said, he did not wish to adopt any hostile attitude towards the Bill, although it touched a subject which affected profoundly the interest of his constituency. The object of the Bill was to deal with a large tract of land which lies in the centre of his constituency, which belonged to the Corporation and which was at present used for a market. The Corporation acquired the land 45 years ago, when the district presented a very different appearance to what it did today. They built a large cattle market there, and now they knew the market was larger than was required. They therefore sought to sell some vacant land which had been preserved under the provisions set out in the Act. He desired to have an instruction to the Committee.

said the hon. Gentleman could not discuss an Instruction upon the Motion for the Second Reading.

said, he had put down an Instruction which would enable the Committee to appropriate the land for the purposes of an open space or recreation-ground. He did not anticipate there would be any disposition on the part of the Corporation of London to take a hostile attitude towards the Instruction, but he desired to explain that the circumstances which had arisen since the market was built made it almost absolutely essential for the life and health of the inhabitants of the district that this ground should be used as an open space. When the market was built there were fields around it, but now these had been built upon. Therefore, in order to enable the Committee to look into the matter, and if possible to allocate the vacant land as an open space, he begged to move:—

"That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into their consideration the suitability of the unoccupied ground in the neighbourhood of the Cattle Market for the purposes of an open space and recreation-ground, and if necessary to make such provision in the Bill as would enable the same to be acquired for that purpose."

said, the promoters of the Bill, who had always been supporters of the acquisition of open spaces, were perfectly willing to accept the Instruction. It could not be expected that an Epping Forest could be established in Islington, but whatever the Corporation could do to meet the wishes of the population there they would do with pleasure.

said, the Bill proposed to establish an infirmary in Waterford for the county and city of Waterford. At present there was no county or city infirmary there. There was what was called in Waterford the Old Leper Hospital. The charter dated as far back as the days of King John, and there were granted in perpetuity to the Mayor and Corporation certain lands and certain possessions in the city for the support of the hospital and for the relief of lepers and other diseased persons. Though the scourge of leprosy had ceased to exist, the hospital bore its old name. It was now proposed to utilise the present buildings and property for an infirmary. Hon. Members were on the present occasion at some disadvantage. He knew the lands in question, but he had no particular knowledge of the income derived from the property. He regretted that the promoters of the Bill had not given them some table showing what the income was, and also how the judicial rents, if they were judicial rents, bore with the valuation of the land. As to the provision of county hospitals for Ireland, he thought the Local Government Board might do a great deal towards meeting the want by utilising the hospitals now attached to the different Unions, which were, as a rule, well equipped. He knew some people would object to go to a Union hospital. He did not object to such people being provided for, but he objected to the mode in which they were to be provided for. His chief objection was to the source from which it was proposed to get an income for this hospital. It was suggested that the Grand Jury should have power to levy a rate to the amount of £800 a year in the country and £400 a year in the city for the maintenance of the hospital. The Grand Juries were not representative, and to such a course he strongly objected. As he had previously said, his main objection to the hospital was on account of the source from which it was to derive a considerable portion of its support. The Bill proposed that a certain number of Governors should be nominated, and in addition to that a list of non-official Governors was to be appointed, and they were to be elected for life with power to appoint their successors. It was true that, so far as he knew of, these gentlemen were men of standing, but not one of them occupied anything like a representative position in the city. In this connection, it was only fair to the promoters of the Bill that he should state that he had received a telegram from the Mayor of Waterford stating that the Infirmary trustees had agreed to add four names to the non-official list, thus equalising the number of Catholics and non-Catholics, and that the Bishop of Waterford and the Mayor thought that in those circumstances opposition to the Bill should be withdrawn. Doubtless the Bishop was of opinion that opposition should be withdrawn, and he should be glad if possible to accede to his Lordship's wishes, but his constituents were opposed to the Bill; they objected to any increase of powers being given to the Grand Juries, whose action was in reality a system of taxation without representation, and he was bound to act in that House for his constituency. ["Hear, hear!"] He at one time made what he regarded as a fair proposition to the promoters. He told them that if they chose to make the Bill a city Bill, and confine it to the city, he should have no objection to it, but the promoters did not see their way to adopt the suggestion and insisted that the county should supply a part of the funds for the maintenance of the hospital. A statement had been circulated that the two Boards of Guardians in his constituency had decided in favour of the Bill. That was not the fact. It was true that two resolutions in favour of the Bill were passed, but they were brought up merely on correspondence and without notice, and it was only recently that some of the Guardians waited upon him and said that, so far were the Boards from being in favour of the Measure, if a statement of the facts was placed before them the two resolutions referred to would be rescinded. The Waterford Board of Guardians, in fact, of which he was himself Chairman, had since unanimously rejected the proposal of the Bill. Another suggestion he made with a view to meet the promoters was that arrangements should be made by which certain powers in regard to the county rate should be transferred from the Grand Juries, entirely unrepresentative bodies, to the Boards of Guardians; but this also did not meet with approval. To show the absurd and incompetent way in which these Grand Juries sometimes acted, he would mention that about eight years ago, when the Waterford, Dungarvan, and Lismore Railway Bill was brought before that House, the Grand Jury pledged the county rate to the extent of paying the shareholders 5 per cent. for 35 years.

asked whether that passed the Presentment Sessions.

replied that the hon. and gallant Gentlemen knew as well as anyone that the Presentment Sessions were not in any way representative. They did not reflect the views of the ratepayers.

Will the hon. Member say "yes" or "no." [Cries of "Order!"]

Does the hon. Gentleman mean to say that the Presentment Sessions represent the views of the ratepayers?

Yes, I do. [Nationalist laughter.]

said, that in that case he would mention two instances of their mode of action that came under his own knowledge. His late colleague in that House—Mr. J. D. Pyne—was one of the largest ratepayers in the County of Waterford, but owing to his political views he was never once solicited as an associated ratepayer to take part in the Sessions. The other instance related to himself. For years he was regularly summoned as an associated ratepayer to take part in the Presentment Sessions. In 1880 he was made a magistrate, and then it was not necessary for him to be an associated ratepayer in order to take part in the Sessions. But in 1887 Lord Ashbourne removed his name from the roll of magistrates, and, though he still possessed the same qualifications to serve on the Sessions, he had never since that day been asked to attend them. [Nationalist cheers.] He contended, therefore, that the Presentment Sessions were not representative in any way of the ratepayers, and were not entitled to speak or act for them. For the last 16 years they had been paying £14,000 a year for this county railway, owing to the incapacity of the Grand Jury. In his own place he was paying 11½. in the pound for the railway which he never used. This was a good specimen of the way in which these Grand Juries administered affairs. These Grand Jurors, who, by this Bill, they were going to give special powers to, had always prided themselves on standing aloof from the people. The Bill also made it impossible for the ratepayers, who were asked to con tribute this £800 a year, to have the assistance of any but lay persons. He wanted the poor to be well nursed, and he wanted proper accommodation to be provided for them, but what he objected to was this system, which necessitated the asking of the ratepayers, through the Boards of Guardians, to support these hospitals. He certainly objected to conferring further powers on the Grand Jury, which had shown its incapacity in the past. With that object he would move the Motion standing in his name.

seconded the Motion.

said, he sincerely hoped the opposition to this Bill would not be pushed to the extreme, but if they did he hoped the House would give it a Second Reading with a decisive majority. The object of this Bill was to carry out the intention of the hon. Gentleman when he said he was anxious the poor should be properly nursed and that proper accommodation should be provided for that purpose. The city of Waterford, with 20,000 inhabitants, and the capital of a populous community, was entirely without anything in the nature of an infirmary or county or city hospital. The absence of this accommodation necessarily entailed very great hardship and suffering, especially on the poorer classes. In the city of Waterford there was an intense feeling in support of the Bill. There was, in Waterford, an old institution called the Leper Hospital of St. Stephen, established in the reign of King John. It had a small fund, about £800 a year, but it had a magnificent building, capable of accommodating at least 100 patients. Owing, however, to insufficient funds, they were not able to provide more than about 20 beds, or a resident physician, or a nursing staff. The object of this Bill was to convert this old Leper Hospital into a city and county Infirmary, and to utilise the building and also the funds so far as they would go. Complaint had been made of insufficient notice, but he would remind the House that in the Session of 1895 he introduced this Bill as a public Bill, but he had to drop it because it was held by the authorities of the House that it must be introduced as a private Bill. He had now had to introduce it as a private Bill at a cost, if it was unopposed, of some £400, and at a very much greater cost indeed if the opposition of the hon. Gentleman went on. A public-spirited and benevolent gentleman in Waterford had provided the money necessary to pay the fees of this House and of the other House, so as to enable the Bill to be introduced. There was practical unanimity in the city and county of Waterford in favour of the Bill. What was its backing? He did not suppose a private Bill was ever introduced which was so influentially and universally supported as this was. The petition was signed by the Catholic and Protestant Bishops, by all the Catholic parish priests and administrators, by the Protestant Dean and all the Protestant clergy of the city, by the Mayor of the city, the High Sheriff of the county, and the High Sheriff of the city. The Grand Jury of the county and of the city also, unanimously passed resolutions in its favour. One of the objections originally taken to the Bill was that on the governing body of the new institution there was not a sufficient representation of Catholics as contrasted with Protestants. As the governing body stood in the Bill at the present moment there were 17 Catholics to 16 Protestants, but the promoters had, in order to obviate this expensive and irritating opposition, agreed to insert four additional Catholic names to act on the governing body. The governing body was to be composed of ex officio and non-official members. The ex officio members were to be the present Master of the Leper Hospital, the Catholic and Protestant Bishops, the Incumbent of the Parish, the Parish Priest and administrator of all the Catholic parishes, the Mayor, the High Sheriff, and the three Members for the city and county. The Grand Jury nominated a certain number in proportion to the amount which they contributed. The non-official members were to consist of the present Trustees of the Leper Hospital, thus bringing into this institution this magnificent building and the £800 a year. That was a very fairly-constituted body. The second, and really the main objection of the hon. Gentleman was the fact that they were asking the Grand Jury to contribute something to the maintainance of this hospital. He did not yield to anyone in his opinion of the non-representative character of the Grand Jury system. All the Nationalist Members for Ireland were in favour of substituting for these Grand Juries representative bodies, such as County Councils in England, and when these County Councils were established, as they must be sooner or later, then all the functions and all the powers of the present Grand Juries would of course be handed over to them. But in the meantime what were they to do? They had no other body to go to, and he submitted it would be an absurdity to suggest that they should go to the Boards of Guardians. There were county and city infirmaries all over Ireland, and there was absolutely no precedent in existence for a county and city infirmary maintained by the Guardians out of the Poor Rates. Poor Law Guardians had their own workhouse hospitals to support at the present moment, and if this power were to be given to them, and if, in addition to their own workhouse hospitals, they were to contribute to this new hospital, it would have still clinging to it the objection with which the poor people still regarded workhouse hospitals. As to the question of taxation without representation, he objected to that principle as much as anyone, and they only went to the Grand Juries because there was no other body to go to. They did not compel them to give a contribution, but they were empowered to levy a tax of £800 if they chose to do so, which would only amount to a halfpenny in the pound on the population of the county. He was pleading, in this matter, on behalf of the suffering and sick poor of the city and county of Waterford, and he regretted that this opposition—which had developed at the last moment, which had already entailed considerable expense, and which would entail more if it went on—had been allowed to impede the progress of the Bill. Beyond the opposition shown there that day, and by the one Board of Guardians that had been mentioned, there had been no opposition whatever, and no petition lodged against the Bill, and the whole length and breadth of the opposition might be gathered from what had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. He hoped that the opposition would not be persevered in. If it was it must entail considerable expense and delay, and if, by any chance, it were successful, it would entail years, perhaps, of additional suffering to the poor sick of the county of Waterford. In these circumstances, he hoped the opposition would not be pressed, but if it was, he appealed to men of all creeds and parties in the House to carry the Bill by a decisive majority.

expressed gratification at the fact that clergymen of both denominations were to be ex officio Trustees of the infirmary under this Bill, which was not the case in the County Cork Hospital, with which he had been connected for 10 years. He wished to point out, however, that only secular nurses were to be appointed.

That is not so. The governing body of the institution, in which there will be a large majority of Catholics, has ample power to have either nuns or secular nurses, just as they choose.

observed that the clause in the Bill said: "The existing system of employing only secular matrons, nurses and probationers shall be continued."

Read on.

"But this provision may be annulled by resolution." There had been, he believed, the same power in connection with the Cork South Infirmary, but although for years an agitation had been carried on to get Protestant nursing sisters for Protestant patients, and Catholic nuns for nursing Catholic patients, it had never been done by the Trustees. The same remark also applied to the Infirmary for County Kerry and the Barrington Hospital in the city of Limerick. He certainly distrusted the giving of so much power to the Grand Jury. His experience was, that the Grand Jury members of these institutions never attended the meetings of the Boards of Trustees except there was some job on. If the Bill was allowed to pass, he hoped that the various rules would be so modified as to give a proper preponderance in the government of the Institution to the people who were in a majority in the county and city of Waterford.

did not wish to intervene between the House and any decision, but he believed it was usual, on an occasion such as this, for the Chairman of Committees to give his advice in matters of the kind. The rule which the House had generally followed, and he thought very wisely, had been to allow the Second Reading of Private Bills to go through unless any strikingly new principle happened to be enunciated therein, and in such cases the House must pause before it accepted the principle. He had listened most attentively to the Debate, and he confessed he saw nothing of a new principle in any of the proposals of the Bill. On the contrary, so far as he had been able to gather, the Bill only carried out, in the case of Waterford, that which already existed in the case of certain other counties and cities in Ireland. Certain objections had been taken to the Bill by the hon. Member who raised the opposition to it, but he thought they were all Committee objections, and that the proper place to deal with them would be in Committee, not upon the Second Reading. All hon. Members were agreed as to the desirability of the object of the Bill, and that being so, the only difference of opinion was as to the machinery. The questions with regard to the representation of Protestants or Roman Catholics, the employment of secular nurses, and the means by which the funds were to be obtained for placing the hospital in an efficient condition, he ventured to submit, could all be fairly and properly dealt with in Committee, should the Bill be opposed; or, if unopposed, would be considered by the authorities of the House in the proper place, but no case had been made out for making an exception to the ordinary rule, and, no new principle being promulgated, the House would do well to follow the rule it had invariably followed in former Parliaments—namely, to give the Bill a Second Reading, and send it Upstairs, in order that it might be dealt with there in the usual manner.

controverted the assertion of the right hon. Gentleman that the Bill adopted on new principle, remarking that it extended and perpetuated the bad principle of allowing the Grand Jury to deal with funds, no portion of which it levied upon itself. In the case of the County Hospital in Cork, the Grand Jury contributed largely to the institution, and so did the City Corporation. Both the Cork Grand Jury and the Cork Corporation were largely represented on the governing body, but there were other representatives, including the Members of the county. He certainly thought they were justified in objecting to a non-representative body like the Grand Jury, which paid none of the taxation, monopolising the representation on the governing boards of institutions of this character.

said, this Bill was concerned with a city which at the last census had a population of 33,000 people, but the promoters of the Bill wanted to extend the municipal boundaries larger than those of Berlin. The Catholics formed the majority, but under the circumstances they got no adequate representation. He hoped an end would be put to jerrymandering. He asked the Members from Ulster on the other side of the House to take the opportunity that was presented by that Bill and the Belfast Bill to remove what was a disgrace to Ulster. The Catholics of Derry and Belfast had no power in municipal affairs. ["Hear, hear!"] He trusted before the Second Reading of the two Bills they might be able to come to such an agreement as would prevent them washing their dirty linen in public. ["Oh!"] Let them see if they could not now remove this long-standing grievance.

said, hon. Members would hardly gather from the remarks of the hon. Member the true state of the facts. They would hardly realise that the proposal as to extending of the boundaries had been withdrawn. He denied that there was any jerrymandering, and the system which the people had was one that best suited the district. They were certainly willing as to Belfast to consider any reasonable proposal, but he protested against any insinuations being made.

gave notice that this day four weeks Mr. Buxton (Tower Hamlets) would call attention to the fair wages Resolution and move—

"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the whole question of the interpretation and administration of the fair wages Resolution by the different Government Departments." ["Hear, hear!"]

gave notice that this day four weeks he would call attention to the agricultural situation, and move a Resolution. ["Hear, hear!"]

gave notice that, on going into Committee on the Army Estimates, he would call attention to the necessity for the more complete adaptation of the existing military forces to the oversea requirements of the Empire, and move a Resolution.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he is aware that the Brecon School Board have lately been educating their children in a public-house named the "New Buck Inn;" and, if this be so, whether he proposes to take any action in the matter?

The Committee of Council are not aware that the Brecon School Board are educating their children in the "New Buck Inn;" but inquiry is being made, and, if it is so, it will be stopped.

I beg ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies—(1) whether he is aware that Mr. George Trafford, who is now over sixty years of age, has been for upwards of twenty-nine years Chief Justice of St. Vincent, West Indies; (2) whether he is now entitled to his full pension; and, (3) whether he will make inquiry as to the general complaints made by suitors and by members of the Bar as to the necessity for relieving him from his position of responsibility?

The reply to the two first paragraphs is in the affirmative. As to the third paragraph, as I have not received any complaints I do not see any necessity to make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether the Government intend to introduce a Bill to reform and reorganise the Irish Lights Board?

My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The answer is in the negative.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the dissatisfaction that existed amongst all political parties respecting the administration of the Irish Lights Board?

said, he was not aware of the dissatisfaction, but his impression was that it would tend to the good administration of the Irish Lights Board if, when that body co-opt, they would co-opt gentlemen who were more acquainted with the matters they had to deal with than the gentlemen co-opted were.

inquired if the right hon. Gentleman had no power to compel the Board to co-opt such gentlemen.

was afraid he had no influence, but if any representation of his would be of any avail he would be glad to make it.

Who has control over the Board?

Only themselves, I am afraid.

Do they themselves contribute the money which they spend?

That does not arise out of the question on the Paper?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state the amount of the original estimate for the repairs and reconstruction of the Royal Barracks in Dublin; also the sum in excess of the original estimate that was ultimately expended; the date of final payment, and the date of completion of the contract; and, whether it was deemed expedient to hold an inquiry into the matter?

No complete detailed estimate was made of the cost of reconstructing the Royal Barracks in Dublin. In order that the troops to be quartered in Dublin might be housed as quickly as possible in good sanitary quarters, it was considered by the local military authorities essential that the reconstruction should be commenced without waiting for detailed plans and estimates, which would have caused delay. It was only as the old buildings were pulled to pieces, and the old drains explored, that the extent of the work necessary gradually became known, and the estimates furnished, while the work was in progress, were consequently to some extent misleading. The reconstruction was commenced in the spring of 1891, and the major portion of the barracks was occupied by the troops early in 1892. The bulk of the work was completed by the autumn of 1893; though the whole was not finished until the middle of 1895. The final payment to the contractor was made on the 4th July 1895. The whole case was made subject to careful investigation in the War Department, but it was not deemed necessary to hold any special inquiry.

Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House how much of the excess of the original estimate was paid?

I have already informed the hon. Member that no original estimate was made.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Dr. William Anderson, the Director General of Ordnance Factories, is a shareholder, and his son, Mr. E. W. Anderson, a director, in the engineering firm of Easton, Anderson, and Goolden; and, whether this firm supplies machinery for the use of the Arsenal at Woolwich?

This matter has previously been raised in the House. The facts are that Dr. Anderson, as soon as possible after his appointment as Director General of Ordnance Factories, transferred the shares he held in the company in question, and ceased to have a pecuniary interest in its affairs. The company is what is known as a private limited company, and its shares do not come upon the market; he, therefore, transfered them to a member of his family. Whether that member is a director in the company I do not think it necessary to inquire. In some instances machinery has been procured from the firm, but the orders have invariably been given through the Contract Branch, over which Dr. Anderson has no control.

inquired if the hon. Gentleman was aware that as lately as last week Dr. Anderson was a shareholder in the company.

said, Dr. Anderson became a shareholder through the death of his daughter, but as soon as he possibly could he made a second transfer, and in that way ceased to have a pecuniary interest in the company.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in view of the statement in the confidential Report on Mobilisation, 1st Brigade, 1st Division, 1st Army Corps, 1895, that no cavalry regiment can avoid losing efficiency by the influx of registered horses which cannot work up to the bit or answer the leg, and to expect a regiment under such conditions to face good European cavalry would be to court disaster, will he explain what steps, by supplementing the stallions in the congested districts of Ireland, or otherwise, the Government proposes to take to provide an efficient horse reserve?

The passage which the hon. Member has quoted occurs in a confidential Report, and relates to horses which have only been subjected to one week's drill. The peace establishment of regiments is always below the full war strength; and cavalry establishments must of necessity be made up by the addition of horses untrained to military work though broken to bit and bridle. The Secretary of State fails altogether to see how the measures proposed in the question would effect the object which the hon. Member apparently has in view.

asked, if the hon. Gentleman was not aware that the stallions in the congested districts of Ireland were absolutely useless?

said, that entire horses were not under the control of the War Department.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) has it come to his knowledge that an evicted tenant, named Pat M'Quade, of Gola, county Monaghan, was recently served with a summons requiring his attendance in Dublin to answer a charge of trespass, and that, failing to attend in Dublin for want of means, was arrested and imprisoned, and that his wife and six children have thereby been reduced to a state of destitution, necessitating their removal to the workhouse; and (2) will he inquire why this case was not tried at Petty Sessions instead of in Dublin?

It appears to be a fact that the person named in the question has been recently committed to Dundalk prison for contempt under an Order of the Court of Chancery. The responsibility for the proceedings in such cases rests altogether with that Court, and the Executive have no power to interfere in any way. Regarding the allegation at the end of the first paragraph, I am informed that the family of M'Quade have not been removed to the workhouse and that, so far as the police are aware, they are not reduced to a state of destitution.

Has the Chief Secretary any objection to give the name of the Judge guilty of this extraordinary conduct; and will the right hon. Gentleman introduce a Bill to limit the power of Judges in such a matter?

I think it was Mr. Justice Boyd. The Government are not prepared to introduce a Bill.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether, on the 25th December last, a death was reported to Dr. Gordon Hogg, the Coroner for West Middlesex, by a medical practitioner, as a probable case of poisoning by an opiate; and, whether he would ascertain on what grounds the Coroner had based the opinion expressed that the medical practitioner was worthy of censure for administering sulphonal in 25-grain doses?

I have been in communication with the Coroner referred to, who informs me that he did not express the opinion attributed to him in the question. The doctor was censured by the jury, through their foreman, for prescribing in the case without due examination.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if the Government are prepared to consider the desirability of giving a grant or yearly subsidy to encourage the construction of new dock works, including graving docks, by dock companies or harbour authorities, these works being arranged to meet Admiralty requirements, and when needed to be at the disposal of the Government?

I have arranged to receive a deputation in a few days in connection with a scheme put forward by a local authority in the North, when I shall be prepared to listen attentively to what may be urged on behalf of any proposal of the kind referred to by the hon. Member, but I must not be understood to hold out hopes that anything will be done.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state what measures are being taken, or are proposed to be taken, to carry out the recommendations of the Select Committee which sat in 1894 and 1895 on the Employment of Retired Soldiers and Sailors.

The Committee made a series of recommendations affecting a number of departments, and they have been carefully examined with a view to giving effect to them as far as circumstances permit. I hope to be in a position to make a statement with regard to them upon the Estimates.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if English and Scotch school teachers are paid more in salary than Irish national school teachers; and, if so, will he explain the reason of this difference?

The average receipts of teachers are higher in England, but the system is so different in the two countries as to make a profitable comparison between salaries difficult. To fully explain the reasons of this difference would involve a dissertation on the educational systems and social conditions of the different parts of the country, which cannot be given within the limits of an answer to a question; but I may point out that in England and Scotland a large part of the remuneration of teachers is derived from local sources, while in Ireland that remuneration is almost entirely from Imperial money.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Irish teachers perform their duties as satisfactorily as English and Scotch teachers?

That question does not arise out of that on the Paper.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the future coining of bronze coins, an alteration could be made in the obverse (or Queen's head) side of the farthing, so as to make the same unlike the obverse side of the half-sovereign, and thus prevent the mistakes and fraud alleged to have arisen from the present similarity in appearance of the obverse sides of the two coins?

No, Sir, I do not think that this can be done. The present design of the farthing was arrived at last year after full consideration. It was decided that the effigy of the Queen on all denominations of the coinage of this country should be of the same design. On the reverse of the coin the word "Farthing" is stamped in clear letters, and the edge is plain instead of milled, so that there is an obvious difference between the farthing and the half-sovereign. The danger of fraud exists only when the farthing is quite new, and I will consider whether it is possible to alter the colour in some way so as to reduce the resemblance.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the Lisgar estate, near Bailieboro', county Cavan—(1) whether he is aware that, for the last half century, the rents which the tenants have been compelled to pay have been forwarded to Captain Holford, of London, who has a mortgage on the estate; (2) whether his attention has been called to the inability of the tenants on this estate to pay their rents this year; (3) whether extreme pressure has been put upon the tenants to recover last year's rents and arrears which they have no means to pay; (4) whether these tenants are now threatened with eviction; and, (5) whether he will devise some plan for their relief and to prevent the eviction of all the tenants on this estate?

The facts appear to be as stated in the first paragraph. No representations have been made to me on the subject of the statement in the second paragraph, though I understand that about four-fifths of the tenants have paid a year's rent since November last. No extreme pressure has been brought to bear on the tenants, so far as I can gather, nor are the police aware that any evictions are contemplated on this property. As to the concluding paragraph, the hon. Member is aware that the Executive cannot interfere with the execution of decrees or judgments of competent Courts.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the dangerous state of the pier and harbour works at Newcastle, county Down, which he was good enough to inspect during the Recess, whether, considering the railway accommodation already existing there, the desirability for a harbour of safety in that district of the coast, and the necessities of the poor fishermen of Newcastle and vicinity, he can now say what the Government intend to do in the matter?

The matter is now under consideration by both the Irish Office and the Treasury. I am not yet in a position to announce the Government's decision, though I hope to be able to do so shortly.

On behalf of the hon. Member for North Westmeath (Mr. J. TUITE), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, to what extent can his Department enforce the provisions of Section 17 of the Railways and Canals Regulation Act of 1873 relating to the maintenance of canals by railway companies; and, if no power exists, will he introduce a Bill which would enable the Board of Trade to impose penalties for its contravention, or secure facilities for the passing of such a Measure if brought forward by a private Member?

To parties aggrieved he proper means of obtaining redress is to make an application to the Railway Commissioners. I am not prepared to introduce legislation on the subject.

On behalf of Mr. J. TUITE, I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether from time to time his Department has received reports of the general unsatisfactory management of railway-owned canals, and of the persistent neglect of certain companies to maintain in a proper navigable condition the canals in their possession, as required by Section 17 of the Railways and Canals Regulation Act of 1873; and, whether, having regard to the great public utility of those undertakings as a cheap means of transit for agricultural produce and certain classes of goods, he can see his way to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the best means of improving and developing the canal systems of the United Kingdom?

The Board of Trade have not recently received specific complaints of the management of railway-owned canals. I am not prepared, as at present advised, to recommend the appointment of a Select Committee to consider means of improving the canal systems of the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture, whether the word "butter," being defined in the Margarine Act, 1887, is, in the view of the Board of Agriculture, a false trade description within the meaning of The Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, when applied to butter adulterated with margarine; and, why is it that a Customs entry being under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1891, a trade description, the Board of Agriculture do not put in force the power of forfeiting adulterated butter at the port of entry under the powers given to them by the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887, and the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876, Section 42?

The application of the word "butter" in relation to butter adulterated with margarine, either in the Customs entry or otherwise, would be the application of a false trade description within the meaning of the Merchandise Marks Acts, and if, upon the arrival and examination of goods, the officer of Customs was satisfied that there had been an infringement of the law in this respect, it would be competent for him to detain them, with a view to proceedings being taken for their forfeiture, if the circumstances justified it. The difficulty in the way of the adoption of this course, however, lies in the fact that until an analysis of the butter has been made, it is impossible to say that it is adulterated, and goods of a perishable character could not well be detained in the absence of special information as to the existence of adulteration. The suggestion of the hon. Member will doubtless, however, receive the consideration of the Select Committee which has now been re-appointed.

asked whether butter taken for analysis and found to be adulterated was confiscated under the powers of the Customs Act?

said, it was impossible to seize adulterated butter because, in the opinion of his legal advisers, there was no fraud on the part of the consignees, with whom they alone were able to deal.

asked whether any steps were taken by the Department to trace adulterated butter from the merchant to the retailer?

replied that that was the duty of the local authorities, to whom the Department communicated the fact that adulterated butter was in circulation, and left them to deal with the retailers.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the statement in relation to the samples of foreign butters taken by the officers of Customs at certain ports of entry to the effect that 713 samples have been sent to the Government Analyst, who has reported 98 of them contain substances foreign to butter; that 70 samples represented importations from Germany, of which 27 were found questionable; and 159 from Holland, of which 56 were found questionable; what power does the Board of Agriculture possess in dealing with these adulterated substances; and have any prosecutions or confiscation of these commodities occurred; and, if not, what steps do the Board intend to take?

It is at the instance of the Board of Agriculture that samples of foreign butter are now being taken by the officers of Customs, and I am, therefore, officially cognisant of the facts to which the hon. Member refers. The Board are empowered to prosecute offenders under the Merchandise Marks Acts in cases relating to agricultural produce; but I am advised that in none of the cases in which on analysis there has been reason to believe that the goods contained an admixture of margarine were the circumstances such as to justify the prosecution of the importer or consignee by the Board, or the detention and forfeiture of the goods by the officers of Customs. We propose to continue to sample and analyse the goods, and to bring the facts under the notice of the importers and the local authorities, so as to prevent, if possible, any infringement of the Margarine Act; and in the meantime the whole subject will receive the attention of the Select Committee now sitting.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, in accordance with the memorial received from the inhabitants of Ballinamore District, South Leitrim, he will appoint Michael Fee as sub-postmaster in Deradda, and thus remedy the public inconvenience which has been occasioned owing to no permanent appointment of sub-postmaster being made in that locality?

The letters for Deradda are few in number, and a considerable loss is already incurred in sending out the letters to that place. The additional cost of providing a post office at Deradda would not be warranted, and the Postmaster General had no alternative but to refuse the memorial referred to by the hon. Member.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War how many gentlemen cadets who have passed through the Royal Military Academy are waiting for commissions; and could he state how long they have been waiting for commissions?

Thirty-seven gentleman cadets have been waiting commissions in the Royal Artillery and nine in the Royal Engineers since the 21st December last. All will be gazetted to commissions by the 21st March.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will consider the hardship to farming owners or occupiers who have made no income of being compelled by distraint to pay the amount at which they are assessed for Income Tax under Schedules A and B, and of being left to recover it, if possible, and after considerable delay, on appeal; and whether any method can be devised by which such exactions can be postponed till it is ascertained whether the amount is really due?

It is usual to allow payment of Income Tax under Schedules A and B by owner-occupiers, and under Schedule B by occupiers, of agricultural lands to stand over, where the parties at the time of the collection are able to produce accounts showing primâ facie that a loss has been incurred. The liability to the tax cannot, of course, be discharged except by the District Commissioners after examination of the accounts. But I may add that I have recently looked into this matter with the desire to facilitate repayment as much as possible; and the surveyors are now instructed that, when the claim for remission by an owner farming his own land is confined to the tax paid under A and B on that property, he will not be required to produce any accounts except the farming accounts for the land in question.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he can state how many tenants who had their rent fixed under the Land Act, 1881, were entitled after the 29th September and 1st November last to apply again to have a fair rent fixed; (2) how many applications to fix fair rents for a second statutory term have actually been lodged up to the present, either in the Land Commission or the County Court; (3) whether any of such applications have been heard; and (4) whether the hearing of any of them has been delayed by the Land Commission, pursuant to Judge Bewley's undertaking that the result of such applications would await the passing of the proposed Land Bill?

In answer to the first question I have to say that 36,000 applications to have fair rents fixed were recorded as having been made to the Court on the first occasion upon which it sat after the passing of the Land Act of 1881, and the tenant who had his fair rent fixed in any such application would be now entitled to apply again to have his fair rent fixed for a second statutory term. In a considerable number of these applications the originating notices were subsequently either withdrawn, struck out, or dismissed, and in a large number the tenants subsequently purchased their holdings; the Land Commission are, therefore, unable to state in how many of the 36,000 cases the tenants would now be in a position to apply again to have fair rents fixed. (2) The total number of applications which have been made to the Court to fix fair rents for a second statutory term, inclusive of cases transferred from Civil Bill Courts, is 245. (3) The Commissioners understand that some applications to fix fair rents for a second statutory term have been, heard by some of the County Court Judges to whose Courts the applications were made, but up to the present date the decision in only one such case has been notified to the Land Commission. In the Land Commission Court only three of such cases have been disposed of to date, the applications having been struck out, the tenants not being at present entitled to apply to the Court. (4) The Land Commission has not yet sent down for hearing any of such applications to the Sub-Commissions which are at present employed in disposing of fair-rent applications for a first statutory term. No undertaking, but only an expression of opinion, was given by Mr. Justice Bewley in the matter.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if he can state the number and cost of extra police in the Woodford district in connection with the Clanricarde estate, also the number and valuation of the evicted farms now unoccupied in said district?

The number of extra police employed in the Woodford Constabulary District in connection with the Clanricarde estate is 14, and their annual cost is, approximately, £965, one-half of which is charged to the county at large. There are 32 evicted farms at present unlet on the Clanricarde estate in the same district, and of these nine are used or worked by the landlord. The total valuation of these 32 farms is £293 6s., and of the nine farms used by the landlord £114 12s.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is proposed to erect a new post office in Sligo; whether he is aware that the accommodation in the present post office premises is such as to inconvenience the public and endanger the health of the officials; and, whether he will give instructions to have the proposed new arrangements completed as soon as possible?

It is proposed to erect a new post office at Sligo, and offers of sites for that purpose are now under consideration. The present office was improved last year, and the Postmaster General is not aware that the conditions are now such as to inconvenience the public and endanger the health of the officials. The arrangements for obtaining a new office will be pressed forward.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General—(1) whether he is aware that a revision of the Cork telegraph staff was sanctioned on or about the 16th July, 1895, whereby the number of superior appointments was increased from six to ten, but that the promotions consequent upon that revision have not yet been made; (2) whether there are thoroughly competent officers at Cork actually performing the duties, and who were nominated in August last to fill the vacancies; (3) whether, since on the 9th January last a memorial drawing attention to the delay in giving effect to the revision was presented by the staff, the Postmaster General will now direct that the revision be put into force without further delay; and, (4) whether the salaries applicable to the various appointments will be given to the officers selected for promotion as from the date on which the revision was sanctioned?

It is the case that in the course of last summer four superior appointments were added to the Cork establishment, and that these appointments have not yet been filled. It is also the case that a memorial to the effect stated by the hon. Member has been received. The delay arises from the serious doubt which the Department entertains whether any member of the class below was qualified for the office of Assistant Superintendent, or whether it might not be necessary to introduce into that office some officer from outside. Pending further inquiry into this matter, the Postmaster General hopes to make the other three promotions shortly. As regards the last paragraph in the Question, the usual rule is that the salary applicable to an appointment is given from the date of appointment, and there is no reason to suppose that in this case this course will be departed from.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the case of George Schuff, of King's Congleton, Warwickshire, upon whom an order to have his child vaccinated was made on 30th December by the Alcester Magistrates; whether he is aware that the parents had previously had a certificate from the public vaccinator that the child was unfit for vaccination owing to skin disease, and that the child was shown in court to be still suffering from skin disease; whether the magistrates acted legally in declining to accept this as a reasonable excuse, or to adjourn the case on the request of the parents till another certificate could be produced, and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter?

If the case to which the hon. Member refers is that of George Shuck, of King's Coughton, I am informed that no evidence was given, at the hearing of the case, of any certificate of unfitness having been obtained from the public vaccinator, and that no request was made by the parents for an adjournment. I am not aware of the condition of the child at the time of the hearing, but am informed that the magistrates told the parents that if it were unfit for vaccination at the next public examination the medical officer could give a postponement certificate. The vaccination officer states that no such certificate has ever been sent him in this case.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, whether he is aware that in England there are 83 district registries where writs of summons can be issued, and that in Ireland; such writs can only be issued in Dublin; and, whether, considering the very large number of writs of summons issued in respect of parties living in the city of Belfast and the adjoining counties, and having regard to the convenience of suitors and the speedy service frequently required in such cases, he will consider the desirability of having a district registry for the purpose established in Belfast?

I believe the number of district registries in England is correctly stated in the Question; but, without fresh legislation—for which I am not aware there is any pressing necessity—district registries cannot be established in Ireland.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the complaints made about the want of proper married quarters in Buttevant Barracks will be attended to; and, if so, what is intended to be done; and, whether the families of soldiers are now living there in misappropriated barrack rooms?

The erection of 24 married quarters in Buttevant Barracks is about to be commenced, which will meet the requirements. Of 30 soldiers' families now at Buttevant, 12 are provided for in married quarters, 12 are on the lodging list, and six are in separate rooms set apart for their accommodation without inconvenience to other services.

How soon will the proposed works be commenced?

Very shortly, but I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman exactly.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what is the aggregate number of released convicts under licence, and persons under police supervision in the Metropolitan Police District; how many of them are required to make their monthly report personally; how many are permitted to report themselves by letter; and, of the former class, what number (if any) are required to report themselves elsewhere than at a police station?

The aggregate number of convicts at large on licence in the Metropolitan Police District is 613. Twenty of these are permitted to report themselves by letter, nine have been relieved altogether from the obligation to report, the remainder is composed of 538 males who are required to report themselves in person, and 46 females who are required to notify personally any change of residence. Of those who are required to report personally, none are required to report elsewhere than at a police-station. I may say with reference to these figures that the power to remit the obligation to report rests with the Secretary of State, and that individual cases are carefully considered in the Home Office, which is in communication with the police in regard to them.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (1) whether, some months ago, it came to the knowledge of the Inland Revenue Commissioners that a wine merchant of O'Connell Street, Dublin, was found to have reduced the alcoholic strength of wines in bond before clearing for duty, and by this means succeeded in releasing the wines at the rate of 1s. a gallon duty, instead of at the rate of 2s. 6d. a gallon; (2) on how many occasions was this fraud perpetrated upon the Revenue; (3) what was the fine for each case; and, (4) what was the amount of the fine imposed by the Revenue Commissioners?

The answer to the first paragraph is in the affirmative. The Revenue authorities cannot state on how many occasions this offence was committed. A fine of £300 was imposed by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the Postmaster General has received from First Class Sorter A. A. Townsend an appeal, and was Townsend punished by removal from the Registered Letter Division of the General Post Office, entailing a loss of £30 a year, owing to his failing to observe an error committed by another officer; and will the Postmaster General give his favourable consideration of this apparently severe punishment?

The particular error for which Townsend was removed from the Registered Letter Division was a very serious one, and as it was in continuation of a long series of errors it became necessary to remove him from registered letter duties. He thus lost a special allowance of 5s. a week or £13 a year which the performance of these duties carries. The difference between £13 and £30, the amount mentioned by the hon. Member, was made up of extra pay for extra duty in dealing with registered letters on alternate Sundays; and although Townsend can no longer be emploved to deal with registered letters, it is being considered whether Sunday extra duty cannot be given him in connection with ordinary letters.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if any steps have yet been taken to appoint a successor to Mr. Rigby, who has recently vacated the appointment of superintendent of the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield; and whether there is any difficulty in finding a properly qualified naval or military officer for this post; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the War Office to appoint a naval or military officer to succeed Mr. Rigby?

The question of the appointment of a successor to the late superintendent at Enfield has been the subject of careful inquiry and consideration, and a decision will very shortly be arrived at. No difficulty is anticipated in finding a competent person to fill the appointment who has had the necessary experience in the management and control of a great manufacturing undertaking, but he may or may not be a military or naval officer.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the Secretary for Scotland has made arrangements to secure for the teachers of Scotland all advantages in the way of pension which may be granted to the teachers of England?

The Secretary for Scotland has arranged that additional advantages in the way of pension which have been granted to teachers in England, should he secured for teachers in Scotland, and he will take care that in regard to any future advantages, the interests of Scotland shall not be overlooked.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether, in the event of the parish meetings not being held on 9th March, as fixed by the Local Government Board, nor on the seven days before or after 25th March, as fixed by the Act of 1894, any penalty would be incurred; and, if so, from whom that penalty would be recoverable; and, if from any cause the parish meeting were not held on 9th March, would the present Council continue in office for another year?

If the chairman of the parish council neglects or refuses to convene a parish meeting for the election of parish councillors he is liable to a fine not exceeding £100. If the chairman, from illness or other sufficient cause, is unable to discharge the duty, or if there is no chairman, the meeting is to be convened by the clerk to the parish council, or if there is no such clerk, by the overseers of the parish. There is no express provision as to a penalty if there is a failure to convene the annual assembly of the parish meeting. It appears to me that, if no meeting for the election is held, and there is consequently an entire failure to elect parish councillors, the present councillors will go out of office on 15th April, but the County Council may order a new election.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if the fine of £100 was provided for by a clause in the Parish Council Act or by an order of the Local Government Board.

I cannot speak with certainty, but I think it was by an order of the Local Government Board.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the adverse reports of H.R.H. the Duke of Connaught after the New Forest Manœuvres, 1895, and of Lord Ralph Kerr after the Curragh Manœuvres, 1895, on the ankle boot at present in use in the Army, it is intended to provide a different boot for the troops; and, how long a time would elapse before a new pattern is issued?

Various experimental patterns of boots have, for several months past, been under practical trial; but until some pattern has stood a thorough and conclusive test it would be premature to adopt it for the troops. No undue delay will occur in the selection of a new pattern.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of Exchequer what is the rate of interest now paid over the portion of the National Debt due to the Bank of England?

In pursuance of the Bank Act, 1892, the rate of interest payable on this debt was fixed at the same rate as on Consols until 1903.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to prevent the deportation of paupers from England to Ireland; and, whether any similar deportation is exercised regarding aliens who have become pauperised after long residence in England?

Aliens becoming chargeable to the rates in England are not removable to the country of their birth. In the case of Irish persons who become chargeable in England, they are not removable to Ireland, if they have acquired a settlement or the status of irremovability in England. The law of removal from England to Ireland is receiving my consideration, but I cannot at present undertake to propose legislation on the subject during the present Session.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was acquainted with the case which occurred very recently, in which a Frenchwoman who had never spent any time in Ireland——

Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that question.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman could say what the status of irremovability was?

A settlement in England can be acquired by a residence in a parish for three years without receipt of relief. A status of irremovability can be acquired by residence in a union for one year without receipt of relief.

asked, if the right hon. Gentleman was aware of many cases of persons who spent almost their entire lives in this country and were removed in their old age to Ireland? He could give the right hon. Gentleman such a case.

I should be very glad to inquire into any case the hon. Member cares to bring before me, but I am not aware of the cases he refers to.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, what action has been taken by the Government towards an agreement with China in order that Article IV. of the Anglo-French Agreement of 15th January last relating to China, Siam, and the Mekong shall not be ineffective; whether Article III. of the said Anglo-French Agreement is held by Her Majesty's Government to imply that, notwithstanding China's breach of Article V. of the Burmo-Chinese Boundary Convention in ceding portions of the Shan State of Kian Hung to France without our permission, the remaining portions of that State are not to be reclaimed by us from China; what action has been taken by the Government for preserving our right of railway approach from our Burmese seaboard to Ssumao and for acquiring the right from China of prolonging our present projected railway across the Chinese border into China, on the same terms as have been granted by China to France in the case of present projected French railways under Article V. of the Franco-Chinese Commercial Convention of 20th June 1895; and whether, Ssumao having been declared open as a treaty port by the aforesaid Franco-Chinese Convention, and a French Consul having been appointed to it, the Government will, in the exercise of their rights under the Most Favoured Nation Clauses of our Treaties with China, appoint a British Consul to this important emporium of trade?

The matters alluded to by the hon. Member are at the present moment the subject of negotiations with the Chinese Government, and I am not in a position therefore to make any statement about them. As regards paragraph 2 of the Question, no such inference is necessarily to be drawn.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he is aware that the Post Office in Enniskillen is a small house, into which are crowded the post office, the telegraph office, the parcel post, and the postmaster and his family; that there is but one small and ill-fitted office for the receipt and delivery of letters, the sale of stamps, the transmission of telegrams, the savings bank, the receipt of and delivery of parcels, and the payment of public money to pensioners; that the offices are badly lit and ventilated; that there is general complaint in reference to the thick and suffocating atmosphere in the office on busy days; that there is but one small door for the ingress and egress of the public and employees, and for the transaction of all the business of the office; that there is no accommodation, for postmen and telegraphic messenger, other than the public street, even in winter weather; that even the postmaster's office is but a dark and dismal small apartment; and that 21 employees, male and female, and eight members of the postmaster's family, with servants, 29 to 31 in all, are compelled daily to occupy this house. And, is it the intention of the Postmaster General and the Department, in view of the wellbeing of their employees and the accommodation of the public, still to continue these premises as a post office?

The hon. Member is aware that in consequence of his representations an exhaustive Inquiry was made not long since as to the conditions of the post office accommodation at Enniskillen, which is provided by the Postmaster, and he was informed that no such deficiencies had been disclosed as would warrant a removal from the premises. There is no reason to suppose that the staff or the public are suffering from the post office being continued where it is.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he can say what is the amount of the substantial reduction made this year in the Vote for Purchases for Museums and Circulation (Class IV., Science and Art Department, F 1) alluded to in the memorandum just issued of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury; whether he can state what is the reason for this reduction; and, whether there is any evidence that the needs of the museums in London (including Bethnal Green), Edinburgh and Dublin in the matter of purchases, and of the provinces in reference to the circulation of objects when purchased, are becoming less at the present time?

The information asked for will be found in the Civil Service Estimates as soon as they are laid before Parliament, and the Government will be prepared to give the reasons for reduction when the Estimates are discussed. I do not think I should be in order in anticipating this discussion.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether there is any evidence that the needs of the museums referred to in the Question are becoming less at the present time?

I am afraid I am a little irregular in saying that there is such evidence, and the details of it will be laid before the Committee of Supply when the Estimates are discussed.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if his attention has been directed to the Board of Trade Inquiry into the cause of the collision between the steamships Netley Abbey and Alicia, which occurred off Cromer on the 20th December 1895, and was attended by the loss of five lives; (2) whether he is aware that evidence was given that the cause of the collision was due to the failure on the part of a Foreign able seaman, named John Petersen, to understand and execute the orders of the officer in charge; that when the officer gave Petersen orders to port helm, he, Petersen, upon two occasions, put the helm to starboard; that Peterson had been only three or four voyages to sea, and had never before sailed on a British steamship; and, notwithstanding these circumstances, the man Petersen possessed an able seaman's discharge, and was rated as such; (3) whether, having regard for the loss of life caused through the engagement of incompetent seamen on British vessels, it is his intention to bring in a Bill for the purpose of providing that able-bodied seamen shall be provided with certificates, proving that they have served at least four years' apprenticeship, either as apprentices or ordinary seamen; and that Foreign, seamen shall be called upon to pass a simple elementary examination before the superintendent of a mercantile marine office, to prove that he has sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand the orders given on board ship; and (4), whether, if he is unable to bring in such Bill, he will undertake to give his support to any Bill embodying such conditions and proposals?

My attention has been called to the circumstances of the case to which the hon. Member refers. I gather from the Report of the Court of Inquiry that, while the failure of the men at the wheel of the Netley Abbey—one of whom was an Englishman, and the other had an excellent knowledge of English—to comply with an order of the chief officer, materially contributed to the collision, both vessels were to blame, neither of them having complied with the Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea. In reply to the concluding paragraphs of the Question, I can only remind the hon. Member that the whole subject of the manning of British merchant ships is being considered by a Committee, presided over by Sir Edward Reed. Until the Report of that Committee has been received, I am not prepared to take any further steps in the matter.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if it is not a fact that at the time of the collision there was only one man at the wheel, who was a Norwegian?

No, Sir, it is not a fact. At the time there were two men at the wheel—one an Englishman, and the other a Norwegian with an excellent knowledge of English.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to when the Manning Committee is likely to make its Report?

No; but I made some inquiry before Parliament rose last year, and I understood that the Report was almost ready for presentation.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any explanation as to the delay in presenting the Report?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department exercises any supervision over the tendency to extravagant expenditure on the part of School Boards in the matter of the purchase of sites; whether he is aware that the London School Board has for some time been endeavouring to purchase part of a very valuable site fronting on three roads near Clapham Common, known as Lavender Lodge, and belonging to Mr. Whiting, who has actually resided on the premises for 74 years, having inherited it from his father, and that last year, on the School Board promoting a Bill for the compulsory purchase of a part of this property, it was thrown out by the House of Commons on the Petition of Mr. Whiting; whether the Education Department is aware that this year the School Board had scheduled the entire property, valued at from £30,000 to £48,000, for acquisition; and, if so, whether any steps will be taken by the Department to scrutinise the necessity for laying out so large a sum of the ratepayers' money in the neighbourhood of Clapham Junction for a suitable School Board site; whether it will ascertain if other cheaper sites are available in the immediate vicinity; and whether, in any case, it would be possible for the Department to order an Inquiry into all the circumstances?

No School Board can borrow money for the purchase of a site without the consent of the Committee of Council. The London School Board have not yet sent in to the Education Department the petition required by Section 20 (3) of the Elementary Education Act, 1870, with respect to the proposed purchase of this site. When the petition is received the Inspector will be directed to inquire into all the circumstances.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury—(1) when the Select Committee upon Government Printing Contracts will be re-appointed, when will they commence their sittings, whether they will ask for evidence from Ireland as well as England and Scotland, and whether they will be instructed to report before the contracts which fall in this year are renewed; and (2) whether he intends to take steps to redeem his promise to the deputation which waited upon him in Dublin Castle last December, that the printing for all Irish Government Departments should be printed by the Queen's Printers in Ireland?

In reply to a question put in this House on the 20th June, 1895, my predecessor stated that the terms of the reference to the Select Committee already included all Stationery Office printing contracts whether in England or Ireland, and that there was no objection to including in the Inquiry the printing contract of the National Education Commissioners. I think that his reply covers the first sentence in the hon. Member's question. I quite agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable that the proposed Committee should report in good time before the existing contracts expire, but I am not sure that it would be wise to limit them to a fixed date. As regards the last paragraph of the question, I find that under the existing practice all Irish papers over which the Stationery Office has any direct control—namely, all Departmental papers, and all papers presented by Command—are, as a matter of course, printed in Ireland. The only exceptions are the comparatively few and short papers which are delivered in manuscript to the House, moving for them, and are then ordered by the House to be printed. These are sent by the officials of the House direct to the printer holding the contract for printing ordered by the House. The hon. Member will understand that I have no direct control over these papers, but I will consult with the officials of both Houses as to whether the Irish papers could be sent to Ireland in future.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if any steps have been taken to supply Fusilier Militia regiments with the head-dress of their Line battalions?

At present only the issue of the ordinary line helmet is being proceeded with. Issues to corps with special head-dresses like Fusiliers have not been commenced.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether, in view of the fact that the annual licence duty paid by solicitors is in effect a tax on their incomes, and one of a character not payable by any other profession, he will consider the advisability of so amending the Income Tax Acts as to allow credit for the annual licence duty as against the Income Tax payable under Schedule D?

I am sorry that I misunderstood the hon. Member's question yesterday but I cannot agree with him that solicitors ought to get credit for the amount of the licence duty payable by them as against the actual Income Tax assessed upon them. They do already get credit for the licence duty by being allowed to deduct it in computing their profits, and to allow them to deduct it also from the actual Tax paid would be making the allowance twice over. A landowner might with equal justice claim to be allowed to deduct Land Tax from the Income Tax payable by him.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he is aware of the inconvenience that arises in consequence of Her Majesty's Postmaster General not occupying a seat in this House; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to take steps for the creation of a Parliamentary Office, subordinate to the Postmaster General, which shall give direct representation to his Department in this House.

I do not know whether my hon. Friend heard the answer I gave to a question on a similar subject yesterday. I quite recognise the inconvenience which arises in both Houses of Parliament [laughter]—yes, in both Houses of Parliament—owing to the Minister in charge of a Department being a Member of the other House, but I am afraid I cannot promise legislation on the subject.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be willing to consider the question of the Postmaster General having a direct representative in this House?

My hon. Friend is perhaps not aware that that could not be done without legislation.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, having regard to the fact that Cardiff is one of the chief commercial centres of the world, and that the title of Lord Mayor is not enjoyed by the chief magistrate of any corporate town in the Principality, he will advise Her Majesty to confer that distinction upon the Mayor of Cardiff?

Any application that reaches me on this subject will, I need not say, receive my careful consideration; but the difficulty of distinguishing between the comparative claims of Cardiff and other towns of equal, or even greater, importance would, I think primâ facie, be an objection to acceding to the request.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if it is the intention of the Government to introduce this Session a Bill to amend the Mines Regulation Act?

It is my intention to introduce such a Bill, and the draft of it has already been prepared.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Commission to inquire into the tied-house system will be appointed?

The hon. Member is probably not aware that I told the House the other night that the Government see no objection to a Committee of Inquiry provided the various parties interested can arrive at some agreement as to the terms of reference. I hope such an agreement will be come to, but I understand it has not been come to yet.

Will this Inquiry go into the whole licensing question, or will it be confined to that of tied houses?

The hon. Gentleman will see that that depends upon the terms of reference that may be agreed upon.

Then are we to understand that the Government are willing to allow the reference to extend to the whole licensing question if such reference can be formulated?

Yes, Sir. I do not think any objection will be raised by the Government.

I am very reluctant, but I am sure the House will permit me to trouble it for a moment or two with a personal statement. Hon. Members may recollect that in the course of his speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Lynn Regis, in one of those characteristic sallies with which he amuses the House, having said that it was not true that any reductions were effected in Committee, of Supply, added that—

"he himself obtained from the late Secretary to the Admiralty—and only by threatening to reduce his salary—a promise of the abolition of the Jamaica Dockyard, though it came to nothing, because the right hon. Gentleman did not keep his promise."

I do not think either the House or myself is always inclined to take the hon. Gentleman very seriously. Still, such a charge made in the House of Commons, with regard to anyone who has held an official position, is a serious matter. I therefore thought it my duty at once to rise in my place and say that "no such promise had been broken, because no such promise had ever been made." The hon. Gentleman then rejoined that his memory was better than mine, and reiterated his statement, and rashly allowed himself to be betrayed into a repetition of the historic wager of a guinea that he was right. I have since refreshed my memory upon the subject, and also communicated with the hon. Gentleman, and sent him a reference to Hansard, which I hope has convinced him that all the statements he made were entirely unfounded. First of all, the Debate in question did not arise upon the Vote for my salary; it was raised by the hon. Gentleman on the shipbuilding Vote. Secondly, I made him no promise. I was not authorised to make any promise, and no promise was made that any dockyard should be abolished. Thirdly, of course, as no such promise was made, no promise was broken. In asking the hon. Gentleman whether he was wrong in his statement, perhaps I may also remind him that his historic accuracy is not perfect. He referred to what he called the "great precedent" of the year 1746 [cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] as the time when the incident with reference to Sir Robert Walpole was reported to have taken place. In 1746 Sir Robert Walpole was not a Minister, was not a Member of this House, and was not alive. [Loud laughter.] The incident took place in 1741. [Renewed laughter.] I beg to ask the hon. Member whether he has refreshed his memory, and whether he is now able to make any statement?

I may perhaps be allowed to say that I entirely agree with the estimate which the right hon. Gentleman has put before the House of the relative importance to be attached to him and to myself. [A laugh] Consequently I shall not enter into the minute details of this matter which he has thought it worth his while to follow up. With regard to the wager, I would remind him that he had not the presence of mind to utter the sacramental word "Done" [laughter], which, as he well knows from his experience, alone ratifies a wager. [Laughter.] I have refreshed my memory with regard to this question of the Jamaica Dockyard, and I am constrained to admit that I approached to the verge of, if I did not actually touch, inaccuracy. [Laughter] What occurred was this. But first let me dispose of the suggestion that any influence I had with the right hon Gentleman, or any answer I obtained from him, was not due to my having threatened to reduce his salary. [Laughter.] Why, I was always threatening to reduce his salary [laughter], and, in spite of his assertion, I am constrained to believe that any indulgence he showed to me was due to the continual threat of his having no salary to reduce, the continual possibility of his being deprived of the means of maintenance. ["Oh!"] On the 29th of August, 1893, I called attention to the dockyard at Jamaica and pointed out that "it was a worm-eaten and moss-grown abuse"—[laughter]—I am quoting from Hansard—and said it cost £12,000 a year. Whereupon the right hon. Gentleman said that "Admiral Hopkins"—who was then Commander-in-Chief on the North American and West Indies Station—

"had recommended that Port Royal should not be continued as a dockyard, and that a local committee was to report on the proposal."

I frankly admit that when a right hon. Gentleman of the admitted importance, of the self-asserted importance [cries of "Oh!"], of the late Secretary to the Admiralty—[renewed cries of "Oh!"]—yes, he compared himself with me [laughter, and a Voice, "Well done, Tommy"]—I quite admit that when he told me this I did think that, inasmuch as the Admiral on the station, who knew all about it and was the only authority, had recommended that the dockyard should not be continued, and that a Committee was appointed, I understood that to be a promise that the dockyard was going to be abolished. [Ironical laughter.] Certainly I did so understand it. But, as I have said, I have refreshed my memory from the report of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, corrected by himself [laughter], and I do admit I did approach to the verge of inaccuracy if I did not touch it. [Laughter.] I only regret that the right. hon Gentleman did not yesterday avail himself of the means within his grasp of securing the payment of a guinea from me. [Laughter.]

desired to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question of which he had given him private notice—whether, in the event of his Motion giving precedence to the Procedure Debate being carried, he would give an undertaking to exempt to-morrow (Wednesday) from its operation, so as to enable the Irish Evicted Tenants Bill to be discussed.

I am very reluctant to interfere with private Members' Bills on Wednesday; but the hon. Member will recognise that the Government are in a difficult position, and it was at the request of an Irish Member that this Debate was deferred from last Thursday till Monday. If it be at all possible, consistently with a proper dealing with the time of the House, I shall be very glad to devote Wednesday to the Bill which the hon. Member mentions. But it must depend upon the progress we make with the Resolution about the business of the House, and with the Sessional Order which we are engaged in debating. If progress, rapid and conspicuous, is made, there will be no reason why Wednesday should be taken by the Government.

I do not gather that the right hon. Gentleman will take to-morrow if the Debate is not finished to-night?

If I have some security that the whole question will be disposed of by Thursday, then the Government would leave to-morrow for the discussion of the hon. Member's Bill, but without that security it would be absurd for the Government not to continue the Debate de die in diem.

The right hon. Gentleman must know that I have no power to make such an arrangement or to give such a pledge. Is he not aware that this Bill is of very grave importance; that great interests are concerned; and that the discussion of it is looked for with great anxiety in Ireland? Under these circumstances, could he not see his way to allow this Bill to be taken on Wednesday? And does he not think that the progress of business, instead of being impeded, will probably be expedited by such consideration being shown to Irish Members?

I am anxious to show consideration to Gentlemen in all parts of the House, and I am aware that it would be unfair to ask the hon. Member himself to give any pledge as to the termination of the Debate on Thursday. But there are recognised methods of conveying this assurance; and if any such arrangement could be made, I should be very glad to see Wednesday given to the discussion of this important question.

moved:—

"That the consideration of the proposed now Rules of Procedure have precedence of the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion on every day for which they may be appointed."

said, that he had anticipated that the Leader of the House would make some statement in support of this unusual Motion. The view which many independent Members in the House took with regard to the Procedure Resolutions was closely connected with the use to be made of Tuesdays; and in recommending his Resolution as to Supply last week, the right hon. Gentleman had made no mention of Tuesdays. It was always absurd for any hon. Member to complain of time being taken because of the sacrifice of some Motion interesting only to himself; but Tuesdays were now the only Motion days left to the private Members. The Leader of the House would admit that there were many questions of the highest importance to the country which could not be adequately raised in Supply and Private Members' nights were the only occasions on which attention could be called to questions which it was essential should be discussed if Parliament were to continue to discharge the functions which it had discharged in the past. He balloted very seldom for precedence on Tuesdays and Fridays last Session; but on one occasion he was successful, and his Motion was accepted by the House and acted on by the Government. This Session he was asked by a representative body to bring forward a Motion, and in the ballot he was fortunate enough to get the first place. He inquired what would be the best day to choose for his Motion, and was informed that the first Tuesday after the Address had been disposed of would be best. That day he chose therefore. That right hon. Gentleman had scoffed at the use which was sometimes made of private Members' nights; but the good use of that time depended on the certainty or uncertainty of Members being able to bring on the Motions for which they had secured a place. If there were uncertainty, Members refrain from balloting, because it was unwise to excite anticipations in the country which were not likely to be realised. The Government were evidently surprised by the early conclusion of the Debate on the Address, and were not prepared with their business on Thursday, and on Friday, Motions which were quite unexpected were brought forward. Yet now the Government were taking away the first opportunity which private Members, who had given due notice of their Motions, had of bringing those Motions forward. How was it possible to consider the right hon. Gentleman's Motion for taking Fridays without regard to the one remaining private Members' night? In 1869 or 1870, he remembered that the then Leader of the House appealed to him privately and publicly to give up to Government business a certain Tuesday he had secured for a Motion; but then a Government day was offered in exchange. But now times had changed. The Motion in which he was at present interested he had been asked to bring forward by the West Riding Textile Workers and Weavers Association—one of the bodies most representative of the working classes. It was in the terms of a Resolution passed at the Leeds Trades' Council, and supported by a large number of trade unions. The question (an Amendment of the Truck Act), was of more importance to the unorganised and feeblest portion of the labour of the country than to the organised portions; and if the great trade unions took up the question it was not in their own interest. Having himself inquired into the matter in every part of the country, he thoroughly believed that the Measure called for in his Resolution was more generally demanded by the working classes than any part of the Government programme destined for the benefit of the working classes. It affected all working people. The necessity for it was admitted by the Chief Inspector; and both the late and the present Home Secretary had said that the question deserved immediate consideration. The late Government in troduced a Bill, but by the present Government no promise of legislation had yet been made. The Home Secretary could not hold his office, and receive the reports made to him year after year, without recognising the urgency and importance of this question. It was hard, therefore, and it would be the cause of great regret outside the House, that when such a favourable opportunity presented itself of raising this important subject, the Government took that opportunity away.

The hon. Gentleman's Amendment is not, I think, in order. It has been the practice to disallow an Amendment which merely amounts to a reasoned negative to a Motion of this kind. He proposed to substitute after the word "that," another proposition which merely gives a reason for rejecting the proposal, and is therefore out of order.

Then, Sir, I meet it with a direct negative.

could not think that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was very wise in the circumstances. He was prepared to support the new Procedure Rule, and the reason which induced him to come to that decision was that he felt certain that under it Tuesdays would not be taken from private Members as in past Sessions. He was afraid that confidence was somewhat shaken by the present action of the Leader of the House. He could not think that that action would tend to further the object the right hon. Gentleman had in view. As it was not yet too late the right hon. Gentleman might reconsider his position as the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Forest of Dean was of great importance to the working classes.

desired to address one word to the House on behalf of the Irish evicted tenants. It was a course which it had not been his good fortune to be able to take up before. But hon. Members would recollect that the hon. Member for Waterford made an appeal to the Leader of the House on behalf of the Evicted Tenants' Bill which stood on the Paper for to-morrow. He did not wish to be understood as in favour of that Bill, but he wished to second the efforts of the Leader of the House in the direction of giving the Irish Members the opportunity of discussing a Bill which they thought of great importance. The desire of the Irish Members to get to that Bill would be frustrated by a lengthened discussion on a Motion that was neither intricate nor obscure, and he therefore put it to hon. Members opposite, who boasted of their monopoly of interest in Ireland, to justify that boast by allowing the House to come to an immediate decision on a perfectly plain Motion, which would give the hon. Member for Waterford the time he desired for the discussion of his Bill.

said, that if the Leader of the House would postpone his Motion until 9 o'clock, it would give to his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean the opportunity of discussing his Resolution, which was as important to the working classes of Great Britain as the Evicted Tenants' Bill was to the people of Ireland. The Leader of the House asked private Members to sacrifice this day to the Government, in order that they might decide as to the desirability of sacrificing many more of their days. Was that reasonable in view of the attitude of private Members on the Opposition side towards the Government? The right hon. Gentleman could not say that they had shown any marked hostility to the proposals of the Government. There had not been a single half-hour of obstruction, and the right hon. Gentleman proposed to reward their want of obstructiveness by taking away their privileges. If the whirligig of time brought its revenges the right hon. Gentleman would have only himself to blame. He also had a Motion on the Paper in reference to Mining Royalties which was interesting to the working classes, but he would be quite willing to sacrifice it if the right hon. Gentleman gave time, by withdrawing his Motion till 9 o'clock, for the discussion of the Resolution of his right hon. Friend the Member for the Forest of Dean.

The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks me to admit on behalf of the Government that there has been nothing in the nature of an undue prolongation of Debate on the part of the Opposition this Session. I am glad to make the admission he asks for. ["Hear, hear!"] I hope he will on reflection make the admission to me in return that I am following strictly in the lines that Leaders of the House have taken on similar occasions in the past. I did not begin with a statement of the reasons for giving us these specific facilities until the new Rule is passed; but really no explanation is necessary. It is quite true that when the Leader of the House, at a later period of the Session, asks for more time for the Government, he explains that he is driven to do so by the backward state of the supplementary Estimates and the impossibility of fulfilling the requirements of the law without additional time; and then additional time is given him. If, still later, he asks for more time to pass Government Bills, he is naturally called upon to take a survey of the Session and to explain why it is he requires more time. None of these necessities exist now, and I thought the House understood that, in asking for the time of the House in order that this matter should be disposed of, I was only doing that which any reasonable man would do and which all my predecessors have done in similar circumstances. It is unfortunately impossible, when the Government have to take the time of the House, they should avoid interfering with Motions which have been put down. But this discussion arises out of the good nature of the Government, who had hoped to bring on this Resolution last Thursday, and if they had done so there is no reason why the Motions on the Paper should not have been taken to-night; but an appeal was made to me by the Irish Members and others to defer the discussion till Monday, and it is because we, without remonstrance, at once acceded to that request that the Motions on the Paper are interfered with. However valuable might be a discussion on the Motion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Dilke), even the adoption of the Motion would not alter the law; and neither this Government nor the late Government require to be converted to the importance of the subject. Therefore the interests of the working classes will not suffer materially by the discussion not coming on. I am desirous that Wednesday should be given to an important Irish Bill on the Paper, but it does not rest with the Government to determine whether it shall be or not.

said, he was in hopes the right hon. Gentleman was going to give them a precedent on which he was acting. For himself he could not call to mind any occasion when, so early in the Session, the time of private Members was pounced upon by the Government and taken for their business.

In view of the adoption of the new Rules of Procedure.

continued, that he could not recall a Motion of this kind being made in connection with Rules of Procedure. He must remind the House that, the moment the Queen's speech had been read from the Chair, the First Lord of the Treasury made a special Motion; and upon that Motion, by an elaborate system of ballot, Members obtained precedence for Motions, including the Motion of the right hon. Baronet opposite, which stood first on the Paper for that day, and the Bill which stood first on the Paper for Wednesday. The result of the introduction of the new business was to throw the whole of these proceedings to the winds and to resolve their arrangements into absolute chaos. What they had to decide was whether the arrangement of business was to be left to the chance of the moment, and whether everything was to be reduced to anarchy so that Members would never know whether a Motion would come on or not. If the Government would propose to take all Tuesdays or a certain number of Tuesdays then private Members would know where they were; but the system now inaugurated was almost without precedent. There might be a bad precedent for it in late years, but he could not recollect Government asking for additional time so early in the Session except for a very pressing and urgent reason. They ought to have some understanding as to what was to happen next Tuesday, when he desired to submit a Motion on Armenia; and they had a right to ask what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to that and following Tuesdays. There was nothing more disagreeable than for Members who were attached to these political principles to be continually finding fault with the arrangements made by those with whom personally and politically they were warmly associated. It would conduce to the dispatch of business if some indication could be afforded as to the way in which it was to be conducted.

I have the deepest sympathy with the wail of private Members on this occasion, and especially when it is consistent with their former action, as it is in the case of the right hon. Member for Thanet; but as regards the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, their interest in the case of private Members appears to be altogether new. Let me remind the House what has happened in recent years. In 1894 private Members had one Tuesday, and in 1895 two; and in 1893 private Members obtained three-and-a-half full days. I am not suggesting that these are desirable examples to follow; and the Government are not now proposing that any Tuesday but the first shall be taken. We are asking for that Tuesday in accordance with general precedent when it is desirable to complete a discussion on the subject of the Rules of Procedure. Hon. Members opposite who make such protests now were silent in the time of the late Government, when for three succesive Sessions private Members were practically deprived of all their Tuesdays. Hon. Members speak of Fridays; but in those Sessions when they had Fridays they had only evening sittings. Hon. Members who think we contemplate anything like that to which they have quietly submitted are very much mistaken, for nothing of the sort is intended.

observed that the right hon. Gentleman had said that this proposal was in accordance with precedent; but if it was, why did he break through the precedent and try to make bargains with hon. Members on the back Benches? The Secretary of State for the Colonies justified the proposal as being in harmony with all the precedents. The right hon. Gentleman said it was in accordance with precedent that any Government making any proposal dealing with the procedure of the House, should take all the time until the question of procedure had been discussed and dealt with. But a short time before the right hon. Gentleman had shown himself willing to disregard this precedent, and to make a bargain here and another there if hon. Members would only deliver few speeches and make that progress with which he would be satisfied. The Secretary of the Colonies taunted right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House with their attitude when this question was before former Parliaments. But there was no analogy. In former Parliaments, whatever was done with regard to Tuesdays, they had the satisfaction of knowing that any Motions they had to bring forward they could move on the Friday evenings. But to-night, on a Tuesday which belonged to private Members, they were actually discussing Government business, namely whether or not the Government should take away Fridays. He contended there was no justification whatever for the action of the Government in taking away Tuesday, a private Members' night, in order to discuss whether they should also take Fridays away. The First Lord of the Treasury said that although they might to-night discuss the Resolution of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, they could not get any further forward with it, and that the discussion would be practically useless for legislative purposes. He differed from the right hon. Gentleman in that conclusion. The Motion which was first on the Paper dealt with an evil which was admitted both by the late and by the present Government. The late Home Secretary, indeed, brought in a Bill to deal with the evil, and he had publicly admitted the pressing need for legislation in this direction. Would the discussion of such a subject not be a practical result? He maintained it would be. Hon. Members might be able to convince the Government of the urgency of dealing with the matter. At any rate one result of such a discussion would be that the Government would see there was a possibility of bringing forward a Bill and passing it through the House without any prolonged discussion. There were two things hon. Members ought to have before this Debate concluded. They ought, in the first place, to have a pledge from the Leader of the House that when private Members' days were going to be taken in future, any discussions upon the proposals should be conducted on Government days. It was not fair on a private Members' day to come forward with a proposal to take away the remaining days which ought to have been appropriated to private Members. Let them have full notice, and let the matter be settled on a Government day instead of upon a day which did not belong to the Government at all. They had, up to the present, received no assurance as to what the Government were going to do with Tuesdays in future. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that in previous Sessions private Members had only one or two Tuesdays, and that therefore the present could not be much worse than previous Sessions. But what was the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman himself when these proposals were made? The right hon. Gentleman had taunted other right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House on their attitude in not opposing proposals of the kind when made by the late Government; but there was not one single such proposal in any Session in the late Parliament that the right hon. Gentleman himself did not oppose to the utmost of his power, so that if right hon. Gentlemen of the Opposition were inconsistent, they were inconsistent in good company. They ought to have an assurance from the Government that this Tuesday was only taken under very urgent circumstances, and that in future Tuesdays would not be taken, or if they were, adequate notice would be given of any such proposal, together with ample time for discussing it.

desired, if possible, to narrow the area of controversy which this Motion had aroused. He thought the Government were fully alive to the importance and urgency of dealing with this question of fines and deductions from workmen's wages referred to in the Motion of the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean. He was certain no subject was more interesting to the working classes, nor was there one in which an amendment of the law was more generally called for by their representatives without restriction of party. If the Government would give an assurance either that they would provide time for the discussion of this question on some future day, or, what would be infinitely better, that they would themselves be prepared to submit to the House legislative proposals dealing with the matter in the course of the Session, he thought that most hon. Members would be satisfied with that assurance and would not oppose the Motion any further.

was prepared to promise that a Bill should be introduced by the Government on the subject, and if it was regarded as a non-controversial Measure, there would of course, be no great difficulty in passing it.

, who, in continuation of his speech, which was interrupted last night at midnight by the Standing Orders of the House, said that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury could scarcely be congratulated upon the success of his proposals for saving the time of the House, seeing that, in the discussion upon them, already two days had been wasted. The right hon. Gentleman had, in the course of his observations, suggested that this was a subject for compromise, but in his view there ought to be no compromise entered into by hon. Members which would have the effect of curtailing their rights and privileges. It was impossible that the rights and privileges of private Members could become a matter of compromise, or of bargain and sale between those Members and the Government. If he had any influence with his hon. Friends he should ask them most earnestly not to accept any compromise which would touch, by one hair's breadth, their rights and privileges. He should call upon them not to touch the unclean thing. He wanted to know who was the father of these proposals. He knew that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was their putative father, but he wanted to know who was their real father. To do the right hon. Gentleman justice, he did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman, with his high and elevated tone of mind, could have formulated these proposals, which appealed to the worst instincts of hon. Members. The Resolution was so drawn as to fit in with the personal convenience of hon. Members, and was not intended to meet the wishes and desires of their constituencies. Private Members were sent to the House for the service of their constituencies and not in order to take holidays at such times as might be most convenient for themselves. For his own part he should be glad if that House were to sit all the year round, and if they made Rules of the House to suit their private convenience they would be acting the part of unjust stewards in this matter. He doubted whether hon. Members fully realised the effect that these Rules would have upon the Irish Members, who refused to have any official connection with either one side or the other in the House. As far as the Irish Members were concerned these Rules would act like a muzzling order. He did not believe that the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury was really the author of these proposals, but he rather thought that he could trace the authorship of them. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking last night he made some small mistake, and was at once put right by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies. The Irish Members in opposing these proposals were fighting for their Parliamentary rights and privileges, and the right hon. Gentleman had no greater rights and privileges in that House than any private Member had. The Irish Members demanded that those rights and privileges should be safeguarded and preserved, whatever alterations might be made in the Rules of their Procedure. How was it that these proposals were supported by the party who had always professed to be the guardians of the Constitution? Why, no more unconstitutional proposals had ever been laid before that House than those which were embodied in this Resolution, Those proposals constituted an invasion of the rights and privileges not only of private Members, but of their constituencies, of the most vital kind. The proposals had been supported on the ground of pure benevolence, on the pretence that they were to do hon. Members good. But it was impossible to do them good against their wills. The right hon. Gentleman had relied upon the evidence of experts to which but little weight was attached in the Courts of Justice. There had been during the last few years a growing tendency to attack the rights and privileges of private Members by means of so-called new Rules of Procedure. The attack had commenced in 1878 and was continued in 1881 and 1882. In 1887 Mr. Arnold, in opposing one of these attacks, had prophesied that the Closure, which was then only proposed to be applied in the case of a single measure, would in time come to be the general rule of the House. That prophecy was now altogether fulfilled. He remembered that a great sensation was produced by those words, and that there was a murmur of "No, no" when they were uttered. But here they had their fulfilment. Were hon. Members to do their best to get into Parliament, and when they got there, were they to form part of the retinue of hon. Gentlemen opposite? That was not his idea. So long as he was in Parliament he would never be tongue-tied by any Resolution. Where did the First Lord of the Treasury get his constitutional law when he contended that the discussion of questions in Supply was not nearly so important as an ordinary Second Reading? He did not know where that doctrine was to be found. He had always understood that discussion in Supply was the great safeguard against grievances. Did hon. Gentlemen opposite know what they were doing? Did they not know that they were doing much more than suppressing obstruction? Did they not know that there was no method whereby a private Member could, in the slightest degree, attack the foreign policy of a Government on great questions of peace and war, except by calling attention to it in the Vote for the Foreign Office? It was incredible that any such proposal as this could be made. It was amazing to him to hear hon. Members who had been but a few days in the House get up and tell the House how admirable the proposed Rules were. It was only evidence of the ignorance of a large proportion of Members in the House. They were willing to rob themselves of the only privilege they had because they knew nothing whatever about it. For his own part, he would not give up to the dearest friend he had one atom of his Parliamentary privilege. Those who opposed the Resolution were trying to defend their rights, and they were determined to do it. The right hon. Gentleman was in the forefront of the fray, with the Irish Members during the discussions of the Irish Land Act of 1881, and a very capable disciple they found him. The first line of that Act occupied four days, and the first clause occupied nine days.

The hon. Member forgets that the subject before the House is the mode of procedure on Votes in Supply, and to go into the history of the conduct of an hon. Member on a Bill is irrelevant.

bowed to the ruling of the Chair, and proceeded to contend that this proposal was insidious, in that it affected Supply and did not affect ordinary Bills. They were on the downward grade, and he was sorry to think that a Conservative Government should be the first to lead this crusade against the privileges of the House of Commons. He hoped that, whatever else they might call themselves—and they gave themselves many different names—they would no longer presume to call themselves the Constitutional Party.

said, that it was his intention to support the Resolution throughout. Anyone who had been in the House as long as he had been would know that Supply had been for many years a scandal. ["Hear, hear!"] The health of Members had been impaired, the proper business had not been taken, while immaterial business had occupied much time, and it seemed to him that the honour and dignity of the House of Commons had suffered very severely in consequence. ["Hear, hear!"] Therefore, notwithstanding his aversion to all measures of the character of the guillotine, he thought that these measures were unavoidable. Each Government that had proposed any alteration in the direction of the Closure had found that the succeeding Government had not only followed, but bettered its example. This step was rendered necessary by the fact that the House of Commons had far more business on its shoulders than any such assembly, by any amount of diligence, could by any possibility discharge. ["Hear, hear!"] There were only two ways by which the difficulty could be met. The first was a method which it was useless to discuss in the presence of the majority he saw before him. It was the method of devolution, of enabling Parliament to get rid, by way of Home Rule, or whatever other name might be applied to it, of a large amount of its present business. Since they were not able, even if they were all willing, to do the business of the country, they ought to commit some of it to hands that were able and willing to do it. He hoped that the progress of opinion that had led the Conservative Party from opposition to all Closure to this proposal, would bring them to see that they could safely devolve to different parts of the country a very great portion of the business of the House. Meanwhile, they, on his side of the House, could wait patiently until the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite should come round to their way of thinking, and until that occurred they must be content with what they could get. He agreed that the proposal now made was an imperfect method of meeting the difficulty, but it was the only method by which it was possible, by establishing some time-limit for the transaction of business, that the House could, in some degree, discharge the work before it. He should be sorry if the Irish Members had to suffer, but he did not believe that they would suffer, because most Members of the House were determined that they should have fair play in Debate. It was his conviction that the cause which the Irish Members advocated, a cause that must prevail by its own justice, had not been served but disserved by any obstruction that had been indulged in. It could not advantage the cause of Home Rule that Irishmen should have recourse to methods which were dishonouring to the reputation of Parliament.

said, that he had seen these Resolutions on the notice paper with surprise and regret, and he found it impossible to support these Resolutions as they stood at present. He could not but think that some of the support which the Government had received from the other side of the House ought to be viewed by them rather in the nature of a warning than as an encouragement to persevere with these proposals. What was the main argument of some hon. Gentlemen opposite in favour of the Resolutions? It was that they would enable an immense mass of legislation to be passed through that House, legislation which included, of course, a Home Rule Bill. But neither the Conservate Party nor the country wanted a plethora of legislation. Rest and good administration at home and abroad, were the real desire of the people. The Resolutions as moved by the First Lord of the Treasury were crude and revolutionary. They were crude because they were, by the confession of Ministers themselves, incomplete and open to much amendment. They certainly needed amendment in the direction of breaking up Supply in compartments, and a term must be fixed towards the usual close of the Session to the period during which legislation could be actively proceeded with. These Amendments were vital to the scheme, and yet they found no place in the right hon. Gentleman's original plan. The proposals of the Government were also revolutionary, and that was the chief reason why he could not support them. Many Members now on the Ministerial side of the House had denounced the gag and the guillotine when they were proposed by the late Radical Government, and they could not consistently support such extreme expedients when they were proposed by the Conservative Leaders. The only difficulty that he felt in opposing these unhappy proposals was the fact that these Resolutions were proposed by the right hon. Member the Leader of the House. That fact was practically the only argument in favour of these proposals, and it was, looking to his great ability and popularity, he admitted, a very strong argument. Leaving that factor out of consideration, there was little or nothing that could be urged in support of the proposed plan. He objected specially to the proposal for a fixed automatic time Closure; but he admitted that the adoption of this as a Sessional Order merely was some amelioration of the situation. He protested against the principle of the gag as being not only contrary to the immemorial practice of Parliament and the theory of the Constitution, but as likely to be most injurious and disastrous to the interests of the Conservative Party and the Constitution in future. The right hon. Gentleman had been warned, for had not the Leader of the Opposition told the Government distinctly that this change would not stop at Supply, and would be applied to Bills. And when it was applied to Bills and a Radical Government was in power, there could be no doubt that an immense mass of revolutionary legislation would be forced through the House by means of this gag and guillotine. There were now comparatively few Members of that House who had seats in the eventful years between 1880 and 1885. There were, therefore, but few Members who could realise what the tyranny of a big Radical majority was. The Radical Ministry between 1892 and 1895 was always in a precarious condition—not in a condition to tyrannise over the House; but if these Rules had been in existence from 1880 to 1885, probably not a single institution in this country would have remained untouched. Supposing that five or six years hence there was a Radical majority of 140 such as existed in the years 1880–1885, the Members of the present Government would find that they had forged shackles by which they would themselves be firmly bound, and that their present so-called reform of procedure would be used for the destruction of all that they held most dear. He would make an observation with regard to certain statements that had been made respecting the old constitutional theory that the redress of grievances should precede the voting of Supply. He was sorry to hear the Leader of the Opposition ridicule that theory, but he was not surprised, because most constitutional theories were at some time or other ridiculed by the present occupants of the Front Opposition Bench. But however much it might be ridiculed, that theory had been for hundreds of years the basis of the Constitution, and it was so still. The redress of grievances ought to precede the voting of Supply, and the right of calling attention to grievances, and, if need were, the reiteration of grievances on the Votes, constituted the main bulwark of the liberties of the House of Commons and of the people, whom the House of Commons represented. Of course a Vote given in support of a certain specific Closure necessary for the completion of some particular Act of legislation, regrettable as even such a remedy must be, was a very different thing from a Vote given for a fixed and permanent guillotining rule. They all knew that a time came near the end of a Session when with regard to some great Bill special measures might have, to be taken; but his argument was that every case of the kind ought to be judged separately on its own merits, and that it should be left to the whole House to decide in each particular case whether it was necessary that the gag should be applied or not. The work and the rights of private Members had been steadily underrated during the Debate. The great bulk of valuable legislation passed by the House had been originally initiated and brought to public attention by private Members on Tuesdays and Fridays. Not only had these private Members' nights been of the greatest advantage to the House as a whole but they had paved the way for valuable legislation thereafter. It was probable that this Resolution would be passed. He did not think, however, that the general feeling of Conservative Members was in favour of it, if he might judge by private conversation. There was a very widespread feeling of regret that the proposal had been introduced in its present form; but he had no doubt that the devotion of the Conservative Party would lead them into the Lobby in support of the greater portion of the proposals. Assuming that to be the case, he wished to appeal to the Leader of the House with regard to one alteration which he thought would go some way towards making this Rule at least tolerable. He referred to the division of Supply into compartments. The right hon. Member for Bodmin, with his unique experience of procedure, laid great stress on the necessity of dividing Supply into compartments; and in his opinion that was the only way in which this Resolution could be prevented from working grave mischief and preventing the discussion of important questions in Supply itself. He had an Amendment on the Paper dealing with this question. He did not wish the Government to divide Supply into compartments, for the Closure to be applied at the end of each period, but he wished to see a certain proportion of days out of the 20 allotted by Government to the discussion of the different classes of Estimates. If the Government introduced some such system of division of time among the Estimates they would remove a good deal of the objection at present felt to the new proposals.

on a point of order, said that there were several Members who proposed to speak on the general question. If the hon. Member moved his Amendment those hon. Gentlemen would be prevented from continuing the general discussion.

said, that hon. Members would not necessarily be cut off from the general discussion. After the Debate had lasted a considerable time the Speaker called upon any hon. Member who intended to move an Amendment, and thus he had called upon the hon. Member for South Islington. The moving of the Amendment might preclude the general discussion, but on the Amendment almost every question which had been debated yesterday and to-day was open for Members to discuss.

Do I understand that the general discussion cannot be renewed before the Amendments are gone through and that we are now to go through the Amendments?

said, that so far as nineteen-twentieths of the general discussion was concerned, it might take place on the Amendment to leave out all after line 7.

said, he still retained the opinion that these Resolutions were not only insufficient and inadequate on certain points, but they ought to be more comprehensive in character in order to effect the object they had in view. He still thought that the proper and best way of attaining their purpose would be consideration by a Select Committee. It would render the procedure more deliberative than it possibly could be in the whole House, in itself a source of danger, and would enable precedents and alternative proposals to be considered, and it would have the great advantage of enabling the House as a whole, through a representative Committee, to deal with its procedure which should reflect the general opinion of the House rather than bear the appearance of having been imposed upon it either by a mere Party majority, or by the Government of the day. He thought also that some opportunity should be given of more fully considering the proposals. The more they were debated the more in his opinion did they disclose dangers and doubts. There had been intimations thrown out in the course of the Debate that the Government would probably accede to the views expressed that this proposal should not remain a Standing Order but be merely made a Sessional Order. If that was so he would be satisfied, and would not move his Amendment, because practical experience and trial for some temporary period would be some, though not a better, substitute for previous careful consideration.

said, he had no hesitation in saying that the Government recognised the desirableness of seeing how this Resolution would work experimentally one Session, before it was decided to embody it in permanent legislation.

said, he was satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman.

, on a point of order, asked whether he would be out of order in speaking now on the general question?

said, the hon. Member would be out of order. It would be impossible to deal with a Resolution of this kind if after the Amendments had begun, or while they were being gone through, hon. Members intervened with a general discussion. After the Amendments were gone through, then it was open to take a general discussion if the House was disposed to listen further; but practically hon. Members could review the general discussion on the Amendment at the end of line 7.