which in all circumstances would have been, made at this time of the year whatever Government had been in office. ["Hear, hear!"] The month of August having arrived, it has always been usual for the Government to propose to take the whole time of the House to the exclusion of other business, in order to proceed with the conclusion of the Debates upon the Estimates. The Government have stated, and will no doubt act upon the statement, that any non-contentious measures that are necessary or expedient to be passed they will take measures to forward. Beyond that I do not see how the House can possibly go, because if private Members introduce Bills of their own it is quite plain they could not proceed with them to any advantage, and if they were Bills to which the Government objected, it is quite obvious that they could make no progress at all. ["Hear, hear!"] I cannot see the advantage of endeavouring to proceed with Bills which have not the support of the Government. I should like to mention one matter. There is a measure which I believe receives the general support of the House—the measure with reference to the King Street site. The Government have power to proceed with that measure, and if it is one which is agreed to by Members on all sides of the House, that might be included among the measures which can, without delay or interruption, be carried out. ["Hear, hear!"] It is quite plain that it is impossible for us now to succeed with any measures which are of a contentious character and which are opposed by the Government, but there ought to be fair and ample opportunity given to Members from Ireland and all parts of the United Kingdom, upon the Estimates to discuss matters which they consider of interest and importance; and I suppose the Government are perfectly prepared to give an assurance that a reasonable time shall be given for the discussion of the Estimates, and that the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule is not intended to prevent such discussion as may arise on the Estimates. ["Hear, hear!"]

presumed that the Motion applied to Wednesdays, and therefore he was anxious to know whether it was intended by the Government that the House should sit long after the usual hour on those days. There was another point on which information should be given hon. Members. The Leader of the House would admit it was an undesirable thing to discuss important Estimates late at night, when the Debate could not be properly reported. Apart from Irish votes, there were the votes for the Uganda Railway, for additional ammunition, and for the Foreign Office. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to arrange that such important votes should be taken at an early hour?

thought the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouthshire (Sir W. Harcourt) ought to carry conviction to a good many Members who sat on the opposite Benches., They must see that this was really not a Party question, but one between the two front Benches and the rest of the House. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for the present Estimates, and it was quite natural he should like to pass a Motion which would interfere with a thorough discussion. He appealed to hon. Members opposite, who wished to take an independent line on these questions, to make them stand at the beginning of this new Parliament in favour of a full discussion of the Estimates, which was the original business of the House. The Motion was aimed much more at hon. Gentlemen opposite than at the Irish Members. The Irish Members did not wish to obstruct in this Session. To be perfectly frank he limited himself to this Session. There was nothing to obstruct. There was no object in obstructing when there was no legislative programme to keep back. Whatever little attention they might give to the Estimates this Session would be given purely with the view of bringing forward legitimate questions of public interest. It was right that in this Session of all Sessions the Estimates should not be pushed through late at night. In other Sessions the 12 o'clock rule might be suspended in order to put down obstruction, but this Session, when there was no probability of obstruction, he contended it was a very strong thing to interfere so much with the convenience of the vast majority of Members on the back benches as to suspend the 12 o'clock rule throughout the discussion of Supply. The Report of Supply could be taken at any hour, and therefore if under this Motion Supply was taken up to say, 1 o'clock, they might be kept here with Report of Supply until 3 o'clock. That was not the way to do the work of the nation; it was not calculated to smooth the way of business. He begged to move to leave out of the Motion from the words "every day" in line 4 to the end of the second paragraph. In other days no Member would have resisted a Motion such as the present more strongly than the present Secretary to the Treasury. He trusted that now that that right hon. Gentleman had gone the way of all good men, there would be some left behind the right hon. Gentleman—he thought he could see one—who would support the interests of the majority of the House on this occasion.

seconded the Amendment.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his Amendment to a Division. It was not necessary for him to argue the point. Every hon. Member was well acquainted with the business of the House. As the hon. Gentleman was perfectly a ware, it was customary at this time of the Session to abolish the 12 o'clock rule, and that the abolition of the rule greatly facilitated the progress of business. He trusted that under those circumstances the hon. Gentleman would not ask them to start a new precedent.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions I put to him?

I thought we had better dispose of the Amendment first.

We are extremely glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman at any time.

said, he was entirely in disaccord with the Mover of the Amendment. The House was called together solely because of the necessity for passing the Estimates, and that necessity had arisen simply in consequence of the neglect of those Estimates by Her Majesty's late Government during the whole of the months from February to June. They had been reminded that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury had occasionally felt it his duty to resist attacks upon the time of the House. Whenever he did so he was in his (Mr. Bowles') opinion right. Motions to reduce the right hon. Gentleman's salary might be made, and might be supported by quotations from his own speeches. If such were the case he trusted he would be present to defend his right hon. Friend, and to show what was the true meaning to be attached to his speeches. It seemed to him reasonable, under all the circumstances, to give the Government as much time as possible in which to get the money they required. And it also seemed reasonable to give hon. Gentlemen in the back Benches all the time the forms of the House or a Motion of this sort afforded them to discuss the Estimates. Under this Motion hon. Members would, instead of being pulled up sharp at 12 o'clock, be permitted to go on calmly until 3, 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. He was as strong an advocate for the rights and privileges of Private Members as anybody could be, and he quite agreed that in the matter of the Estimates the two Front Benches were pledged to the Estimates, and consequently no assistance in the way of criticism could be got from either of the Front Benches. But no assistance in the way of criticism was ever got from them; they always had been in accord. It was the occupants of the Back Benches who were found attacking the Estimates, and they were now in the same position as they always were.

said, the point was whether they ought to sit after 12 o'clock or not. He rather regretted the Leader of the House had not replied to the question addressed to him, because many votes might depend upon the answer he gave.

By leave of the House I will reply to the questions which have been put to me in regard to business. The Leader of the Opposition has saved me the trouble of dealing in detail with the speech of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. That learned Gentleman has not shown on this occasion that minute acquaintance with the procedure of the House which, to do him justice, he usually shows beyond all other Members; for, in truth, the course he declares to be an invasion of the procedure, of 700 years, and which, he says, conveys in some obscure manner a slight on the Crown, is a course invariably adopted when a private Member's Motion or a private Member's Bill is down for a day when the Queen's Speech ought to be taken. If a Motion is down on a Tuesday or a Bill on a Wednesday and the Queen's Speech overlaps, it is absolutely incumbent on the Government to make some Motion by which the rights of private Members would so far be disturbed and the progress of the Queen's Speech secured. Then as to the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it is quite true that in my original statement I said we did not intend to take controversial business, but seldom or never in the history of this House has that Bill been regarded as controversial.

It was in 1874 and 1875 by Mr. Butt.

There may have been some instances to the contrary, but, practically speaking, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has always been regarded as uncontroversial. The hon. Member for the Harborough Division made an appeal to us to make an exception to our general procedure in favour of a Bill carrying out the proposal of the Select Committee on the unemployed to abolish the regulation by which persons who receive outdoor relief are disfranchised. I do not now commit myself to any judgment upon that proposal, which very likely indeed is a very sound and a proper one. But I would observe, in the first place, that it cannot be described as uncontroversial ["Hear, hear!"] and, in the second place, that even if carried it would confer no material relief on the unemployed. ["Hear, hear!"] Even the exercise of a vote is a poor substitute for employment and regular wages; and what we desire is to find, if possible, some method be which the number of the unemployed may be diminished. ["Hear, hear!"] And then, what Franchise is likely to be exercised during the period that distress may possibly prevail in the course of the coming winter? The Municipal Franchise is exercised before the 9th of November; there are no county council elections and no parish council elections in England in the winter; and, although for my part I never prophesy with confidence in those matters, I do not myself contemplate a General Election in the course of the present Session. [Laughter.] Under these circumstances the hon. Gentleman will see that while the Bill he desires must necessarily take up some time of the House, the amount of benefit it would confer on the unemployed would be infinitesimal. The hon. Member for Devonport asks me as to the spirit in which we mean to deal with the 12 o'clock rule. It is impossible for the Government to make any pledge as to the length of time the House will be asked to sit at night. I am reluctant to conceive it possible, but I can conceive circumstances which may require prolonged proceedings.

The Irish Estimates.

If they do arise, discretion must be left to the Government; but, generally speaking, we do not desire to inconvenience the House by asking it to sit up to an abnormally early hour in the morning. The same observation applies to Wednesdays. It is not our intention or desire, except under stress of circumstances very unlikely to arise, to ask the. House to sit much beyond the usual hour for rising on those days. As to the uncontroversial Bills we are going to carry through, I do not pledge myself at this moment to a complete list, but, so far as I am aware, the only Bills we are likely to bring forward besides formal Bills, like the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, are a small departmental Bill in the charge of the Colonial Office which is intended to remove some doubt as to the legal interpretation of an existing Act, and which is strongly pressed for by the Government of the Dominion of Canada (the point will be fully explained when the Bill is introduced), also a Bill to facilitate the acquisition of the site between the great group of the Foreign Office buildings and Westminster Abbey, and, in addition to these, the Bill promised in regard to the evicted tenants of Ireland.

Will all those Bills, like the Evicted Tenants Bill, come after the Appropriation Bill?

Yes. That is to say that after we have, passed Supply we will bring in the Appropriation Bill, which will stand during its successive stages as first Order each day it is brought forward, and when the stage of that Bill is passed we will deal with the non-controversial measures to which I have alluded. As to the order of the Estimates, we shall take the Civil Service Estimates first, the Admiralty second, and the Army third, and we shall endeavour to consult the convenience of the House as to the order in which particular Votes are to be taken. I hope now that the hon. and learned Gentleman who has moved the Amendment will consent to withdraw it, and allow us to proceed with the next business.

asked whether the Public Works Loans Bill was included in the Bills proposed to be taken.

I have no doubt it is included in the Bills to be taken.

said, that he proposed to move an Amendment so as to put himself in Order, but he hoped that the Government would relieve him of the necessity of pressing the Amendment. The Resolution standing in the name of the Leader of the House would deprive the House of all opportunity of general discussion when the Speaker left the Chair for the first time, in order that the House might go into Committee of Supply. Standing Order 56 said:—

"Whenever the Committee of Supply stands as an Order of the Day on Monday or Thursday, Mr. Speaker leaves the Chair without question put; unless on first going into Supply on the Army, Navy, or Civil Service Estimates respectively, or on any Vote of Credit, an Amendment be moved or question raised, relating to the Estimates proposed to be taken in Supply."

He submitted that inasmuch as these Estimates were to be begun over again, and especially as part of them had already been voted, the House was entitled to a general discussion on the Speaker first leaving the Chair. He did not think it was the intention of the Government to deprive the House of this opportunity, therefore he proposed to move as an addition to the main Resolution the words of the Standing Order he had quoted from, "Unless on first going into Supply" to "proposed to be taken in Supply." The discussion which had already taken place on these Estimates did not at all meet the case, because many new conditions had arisen since that discussion took place. Since the general discussion had taken place in the last Parliament there had been made the announcement, for example, that the Army was to have a new Commander-in-Chief, while large changes were to be made in his powers and in those of the Defence Committee. Such changes as these appeared to him to render it eminently necessary that an opportunity should be afforded to the House to discuss their effect with the Speaker in the Chair. In the Navy also changes of the highest importance had taken place. A new Order in Council affecting the status of naval lieutenants in a most material way had been issued, and this Order had already excited a great deal of discontent in the Navy. It was an Order which he should feel it to be his duty to resist, but unless he had an opportunity to raise a general discussion with the Speaker in the Chair the opportunities which would be otherwise provided on the Estimates would be altogether inadequate, if not entirely destroyed. He trusted that the Leader of the House would be able to give the House some explanation as to the reason why the ancient practice of Parliament should be discontinued on this occasion.

seconded the Amendment, and congratulated the hon. Member upon his independence in having moved it. He submitted that this was a dangerous innovation on the part of the Leader of the House, the effect being to take away the rights and privileges of discussion enjoyed by hon. Members generally.

said, that when he submitted the Motion to the consideration of the House he thought it was one which would meet with approval on the ground that it was designed in the interests of the general convenience of Members. The questions referred to by his hon. Friend in connection with the Army and the Navy could be dealt with on the Vote for the. War Office and the Vote for the Admiralty. His hon. Friend made light of the fact that the House of Commons had already had its usual opportunities of engaging in a general discussion with the Speaker in the Chair. It was true that since that general discussion there might be new Estimates or a slight modification of the Estimates originally presented. That was always the case in the circumstances of a new Parliament like this; but if they admitted this to be a valid argument in the direction pleaded by hon. Gentlemen, it was evident that the House would always have suspended over its head the prospect of a fresh discussion. The fact that this was a new Parliament was not an argument relative to the issue which had been raised as to the subjects dealt with in the Estimates, and he did not think that anything would be gained by repeating discussions under the conditions in which the House had now assembled. He hoped that his hon. Friend would be satisfied with the assurances he gave him, that an opportunity would be forthcoming on the Estimates, with the Chairman of Committees in the Chair, to lay before the House all the details and arguments he was anxious to review applying either to the Army or to the Navy.

pointed out that since the Dissolution many new questions had cropped up in connection with the Estimates. In addition to the questions referred to by his hon. Friend, there was the question, of the health of the Mediterranean Fleet. A very large amount of sickness existed in that fleet; indeed, he was informed that 60 officers wore invalided at the present time. The proper way to open a new Parliament was to give an extended opportunity to new Members to discuss fresh questions.

said the Leader of the House had declared that as one Parliament had enjoyed the opportunity of discussing the Estimates this was a reason for hindering the new Parliament from discussing them. The Government went to the country upon the cry of "Cordite and Kynoch" [laughter,] and was this the way it was proposed to treat so vital a question—that the discussion in the old Parliament was sufficient for the new Parliament? It was alleged that the late Government was unpatriotic in not laying in sufficient ammunition, and now they need an estimate for £70,000 for more cordite. Were they not to have an opportunity of discussing what was the net result of the General Election? They were to be asked to vote £70,000 to Kynoch and Company. Was that a sufficient response to the demands made for the defence of the British Army? Surely the Members of the present Government who discussed this question in the last, Parliament would not refuse to the Opposition the opportunity of discussing it in their turn. It seemed to him that this was the gravest question, which had yet arisen, and the Member for King's Lynn was to be congratulated for the way in which he had put his finger on the spot. They wished to discuss this question with the Speaker in the Chair. They wished to find out whether £70,000 was sufficient to remove the appalling scandals on which the Member for Guildford turned out the Government. Then he wished on the Civil Service, Estimates to challenge the, whole, policy of the Government in regard to their dealings with Irish Civil Servants. How could they, with the Chairman in the Chair, ade- quately discuss a question of that kind? They ought to have the opportunity of ransacking the policy of the Government in this matter. They had just heard of the promotion of Lord Wolseley, who boasted that there was not a drop of Irish blood in his veins, but he could not escape from the misfortune of having been born in Dublin. [Laughter.] They did not forget the declaration he made some time ago on the Irish question. Were they to be shut out from an opportutity of moving a resolution in connection with that? He was sure the Member for Preston must sympathise with his old comrade in arms and vote for the Amendment.

said an opportunity would arise.

I wish to move a further Amendment.

I beg to move that the question be now put.

formally moved for leave to bring in a Bill to continue various expiring laws.

said that he could only regret that the promise of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury to explain the nature of the Bills to be dealt with had not been kept. The course of proceeding adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General in making this Motion without a word of explanation was most unusual, but he supposed that that was the kind of thing that hon. Members had to expect after the Closure Resolution had been forced through that House by the majority at the back of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman, however, would find that such a course of procedure would not facilitate the transaction of business.

said that he had no desire to rush the Bill through the House, and if it were thought desirable to do so he would not resist a Motion for the Adjournment of the discussion on the Bill.

then moved the Adjournment of the Debate.

asked whether there was any precedent in the whole range of the history of the British Constitution for this Motion. In spite of his warning on Thursday last the Government had insisted on making the Motion the first Order of the day. They said that they would postpone the Order if it was required, and the right hon. Gentleman had that day given an additional undertaking that the matter should not be brought on after 9 o'clock. It was, therefore, now proposed to manufacture two Orders of the day out of one, by putting the John Daly Motion down as the first Order for 3 o'clock, and then putting it down again as the second Order at 9 o'clock. He wished to know whether that was a fair way of dealing with the House. In view of the fact that this Motion concerned a Member of that House, and that the Member in question was in gaol, and therefore unable to defend himself, at least he might ask that no new or strange procedure should be followed in regard to it. The Government had no hesitation in moving a long series of resolutions early in the day, and they had just Closured the discussion upon them, and now the right hon. Gentleman had wound up by proposing to adjourn the Debate upon this question until the Debate on the Address in answer to the Queen's Speech was brought to an end, as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, before 9 o'clock, in which case the present Order of the day was to be discussed as the second Order of the day. They were entitled to know when the Debate was to come on. The Debate on the Queen's Speech might break down at any moment; there might be no division on it; and the Irish Members, who were more keenly concerned than any others in the Daly motion, might find it called on suddenly in the dinner hour, when the Attorney General might rise and simply take off his hat. That was riot the way to take a motion of this kind. It should be taken on a stated day, and at a stated time of day, when every Member of the House would know that it was to be brought on. At present they did not know whether it was to be brought on at 9, 10, 11, or 12 o'clock that night, or at 1, 2, or 3 o'clock in the morning. [Sir R. WEBSTER made a sign of dissent.] The Attorney General shook his head, but did the Government intend by the aid of the Closure to squeeze the four Amendments on the Queen's Speech in three or four hours? What was the advantage of the present motion? The Government having now taken the whole time of the House, having swept away every rule under which the House worked, and every order for the protection of private Members, now proposed to add the additional disability that hon. Members were not to know when such a motion as that concerning John Daly was to be brought on.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has hurled a large number of accusations at my head with regard to the conduct of our proceedings. Let me remind the House of the facts. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Waterford put a question to me, inquiring after what hour I would deal with the subject of John Daly to-day. With the general assent of the House, as I understood it, I mentioned 9 o'clock. That appeared to meet with general assent. I was then asked by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean how I proposed to alter the notice of motion, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted that it could be done, with the general assent of the House, in the manner that I now propose, and which is intended simply and solely for the convenience of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] If the hon. and learned Gentleman had told me, at question time, that he and his friends had any strong objection to the course proposed, I should not have put forward this motion, which is not a matter of principle, but simply intended to meet the convenience of the hon. and learned Gentleman and those who sit near him. If, however, he takes so strong a view, let us by all means proceed with the Queen's Speech and finish that as soon as may be, and we will bring on the question of Daly as the first Order to-morrow.

wished to express the satisfaction felt by agricultural Members on that side of the House at the appointment of the right hon. Gentleman to the Board of Agriculture. They were confident they would have from him firm, vigilant and clear-sighted administration, and that he would give fair consideration to the arguments of those who differed from him. He entirely agreed with what his right hon. Friend had said with regard to the importation of foreign cattle. He thought there would be great satisfaction in agricultural circles that the firm policy adopted by his Liberal predecessor would be fairly maintained in the future. It was not, as he understood it, a policy for the absolute exclusion of all cattle from abroad, but it was, he believed, a policy, that so long as there was the least chance of spreading disease amongst our cattle, the present position of affairs should be absolutely maintained. They were demanding an Autumn Session, and he would have been glad if his own Amendment could have been brought before the House, as it combined the two subjects which urgently claimed attention, the provision for the unemployed and the relief of agriculture. He usually listened with pleasure to his hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, who generally spoke with the moderation which gives weight, but he was bound to remark that his speech of last Friday was not a very happy one. He challenged the right of the Opposition to move this Amendment, because in the previous Parliament they had voted against similar Amendments which had been put down by the opposite side. But there was, he contended, an absolute gulf between the, Amendment moved by the Member for Hampshire, in February last, and that moved the other night by the Member for East Norfolk. The reason why he and his friends voted against the Amendment of the Member for Hampshire was because it was a condemnation of the Liberal Ministry, and because it was based on the absolutely wrong and groundless argument that the Liberal Administration had done nothing and were then doing nothing for agriculture. He was astonished at what fell from the hon. Member the other night. He said that the Liberal Administration had done nothing for agriculture except to appoint a Royal Commission which was of no use. Would the two Members of the Government (Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Long) now sitting on the Treasury Bench say that that Royal Commission was of no value? In his view, it had collected evidence more complete and of higher value than any previous inquiry, and would be of the greatest use when presented to Parliament. His hon. friend must have spoken without recollecting the most important inquiry relating to dairy farming, initiated by the late Government into the working of the Margarine Act and the Food and Drugs Act, on a Motion made by him (Mr. Channing) when Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture. Its report would have been ready and would have done much good in the interests of dairy farmers, had it not been interrupted by the Dissolution. The Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill and the Swine Fever Bill, which meant a considerable money gain to agriculturists, and which the previous Tory Government had failed to deal with, had been carried into law. He was glad to hear the President of the present Board of Agriculture say that he intended to use the administrative powers of the Board, and hoped this would apply to the Act to give the Board of Agriculture the same power to prosecute as the Board of Trade possessed in the case of misrepresentation of foreign produce. Besides those matters, practically all farmers whose rents were under £487 were now freed from income tax, and by the exemption of 12½ per cent. in Schedule A, one step further was taken in relieving landowners also. He thought that amount insufficient to cover repairs and other outgoings, which could hardly be put at less than 20 per cent., but at any rate it was a step in the right direction. It was not the fault of the late Government that a Light Railways Bill was not passed last Session, nor that the Agricultural Holdings Act was not amended. He hoped he misunderstood the President of the Board of Agriculture, when he was believed to have said that Members on that side had opposed agricultural reforms advanced from the other side of the House. If that was his impression, he would advise him to consult his hon. friend the Member for Evesham, who would not complain of want of help in carrying the Market Gardeners' Compensation Bill. He and his friends would have been voting that white was black if they had voted for the Amendment in February last. [Ministerial cheers.] No doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite had been talking to their constituents on the subject, but he ventured to assert that not one of those hon. Gentlemen would now get up and deny that the Liberal Government had done the good things for agriculture which he had briefly referred to. This was not an Amendment of condemnation; it was an invitation to the Government to give time at an early date for the urgent and pressing problem of the condition of agriculture in this country. He did not wish to introduce partizan arguments into the discussion, and he could assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that, so long as they obtained help, he did not mind from whom it came. He should always resist any attempt to obstruct or delay any practical measures for the benefit of agriculture. A lively expectation had been raised in the country during the Election by the speeches of hon. Members on the platform that agricultural questions would be promptly dealt with at the earliest moment by Her Majesty's Government. Many hon. Members opposite probably owed their seats to the expectation which had been raised among many of the voters. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board, speaking at Donington, in the Sleaford Division of Lincolnshire, on the 16th July, used these words:—

"They had no great sensational measures to bring forward, but their attention would be devoted to measures of social progress and reform for the improvement of the condition of the masses of the people, and it was imperative that the question of the condition of agriculture should be quickly dealt with. There were vast districts in this country where the state of things had become so desperately bad that thousands of acres of land had gone out of cultivation altogether—farmhouses were abandoned, and cottages empty. That was a serious condition of affairs, which ought to command the attention of any British statesman."

In the notable speech at Bradford, on the 23rd of May, Lord Salisbury made a striking and eloquent reference to the urgency of the questions of the unemployed and of agricultural depression. After dealing with the question of the unemployed, Lord Salisbury said:—

"Then look at the state of agriculture. Everywhere, especially in the eastern counties, you hear of farms being abandoned, lands uncultivated, labourers unemployed, poverty and misery increasing. Is that no subject for the consideration of Parliament?''

He invited Her Majesty's Government to realise the expectations they had raised in the country. The late Government loyally tried to do their best in the interests of agriculture. They were denounced, and in repeated debates immediate measures were demanded. He would ask, was there any point in those incessant appeals, so frequently uttered in the past with thundering and passionate eloquence by the President of the Local Government Board and others, if there was no intention on the part of the present Government to deal promptly with this question? It was neither an unfair nor an unfriendly suggestion to make, that the Government should do so this autumn. There was a danger that they might become callous to the facts. In the speech to which he had referred, Lord Salisbury had said:—

"We do not take note, as this information flies rapidly under our eyes, of what misery, what despair to men, what utter despair to women and children, what physical suffering is involved in those frightful facts."

Some of the reports sent in by the Assistant Commissioners on agricultural depression were of a most striking, if not ghastly, character. The report on Essex had been frequently brought before the House. The report of Mr. Hunter Pringle on Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, and Huntingdonshire also showed a deplorable state of things. Mr. Pringle says:—

"The number of men whose affairs are altogether in disorder is very distressing. We feel that anything that is to be done should be done at once."

The country immediately to the north of Welling borough, he said, had nearly all changed hands within the last 15 years, "many failed, and others left because of losses." Of the Rockingham district:—

"There is much land which the farmers have thrown aside, and allowed to grow thistles and rubbish. The last tenants were ruined, would not stop, and gave it up. The country is rapidly changing hands."

In a parish in Hunts:—

"All the old tenants have gone since 1879, 12 of the principal farmers (farming three-quarters of the parish), have been partly or entirely ruined since 1875. Of the 12 nine are dead, one by suicide." "All save two were absolutely killed by agricultural depression."

This was a sad picture, but it was not an exaggerated one, and it was not a question of the farmer only. The ruin of each farmer meant that many labourers lost work and were driven into the towns. He had last year visited a farm in Essex, which a north-country farmer was trying to cultivate with the work of his sons and occasional labour. Only a few years back that farm had not only brought four times the rent, but had given work to 12 labourers and their families. He did not condemn Her Majesty's Government for dealing with the evicted tenants in Ireland during the present short Session, but he would point out that, according to many hon. Members opposite, these evicted tenants were men who had broken the law. Surely the English farmers, who had suffered in silence, who had broken no law, and had striven to meet their obligations, were, if anything, more entitled to speedy consideration. Why should these men be put off for ten or twelve months longer? Mr. Pringle explained a great, deal of the deterioration of farming in Northamptonshire and elsewhere by saying that to a large extent rent was being paid out of capital. He said:—

"There has been either a melting away of the working capital represented by their stock, accompanied by increasing indebtedness to tradesmen, dependence on dealers, and all-round deterioration of farming, and ultimately resulting in bankruptcy and abandonment, or the private banking account and investments have been drawn upon to meet liabilities."

Speaking of Bedfordshire, Mr. Pringle said:—

"I am constrained to believe that of those who still remain as the remnant of the old stock farmers, a very large proportion have remained because they had some private means to fall back upon."

In the report of Mr. Wilson Fox as to the condition of Suffolk there were some still more frightful pictures. Then Mr. Pringle in his report pointed out how enormous were the landlords' outgoings as compared with their gross rentals. He said that in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire there were cases where the proportion of outgoings to rental had risen to 50 and 60 per cent. That state of things needed the prompt and careful attention of Parliament no less than the reduction of the capital of the tenants. Both were part of the same unfortunate natural law which was working itself out. Landlords were overburdened with charges upon their estates. They had not money enough to effect improvements or to grant necessary reductions of rent, and the farmers were paying high rents that the land did not earn. He had read with great pleasure a speech delivered the other day in Norfolk, by Mr. Clare Sewell Read, who said that farmers were largely paying out of their private incomes the wages of the labourers. Mr. Herman Biddell had made the same statement with respect to Suffolk. In Northamptonshire there were, to his knowledge, many farmers who were straining every nerve in the endeavour, and expending their own resources, to maintain the fertility and high standard of cultivation, and even the mere smartness of their farms. All honour to them for doing their duty by their landlords, their labourers and the land! The knowledge of these circumstances made one desire to do something promptly to relieve the agricultural distress. If there were grievances which could be quickly and quietly dealt with without arousing the miserable antagonism of party interests, it would be a scandal to postpone dealing with them for eight or ten months longer. The supporters of the Amendment were willing to give up a portion of their holidays, and they asked Ministers and hon. Members opposite to make a similar sacrifice in order to deal with such portions of this great question as could be taken in hand without delay. It was true that a Royal Commission on Agriculture was sitting, and that argument was sometimes adduced that whilst a great inquiry was proceeding it was not expedient that Parliament should attempt to legislate on the subject committed to the consideration, of the Commission. To that doctrine he had never assented without qualification. On various occasions in the past two or three years he had maintained that the Government of the day would be quite right not to wait for a commission's or committee's report before dealing with questions ripe for settlement, such as the Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, the adulteration of food products, and other subjects in which a convergence of opinion and a concurrence of evidence could be shown to exist. It was perfectly true that the report of the Commission would be of the greatest value to Parliament and to the Government of this day. He regretted to be compelled once more to refer to the position of the Commission. In February a debate took place with respect to the Royal Commission. The Chairman of the Commission, and Lord Rosebery also, said in another place that it was a misfortune that the Report of the Commission had been delayed by proposals made by the present President of the Local Government Board. In the debate in February it was stated that the influence of the right hon. Gentleman had been used to prevent the interim report respecting the Agricultural Holdings Act from being presented, and also that the suggestion then made that there should be an extension of the evidence had resulted in delaying the proceedings of the Commission. The Commission had now obtained satisfactory evidence from Scotland, and also from many Welsh witnesses, and a short time ago all the Commissioners, he thought, were under the impression that the inquiry would terminate in the month of July.

asked the Speaker whether it was convenient that they should discuss in the House the proceedings of the Commission upon the ex parte statements of one of its members, the Commission not having yet reported. He absolutely repudiated the statements of the hon. Member.

remarked that the subject was discussed in February.

said that he understood the hon. Member to be referring to statements made in a debate in the previous Parliament, and not to anything that had taken place in the Commission. It could hardly be said that the hon. Member was out of order, but he might remind him that the question before the House was the expediency of passing remedial measures, and although it was, perhaps, difficult to avoid references to what occurred in the last Parliament, the hon. Member's allusions had not really much bearing on the question whether legislation was now required. ["Hear, hear!"]

explained that his observations were directed to this, that there had been a general expectation that the Commission would be in a position to present its report at the close of the present year. The Commission, however, had been placed in a difficulty, because at the last moment the right hon. Gentleman opposite had sprung new topics upon it.

said that it was unusual to refer in the House to the proceedings of a Commission before a report on the points raised had been published. He understood that no report had as yet been published respecting the particular fact alleged by the hon. Member, and further references to it would, therefore, be out of order.

explained that he did not intend to carry the argument further than this, namely, that if the proceedings of the Commission, owing to what occurred last winter or to any other cause, had been and were likely to be greatly delayed, and if the action taken last winter by the President of the Local Government Board or other Gentlemen had conduced to that delay, a grave responsibility rested upon them. The mere fact that there had been delay and that a certain amount of responsibility for it did attach to the right hon. Gentleman, ought to induce him to join with the supporters of the Amendment in trying to get carried through Parliament at the earliest possible moment some remedial measures for agriculture. The fact of the Report of the Commission being delayed, in the existing condition of agriculture, was a strong reason why the President of the Local Government Board should join hon. Members in urging upon his colleagues the necessity of adopting such reforms as might be usefully carried out at the present time. He might be asked to what reforms he alluded. Now, everyone who had studied the question would admit that there was no one measure which would be a panacea for agricultural distress; what was wanted was a considerable number of comparatively limited and special reforms, which collectively and severally would build up, little by little, slowly but surely, once more the prosperity of agriculture. It was primarily the duty of the Government of the day to say what measures should be applied, but he was not going therefore to excuse himself from the responsibility of stating what reforms he thought might be carried out. In the first place, there were at least two questions which might be dealt with during an Autumn Session—some change in the law as to preferential railway rates on foreign produce, on the lines which the recent decision in the South Western case had shown to be indispensable, and a strengthening of the law with regard to the adulteration of dairy produce, which had been made perfectly clear by the conclusive evidence of the Select Committee. But if he was asked his own opinion he would boldly go to the root of the matter. Protection was out of the question, and bimetallism if practicable would do little good, and that tardily. The present position of agriculture was governed by the question of money, pure and simple. As he had said before, the landlords and tenants had not sufficient money to keep up the equipment of their estates and farms, and to thoroughly carry out agricultural work. Another defect was the bad system of land tenure that existed, and the want of protection under which the tenant farmer suffered in respect of the money he laid out for improvements. For want of the necessary capital farms were being depleted year by year. Those points alone should suffice to induce the Government to deal with the agricultural question in an Autumn Session. Moreover, he thought the Government might, as the hon. Member for Norfolk suggested on Friday night, give agriculturists a thoroughly sound and useful Agricultural Holdings Act. The Bill introduced last Session by the hon. Member for South Molton might require some amendment and expansion, but, after all, that Bill went to the real point, namely, to give the industrious tenant a fair chance of securing his capital, and of obtaining a fair rent which would not swallow up the capital. His object, and that of those who agreed with him, was to give encouragement to the men who worked on the land, and to encourage the free application of money to the land, which was indispensable for the future of agriculture. In a letter to The Times the other day, the hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Jeffreys) pointed out that there were many millions of money now idle which might be invested in the land, to its relief and advantage, if real security was given, and he was perfectly willing, for his own part, to see a system of loans to landlords, and, if possible, to landlords and tenants, initiated for the benefit of the agricultural classes on cheaper and easier terms, so as to facilitate the improvements necessary to restore the fertility of the soil. He had thus suggested four topics which would give some relief to the present state of things, and which, seeing that all parties and all classes were agreed that it was necessary something should be done, to relieve existing depression, might be advantageously dealt with by the Government in a short Autumn Session. And he thought he had fully made out a case for their doing so. The question of the readjustment of local and Imperial taxation as bearing on agricultural land was one of great importance, and deserved the gravest consideration, but its complexity demanded time, and it could not be entered on now. It had been said that in this matter there should be no sectional remedies, and he concurred. He would add that while there should be no sectional remedies, so there should be no remedies sectionally applied to one class as opposed to another. He should be opposed to any readjustment of taxation on the land unless it was accompanied by such reforms as would guarantee, either by a division of the rates, or by some power to reduce rents, or both, that the relief proposed should not be given to one class only, but should be shared by the tenant farmers and by the labourers. The mere announcement of a policy, providing that the tenant farmer should henceforth have full security for the capital he invested, and that the State was willing to provide a system of loans at cheaper rates, would do a great deal at once to stimulate the hopes of agriculturists. He had endeavoured to point out certain remedies for the existing distress which, if promptly carried out, would, he was sure, confer much advantage upon agriculture during the coming year, and he thought it would be a great misfortune to the country, and would reflect little credit on the House and on Her Majesty's Government if an effort were not made to initiate, during the present year, some such reforms as he had indicated.

said, the hon. Member for East Northampton might be congratulated on the tone of his speech, and on his invitation to hon. Members to sink Party feeling on this particular question. He did not know, however, that he could congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment on the practical light they had thrown on this difficult problem. Now, on this question he was only entitled to speak on behalf of those who sent him to the House for that express purpose, and on behalf of his constituents he had to say two things. The first was, that this question of the wide-spread agricultural depression was not only one which interested them particularly, but one which painfully absorbed their whole attention at the present time. The other thing he had to say was, that they confidently looked—and, he believed, with justice—to the present Government to come to their rescue, not only as regarded good administration, which he thought they were sure to have, but also as regarded wise, timely legislation, about which he had some doubt. He thought there was a good deal of truth in what the hon. Member who had just sat down said, when he reminded hon. Members on that side of the House how much they owed their present commanding position to hopes they had raised in the breasts of the farming community. The question arose whether those hopes were going to be realised. The hon. Member who proposed the Amendment seemed to consider that they would not be realised. He supposed they must all wait, though waiting was a tedious and exasperating process. Most of them could contribute individual tales confirming the general story of depression throughout the country. Even in the favoured part of the country in which he lived, the county of Sussex on the border of Kent, he had known within a few miles of his house quite recently, farms out of which men still living had made their fortunes, sold—that was the freehold—for £13 an acre; that record was beaten in other parts of the country where stiff clays and arable land prevailed He would content himself with quoting one instance of individual suffering that came to his notice. It was that of a farmer who a few years ago made his will, leaving, and being entitled to leave £30,000 to his family. When he died the other day, purely through his farming losses, his family had nothing, his widow was a candidate for relief from the Agricultural Benevolent Society, and his son was going out as a day labourer. The hon. Member who last addressed the House spoke sympathetically on the subject of dealing with local taxation and burdens on land, but he found on reference to the Journals of the House, that on 27th February, 1891, the hon. Member supported this Resolution—

"That in the opinion of the House the proportion of taxation that falls upon and is payable by land and its rentals is insufficient, and ought to be increased."

Had the hon. Member, then, changed his mind on this subject?

I am under the impression that the Motion in question referred not to agricultural but to urban land. It was in that sense I gave my vote.

That explanation will not hold water, for the Motion was a general one. It was supported not only by the right hon. Gentleman now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench (Sir W. Harcourt) but by the Gentleman who was recently Minister for Agriculture, and who was raised to the peerage for his important services. It was difficult to believe that the Party who as a Party voted for that Resolution were quite sincere in their desire to free the land from undue taxation. The hon. Member for East Norfolk advocated good pure beer as one of the panaceas for agricultural distress, but there again he found the Journals of the House did him injustice apparently, because last Session, when he had an opportunity of supporting the demand for pure beer, he voted against the motion of the right hon. Member for Thanet.

That was a Motion in the direction of taxation, introduced as an Amendment to the Budget.

I would ask the hon. Member what he has ever done to promote pure beer legislation?

I have backed the Bill of the hon. Member for the Sudbury Division ever since I was in the House.

Yes, sir, but he did not appear to support it whenever it had any chance.

When?

And I am surprised at the hon. Member for East Norfolk having seconded any demand on the subject of pure beer; I should have thought his constituents, by their behaviour at the late Election, rather showed they would be better without any beer at all. The hon. Member also wished to place some restrictions on the sale of foreign meat.

The fraudulent sale.

But there again he was not exactly in agreement with the hon. Member for Leicester, who was a warm advocate for increasing the importation of Canadian cattle, and a warm advocate apparently of free trade in pleuro-pneumonia. He much preferred those blunt suggestions, however, whatever inconsistencies there might be in the movers, to no suggestions at all. But in his opinion they ought frankly to admit that as regarded the more drastic and effectual remedies, the Government had a very good case for demanding delay until the new financial year. For instance, as regarded a wide change in the direction, of transferring local burdens to the Imperial charge, any great modification or alteration of the Finance Act, any extensive reform in connection with the revenue duties (and on the subject of pure beer), it was fair to wait until they could discuss them in connection with the new Budget. But none the less he regretted that two or three lines could not have been inserted in the Queen's Speech to express the sympathy of the Government with those who had done so much to place them in their present position. Though barren sympathy might not appear to her Majesty's Government a thing of much practical value, he could assure them that it would have been appreciated by large numbers of farmers and landowners throughout the couutry who, as it was, might be erroneously led to suppose that the Government took a greater interest in the sufferings of distant people like the Armenians than in those of people at home whose welfare should be their first care. ["Hear, hear!"] He wished, therefore, that a few words could have been inserted in the Gracious Speech to have given a little timely encouragement to the farming class, who were a well deserving, sorely-suffering, and marvellously patient section of her Majesty's subjects.

said, he would not have intervened in the Debate at all, but for the speech made by the President of the Board of Agriculture on Friday night. It had been his privilege in the last Parliament to listen to several speeches from the right hon. Gentleman, and he had come to the conclusion that, of all the Members of the House the right hon. Gentleman was probably one of those best acquainted with the condition of the agricultural interest, and best qualified to deal with the solution of the difficult problems that were presented by the existing agricultural depression. Perhaps that fact accentuated the disappointment he felt with the right hon. Gentleman's somewhat perfunctory performance on Friday night. He could not help contrasting the right hon. Gentleman's attitude, now that he was in Office, with his attitude last year when he was in Opposition, when he supported the Motion, of the hon. Member for South Essex for the Adjournment of the House on the ground that the state of the agricultural industry was such as to be a matter of urgent public importance. In order to further emphasise that striking contrast he would call the attention of the House to the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sleaford, now President of the Local Government Board, spoken as recently as February of this year:—

"What did seem strange to him,"

said the right hon. Member for Sleaford on that occasion,

"when they remembered the deplorable condition the agricultural interest was now in; when they knew that so many other interests were greatly depressed; and that vast numbers of people were every day being put out of employment, the Government showed no adequate sense of the urgency and gravity of the situation. It was quite impossible to exaggerate the gravity of the agricultural situation. It was reported that in almost every district of the country it was steadily and rapidly growing worse."

He (Mr. Brynmor Jones) ventured to repeat the words of the right hon. Gentleman and say, that the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was now a Member showed no adequate sense of the urgency and gravity of the situation. The Government could not put them off with the procrastinating platitudes of the President of the Board of Agriculture on Friday night, that he would honestly, sincerely, and straightforwardly do his duty—next year. He said so much in justice to his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, whose Motion had been denounced as having no sincerity behind it. But the more particular purpose for which he rose was to complain that the Minister for Agriculture had made no reference at all to the disastrous condition of things in the Principality of Wales. He had had ample opportunity as a Member of the Welsh Land Commission of gauging the extent of the agricultural depression in, the Welsh counties, and, without any polemical intent, but by way of appeal to the Minister for Agriculture, he declared that unless there was some great change in the economic situation, or unless some remedial measures were introduced by the Government, then they were face to face with the bankruptcy in the Welsh Counties of one of the largest and most influential industrial classes in the community. As he was a Member of the Land Commission, which had not yet reported, he would not go into the question of the tenant-farmers, because to do so would necessarily involve his dealing with delicate questions between landlords and tenants which, for the present, he desired to avoid. But he desired to deal with the question of small freeholders, and he did so the more readily because public attention had been drawn to it by his hon. Friend and colleague on the Commission, the hon. Baronet who represented Swansea town, in a speech delivered in Wales some time ago. One of the peculiarities of the Welsh counties, so far as agriculture is concerned, is that tenants were chiefly members of families who had been connected with the same holding, or at any rate the same estate, not only from generation to generation, but in some cases from century to century. In support of that proposition he could refer to the evidence of Colonel Hughes of the Wynne estate—one of the largest in Wales—who said he could mention at least one case in which the same family had been farming the same holding for about one thousand years. It therefore happened that, when estates were broken up, those men paid extravagant prices for the farms with which their families had been so long connected. In nearly all instances they were unable to pay the purchase money down. They had to mortgage their holdings. They mortgaged them at a time when there was greater prosperity in trade and agriculture. Their condition now was that in a large number of cases they were face to face with bankruptcy and eviction, and they had to contemplate sinking down into the position of labourers, or else of going into the workhouse; because, for Welsh-speaking farmers, above middle age and without capital, migration to English towns or emigration to the Colonies was out of the question. The hon. Baronet who represented Swansea town drew attention to this question in a speech that had attracted a good deal of public notice. He did not say that the seats won by the Government in Wales were due to the expectations, held out by the hon. Baronet. He made no point about that. But the hon. Baronet said it was quite possible for the State, by a simple financial operation which would involve no loss, to relieve those men. Whatever was done must be done quickly. Those men had to deal with mortgagees, who were more difficult persons to contend with than landlords. From a landlord a tenant might expect to receive consideration; but a mortgagee was in most cases only a trustee for persons who had no other connection with the district in which their money was invested. He brought forward the question new in the hope that the Government in considering the financial matters of next year would take into account the position of those small freeholders in Wales. He did not intend to labour the question or to go into details; but he should like to point out that Mr. Morgan Richardson offered a reasonable scheme for the relief of those freeholders, which he hoped the Minister for Agriculture would take into his consideration. Also he should like to hear something from the Government about Railway Rates in Wales. There, as in every part of the Kingdom, they had to complain of excessive rates on agricultural produce, and of undue preference given to the Irish over the Welsh farmer. The through rates of some railways operated to the disadvantage of the Welsh agriculturists. He hoped that some indication of the policy of the Government would be given. There was another important question with reference to Welsh agriculture. From its physical conditions, it was not a country where arable cultivation could prosper much, except in some of the valleys. It was upon dairy produce and sheep farming that Welsh farmers must mainly hope to prosper. Could the Government see their way to do what had been suggested from both sides of the House—namely, through the, local authorities, or otherwise, to encourage butter and cheese factories in Wales? As a Welsh Land Commissioner he was much struck with the fact that; wherever he went in Wales, it was not Welsh, but Devonshire or Danish butter that he got; and when he asked the; reason, he was told by many competent; witnesses that the Welsh farmers were not able to make the kind of butter which the English visitor required. The establishment of butter factories had been suggested as one of the smaller remedies for relieving the agricultural situation in Wales. The farmers themselves had not sufficient capital among them to start these factories. He mentioned these facts to show that if the Government were in earnest in this matter they must act quickly, for the situation brooked no delay. If he were to speak as a party man, he could tell how the Unionist candidates throughout Wales went about saying that a Liberal Government spelt ruin for the farmers; but that a Unionist Government would mean big balances at the bank; silk dresses for the farmers wives; low rates; no cattle disease; a minimum of foreign competition; and, in fact, that a Unionist Government would "scatter plenty o'er a smiling land." [Ministerial cheers.] Then let them do it. [Opposition Cheers.] That was what they asked in moving this Amendment. The hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Jeffreys) said that the Amendment was a mere trick. It was not a trick of the Opposition. It was an opportunity for the Government. The hon. Member spoke with some trepidation and perturbation of spirit; because, if he voted with the Government on this Amendment—which offered the hon. Gentlemen opposite the sincerest flattery in the shape of imitation of their Motions in the last Parliament—he knew that it would be awkward for him in his constituency. And he would promise that he and his friends would pay a visit to the hon. Member's constituency in order that the plain and unvarnished truth about the hon. Member's vote might be known there. On this question, of all others, the Government ought not to put the House off with a speech like that of the President of the Board of Agriculture. Before the General Election Lord Salisbury said that the policy of his Party was Dissolution. Did the Government want the Opposition to tell the country now that the policy of Lord Salisbury's Party was Delay? If not, let them give a better answer to this Motion, for which he, at any rate, should vote.

said that he should go down to his constituents with a clear conscience after having voted against this Amendment. They would not require much explanation, for they were intelligent people, and when they read this Debate they would understand for themselves. He should tell them that this was an Amendment which, when brought forward by the Unionist Party in Opposition, was invariably voted down by those who now proposed it. [Cheers.] He should tell them, as the hon. Member who last spoke had practically admitted, that it was a political dodge, with the object of putting the agricultural supporters of the Government in a difficulty. [Cheers.] He should further tell his constituents that when the Resolution was brought forward the front Opposition Bench was as empty as the Radical promises and as blank as their legislative record. [Cheers and laughter.] And by whom was this Amendment proposed? By the Representative of the wildest part of the British Empire—of the constituency inhabited by savages. [Cheers and laughter,]

I beg to state that my constituency is quite as respectable as any in England. [Laughter.]

said that it was a constituency which at the last Election showed a long series of political atrocities. [Ministerial cheers, and Opposition cries of "Question."]