I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a series of articles on the subject of Employers' Liability which have recently appeared in the Sun newspaper, and just issued in pamphlet form, wherein statements are made on the authority of the Board of Trade statistics, that the number of persons killed and injured in industrial accidents during the year 1895, were 4,533 and 27,197 respectively; and whether he will take steps at once to introduce the promised Employers' Liability Bill in order to diminish the risks?

I have seen the pamphlet referred to in the Question, and the numbers given are, unhappily, substantially correct. I am unable at present to indicate the precise date when I can introduce the Employers' Liability Bill. I may, perhaps, add, so far as the important question of saving life is concerned, that I shall very shortly introduced a Coal Mines Regulation Bill, which is directly intended for this object.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether it is true that the batteries of artillery armed with the new 12-pounder and 15-pounder guns are to be supplied for the annual practice this year with old-pattern 12-pounder ammunition instead of their proper ammunition?

Yes, Sir; the batteries will this year be supplied with old-pattern ammunition. There is a large store of old-pattern ammunition, and as the instruction gained with it at gun practice is for general purposes the same as from the use of new- pattern ammunition, it has been considered desirable not to waste entirely the existing store. The new ammunition cannot, moreover, be properly issued for practice until a reserve sufficient for all purposes has been accumulated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the want of officers in the Militia, amounting to some 600 in the force at the present time; whether he is aware that, under a royal warrant, Line officers who elect to serve with Militia are allowed to do so for ten years on. pay and are then retired compulsorily; and whether, in view of the want of such officers in the Militia at the present time, he will consider the advisability of allowing them to continue serving in the Militia regiments so long as they are favourably reported upon by their commanding officers?

The number of Militia officers is nearly 600 below the establishment. The compulsory retirement referred to in the Question is from the Army, not the Militia. The officer's half-pay stops at the end of ten years after leaving the Regular forces, but there is nothing to prevent his continuance in the Militia. In any case, very few officers are affected, as only seven took advantage last year of this system of retirement from the Army.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board (1) whether Inquiries have been made by the Royal Commission on Vaccination into outbreaks of small-pox at Warrington, Leicester, and other places; (2) when the results of those Inquiries will be made public; and (3) what opportunity will be given to those who have taken local interest in the matter to represent any observations thereon to the Royal Commission before it presents its final Report?

I have made inquiry, and am informed that it is the fact that Inquiries have been made by the Commission into outbreaks of small-pox at Warrington, Leicester, and other places. The Commission, however, cannot undertake to delay their final Report until after the publication of the results of these Inquiries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a reply to the third paragraph of the Question?

In reply to that, I think it is a question which ought to be addressed to the Commission itself. I have no authority to interfere.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, what is the present number of Crimean veterans in receipt of a pension; and, whether he can state what number of such veterans, who are not in receipt of a pension, are supposed to be living at present?

I assume that the Question is intended to apply to the Indian Mutiny campaigns as well as to the Russian wars. There are 2,020 such pensions now payable. We do not know accurately the total number of the men referred to; but, judging from the fact that more than 2,000 pensions have been claimed under the present restricted conditions, and that a very large number of soldiers left the Army after those campaigns with comparatively short service, it may be regarded as certain that the number must be far in excess of the number of campaign pensions already granted, and it has been estimated to be 14,000 or 15,000.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether his attention has been called to an inquest held at Leicester on the 16th inst. upon the body of G. W. Lewin, at which it transpired that the deceased, though aged only 13 years, was regularly employed on 10 hours' night duty as goods telegraph messenger at the Midland Station, Leicester, and in the course of carrying messages amongst the goods trains was killed by the shunting of some trucks, and also to the opinion expressed by the coroner and the jury, that boys ought not to be engaged on such dangerous duty, either by night or by day; whether he can state how many boys are so employed upon the railways of the United Kingdom; whether he is aware that the Post Office has for some years discontinued employing boys on delivering telegrams after 8 p.m., and employs men instead; and, whether he will issue a circular to the Railway Companies advising them to follow the example of the Post Office?

I had ordered an inquiry into the case referred to before the hon. Member's Question appeared on the Paper. When the Report is received the Board of Trade will consider what course should be adopted. I have no information as to the number of boys employed on railways. The Midland inform me, however, that in future night duty shall not be performed by a youth less than 16 years of age.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, if all the five battleships of the Admiral class, now forming part of the Mediterranean Fleet, are still armed with the old 6-inch breach-loading guns; and, if he will consider the advisability of re-arming those so fitted (which may come under repair during the coming financial year) with the new 6-inch quick-firing guns?

One of these ships, the Collingwood, is now being rearmed with the new 6-inch quick-firing guns, and the others will be taken in hand as they come in for repair.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Dublin Co. N. (Mr. J. J. CLANCY), I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether it is a fact that it is more than two years since the usual initial steps were taken to have a number of labourers' cottages built in the Kells Union, and more than a year since the usual Local Government Board Inquiry was held into the scheme as formulated by the Board of Guardians; and (2) whether any of the cottages referred to have yet been built; and, if not, could he explain what is the cause of the delay?

The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. The Guardians are not yet in a position to proceed with the erection of the cottages, as in some eight cases petitions have been lodged against the Local Government Board's Provisional Order of October last, and these objections must be adjudicated on by the Privy Council before the Order can be acted upon. The scheme is a large one, proposing the erection of 81 cottages at an estimated cost of a good many thousand pounds.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the propriety of framing a fresh regulation with respect to Sunday gatherings in Hyde Park, which, while not interfering with legitimate and bonâ fide public meetings for the discussion of public questions, will put a stop to the blasphemous utterances and the performances for personal profit that have been permitted in the park on Sunday afternoons for some time past?

Yes, Sir; I am considering with my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works and with the Law Officers of the Crown the possibility of framing such a rule, but it is a matter which presents considerable difficulties.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this decision may be arrived at?

I cannot say that. It will take some time, as the difficulties are very considerable.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he will favourably consider the suggestion that a loan should be raised on an Imperial guarantee for the development of the resources of Dominica, and as the best available method of promptly relieving the Colony of its present embarrassments and removing the obstacles to its progress?

I am considering in what way any Imperial assistance can best be given towards the development of the resources of Dominica while duly safeguarding the interests of the British taxpayer, but I am not as yet in a position to make any statement on the subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he is aware that last year an Inquiry was promised as to the conditions under which clerks labour in entering rooms and similar places in the City, with a view to the necessity for further legislation; and, whether he can state what has been the result of that Inquiry?

My predecessor, in the course of a reply to a deputation from the National Union of Clerks which he received in March of last year, promised to make certain inquiries, and the result of those inquiries was, I believe, that he satisfied himself that he could not deal with the subject in the Factories and Workshops Bill then before Parliament.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Mr. Wilson from the post of schoolmaster of the Board School of Hemingford Green, on the ground, as stated by the Chairman of the Board, that the boys were very rude out of school; that when the clergyman entered the children did not show their discipline by standing up; and that, had it not been for the question of the religious instruction, he (the Chairman) would not have become a Member of the Board; although, according to the report of Her Majesty's Inspector, Mr. Wilson is a gentleman who has largely increased the efficiency of the school by careful, intelligent, and efficient teaching, and has maintained discipline at a point which is highly creditable to him; and, whether he intends to take any action in regard to this dismissal?

No communications have been addressed to the Committee of Council on this subject. Even if the facts are as stated in the Question, it is not a matter in which the Committee of Council have any power to intervene.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if his attention has been called to the Resolutions passed by the Galway Grand Jury in favour of a line of railway between Ballyvaghan and Oranmore; and whether, in view of. the widespread feeling in Galway and Clare in favour of this project, the Government will take an early opportunity of making an announcement on the subject?

I have received copies of the Resolutions referred to. The case of the suggested line of railway will be considered in connection with other similar proposals. I can make no statement beyond this.

Might I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that there is a very strong feeling amongst all classes in favour of this Scheme; and also whether he is prepared to receive a deputation on the subject?

I do not think I could consent to receive a deputation on this subject, at all events before the Light Railways Bill is introduced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman receive a deputation after the Light Railways Bill is introduced?

I will consider that.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, whether the Departmental Committee which is inquiring into the condition of English lighthouse-keepers embraces also the condition of lighthousekeepers in Scotland; and, if not, whether he will see his way to include them within the scope of these investigations?

I think that the hon. Member must have misunderstood answers which I have given to previous Questions on this subject. There is no Committee inquiring into the condition of English light-keepers, as implied by the Question. A Committee is inquiring into the administration of the Mercantile Marine Fund, and the Commissioners of Irish Lights informed the Board of Trade that they were not able to consider a Petition of Irish light-keepers until that Committee had made its Report.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is the fact that 40 messengers attached to the Telegraph Department of the Bristol Post Office will shortly be discharged on account of their having attained 16 years of age, and without having any other employment offered to them in the Postal Service; and whether, in view of the hardship which will be thus inflicted upon a number of young men who have satisfactorily fulfilled their duties as public servants, he will consider the propriety of withdrawing the notice of dismissal given to the messengers in question, or of modifying the Regulation under which they are to be discharged?

It is the fact that a number of telegraph messengers at Bristol who have attained the age of 16 are under notice to leave; but the number—excluding four who are being discharged for unsatisfactory conduct—is 25, and not 40, as stated by the hon. Member. The Regulation on the point has been laid down mainly in the interests of the lads themselves. If they remained on as telegraph messengers until the age of 18, the Department would be no more able to give them appointments then than it is now, and it will be obvious that, at the age of 16, lads are better able to learn a trade or prepare themselves for other employment than they are at the age of 18.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he has received a Petition from the fishermen of Flookburgh and district in Lancashire asking for an alteration in the regulations affecting the cockling industry; and, as the matter affects the livelihood of a number of persons, is he able to grant the prayer of the petitioners, or if he will order a public Inquiry to be made into the subject?

I have received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers, and it has been explained to the fishermen that these regulations can be altered only on the application of the Lancashire Sea Fisheries District Committee, by whom they were made, and who are, under statute, the body charged with the supervision of the fisheries of the district. I have not yet received any such application.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will consider the possibility, in any amendment of the Factory Acts, of extending to the linen and jute industries legislation similar to that contained in part a of Sub-section 1 of Section 40 of the Act of 1895?

As the Act now stands, piece-workers in these industries are supplied individually with particulars as to their rates of wages. If paragraph a were extended as proposed, the rates of wages would also have to be exhibited on a placard posted in the workroom. But I have received no complaints whatever on the subject, and, in the opinion of the Examiner of Particulars, the extension is unnecessary. In these circumstances I am not prepared to propose a further amendment of an enactment which was carefully settled by Parliament less than a year ago.

If the right hon. Gentleman receives a representation from the Scottish Mill and Factory Workers' Union, will he consider the question?

I would be happy to receive such a representation; but, if it is to deal with the amendment of the Factory Acts, I am afraid I cannot enter into that.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is the case that Scotland has not received her proper share of the Fee Grant, in consequence of the proportions, due to Scotland and England respectively, having been calculated solely on the original Educational Estimates of each year, and without taking into account the Supplementary Estimates voted for England?

It is the case that the Fee Grant paid to Scotland during the financial year now current, and the three preceding financial years, was based upon the original Estimates of each, and that the supplementary Estimates voted for England were not taken into account. Communications on the subject have been addressed by the Scotch Education Department to the Treasury.

I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the amount of this Fee Grant should be apportioned to Scotland and Ireland not upon the amount of the original Estimate, but upon the amount actually paid?

Order, order! The hon. Member must give notice of that Question. The Question on the Paper only relates to Scotland.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, in view of the fact that the three Queen's Colleges in Ireland send up for the medical examinations of the Royal University at least three times as many candidates as does the Catholic University School of Medicine, will he explain why one-half of the total of Fellows and Examiners appointed by the Royal University are apportioned to the Catholic University; and, whether there is any clause in the Charter or Statutes of the Royal University giving this representation to the Catholic University at the expense of the Queen's Colleges of Belfast, Cork, and Galway.

The charter and statutes of the Royal University of Ireland empower the Senate to appoint or employ such examiners as may be necessary, and impose no restrictions as to the persons who may be so employed. I am informed by the secretaries to the University that it has been the usual practice ever since its foundation to appoint, as far as possible, one-half of its ordinary examiners from amongst the professors of the endowed or Queen's colleges, and the other half from the professors of unendowed colleges. This practice has been followed in the medical as well as in the arts faculty.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether any cordite has been manufactured in India for use by the troops there?

As yet no cordite has been made in India; but its manufacture is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether the manufacture of cordite, which is supplied under contract with Messrs. Kynoch's works at Arklow, is sent to Birmingham upon completion?

Messrs. Kynoch hold two contracts—one for gun cordite, and one for cordite ammunition. The gun cordite is made throughout at Arklow, and on completion is delivered into Government stores at Purfleet. The cordite for the ammunition is brought over by Messrs. Kynoch from Arklow in the form of paste. It is finished at Birmingham, and the cartridges are made up and completed by them at the same place. They are then delivered to Woolwich.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he has become acquainted with the purport of statements lately published in Birmingham to the effect that a class of young girls, at the Waverley Road Board Schools, were made to dissect the bodies of rabbits; were these operations enjoined by the Government Inspector; if so, were they sanctioned by the Department as a necessary part of the education of girls; is the kind of teaching involved to be continued; and, will he see that the use of diagrams as illustrations shall be substituted for such experiments?

The dissection in question was performed by some 16 girls, not in an elementary school, but in the advanced course of the organised science school. Physiology is a compulsory subject in this course, and the regulations of the Science and Art Department require a practical acquaintance, by the use of a microscope, with the minute structure of the several tissues and organs. None of the girls were under 14, and nearly all were over 15. The Clerk to the Birmingham School Board says that the actual dissection was nothing more than any girl would necessarily perform in preparing a rabbit for stewing, and has probably been done without remark in most cookery kitchens.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he will take into consideration the desirability of providing that the expense of the protection of our Sea Fisheries shall be defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer, and not from local sources derived from the counties and boroughs abutting on the sea?

If it is necessary to employ one of Her Majesty's ships for the purpose of protecting the Sea Fisheries, the expense is of course defrayed by the Imperial Exchequer; but, where this is not necessary, I see no ground for altering the present law on the subject.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the cruiser Northampton, now about to start on a recruiting trip, is to call at Kirk-wall and Lerwick; and, if this has not been already arranged, whether he will include these seaports in the list of places which the Northampton is to visit?

As at present advised the Northampton will not visit Kirkwall and Lerwick in the course of her present cruise.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is the case, as was recently stated at a public meeting at Devonport, that the Admiralty contributed £30 to the St. James's National School, Keyham, Devonport, during the year 1895; if so, whether there is an annual payment, and if he will state the grounds on which it is made?

Yes Sir, a sum of £30 was awarded by the Admiralty to St. James's Church School at Devonport in 1895. The grants to schools in dockyard towns fluctuate each year, and are not necessarily annual. They are made in order to assist schools which are attended by the children of seamen and marines and dockyard employés, and are allotted independently of religious distinctions, Roman Catholic, Wesleyan, and other schools sharing with National schools in these awards.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that a man named Patrick Keating, of Kylmoracy, county Tipperary, was recently charged at Carrick-on-Suir Petty Sessions, with firing, with intent to injure, a girl named Hannah Hickey, while she was standing at her own door, and that the evidence disclosed that Patrick Keating carried the gun along the public road although possessing no licence to carry arms; that, notwithstanding the fact that the Chairman stated that it was clear from the evidence the shot was fired with the intention of frightening the Hickeys, the District Inspector of Constabulary, who conducted the prosecution, informed the Magistrates that he would not ask them to return the defendant for trial, and that the Bench consequently refused informations; and, whether the Crown will take steps to have the defendant duly tried for the offence with which he was charged, and will also take proceedings against him for carrying arms without a licence?

The substance of the charge against Keating is correctly stated in the Question. There was, however, no evidence adduced that he fired at the girl or at any other person. The complainant was unable to say that the gun was directed at her, and she refused, moreover, to swear that Keating fired at her. In the absence of such proof the Magistrate declined to send the case for trial, but, in view of the fact that it was proved the man had discharged his gun on the public road, they placed him under a rule of bail to keep the peace. The Crown, under the circumstances, do not propose to take any further steps as suggested. The question of instituting proceedings against the man for keeping a gun without a licence is now being considered. He is duly licensed to carry a revolver.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the Return recently issued showing the time respectively occupied in the carriage of the mails between New York and Queenstown, and between New York and Southampton, during the year 1895; and whether, in view of the marked superiority of the Queenstown route, the Postmaster General will represent to the postal authorities of the United States the advisability of forwarding the mails for Great Britain and Ireland viâ Queenstown?

The Postmaster General has, of course, had before him the Return prepared in his Department for the information of the House showing the time respectively occupied in the carriage of the mails between Queenstown and New York and between Southampton and New York during the year 1895. The United States Post Office is thoroughly aware, from weekly returns furnished to it by the Postmaster General, how the service works by both routes, and, speaking generally, sends by the Queenstown route all letters, etc., for Ireland, as well, of course, as all letters, etc., for other parts of the United Kingdom, which are specially superscribed for the Queenstown route. Moreover, the Saturday mails from New York, containing letters, etc., for all parts of the United Kingdom, are regularly carried by the Cunard Company's steamers touching at Queenstown. On Wednesdays, when a subsidised American packet for Southampton and a British steamer for Liverpool via Queenstown are both starting from New York, and the disparity between the transit times is small, the United States Post Office give the preference to their own subsidised packet, and the Postmaster General can scarcely find fault with them for so doing.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the gunboat recently sent to Galway Bay to protect the fishermen from illegal steam trawling, has captured two steam trawlers while engaged in this unlawful practice in prohibited waters; and whether, in view of the fact that this steam trawling places the lives of over 100 Galway fishermen in nightly peril, he will instruct the law officers of the Crown to prosecute the offenders?

It is the fact that on the 21st instant two steam trawlers were seized by a gunboat whilst trawling within prescribed limits in Galway Bay. Proceedings were at once taken against the masters of the trawlers, with the result that they were fined £5 each and costs for the illegal fishing, and their nets were forfeited. I also learn that they were fined in the further sum of £25 each and costs for not burning lights on the night of seizure.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now communicated further with the Lunacy Commissioners, and if he is now prepared to make a further statement as to the causes of the recent great increase of lunacy and the operation of the 4s. grant, or to institute an Inquiry into the subject?

I have had no direct communication recently with the Lunacy Commissioners on this subject, but I have suggested to the Lord Chancellor under whose jurisdiction they are, that, in view of the interest that is being taken in the question, it might be desirable to follow the precedent set by the Irish Government, and direct the Commissioners or some of them to make special inquiries as to the causes of the increase of lunacy, and embody their conclusions in the next annual report, or in a special Paper to be laid on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether the Education Department have allowed the managers of St. Mary Magdalene's School, Paddington, to amend their accounts for the year 1894–5 by including in them the special fund raised for structural alterations; whether he is aware that, in consequence of that amendment of accounts, the sum of £94 18s. 7d., which had been deducted under Article 107 of the Code, has been refunded to the managers; and whether, under Article 90 of the Code, any outlay is permitted on the premises beyond the cost of ordinary repairs to appear in the school accounts?

The facts are as stated. The expenditure was allowed under Article 90, because it was found that the works done were "renewals" and not "alterations."

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury (1) whether he is aware that the Scotch Education Grant Act of 1892 contains precisely the same words relating to the fee grant as the Irish Act of the same year, and whether he can explain why, under these circumstances, the Treasury submitted to Parliament in 1893–4 and 1894–5 an estimate of a fixed amount for Ireland but of an increasing amount for Scotland; (2) whether he can explain why the Scotch grant was calculated with reference to the amount of the English Estimates and not with reference to the English grant, as prescribed by the Act; and (3) whether any application was received from the Scotch Education Department or from the Irish National Education Commissioners claiming that the grants for Scotland and Ireland respectively should be calculated with reference to the English grants and not the English Estimates; and, if so, when such application was received?

Yes, Sir; the words are the same in the two Acts. The amounts submitted to Parliament in the years mentioned were those asked for by the Scotch and Irish Education Departments respectively. The point referred to in the last paragraph of the Question was first raised as regards Scotland in February 1895 and as regards Ireland in February 1896.

Does the Treasury disclaim all responsibility for the framing of the Estimates referred to in the Question?

Certainly. They are submitted by the Commissioners of Education.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to a Petition of the Mansfield Board of Guardians, dated 26th June 1895, as to the increase of vagrancy, and the heavy burden imposed by certain unions thereby; and whether he will consider the advisability of an Inquiry into this subject, with a view to enforcing the principle that each locality should be responsible for its own poor?

I have had under my attention the Memorial referred to, together with a letter received from the Mansfield Board of Guardians on the 21st of this month. There has, undoubtedly, been a considerable increase of vagrancy of late years, and the Board, in a circular letter which was issued by them last month, have stated their views as to the course which should be adopted by Boards of Guardians with regard to the relief of this class of poor, and have expressed their opinion that if the regulations which are now in force are enforced by Boards of Guardians generally throughout the country, the number of persons relieved as vagrants would be largely diminished. The Mansfield Board of Guardians, it appears, desire an Inquiry with a view to the relief of the casual poor being placed under a system of State control, so that the expense of such relief may be borne partially by Capitation or other grants by the State. I cannot direct an Inquiry for the purpose suggested.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if there is any truth in the statement that negotiations are in progress with the Portuguese Government for the purchase of Delagoa Bay by England?

I answered the Question at the last sitting of the House.

The Question I wish to ask is, whether there have been any negotiations?

I have already stated that there is not an atom of foundation for the rumour.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, whether he has considered the question and would be prepared to recommend the granting to the Militia and Volunteers the same scale of prizes in musketry as is awarded to the Regular Army under Paragraph 188, Chap. 7, "Musketry Instructions 1894"; or, if not, whether he would recommend the granting of the lower allowance to the Volunteers on the scale of prizes granted to the Militia under Paragraph 637, "Militia Regulations 1894"?

Lord Lansdowne is not disposed to make any addition to the present inducements to good shooting in the Volunteers, which he regards as sufficient. The conditions under which the Militia practice firing do not, in his opinion, justify the same scale of prizes as are given to the Regular Army.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, in reference to the alarming statements made in the Annual Report of the Sanitary Commissioner to the Government of India for 1894 as to the prevalence of venereal diseases in the Indian Army, and which statements are admitted to be true, what steps he proposes to take to remedy the evil?

The growth of venereal disease in the Indian Army, consequent upon the abolition of the previous protective measures against it—[cheers]—has been a source of great concern to the Government of India, who report that it prevails "to such an extent as to constitute a most serious cause of inefficiency in the Army." The Government of India are considering what instructions or regulations it may be possible for them to issue to mitigate this scourge and without infringing the restriction imposed upon them by the Resolution passed by this House upon this subject.

Is there any possibility of those Resolutions being rescinded? [Cheers.]

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is willing to grant, for the years ended 31st March 1895 and 31st March 1896, a Return in continuation of Parliamentary Paper No. 314, being a Return showing, for the year ended the 31st day of March 1894—(1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by Imperial officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the Balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial expenditure?

Yes, Sir; the Government are willing to grant this Return.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he state on whom will fall the expense involved by the dispatch of a large force of constabulary, consisting of a district inspector, a head constable, nine sergeants, and fifty men, from head-quarters to Sligo, to aid the local authorities to cope with the situation caused by the open-air preaching held in that town; is he aware that the proper authorities have condemned this street preaching as an act of obstruction and calculated to provoke disorder and breaches of the peace, and that these preachers have been offered the use of large halls in the town, and of open spaces outside the town; and, whether, under these circumstances, the police authorities will take steps to so deal with cases of alleged obstruction as will tend to preserve peace and order in the town of Sligo?

One officer, one head constable, nine sergeants and 40 men were sent from headquarters to Sligo in connection with the open-air preaching. A portion of the expense entailed in dispatching this force will be charged to the Borough of Sligo. The local Magistrates and the Corporation of Sligo have condemned the preaching, as stated. The preachers have been offered the use of the Town Hall and also, I believe, an open space of ground for the purpose of holding their services, an offer which, in my opinion, they would be acting wisely in accepting. I think it would be equally wise if those having influence in the district would advise the people not to molest the preachers. The police have instructions to prevent, and have prevented, any obstruction being caused to the thoroughfares in Sligo by preaching in the streets. The rioting and disorder which have necessitated the presence of an extra force of police, have arisen from attacks made by the mob upon the preachers walking through the streets to and from the place of preaching.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the new line of railway from Galway to Clifden has yet been utilised for the carriage of the mails; and, if not, what is the cause of the delay, and when will an arrangement be come to on the matter?

There are no trains running on the line at hours suitable for the night mail, but the Department is considering whether any advantage would accrue from using the Company's trains for the day mail. It is not clear that they afford any advantage over the existing road service.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he will consider the hardship of withholding long service medals from wan-ant officers, inasmuch as a non-commissioned officer of 18 years' service can apply for the medal, but a warrant officer of 17 years' service is not entitled to it although senior in rank?

The medal is a testimony of good conduct as well as of long service; and upon the latter point I think I cannot do better than read to my hon. Friend the words of a recent minute of the Adjutant-General, viz.:—

"It would not be right, we think, to raise any question of rewarding a warrant officer for good conduct, because the fact of his holding the warrant raises him above the suspicion of bad conduct."

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will take into his consideration whether one of the four avenues in the Mall, on the north side of St. James' Park, might be reserved for cyclists within reasonable hours, one avenue being, under present arrangements, reserved for carriages, and the other three (two of which are wide) being open to pedestrians?

I regret I can give my hon. Friend no other answer than the one I gave a few days since to the hon. Member for the Bosworth Division of Leicestershire, namely, that the matter is receiving consideration.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (l) has he seen a statement made by Mr. William M'Cammond, of Cherryvale, Belfast, with regard to the handling of flax in Ulster, recommending improved methods which, if adopted, would greatly benefit growers; and (2) whether, seeing that in the past season large quantities of flax were sold at prices so low as 2s. 6d. per stone, he will recommend the appointment of a small Commission, or adopt such other means as he may deem best, to have the various methods of handling flax thoroughly investigated in the interests of the farmers of Ireland?

I have not seen the statement referred to in the first paragraph, though I am informed that many competent authorities are of opinion that loss is incurred by Irish farmers owing to the manner in which flax is usually handled. I believe that a thorough investigation as to the relative merits of the systems adopted in Ireland and on the Continent for the culture and treatment of flax would yield information of undoubted value to growers of flax in Ireland, and to enable the Government to further consider the matter the Land Commissioners have been authorised to confer generally with some of the chief cultivators and users of flax in the north of Ireland, to report to the Government thereon and, if necessary, to submit a scheme for the carrying out of such further investigations as may be considered desirable.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, if he could state what has been the number of railway servants killed by accidents in which the movement of vehicles used exclusively on railways was concerned since August last, and in what number of such fatal accidents there have been inquiries held locally by inspectors or sub-inspectors of the Board?

Two hundred and thirty-two railway servants were killed by accidents of this class between August and the end of February. Of these, four were killed in train accidents. The inspecting officers held inquiries in these four cases, and of the remainder, 42 were inquired into by the sub-inspectors.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Return of Railway Accidents for the year 1895 will contain the reports from the railway sub-inspectors as to inquiries carried out by them; or in what form, and in what Return, he proposes to lay the results of the work done by the sub-inspectors before Parliament?

The Accident Return for 1895 has been presented, and does not contain the reports of the sub-inspectors. I propose, however, to give a summary of their work in the forthcoming General Report on Railway Accidents.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether any arrangements have been made by the Indian Government to afford an asylum in our territories, or in those under our influence, for the Siah Posh Kafirs who have escaped from the Afghan invaders; will the nature of any such arrangement be indicated to Parliament; and whether His Highness the Ameer of Kabul has caused 16,000 of the Kafirs to be deported and distributed amongst the local authorities in Afghanistan?

As I stated on February 20, certain Kafirs have sought refuge in Chitral, where they and others who have joined them are being assisted and settled upon small grants of land by the Mehtar on condition that they observe the usual terms on which asylum is granted. I have no information that is in any sense reliable as to the number of Kafir prisoners or the treatment of them in Afghan territory, but judging from what we know of the total number of the population of Kafiristan, it is highly improbable that any such number of prisoners have been deported.

Is there no news since February, the date named by the noble Lord?

I stated that since February 20 we had received information as to further attacks having been made; but all the figures which have been published in connection with these attacks are supposed to be quite untrustworthy.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether he can state when the Report of the Commission on Vaccination will be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether, considering the serious outbreak of the disease that has recently occurred at Gloucester, the Commission will be directed to include the circumstances and causes of this epidemic within the scope of their researches?

I have communicated with the Commission, and I have been informed that it is impossible to name a day when the Commission's Report will be laid on the Table. The Commissioners have been for a long time engaged on its preparation, and they hope it will not be long before it is presented. We have already sent Dr. Sidney Copeland to Gloucester to in-quire into and report upon the epidemic.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Blind, the Deaf Dumb, etc., 1889, special classes have been formed by the School Boards of the United Kingdom for backward children who are unable to profit by the ordinary instruction of an elementary school; and, if not, whether the Education Department propose to take any action in the matter; in the event of such classes being formed, whether imbeciles would be admissible to them; and, what steps the Education Department would require to be. taken to insure none but proper children being admitted to such classes?

Special classes have been formed by some School Boards, notably by the London School Board. The whole matter is under the consideration of the Committee of Council, but they are not yet in a position to say if it would be feasible to introduce legislation on the subject. It would not be proposed to admit imbeciles to such classes.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is the fact, as stated in a telegram from Cairo published in The Times newspaper of 27th March, that the Egyptian Government have informed the Sultan of Turkey that the object of the movement of Egyptian troops up the Nile from Wady Haifa is to recover provinces formerly held by Egypt in the Soudan?

Her Majesty's Government understand that, the Sultan having requested the Khedive to express his views with regard to the advance of Egyptian troops in the Valley of the Nile, the Khedive, in reply, stated that the British and Egyptian Governments have agreed that the movement is opportune for endeavouring to bring back Dongola, which is part of a province formerly held by Egypt in the Soudan, under Egyptian administration, and that an Expedition, accordingly, has been dispatched thither.

asked, whether the explanation given by the Khedive was not altogether a different explanation from that given by her Majesty's Government?

No sir, the two explanations are precisely identical. [Laughter.]

asked whether it was not the fact that Her Majesty's Government stated as the reason for the expedition the necessity of repelling an attack on the Egpytian frontier?

The hon. Member is pursuing in an argumentative way the Question which has been answered.

With reference to the last answer, may I ask whether the House is to understand that the object of the present expedition is strictly limited to the re-conquest of the province of Dongola?

No, Sir; the House is to understand what is the object of the expedition, in the eyes of the Government, from the various speeches which have been made by Ministers. [Laughter.]

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he is now in a position to inform the House as to President Kruger's reply to his Dispatch of 4th February, and the invitation to visit England?

I answered this Question on Friday, the 27th, and I have nothing further to add to that reply.

asked whether the statement contained in The Times of Friday last as to an offensive and defensive alliance between the Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State was corroborated by any information which the right hon. Gentleman had received?

I have no information confirming that statement.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the spraying of potato crops in Ireland with strawsonite has resulted in preserving them from blight and of increasing the quantity of sound eatable potatoes by one-fourth of the yield more than where spraying has not been used; and, whether his attention has been drawn to the Blue-book of Agricultural Statistics (Ireland) just issued, which shows that where spraying has been used the most beneficial results were obtained; and, if so, will he advise the Government to take steps to make the application of the system universal during the coming season?

The results of the experiments conducted in 1895 by the Agricultural Department of the Land Commission for the purpose of testing the value of strawsonite and other solutions as preventives of the spread of potato disease in Ireland are fully detailed in the Report recently presented to Parliament. These experiments, on the whole, were most successful and satisfactory in their results, and indicate that a timely application of the solutions is beneficial, not alone in prolonging the period of growth of the plant, but in lessening the ill-effects of the disease and increasing the relative yield of potatoes. I may remark that the experiments, which were originated in the year 1891 at the request of the Irish Government, have since been carried out from year to year, and the results attained, with other information, have been embodied in leaflets and very extensively circulated throughout Ireland amongst the farming classes and other interested persons. I now propose to ask the Land Commissioners to issue the recent Report to Poor Law Boards, agricultural societies, and other bodies interested in the matter, as well as to the Press, and also to continue the circulation of the leaflets.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether he has had his attention called to a resolution passed by the Associated Chambers of Commerce on the 25th instant, in which they express their opinion that it is desirable that Scotch and Irish debts should be re coverable in the English county courts, provided the debts have been contracted in England, by delivery to a railway company or goods agent, and that English debts similarly contracted in Scotland and Ireland should be recoverable in Scotland and Ireland in a reciprocal manner, and whether he will take steps to give effect to this resolution with the least possible delay?

My attention had not been called to the resolution referred to by my hon. and learned Friend until his Question appeared upon the Paper. Legislation would be required to give effect to the suggestion. and I am not prepared, at any rate during the present Session, to embark upon the somewhat thorny questions which would be raised by any proposals of the kind.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will now give the names of the Members of the Royal Commission on the Liquor Traffic, and state the terms of reference to the Commission?

I am sorry again to repeat an answer I have given more than once. The list of names is very nearly completed, but it is not so far advanced as to enable me to make a statement to the House. If, however, my hon. Friend will repeat his Question on the motion for the adjournment of the House to-morrow, I hope to be able to give him some information. I hope to have some information to-morrow morning.

gave notice that he would repeat the Question at the rising of the House to-night. Failing an answer he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he will make his promised statement as to the date upon which the South Kensington and Bethnal Green Museums will be opened on Sunday, and also if he has any information from the Trustees of the British Museum and National Gallery as to when they propose to open the museums and galleries under their control on Sunday?

The Government are prepared to open South Kensington and Bethnal Green at a very early date—indeed, almost immediately. Those are museums under the control of the President of the Council. The National Gallery, the National Portrait Gallery, and the British Museum are in the hands of trustees, and correspondence is still going on between the Government and the trustees, though I have no reason to believe that any difficulty need be apprehended as to the final conclusion of a satisfactory arrangement.

asked, as a question of which he had given private notice, whether the Government had reason to believe that France contemplated favouring her own trade in Madagascar at the expense of that of other Powers; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government would consider the possibility of friendly and joint action in the matter with the United States?

The point is one of very great importance, but we have as yet received no information from the French Government of their intentions, and I am afraid, therefore, at the moment I cannot add anything to what I said on Friday night.

The attention of the right hon. Gentleman has been called to what purports to be a communicated note in reply to what he said on Friday night.

Yes, Sir, but no such communication has officially reached us.

, asked whether any information had been received by the Colonial Office later than the telegram which appeared in the morning's newspapers with reference to the rising in Matabeleland?

No, Sir; that was the last telegram received.

, referring to a notice of Motion to suspend the 12 o'clock Rule, asked whether it was to be understood that it was not intended to take any Votes after 12 o'clock, and, if that surmise was correct, whether the Leader of the House would reconsider his idea of asking the House to agree to-night to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair.

My right hon. Friend is perfectly right in his supposition. I do not propose taking any Votes in Supply tonight, but I think it is necessary for the general convenience of the House that Mr. Speaker should be got out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates tonight, otherwise we should not be able to begin on Thursday week with the discussion in Supply.

Do I understand that there is any financial urgency to make that necessary? Or would it not be more in accordance with the usual practice to continue the discussion on the Motion "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" on the reassembling of the House?

No, I do not think it would be more in accordance with the usual practice. I do not know any occasion on which that Motion is taken the first Thursday after the Recess; and, as to the other question, there is no legal necessity in the matter, but simply a matter of Parliamentary convenience.

I desire to call the attention of the House to the position in which it is placed with reference to public business. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman said just now that it was contrary to Parliamentary convenience, though he knew of Parliamentary precedents, that the Motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates should take place on the first day after the Recess. But I would ask whether it is not contrary to Parliamentary convenience and to all Parliamentary precedent that a Bill of great importance—perhaps the most important Bill of the Session— should be brought forward on the day of the Adjournment. [Cheers.] No such thing, as far as I know, has ever been attempted before in the history of the House of Commons—certainly not within my knowledge or recollection. How is it we have been brought to this situation? [Ministerial cheers and counter cheers.] I venture to say that it is in consequence of the absolute departure from all precedent in Parliamentary management, a departure in every respect from the traditions and habits of the House of Commons in dealing with important Measures and with important Motions. Several Bills and Motions of great importance have been put down for particular days when hon. Members were in attendance, expecting them to be discussed, but there have been placed in front of them Measures of very minor consequence which have led to discussion, and which properly led to discussion. [Cheers and ironical laughter.] We have had more Closure in the course of the few weeks the House has been sitting than has taken place before in the course of a whole Session; but the Government could not intend, when they put down such a Bill as the exclusion by Statute of foreign cattle, that there should be no discussion upon it. I ventured to warn the right hon. Gentleman when I knew that there was to be a Second Reading of a Bill of that kind as to the length of time that might be occupied. In a former Session of Parliament we who sit on the Opposition Benches were not even allowed to introduce the First Reading of a Government Bill without discussion occupying a whole day or more—[Opposition cheers] —and yet a Bill of that character was put down before the Vote on Account. Every one knows that in various parts of the country there was great opposition to the Exclusion of Foreign Cattle Bill. It was sure to be strongly opposed both by the agriculturists in the Eastern Counties as well as in Scotland, and also by many of the inhabitants of great towns. [Cheers.] It was a Measure, therefore, which was not only sure to be discussed, but it was a proper subject for discussion, and the consequence was that the Vote on Account did not come on the day appointed. I was amused this morning to see a letter from the Prime Minister describing the unpromising state of public business in the House of Commons. It is a remarkable thing that when the Queen's Speech was read I observed that I thought the enumeration of Measures on the part of the Government in that Speech was not likely to be fulfilled. That observation was resented by hon. Members opposite, many of whom are new to this House; and it was said, "Of course we are going to pass all these Measures." There has also occurred a circumstance that I do not recollect to hare occurred before. The ''massacre of the innocents" has been performed by the Prime Minister before Easter —[laugh-ter]—because one of the Measures to which I then called attention was a Measure for the exclusion of destitute aliens from this country; and the Prime Minister has already massacred that Bill before Easter. We have found time for the exclusion of foreign cattle, but not for the exclusion of foreign aliens at present, though the Foreign Alien Bill was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, while- foreign cattle was not. [Laughter.] That is the first consequence of the unfortunate state of public business in the House of Commons. What happened again on Thursday? It was fixed for the Education Hill. Everyone would naturally expect that a Bill of that importance would have been brought forward at a time when questions might be put upon it with the fullest attendance of Members present. Every one is familiar with the arrangements made by hon. Members for leaving London on the day of the Adjournment; vet that is the day which is chosen for putting down the First Reading of a Bill which, I venture to say, according to the experience of previous Sessions, would have taken a whole night, perhaps two nights, if the Bill had been brought forward by this side of the House. [Cheers.] The discussion on this Bill, however, is to be crammed into a morning sitting at 12 o'clock; and in this fashion the important Education Measure so much looked forward to is to be introduced by the Government. The time given to the Vote on Account and the Foreign Cattle Bill might have been bestowed on the Education Bill. What was the object of forcing on the Second Reading of the Foreign Cattle Bill? Even if it had been postponed until after Easter the Government had it in their power absolutely to prohibit the introduction of foreign cattle during the whole Session if they liked; and therefor there was no reason for putting that Bill before the Vote on Account. The Naval Works Bill was a very important Measure. It was a Measure which I ventured to inform the right hon. Gentleman would take up a considerable time in discussion, not that I and my Friends desired at all to obstruct it. On the contrary, what. I said was in support of that Bill; but every one knows that a Bill affecting various ports of the country would have various friends and opponents, and our experience had shown us that it was a Measure that would lead to a very elaborate discussion, and that as it raised questions of local interest it would occupy a considerable time. There again I gave a friendly warning to the right hon. Gentleman, but he said that an hour or two would dispose of it, just as he said the same thing about the Foreign Cattle Bill. That was a mistake. I cannot understand how such a mistake could have arisen, but the consequence has been to bring the whole of the public business of the House into confusion through having wasted time over those comparatively unimportant Measures. I may be wrong in the matter, but I do not know why it was absolutely necessary to pass the Naval Works Bill before Easter. I had the impression that, inasmuch as the money under the old Sinking Fund is not applied until the end of the financial year following, the Bill might have been passed later. At all events, other arrangements might have been made so as not to have made it necessary to put the Naval Works Bill before the Education Bill on the Thursday, and so that the House might have not been driven into a corner, as it has been owing to the recent arrangements of public business. A question was raised by the right hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet as to a discussion on the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. It is not in the least necessary that the Speaker should leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of it as if it was a thing which was always done.

I did not say that.

Well, then you need not do it. In 1895 the Speaker left the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates on May 24; therefore the putting down of the Civil Service Estimates was a thing which was entirely unnecessary. If it is desired that there should be an adjournment on the discussion that the Speaker leave the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, there is no financial reason at all why that should not be done. The business which the Government expect to get through to-night on the Naval Works Bill, the Civil Service Estimates, and the Report of Supply is not giving the adequate time to those subjects which we have a right to ask. The business has been so conducted on those questions that the House is entitled to the opportunity of discussing important matters on these Motions. It has the right to discuss very important matters on the Speaker leaving the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates, and it has the right on the Report of Supply to discuss other matters; and, in my opinion, there never was a moment at which the House might more desire or had more right to discuss Motions of that kind than the very moment at which we now stand. An opportunity should now be afforded of discussing matters which are happening in South Africa, in Egypt, and many other things in which the House ought to take a deep interest, but we are driven, in consequence of the state of public business, into a corner, and there is not that opportunity of fair debate and discussion which the House ought to have, while we are to have launched at 12 o'clock to-morrow—on the day of the Adjournment of the House—one of the most important Measures, if not the most important Measure, of the Session. [Cheers.] I spoke of the Bills which were announced in the Queen's Speech. We have had the Bill about foreign cattle, but as to the other Measures of great importance, we have had no announcement at all— the compensation to workmen for injuries—[cheers]—and the Employers' Liability Bill. Measures of comparatively secondary importance have been pushed forward to the exclusion of more serious business and to the loss of that time which the House ought to have for proper debate and consideration. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is going to say that he has been met by obstruction. I do not think that he would say so. If he did it would not be a fair statement. [Cheers.] At all events, in connection with those who sit on the Front Opposition Bench, he has no right to say anything of the kind. [Ministerial cheers.] The Government demanded fair support and fair time, and I do not think that we have refrained from giving them both. I am very unwilling to enter on anything like recrimination on this matter, and therefore I will say nothing of the past. I speak only of the present, and I do not think that it can be charged against those who sit on this side of the House that they have given any unfair opposition to the Measures which the Government have proposed. I regard it as my duty to enter my protest against the position in which we are placed with respect to the Education Bill—a Measure in which it is known that very deep interest is felt and about which there is a great conflict of opinion. If the Measure of the Government is at all of the magnitude that has been hoped by some and apprehended by others, it is not fair to the House that it should be asked to sanction the introduction of the Bill at a morning sitting on the day fixed for the Adjournment of the House for the Recess. [Cheers.]

did not rise to intervene in the dispute between the late Leader of the House of Commons and his successor, which reminded him rather of the differences between the pot and the kettle—[laughter]—but for the purpose of asking the First Lord of the Treasury to agree to some modification of his proposals with reference to their proceedings that evening. His right hon. Friend had said that he intended to take the stage of getting the Speaker out of the Chair at any hour that night, however late. Before that could be done they would have to dispose of the Naval Works Bill, a very important Measure, and he understood that there were several questions relating to urgent Foreign Affairs which were to be discussed, and were likely to occupy some little time. The, probability was, therefore, that the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair in order that the House might get into Committee of Supply on the Civil Service Estimates would not be made until an advanced hour. Consequently, on the questions which were to be raised on that Motion there would be no opportunity for adequate discussion. The course which the right hon. Gentleman purposed taking would establish a dangerous precedent. Already the privileges of private Members had been largely encroached upon during the present Session—[Oppsition cheers]— and he was at a loss to know why, for there was no great urgency in respect of any Measures of first importance before the House, and there had been no widespread obstruction to overcome. The fact was that the Conservative Party, whose principles had hitherto always been opposed to hasty legislation, were now, with their enormous Unionist majority creating precedents which in other hands might become a great danger to the State. [Laughter from the Opposition.] He only hoped that the majority of the House understood what they were doing, and that they would not bemoan their hard fate if in future years important Measures should be crammed down their throats without any discussion at all. ["Hear, hear!"]

My right hon. Friend who has just sat down is so much in the habit of advocating what he regards as the rights of private Members, and has so constantly before his mind what he calls "cramming legislation down the throat of the House of Commons," that, whatever may be the subject under discussion, his peroration always deals with this familiar theme. As a matter of fact there is nothing in this Motion or in the business to be transacted to-night and to-morrow which could for a moment be described as cramming legislation down anybody's throat. Beyond the Third Reading of the Naval Works Bill, there is no legislation proposed to-night. Tomorrow, the proceedings begin at 12, and if the House desires to discuss the First Reading of the Education Bill for a considerable time, there is nothing in the Rules to prevent it from sitting the clock round. I cannot conceive that any such result is likely to occur, but it would be in the power of the House to occupy in the discussion of my right hon. Friend's Bill, as many hours as it should please. How, therefore, what we are doing can be described as "cramming legislation down the throat" of the House and the country I am utterly at a loss to understand. ["Hear, hear!"] My right hon. Friend says that I am asking the House to do a great deal too much business in the course of this evening's sitting. Had the House desired to proceed to business immediately after Questions were disposed of, I presume we could have got through the Naval Works Bill by 5 o'clock. There would then have been a long evening to devote to the discussion of the Resolutions on the Paper. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: ''What about the Motion for the Adjournment of the House?"] If the hon. Member chooses to move the Adjournment I must not be blamed for that. [''Hear, hear!"] I am pointing out what Members could have done if they had wished. They could have begun the discussion of the Amendments to the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair at 5 o'clock. Then no one could have pretended, in view of the nature of the Resolutions down upon the Paper, that the time for their discussion was insufficient. The Leader of the Opposition has said that a night's discussion of the Amendments to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply is not enough, and that there are South African questions and others of great importance which the House is burning to discuss. The House may be burning to discuss those questions, but, at any rate, they have not been put down upon the Paper. Notices of Motion have been given with reference to affairs in the Turkish Empire, but beyond these questions I see very little that ought to take up much time. There is a question, relating to Ireland, which the Irish Members themselves say will not take long; there is a Resolution about lunacy; there is another upon a subject that has already been discussed once this Session—namely, harbour accommodation in Scotland; and there is a small question concerning Wales. In these circumstances I fail to see what difficulty there can be in getting through the business on the Paper tonight without any undue pressure on the powers of endurance of hon. Members. Then I come to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, who says it is a monstrous novelty and inconvenience that the House should be asked, on the day before the holidays, to listen to my right hon. Friend's speech on so important a subject as Elementary Education. There are, no doubt, subjects which it would be improper for the Government to bring forward on the last day before the holidays. They are subjects on which the House might like to divide, and I recognise that it might be extremely inconvenient to hon. Members to attend in order to take part in a full-dress Division. But it is not usual to divide on the First Reading even of the most controversial Bills. It is sometimes done, but not often, and I do not think it likely that hon. Members will deem it necessary to divide on a Bill like the Education Bill, which is necessarily complicated in its provisions, before they have seen it in print. In these circumstances I cannot imagine a more convenient day—[laughter and cheers]— speaking relatively—on which this subject could be brought forward. If I deprive the right hon. Gentleman opposite of one day of his intended holidays —if he purposed going to the New Forest to-morrow, I apologise to him, but I may point out that if he likes to go he will, after all, be able to read a full account of my right hon. Friend's speech in the newspapers. [Opposition cries of ''Oh!'' laughter, and cheers.] Then he will be in no way prevented from taking his full share in the real discussion of the Bill on the Second Reading and in Committee, and though we should be sorry that he should not take part in our Debate to-morrow, it does not appear to me that any serious inconvenience will be caused to himself if he is obliged to deprive himself of the opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend. [Opposition cries of "Oh!"] Whose feelings have I hurt? The only person whose feelings I could possibly have hurt is my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who may be deprived of one of the principal members of his audience. How I can have hurt the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman opposite or of hon. Members behind him I fail to understand, but if I have injured the susceptibilities of hon. Members on the Back Benches "opposite J hope that they will accept my apologies. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman has surveyed the business of last week and has told us that on two occasions we have put down business before the Education Bill when we ought to have put it down first. He also grumbled at me because I put down my right hon. Friend's Bill with regard to the slaughter of cattle before the Vote on Account. The right hon. Gentleman forgot, or at all events omitted to state, that the Vote on Account was discussed the whole of the night before the Animals Bill was brought in. The Vote on Account has constantly been taken in one night. Then the right hon. Gentleman said, ''On Thursday night you put down the Naval Works Bill first when you ought to have known that there would be a long discussion on the Bill, which would render it impossible to bring in the Education Bill." It is no more possible to foresee the amount of discussion that is likely to take place on a particular Measure than it is possible to make an accurate forecast of the weather. You may see in The Times this morning that the weather is expected to be fine and dry; but, as a matter of fact, down comes a steady and continuous drizzle of rain, which prevents you seeing or doing anything or pursuing any other course whatever than that of putting up your umbrella and waiting with what philosophy you can muster for the rain to stop. That is an unpleasant state of things; but the man with the umbrella is not to blame— [laughter]—he is the victim, he is the sufferer. When he expected to have a comfortable and rapid walk, he finds himself storm-bound under the shelter of some tree. The truth is, while it is not my business to criticise the action which hon. Gentlemen opposite chose to take on Thursday night with regard to the Naval Works Bill, it was not action that was approved of on the Front Bench opposite. The late Financial Secretary to the Admiralty himself expressed his regret at the necessity under which some of his Friends found themselves of discussing and rediscussing not the novel parts of the Bill, hut those parts of it which had already been adequately dealt with in a previous Session. ["Hear, hear!"] We could not foresee that discussion, and if the right hon. Gentle man could not sufficiently control his friends, that was not our fault.

It was not so. My hon. Friend near me tells me there was more discussion on the other side of the House than on this. [Cheers.]

That is a question which is very easily answered by a reference to the Debates. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the Debate he will see that the lengthened discussion which took place on the old parts of the Bill came from his side of the House, and that the discussion on this side was in the main, though not entirely, on the new parts. ["Hear, hear!"]

I sat through the whole of the Debate, and there was only one Amendment moved by Members of the Liberal Party sitting on this side of the House. Most of the discussion came from Members on the other side of the House. We made a protest that the discussion was confined to the old part of the Bill, and that a discussion of the new parts was prevented. [''Hear, hear!"]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, and that his memory deceives him. There may possibly have been only one Amendment moved from that side of the House—though I am amazed at the number of Divisions that took place—but I think that if the hon. Gentleman will recall to his memory the agreeable recollection associated with the eloquence of the hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Lanarkshire—[laughter] —and some others he will see that I have not greatly exaggerated, if at all, what took place on Thursday last. ["Hear, hear!"] But, after all, if it was desirable to get the Naval Works Bill through, as it was, what other course could we have pursued? ["Hear, hear!"] If we had put it down second on Thursday last, I ask, should we have got it through that night at all? We should have been obliged to let the holidays go by without that Measure reaching a Third Reading. It is not absolutely necessary, but it is extremely convenient, from a financial point of view, that that Bill should be passed. The House of Lords is going to meet tomorrow for the purpose of passing it and making it law as soon as possible, and in these circumstances, if that proposition be granted, I do not believe any ingenuity will show that we could have better distributed Parliamentary time than by the plan we have actually adopted. [''Hear, hear!"] I am aware it is seldom the good fortune of the Leader of the House to please the Leader of the Opposition in the management of business. The right hon. Gentleman opposite never succeeded in pleasing me— [laughter]—and I do not anticipate that I shall ever succeed in pleasing him. [Laughter.] I greatly regret it, for there is no man whose good opinion I would rather have, and there is no man whose knowledge of the House of Commons makes him a more competent critic of those who are endeavouring to follow him in the office which he filled with so much distinction. [Cheers.] But when I try to sum up the errors which the Government are alleged to have committed in the conduct of business during the last fortnight, I cannot see that it comes to more than this—that hon. Gentlemen will have to choose between the pleasure of listening to my right hon. Friend introducing the Education Bill and the pleasure of going a few hours earlier to their respective homes. [Laughter.] It may be a painful choice —[laughter]—and I regret that I should have been instrumental in compelling hon. Gentlemen to make it; but I hope they will believe me that, however unsuccessful my efforts may be to meet the convenience of all parties, I did my best, consistently with trying to get through what is the duty of the Government to ask the House of Commons to get through. [Cheers.]

asked whether the House would adjourn to-morrow immediately after the discussion on the Education Bill.

Yes.

said, he had no doubt that the conduct of all Governments with regard to public business was bad —[laughter]—but he was quite ready to admit that the conduct of the present Government was exceptionally bad. He was afraid that that evening would be one of those uncomfortable and unpleasant drizzles—[laughter]—of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. He could only thank the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in calling it drizzle and not dribble. [Laughter.] He was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that there was nothing that would come between the House and the Motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair. The right hon. Gentleman himself was a Member of the Fourth Party in 1880. He remembered the exploits of that Party. Never was a Motion made such as the right hon. Gentleman had made that evening, that the House should adjourn for a holiday, without the Fourth Party bounding to its feet and discussing everything. [Laughter.] He had observed that hon. Gentlemen opposite particularly disliked being kept in the House till the early hours of the morning. He had a Motion on the Paper to reduce the salary of Lord Salisbury on the Report of the Vote on Account, that would probably come on about 3 o' clock in the morning, and he was sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that he was consulting their convenience if he raised the matter at the present time instead. He did not think they ought to adjourn the House without knowing more about the condition of the Soudan. The explanations given up to the present were contradictory and unsatisfactory.

The hon. Member will not be in order on this Motion in entering into the affairs of the Soudan. They must be discussed on the Vote on Account, which is an Order of the day.

said, he found it impossible to agree that the House should adjourn, not on account of the erroneous policy of this expedition, but without knowing something of the reasons why it was sent; and with that view his object was to call the attention of the House to the very contradictory statements made by Her Majesty's Ministers with regard to it.

I do not think that improves the hon. Member's case. [Laughter.] I think the hon. Member is out of order in entering upon this question on this Motion.

Well, Sir, how far might I go? [Laughter.]

I can only call the hon. Gentleman to order if he transgresses. I cannot lay down for him a rule as to how far he may go. [Laughter.]

said, it was his anxious desire to enable hon. Gentlemen opposite to get to bed at an early hour, but he was afraid he should have to resume this matter on the Report stage of the Vote on Account. At the same time he would say that, as they had not yet had a clear and definite explanation from Her Majesty's Government, but only contradictory statements, with regard to this matter, he did object to the adjournment of the House until some such explanation was given. He, therefore, begged to move as an Amendment to the Resolution, that after the word "o'clock," the subsequent words, "and at its rising do adjourn till Thursday, the 9th of April," should be left out.

desired to ask a question on the point of order which had been raised. It had always been the practice of the House hitherto to allow considerable discussion on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House for a period of time. ["Hear, hear!"] He desired to know from the Speaker whether he had decided against that practice as a general rule, or whether he only ruled it out of order on this occasion because there was a subject of discussion—namely, the Vote on Account, subsequent to this, on which the question the hon. Member for Northampton wished to discuss could possibly be raised?

I ruled the hon. Member out of order because the matter which he proposed to Debate was one which could be debated on the Vote on Account, and it has been ruled before in this House that where the Vote on Account is down for Debate an hon. Member cannot introduce, on a Motion as to Adjournment, a subject which it is open to him to Debate on the Vote on Account immediately afterwards.

Before the House divides on the Motion we ought clearly to understand the situation. [Cheers.] There is no doubt whatever, I think, that in the former practice of the House the Motion for Adjournment for a Recess, was one upon which all questions were discussed, and especially questions of important foreign or colonial affairs which might cause anxiety during the period of the Recess. That was the special object why, upon the Motion for the Adjournment, these questions were brought up, so that the House and the country might have information which would justify them in giving a Recess of greater or less length. ["Hear, hear!"] If it is impossible upon this Motion to obtain information in the critical position of foreign affairs, and the extremely critical position of colonial affairs, as to what the situation is either in Egypt or Matabeleland, then I shall certainly vote for a very short Recess. If the House of Commons is disabled from obtaining from the Government full information, such as we ought to have upon this subject, then I really do not think we ought to adjourn for ten days; therefore, I should support any Motion which shortened the Recess in order that the House or Commons might be present to receive any information which it is not now in a position to obtain. ["Hear, hear!"]

suggested as a way out of the difficulty that the First Lord of the Treasury should confine his Motion to stating that the sitting to-morrow should commence at 12 o'clock; then let the sitting be devoted to the introduction of the Education Bill, and at the close of the discussion on that Bill the Motion for the Adjournment could be made, upon which the House should enjoy its immemorial right of discussing the policy of the Government. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that no one would dis- pute the Speaker's ruling, as there could be no doubt of the impropriety of discussing on the Motion for the Adjournment matters which might arise on the Vote on Account. But in this particular case he would point out that the fact that the Government had put down the Vote on Account when the Adjournment was to be moved practically cut the House off from everything. The Vote on Account contained everything except the Army and Navy, and, therefore, they were debarred from having the usual explanations of Ministers on matters of high import concerning the foreign policy of the Government, and of their intentions with regard to their acts during the Recess. That was the practical effect of putting down the Vote on Account for the same day as that upon which the Motion for the holidays was to be moved. He hoped it would be a warning to the Government in future to abstain from, and for the Opposition to resist the putting down of such a Vote upon such an occasion. In regard to the Education Bill he thought it was a proper thing to introduce it under these circumstances. In the first place there would be a select audience of those interested in that Bill, and in the second place, after having heard the speech of the Minister who introduced the Measure, instead of getting up and replying offhand, with unconsidered arguments, hon. Members would go away and be able to reflect upon it, during the holidays, at their leisure. But what he wished to say was that he had seen no reason at all why the Government should insist upon moving the Speaker from the Chair before Easter. He thought the Government had already sacrificed too much to Supply. In his opinion the Secretary to the Treasury was ruling them with a rod of iron. He would not let them introduce their Bills or explain their policy, but insisted on having the whole time of the House for Supply. He would point out to his right hon. Friend that it was not necessary to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates before Easter, and, therefore, in the interests of fine weather and fair discussion he would suggest that the Government should not insist upon the Speaker leaving the Chair to-day on the Civil Service Estimates. He attached the greatest possible importance to this discussion with the Speaker in the Chair, because it was one of the last opportunities left to hon. Members to discuss high general questions of policy involved in the Estimates. On the Estimates themselves in Committee they could only discuss little details, to which they were confined with the utmost strictness. The three discussions on the three occasions of the Speaker leaving the Chair on different classes of Estimates were, he took it, saved by the House in order to retain some opportunity of having a general discussion on high questions of policy. He thought it would not meet the intention of the rule of the House that they should be tied down to a small fraction of a day on a discussion such as this, and he would suggest to the Secretary to the Treasury and the First Lord of the Treasury that they might, perhaps, withdraw their proposal, or, at any rate, might forego their intention of moving the Speaker out of the Chair after what must be a most inadequate discussion.

The right hon. Gentleman opposite appears to think that it is very necessary to have another discussion on foreign and colonial affairs in addition to those we have recently had. I thought, especially as regards foreign affairs, that I gave the House an exceptionally favourable opportunity. But, if it is desired, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks that colonial affairs are so pressing that something must be done to give the in House an opportunity for further discussion, I will, if it is insisted upon, put down the Colonial Vote for the first day after the Recess. Absolutely nothing fresh has occurred, so far as the Government are aware, either in colonial or foreign affairs, during the last week which should necessitate further discussion on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is nothing, so far as we are aware, with which the House of Commons could profitably deal at the present moment.

Matabeleland?

No. I understand that the House knows all that has taken place as well as my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary. There is no information kept back, and there is nothing to cause us grave anxiety in that quarter of our Colonial possessions—["Hear, hear!"]—and under these circumstances I really think that that particular reason for the Amendment is one that cannot be sustained. With regard to the Amendment, I would only remind the House that it is one against the holidays, and the House of Commons is very much changed if it supports a proposal of that character. I hope the hon. Gentlemen opposite will go to a Division, as I should like to see whether the House really desires, in the first place, that to-morrow shall not be occupied with the Education Bill alone, but, in addition, shall have a long and miscellaneous discussion upon all things in heaven and earth. I hope the House will not accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Speaker whether he might ask the First Lord of the Treasury, on this Motion, a question as to an event which might possibly occur in Matabeleland before the House met again?

The proper time for asking such a question will be when the Motion is made for the Adjournment of the House to-night.

This is a Motion that the House at its rising to-morrow do adjourn until a future day.

said, he did not think the First Lord of the Treasury had treated this matter quite fairly. He said the Amendment was an Amendment against the holidays. It was more than that. It was an Amendment directed against the latter portion of the Resolution, that the House do adjourn without question put, thus abrogating a constitutional right of the House. He thought they might very well support the Amendment to leave out all the Resolution after the words 12 o'clock.

That is not the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton. The Amendment is to leave out the words "and at its rising do adjourn till' Thursday, the 9th of April."

Then I beg to move the omission of all the words fitter 12 o'clock.

The Amendment now before the House precludes the hon. Member from doing that at present.

hoped the hon. Member for Northampton was not going to put the House to the trouble of dividing on this Amendment.

Certainly.

said, he was sorry to hear that, because he was entirely with him in his desire to get further information from the Government. He was one of those who had been bewildered by the various voices on foreign affairs—[Opposition cheers]—but he did not see how they could get any expression of opinion on this Amendment that would be satisfactory to any one who was particularly interested in what was going on in foreign affairs. It was, moreover, as the First Lord of the Treasury had said, an Amendment against the holidays, and most assuredly the House should have some holidays at Easter. The hon. Member had got an opportunity of raising this question in a direct fashion to-night, even if it was at a late hour, and he hoped he would not put before the House a false issue on the present question.

said, no one felt more interest in education than he did, and he was as anxious as any one could be that the promised Measure should be brought forward before the Recess; at the same time he felt that it would be very unfair of the Government if they deprived the Welsh Members of the opportunity of discussing the liquor question in Wales on the Motion he had on the Paper. The Welsh people were deeply interested in the matter, and he hoped the Leader of the House would give him and his Friends some opportunity, however brief, of bringing the matter forward. [" Hear, hear!"]

said, he hardly thought it would be desirable to persist in this Amendment, because, if so, the Education Bill might not be brought forward at all before the Recess. ["Hear, hear!"] He confessed that he was very much surprised to hear the Leader of the House recommend hon. Gentlemen to go away and to learn the proceedings of the House from the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] He did not think language of that kind proceeding from the Leader of the House was right.

No such language, nor anything like it, proceeded from me. [Cheers.]

said, he begged pardon; it was addressed personally to himself. It was to the effect that he should go away and learn the views of the Government on the education question from the newspapers. ["Hear, hear!"] All he could say was, that if those were the views adopted by the Leader of the House of Commons, he did not wonder at the condition into which business had fallen. He certainly did not think that such a suggestion had ever before proceeded from the Leader of this House. ["Hear, hear!"] He hoped hon. Members would attend, in spite of any inconvenience that might be imposed upon them by the arrangements the Government had made, to hear the Bill explained and to ask such questions as might be necessary to understand the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] He now understood that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that there was no financial necessity for having put forward the Naval Works Bill. If the First Lord of the Admiralty were to tell him that it was necessary for financial purposes under this Bill that it should be passed before the end of the financial year, he should be satisfied. But he did not understand that any such statement was made on the part of the Government. Indeed, it could only arise upon the disposal of the Sinking Fund. As the Sinking Fund was disposed of at the end of the year, he did not understand that there was any absolute financial necessity why this Bill should have passed before the end of the financial year; in fact, the First Lord of the Treasury admitted there was not. As regarded the other parts of the Bill, he knew it was not necessary, because the Liberal Government were not allowed to pass the Naval Works Bill last year till after the Government had been defeated in the month of June. Therefore, unless the matter arose on the Sinking Fund, and unless it could be stated that financial purposes rendered it absolutely necessary to pass the Bill, there would be no reason for bringing it on. But as the House generally was desirous that the Education Bill should be brought on upon the following day, he thought it would be unwise to persist in the Amendment. ["Hear, hear!"]

suggested that a way out of the difficulty would be for the House to sit on Wednesday. [Cries of "No!"] They had now been sitting six weeks and he had no hesitation in saying that during that time greater onslaughts had been made on the rights and privileges of private Members than ever before in the history of Parliament. On several occasions the Twelve o'clock Rule had been suspended, Fridays had been taken altogether by the Government, and several Tuesdays had been taken as well. There was no difficulty about the introduction of the Education Bill, inasmuch as that could be very well taken on Wednesday. It was monstrous that the Government should come down and say to private Members, "We have a Bill on the question of Education in which you are all interested, but if you want to hear it explained you will have to give up one of your private days." That was not treating the House fairly. He would not presume to give the hon. Member for Carnarvon advice, but he hoped the hon. Gentleman would press his Amendment to a Division. He could not help feeling that in their attacks upon the privileges of private Members, the Government had been greatly encouraged by the attitude of Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench. If the Government could count upon stern opposition from Gentlemen on the Front Bench, there would be fewer attacks of this kind.

reminded the hon. Gentleman that the House had already decided to adjourn after the Morning Sitting to-morrow till Thursday week. The hon. Member suggested that the House should sit on Wednesday. The House had decided not to sit on Wednesday.

said, the Amendment was to leave out the words "giving priority to Government business tomorrow." He was endeavouring to show that tomorrow need not be taken for Government business, as Wednesday could be taken.

said, that he had already pointed out to the hon. Member that the House had decided not to sit on Wednesday.

said, it would be vain in him to suppose that the House would take his advice, but he thought the Government had been so well treated during the Session, that they ought not to ask for priority for their business to-morrow.

The hon. Member is acting quite contrary to my ruling.

had no desire to disobey the ruling of the Chair, indeed he was only endeavouring to point out that the Government had plenty of opportunities for their business without taking to-morrow. Personally, he greatly sympathised with the Welsh Members who were to be deprived of bringing in to-morrow a subject in which they were deeply interested, in consequence of the course the Government had elected to follow.

confessed that he did not sympathise with the Welsh Members, because in the first place their Motion stood fourth on to-morrow's Paper, and in the second place it had been well known for a long time past that it was intended to rise for the Easter Holidays to-morrow. In addition to that the Government always took the Morning Sitting, after which the House rose for their own business. They merely proposed to follow precedent, and he was certain they were not disappointing any hopes which could be legitimately entertained by any one at all conversant with Parliamentary procedure.

said the subject which the Welsh Members had down to-morrow was not only an extremely important one but one on which opinion in Wales had been expressed with an emphasis rarely exceeded. Already two of the three nights which Welsh Members had secured had been taken away from them, and, therefore, they might reasonably protest against the pressure which was being brought to bear on private Members.

said that at the risk of being considered insubordinate to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire, he should support the hon. Member for Carnarvon if he went to a Division. He protested against the way private Members had been treated during this Session. Of all Members the Welsh had been treated the worst. To-morrow the subject in which he and his hon. colleagues were concerned would naturally come on, and it was no fault of theirs the Education Bill had not been brought on before. If it had been placed first instead of second on the Paper last Thursday (as it ought to have been) it might have been introduced four days ago. The Leader of the House had the whole time at his disposal and could bring on the Education Bill on an early day after the holidays, but if his hon. Friend missed the opportunity of bringing on his Motion to-morrow he would not be able to move it again this Session.

said he had no consuming desire to see the Education Bill. He should only add that if the Member for Carnarvon should go to a Division he should vote with him.

said they had no great desire to see the Education Bill at the cost of the rights of private Members. There were plenty of opportunities to bring in the Bill on Thursday or Friday, and, therefore, there was no justification for taking away the rights of private Members. He had no desire to occupy the time of the House, as he had an Amendment of his own to bring forward later on. [Laughter.]

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

said, he regretted that on what was a formal stage of a Bill of this kind it was his duty to ask the House to listen to some remarks on the Bill. Brief reference was necessary to the history of the Bill. He regretted that the First Lord of the Treasury had countenanced the insinuation, which he himself was not surprised to find in certain newspapers, that the long discussion on Thursday night was due to the obstructive tactics of the Opposition. Now, of the 6½ hours which the Committee stage of the Bill occupied, he found that four hours were occupied by supporters of the Government and only 2½ hours by Members of the Opposition. It was to be regretted that so much of the time was taken up in discussing the old items in the schedule. There was this striking peculiarity about the Bill, that the whole of the Bill was contained in the schedule. This was treated as a clause, and closured under the rule relating to clauses which did not fairly apply to schedules.

rose to Order. If the hon. Gentleman was entitled to question the application of the Closure, he should claim the right of reply.

said, the hon. Member would not be in order in discussing the decision of the Chairman of Committees as to the Closure.

said, he did not intend to discuss the Chairman's ruling, but he desired, if in order, to doubt the propriety of the Rule which admitted of old items sanctioned by Statute, and which could not be got rid of unless the Statute were repealed, being discussed in principle on the Committee stage of the Bill. He ventured to think the Rule should be altered, and such items should only be allowed to be discussed on a Motion that the Statute authorising the expenditure should be repealed. The Committee, after spending much time on the old items in the Schedule, was prevented from discussing the most important of the new items. The First Lord of the Admiralty pulled the wrong tooth.

asked the hon. Member to abstain from criticising the application of the Closure.

said, he would not do more than ask the First Lord to kindly give information on certain points which had really not been discussed in; any previous stage of the Bill. First he would inquire as to the expenditure on new docks at Gibraltar. No one who knew anything about the Bill would deny the enormous importance of this item in the Schedule. The proposals involved an expenditure of £2,750,000 of public money, and this he did not think the House fully realised. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to kindly explain the site of the new docks at Gibraltar. The late Government proposed to build one new dock on the site of the now mole. It was now proposed to extend this dock further out into the water, and to build two other docks side by side. His next point was a financial one. The country had been struck— though not so much as it might have been—by the enormous addition to the expenditure proposed by the late Government. The latter proposed £360,000, the present Government proposed £2,670,000. According to the Schedule the difference was that, instead of building only one dock as the late Government proposed, it was now proposed to build three docks. But that did not account for the £2,750,000. He asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how much of this was attributable to the building of docks, without dockyard extension and other works which were not provided for in the original Schedule of the Bill of the late Government. He would also like to know how this great work at Gibraltar was to be done, and whether the present Board of Admiralty adhered to the intention of the late Board that the work should be done, not by contract, but by the Admiralty. The next point, which hitherto had hardly been mentioned, was the extension of docks at Hong Kong. He understood that the difficulties which formerly existed on the part of the Colonial Office had been removed. The expenditure on Hong Kong was to be increased, and he wished to know whether this was partly accounted for by our having to buy foreshore rights. One great difficulty was as to the local road called the Priory Road. The residents of Hong Kong insisted upon a public promenade being thrown right across the Hong Kong Dockyard, or, rather, between the dockyard and the sea, and overlooking the dockyard; and that was considered to be, inconvenient. After all that had been said by representatives of the Admiralty, he still remained unconvinced of the prudence of the change they are making and of the way in which they are proposing to make it. To his mind, the question of a Naval College versus the Britannia could not be properly decided without taking into account the whole system of naval education. Three years' official experience and subsequent opportunity for reflection had raised in his mind doubts whether the Britanuia stage in the education was necessary at all. That doubt became more important when it was proposed to raise the age for the admission of cadets into the Britannia and to change that into a school on shore. He would urge that this was the time for the reconsideration of the education of naval officers in all its parts. There was no connection, in principle, theory or fact, between the school system of the Britannia and the subsequent technical instruction in what might be called the University to the Britannia, nor between the one or the other, and the third and still higher stage which was carried on at the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. For himself he would hesitate at the point that was now reached, and he would not lay a single brick of the college until he, had fully considered, in a way that it never had been considered, the whole subject of the scientific and technical training of naval officers. He was speaking now as he had acted through the course of this Bill and that was as a strong supporter of the Bill. He had done all he could to facilitate the discussion of the Bill, and he did not regret that it was getting through the House at a date months earlier than the late Government, under much greater necessities, were permitted to have their Bill. He sympathised with the work proposed to be carried out, and it would be inconsistent for him or any other Member of the late Admiralty to adopt any other attitude towards the Bill. He hoped the rather confused Debates would not mislead the public mind as to the real origin and purpose of the Bill. This was the third edition, with large extensions, of a programme winch owed its first inception entirely to the late Admiralty. It was two years since this programme was brought in first on the Estimates. Then it was embodied in the Naval Works Bill of last year. The right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean had attributed the programme to an agitation about Gibraltar. The present Government did not originate the plans; they were laid down in the time of the late Government, who, indeed, took up the scheme which had been considered by the noble Lord (Lord George Hamilton) and his colleagues. It did not need any outside pressure to induce the late Government to take up the scheme. The House and the country little knew how much they were indebted to the action and inspiration of the Leader of the Opposition, who was the real author of these proposals. Ten years ago he attempted to induce the House to begin the great scheme, which was now to receive the sanction of the House, for the making of a harbour at Dover. He hoped that no one would impair the unanimity of the House by offering opposition to the Third Reading of a Bill which represented the opinion of both sides of the House. ["Hear, hear!"]

said, he rose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. He looked with suspicion upon advice coming from the Front Opposition Bench. He objected to the increase of the Navy because it was not necessary. The Irish people were called upon to pay a considerable proportion of the increased demand for the Navy, and they derived absolutely no benefit from the Navy. The only danger Ireland stood in dread of was due to her connection with Great Britain. If Ireland was a freely-governed country unconnected with Great Britain she would be no more open to attack than Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, or any of the other countries which were independent and were not threatened with attack. The continuous expansion of Navies was a policy which was calculated to bring ruin on the countries that persisted in it. But if this money was to be voted, and the Irish people were to be compelled to pay a large proportion of it, it was only reasonable that they should consider themselves ill-treated when it was proposed to spend merely a trifle out of all these millions in Ireland. The hon. Member for Dundee, with all his sympathy for Ireland, did not do much when in office to divert some of the millions voted for the Navy to Ireland. The present Government had gone a step in the right direction, for they proposed to spend £50,000 of the £60,000 on the improvement of Haulbowline Docks at Queenstown; but still that was a miserably-inadequate step. He had no doubt that the First Lord of the Admiralty would make the plausible reply that this money was not to be spent according to the nationalities or countries of the United Kingdom, but according to the requirements of the Service. But that was not a sufficient answer to the Irish people. They complained that while they would have to pay at least one-twelfth of this money—which was more than their due proportion—only a few paltry thousands were to be spent in their country. All round Ireland there were abundant natural facilities for the construction of harbours and naval works of all kinds, such as did not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom; but they were ignored because it was the policy of all Governments to boycott Ireland, and not to spend there a single penny that could be avoided. According to the highest financial authorities of the country Ireland was paying a great deal more than her fair proportion, according to her population and resources, to the Imperial revenue. That, surely, was a strong reason why some of this money should be spent in Ireland, if it was to be spent at all. But of the millions voted every year to the Admiralty thousands of pounds were spent at Gibraltar, or at Hong Kong, or in some other part of the world, rather than in Ireland. And yet the people of Ireland were expected to be as content and as peaceable as the people of Great Britain, who had their taxes spent amongst them. The fact was that no Government would secure the good-will or the allegiance of the Irish people until even-handed justice in the expenditure of the Imperial revenue was dealt out between England, Ireland, and Scotland. He was not surprised that representatives of working-class constituencies in England, who were opposed to war, should still support this Bill, because the money voted under the Bill would be spent in the industrial centres of the country, and hundreds of thousands of artisans would consequently be able to live in comfort; but the people of Ireland, who would get no benefit from the Bill, regarded it in a different light. Nothing was more certain than that if the people of Ireland were supporters of the Government some justice could be done them in the matter, and convinced as they were of that fact he voiced their feelings in making this protest against giving Ireland only £50,000 or £60,000 out of the millions voted under the Bill, while most of it was to be spent in this country. But he did not wish to be misunderstood. He did not base his opposition to the Bill mainly on the small proportion of the money that was to be spent in Ireland. He opposed the Bill in the first place because he was convinced that huge armaments would be the ruin of every country that had undertaken them, and that it was only a question of time when Italy, France and Germany would become bankrupt. In the second place he opposed the Bill because there was a feeling in Ireland that this naval programme was intended as a menace to the United States. Such a thing would not be tolerated for a moment by the Irish people, and they would do everything in their power to oppose any accession to the strength of this country if that strength were to be used against the United States, which had given to millions of their race the shelter and fair play denied them under the Union. Jack. He had heard that it was in contemplation to establish some sort of works on the coast of Ireland; but whether that were the case or not, he expected from the Government some recognition of the earnestness and sincerity with which the Irish Members had brought forward this grievance. He begged to move.

seconded the Amendment.

said, that this, like other of the far-reaching Bills of the Government, had been carried through with undue haste. These important proposals justified some consideration, especially if they were to be agreed to in the unanimous manner for which the late Civil Lord of the Admiralty had appealed. He had not been greatly moved by the hon. Gentleman's appeal; and he regretted that there was not more "discordance on the Liberal Benches" in regard to these proposals of the Government. There were but few to uphold the old watchword of "peace, retrenchment and reform." He noticed that there was a genial contest between the two Front Benches as to the authorship of this programme; but if that programme went on developing as it had done its authorship would involve a very serious responsibility. The first proposal was made as a part of the Naval Estimates of two years ago, and though an expenditure of four millions odd was then contemplated, only a quarter of a million was asked for within the year. The second edition of the proposal was put forward last year, when the total expenditure had risen to eight millions, and the year's contribution to one million. Now the third edition anticipated a gross expenditure of 14 millions and an expenditure in the present year of 2¾ millions. What he wished to know was whether we had at last got to the outside estimate. [Opposition cries of "No!"] He was alarmed at the rapidity with which these enormous demands grew. If the First Lord of the Admiralty confirmed the suggestions which had been made that the Estimates would yet reach 30 or 40 millions, he should be doubly resolved to do that which he had already nearly determined to do—vote against the Third Reading. The hon. Member for East Clare deserved the greatest credit for the manner in which he had represented the case of Ireland in regard to this expenditure. For the last 70 years or more no one had known exactly how much of this extravagant expenditure Ireland had had to bear. Ireland was not progressing as was Great Britain, nor did she require the Navy in the same way, and, therefore, some consideration ought to be shown to her. But he did not agree with the hon. Member for East Clare in the argument that some of the money should be spent in Ireland in order to conciliate the hostility of Ireland to these proposals. What Ireland wanted was not a little largesse, but an end to the extravagance.

said as his constituents were getting the lion's share of this expenditure he naturally did not oppose the Government's proposals; and he thought that the view of his hon. Friend was most misguided. But he wished to know, whether the Government were making any arrangements for the housing of the large number of workmen who would be brought into the neighbourhood of Keyham by the extension scheme. It was reported that the contractor was likely to be delayed by being unable to procure suitable dwellings for his workmen. It would be an opportune step on the part of the Government to make representations to those who had the control of the land in the neighbourhood of Devonport. As to the site of the new Naval College, of course the most eligible spot in the whole of the kingdom was on the banks of the Tamar.

I need not say that I do not rise to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill; but, referring to what has been stated earlier in the evening, I must say that I do not think it is a creditable thing that the House of Commons should pass the Third Reading of this Bill under the circumstances in which this Bill stands. ["Hear, hear!"] This is a Bill which commits the country and the taxpayers to an amount something like 14 or 15 millions. A certain part of that expenditure has been discussed last year and this year; but the expenditure which is the newly-proposed expenditure, amounting to 3¼ millions, has never been discussed by the House of Commons at all. [Cheers.] I am not at liberty to refer to the circumstances which have led to that position of things. But this is the fact —that the House of Commons is going to read a Third time a Bill for the expenditure of 3¼ millions which the House of Commons had not been allowed to discuss. [Cheers.] It is not for me nor for hon. Gentlemen opposite to vindicate the rights of another assembly which claims the privilege to correct the errors of the House of Commons. We have always been told that if the House of Commons, either by accident or intention, has not properly discussed a subject, the House of Lords will always take care to do so, but arrangements have been made that this Bill is not only to be brought forward in another place, but passed through all its stages in a few minutes, so that that great Assembly which corrects our errors shall not be allowed a word to say on the Bill. This is in consequence of the arrangements that have been made for public business in this House. There is no reason whatever why this Bill should not be passed a month hence just as well as to-day, and the consequence, as I have ventured to point out, is discreditable to the House of Commons. Take Gibraltar. There is an increase of £2,300,000 upon the proposals of last year. Not a word was permitted in Committee upon that subject. There are other measures of less importance, such as Keyham and Chatham Naval Hospital. Those matters have never been discussed. If the Government had accepted the proposal I ventured to submit of adjourning on Thursday night when they found the discussion going to a considerable length, we should have passed the Third Reading under circumstances very different from those under which it is now to be passed. I make these observations, not in hostility to the Bill, but I could not allow the Bill to be read a Third time without protesting against the manner in which it has been treated in Committee, and without any adequate explanation of this enormous expenditure.

I think the right hon. Gentleman has exaggerated the desire of the House to discuss the various items set out in the Bill. If there had been a general desire to discuss in Committee some of those items, the desire would have become known and notice would have been given. The hon. and learned Gentleman told us that he thought he should have been able to discuss one subject on Report. That was a gratuitous assumption on his part, and surely the Government are not to be blamed because the hon. and learned Gentleman missed his opportunity, although I admit the hon. and learned Gentleman would have been the person most competent to discuss it. The fact is, the Bill has not been elaborately discussed because the great majority of the House on both sides believe that the Bill is necessary and expedient, and because the main items of which it is made commend themselves at once to the commonsense of the great majority. One of the main items is under Gibraltar, with regard to which there was a discussion, and as to which I gave explanations. Plans, too, have been accessible to those Members who desired to discuss it, and therefore the right hon. Gentleman in his pro formâ denunciation of our proceedings on this occasion must know that there was no desire to discuss that matter with any elaboration whatever; and the House is in possession of the knowledge which they desire. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps did not hear his colleague, the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs, state that there was very little inclination to discuss the Naval Works Bill much further, and that a very short time would be enough to dispose of it, and yet the right hon. Gentleman in his high constitutional manner —[laughter] —denounces us for not giving ample time for discussion on the Third Reading. [Cheers.] This is an ex post facto discovery on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that Gibraltar has not been discussed. In Committee there was a six-and-a-half hours' discussion. Half the time was taken up with a discussion as to whether Ireland ought not to have a portion of the money. While admitting the importance of that question, I think it might have been discussed with much greater brevity. The hon. and learned Gentleman in his remarks went back pretty far, and suggested that the late Chancellor of the Exchequer was the original father of the whole scheme. [Sir W. HARCOURT: "Dover."] He did not confine it to Dover, but, in his anxiety to give the right hon. Gentleman as much credit as he could, said that the Scheme really originated with the late Chancellor of the Exchequer ten years ago. I am bound to say that, considering the time the right hon. Gentleman has been in office, it is a pity much greater progress has not been made before now with these works.

You were in office for six of the years.

I was leading up to that point. I do not wish to dispute in the least who should have the credit for any of these Bills. I claim no credit for myself. I give large credit to Lord Spencer, and I give great credit to the Naval Lords and naval experts who, taking a wide survey of the necessities of the Empire, have framed a plan which successive Governments have adopted. I cannot give the undertaking asked for by the hon. Member for Islington, that this Bill will mark the end of our proposals. It is possible, indeed, that more than the money asked for in the Bill will be required. It is proposed to construct docks at the Mauritius and Simons Town. But, except in the case of Dover, where we have nothing to go upon, we have done our best to accurately forecast the cost, and we have endeavoured to over-estimate rather than under-estimate. With regard to the question of the hon. and learned Member opposite as to Hong Kong, the cost is £320,000, and we have not included any amount for the foreshore. Praya Road, in front of the dockyard, is to be abandoned, and Queen's Road from Murray Pier to the Blue Buildings is to be widened by 75ft. We have come to a compromise with the authorities on the subject, and we are able to go rapidly forward with this important work. I am unable to give the hon. Member the division of the money between the docks and the site of the buildings. It could not be stated what amount should be attributed to one work and what amount to the other. In determining what should be done with regard to the Naval College, it was thought advisable that the whole question of naval education should be taken into account. It is a difficult and complicated problem, but it is one which is engaging my attention at the present time. We are not only examining into the question of the Britannia; but also into the question of further examinations and training on board ship, as well as taking a survey of the education of the naval officer from the first moment he enters the Service to the time when it is considered that his whole education as a seaman and officer is complete. The hon. Member for Devonport suggested that the Tamar would be a preferable place to the Dart, that it would be more accessible to Devonport. I hold, however, that to get cadets into the neighbourhood of dockyard towns would be a very great mistake in many respects. The hon. Member for Clare asked me to put myself in the position of Irish Members, and to judge whether I should not oppose the Bill. I should not oppose this Bill if I were in their place, because I am of opinion that it is for the defence of the Empire as a whole, and Ireland is as much exposed to hostile attack as any portion of Her Majesty's dominions. [Dr. TANNER: "Haulbowline."] We are going to spend a considerable sum of money on Haulbowline. [Mr. W. REDMOND: "Who is going to attack Ireland?"] Ireland's enemies would be England's enemies, and I will not recognise that there is any difference between the position of loyal Irishmen and the position of loyal Englishmen or Scotsmen; we must all be equally interested in the Empire. It is said that a portion of the money should be spent in Ireland. But take such localities in England as Essex and towns on the east coast. Not a shilling will be spent there; and I do not see the difference between living in a part of England where money is not to be spent and Iceland. The money ought to be spent solely where it is wanted, and anything else will savour in the end of a kind of political corruption. If we were to say that this part of the country is entitled to more than any other, it would be on political grounds, rather than on strategical and national grounds, that the money will be spent. It is not only in the case of Ireland that we resist this expenditure. Take the case of London. We have taken up the same attitude there as we have taken up with regard to Ireland— namely, that the money ought to be spent according to the strategical necessities of the situation. I hope the House will now read the Bill a third time.

asked if in this matter Ireland was being fairly treated. He declared it was not. He had had an opportunity of speaking to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and had got an assurance that the points he had raised should be considered, but how many years had Ireland been waiting for what might be done in connection with Haulbowline? He recollected, when a boy, being told by a naval officer, who had since become an Admiral, that Haulbowline was the very place for a big naval station. Many millions of money were now being spent, and after their professions of their intention of benefiting Ireland, he held that the present Government was in duty bound to stand to their words and spend some of the money in that country. Haulbowline was admirably adapted for a naval station. If there was a war with America to-morrow, what would be the most western point for the docking of any disabled ships? Would it not be Haulbowline?

I would remind the hon. Member that there is nothing about Haulbowline in this Bill. The hon. Member cannot, on the Third Reading, discuss the merits of Haulbowline as a station.

was not going to weary the House with the merits or demerits of the three docks at Gibraltar. Numbers 2 and 3, he understood, would be all right, but dock No. 1, he was told, would not be practicable, owing to its defective entry. When they were dealing so much with Gibraltar, why did not the Government take into consideration the whole question, and do something effectively for Ireland?