I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, with regard to the recent promotions in the Sorting Department of the General Post Office, Dublin, when Mr. Sanderson was appointed chief clerk over the heads of five officers who had longer service, Mr. Forrest, who replaced Mr. Sanderson, was promoted over six who were his seniors; Mr. Dagg who replaced Mr. Forrest was promoted over four who were his seniors in the service; Mr. Gilligan over 12 seniors; and Mr Mansfield over 46 of longer standing in the service, will he explain why Mr. Wagner, who had held the appointment of postmaster in Killarney, was taken into the Sorting Department and placed over many officers of long standing in the service; whether, in these cases, the tabular statement prescribed in the Book of Instructions, giving the names and dates of appointment, and reason for passing over any officer, was duly furnished; and, if he can say whether the reasons set forth in this statement for passing over these officers were ever brought under the notice of the officers themselves?

It was a matter of regret to the Postmaster General to be obliged to go outside the Dublin Sorting Office in order to fill the vacancy on the First Class of Assistant Superintendents in that office to which Mr. Wagner has been appointed; but after special and exhaustive inquiry had been made, it was found that there was no one in the subordinate classes who was both fit for the appointment and willing to accept it. Amongst those classes there was certainly one, and probably more than one officer, who was in all respects fit, but he was unwilling to accept the appointment because it would necessarily involve his removal from sorting duty on board the Kingstown and Holyhead Mail Packets, a duty which carries considerable emoluments. The usual Tabular Statements with details respecting each of the officers passed over, as well as each of those promoted were furnished in this case. It is not the practice to communicate to officers passed over reasons for their not being promoted; beyond the fact that the officers promoted were considered to be better qualified.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether class firing in a Volunteer Corps would come under the category of military duty, and entitle a Volunteer to a claim of compensation from the War Department for injuries received while in the performance of his duties.

Class firing is a military duty, but the grant of compensation would entirely depend upon the circumstances of a case.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate will he explain why the office of Lord Ordinary in Exchequer Causes, which became vacant on or about 12th May last, has not been filled, although a Commission appointing a new Judge was shortly thereafter signed; whether he is aware that in consequence much public and private inconvenience has been caused by the impossibility of transacting the business of the Exchequer Court during the summer session; and, what steps will be taken to remedy this state of matters?

I have to inform my hon. Friend that the delay in completing this appointment was unavoidable, and until he mentioned the subject to me at the end of last week I had no information that any inconvenience had been caused. I am glad to be able to inform him that the difficulty which caused the delay has been got over and that the warrant was sent off last Thursday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Rev. R. B. Stoney, rector of Shirland, near Alfreton, having been served with a notice of a burial with a Nonconformist service of Mr. Robert Tomlinson, at five o'clock in the afternoon of the 9th instant, declined, not in writing but verbally, to receive the same unless the time was altered to three o'clock, no other service having been fixed for the later hour, thereby occasioning the loss to the mourner's of half a day's wages; whether the rector's action was in accordance with the provisions of the Burial Act of 1880; whether he is aware that the rector also declines to permit Nonconformist burials on Sunday, while other burials are permitted on that day; And, whether inquiry will be made into the facts, with a view to prevent a recurrence of such an incident, and the continuance of such distinctions?

I have made inquiry and am informed by the rector and churchwardens that the allegations referred to in the Question are absolutely without foundation.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether in view of the consideration recently given to the case of Adjutants of Artillery Militia and Volunteers, he will consider the case of Adjutants of Volunteer Infantry, who are, through accepting these appointments, in a worse financial position than if they had remained with their regiments, with a view to their receiving some additional pay in consideration of their additional expenses and greatly increased responsibility?

The case of Adjutants of Artillery, is not altogether similar to that of Adjutants of Volunteer Infantry; Lord Lansdowne sees no reason, for increasing the attractions of the appointment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, (1) whether his attention has been called to the case of Constable John Quinlan, who has just been awarded.£800 by the county of Cork Grand Jury, to be levied on the ratepayers of the county of Cork, as compensation for injuries inflicted on him in a public house at Castletownroche, where he had been called in to keep the peace between two men engaged in a drunken quarrel; (2) whether, in addition to this large sum, Quinlan will now obtain a pension from the force in the ordinary way, and whether it is the fact that, in the case of a policeman injured while on duty, power exists to give him the full pay of his rank on retiring; (3) whether he is aware that in the ease of a. policeman injured while on duty in England, Scotland, and the city of Belfast, no right exists of obtaining compensation to be levied off ratepayers; (4) whether it is the case that under the Irish Grand Jury Acts (outside Belfast) compensation in such cases can be awarded by the Grand Jury without any preliminary application to presentment sessions, and without any preliminary notice to the ratepayers of any kind being served or published; (5) whether he will take steps to have the English and the Irish law on this point assimilated; (6) and, whether meanwhile, in view of the terms as to pay and pension under which Irish policemen serve, the police authorities will make it a condition of admission to the force that claims of this kind shall not be made?

My attention has been drawn to the award to Constable Quinlan of a sum of £800 as compensation, by the Grand Jury of Cork, for injuries received in the execution of his duty. The constable is still under medical treatment and is at present on sick leave of absence, but he has not yet been pronounced to be incapacitated for further service, in the Constabulary, and should he be found to be incapacitated for further service he will become eligible for a pension. Power exists to grant pensions to members of the force incapacited for service through injuries received in the execution of their duty not exceeding full pay; but the amount of such pensions is governed in every case by the length of service, the nature of the injury, and the extent of the constable's incapacity. It is a fact that in Belfast constables injured in similar circumstances cannot be granted compensation. This may also be the case in England and Scotland, but I have no information on that point. I believe the fact to be as stated in the fourth paragraph. As regards the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the questions raised are not such as I can give a reply to off-hand, as the matter is obviously one requiring grave consideration. It would be undesirable to effect what would practically be an alteration in the law by an administrative act.

was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the hon. Baronet the member for Cambridgeshire and another hon. Member were ratepayers in the County of Cork, and could he suggest any reason why they should pay compensation?

said that compensation had to be paid, and by somebody, and the area from which compensation was drawn would of course involve certain anomalies.

was understood to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware that the two hon. members referred to expected to pay compensation.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that in the case in which Constable Quinlan was recently awarded £800 compensation by the County Cork Grand Jury, the Constabulary Authorities declined to state the amount of pension he would receive; and that Constables Leahy and Courtenay, who were each granted £1,000 compensation on previous occasions by County Cork Grand Juries, only obtained a portion of the pension which might have been granted to them; and, whether, in future, full information as to pension will be afforded when the claim for compensation is under consideration?

The Inspector General did not decline to state the amount of pension Constable Quinlan would receive, but, on the 11th instant, in reply to a telegram from a solicitor in Cork, the Inspector General wired that he was unable to say what pension the constable would get as the amount would depend on the extent of the injury received, and the degree of the constable's incapacity, and could only be fixed after the constable had been examined and pronounced unfit for further service by the surgeon to the force, or a Medical Board, and this has not yet been done in Constable Quinlan's case. In the case of Constables Leahy and Courtenay no portion of the pensions to which they were entitled was kept back, and the amount of their pensions was fixed entirely irrespective of the compensation granted to them by the Grand Jury.

I beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether, in view of the fact that the claim of Dennis Dooling, of Walshtownbeg, Midleton, county Cork, for compensation for malicious injury to a cow, has now been considered and dismissed by the County Cork Grand Jury, steps will be taken to prosecute this man for perjury?

This Question appears to be founded on a misconception, Doolan did not prefer any claim at the assizes. I have called for a report of what took place at the Presentment Sessions and the evidence available. When it has been received, I will consider whether it is proper or desirable to institute a prosecution.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, drawing attention to the fact that, while the Government can borrow money at less than 2½ per cent. interest, they are charging the Grand Jury 3½ per cent. interest over and above the instalments of principal for a loan for building an addition to the lunatic asylum; whether he has received similar complaints from other parts of Ireland with reference to this class of loans; and whether he will use his influence with the Treasury to have the rate of interest reduced, as requested by the Grand Jury.

Representations to the effect mentioned have been received, but on the general question I must refer the hon. Member to the statement made on Thursday last by my hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury in reply to the similar inquiries of the hon. Member for North Dublin.

was understood to ask whether there was any objection to the Grand Jury borrowing money in the open market?

That question ought to be addressed to the Treasury.

Then I will ask the Secretary to the Treasury if that is so.

I am afraid I was not listening.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a resolution from the Grand Jury of the county of Cork, complaining that Government grants for lunatic asylum buildings and maintenance in Ireland are made only once a year, instead of being made half-yearly, and submitting that it would be a great relief to the cesspayers if the payments could be made half-yearly, as all payments for county purposes have to be made; and whether he will accede to the suggestion thus made.

I presume that the Question refers to the Parliamentary Grant in Aid of Pauper Lunatics. There are no Government Grants in Aid of Asylum Buildings. Under Section 6, of 31 & 32 Viet. cap. 97, the accounts of each Asylum shall be audited and examined once a year as soon as can be after the 25th March, by the Local Government Board Auditors. The Government instructions to the Local Government Board are to have its accounts audited as early in the year as possible; and as a matter of fact it rarely happens that its entire Parliamentary Grant is not paid out to the Asylums in the first six months of the financial year. Last year for example, the entire Grant was paid out on or before the 7th September. It appears to me that a compliance with the hon. Member's suggestion would mean this, that whereas under the existing system, the Asylums receive the Government Grant within the first six months of each financial year, under the proposal made in this Question, they would receive one-half only in the first six months, and the other half in the next six months.

pointed out that the suggestion was not his, but that of the Grand Jury of the County of Cork, and in one portion of his Question, he had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had read a Resolution from the Grand Jury pressing this reform on him.

Yes, I beg pardon, I have received that Resolution.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, at what date were the additions and alterations commenced at the Carlow District Lunatic Asylum, and when it is expected they will be completed; whether these extensive additions and alterations are carried out by a contractor, or, if not, under whose supervision and direction; and, whether the materials necessary for carrying out these additions or alterations are procured at contract prices; and, if not, in whose hands does the selection of the firm or firms for which the necessary articles are to be procured and their cost rest?

The works were commenced in December 1893, and, it is expected, will be completed in December 1897. The major part of the works are being carried out by contract; some minor works did not admit of being executed in a satisfactory manner by contract and are being otherwise carried out under the supervision of a clerk of works and of an architect, who is the County Surveyor. The articles required in connection with these minor works have been procured from Irish firms, selected by the architect and subject to the approval of the Board of Control, by whom all the accounts are audited before payment.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether his attention has been called to the case tried by Mr. Justice Murphy, at the Kerry Assizes just concluded, in which a man named David Leahy was convicted and sentenced on a charge of perjury under aggravated circumstances; (2) whether he is aware that this man Leahy was the prosecutor against a man named David Keane, on a charge of firing into a dwelling house, tried at the Cork Winter Assizes of 1893, when Keane was convicted and sentenced to five years' penal servitude; that Leahy was the sole witness as to identification of the accused on that occasion; that, prior to the latter conviction, Leahy had been in litigation with Keane's family for years about a dwelling-house from which he was seeking to evict them; and that Leahy afterwards brought a similar charge against Keane's father and brother, but was disbelieved and the accused acquitted with the approval of the Judge; and, (3) whether, seeing that an influential memorial for Keane's release has lately been presented to the Lord Lieutenant, and in view of what has now transpired as to Leahy's character, it is intended to further detain Keane in prison?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—(1) whether he is aware that a man named David Leahy, who was tried before Mr. Justice Murphy at the recent Kerry Assizes and sentenced on a charge of flagrant perjury, was granted a large sum of money by the Grand Jury of the county of Kerry as compensation on a presentment for the malicious burning of his own dwelling-house, although the police gave the strongest evidence against application damages being granted; (2) whether he will state what amount was awarded to him, if he has been paid it, and what independent witnesses gave evidence in support of the application; (3) whether he is aware that at the Cork Winter Assizes of 1893 a man named David Keane, whose identity was proved by the unsupported evidence of the aforesaid Leahy, was convicted and sentenced to five years' penal servitude; and that, in similar charges brought by Leahy against members of Keane's family, the jury disbelieved him and acquitted the Keanes; (4) whether, under the circumstances, and considering the general belief in the innocence of David Keane, who is still in prison, he will make inquiry into the matter with a view to the release of Keane?

The facts are substantially as stated in the first and second paragraphs of the Question of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. It is to be observed, however, that although Leahy was the sole witness as to the identification of Keane in 1893, his evidence was largely corroborated by the independent testimony of the police. The case of Keane's conviction was carefully inquired into in July of last year, in connection with the memorial presented to the late Lord Lieutenant, and the conclusion arrived at upon the Report of Mr. Justice O'Brien, who tried the case, was that the law should take its course. The learned Judge considered the ease an audacious conspiracy to murder and certainly proved. Leahy was awarded £50 compensation for malicious burning at the last March Assizes. A policeman who was examined before the Grand Jury stated that he believed the burning was not malicious. No independent witness gave evidence in support of the application, though a sergeant of police testified to previous bad feeling towards Leahy and the annoyance to which he had been subjected. On the 18th instant, the Secretary to the Grand Jury forwarded to Leahy a cheque for the amount of compensation awarded. As regards the last paragraph of the Question of the hon. Member for East Kerry, I have already stated the conclusion arrived at both by the Judge who convicted Keane and by the Executive Government on the memorial submitted on his behalf. Any further memorial on behalf of the prisoner which may he forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant will be duly considered.

was understood to ask whether it would not be a graceful act to allow this man to be released.

The Chief Secretary has nothing whatever to do with the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, but if representation is made it will, I have no doubt, be duly considered.

I will raise that matter to-night on the Report of the right hon. Gentleman's Vote.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the maximum number of hours convict warders are kept on duty per day and per week; and, whether he will endeavour to arrange the duties of prison officers as to reduce the average number of hours for duty to eight, same as in all other Government Departments?

The maximum is for a day, 10 hours 35 minutes; for a week, 65 hours and 40 minutes. I have already informed the hon. Member that the Committee who inquired into this matter came to the conclusion that none of the schemes for arranging the duty of prison officers so as to give an eight hours' day were practicable. I am not aware that an eight hours' day is the rule in all other Government Departments.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether advertisements or other notifications of vacancies in the staff of the Royal College of Science, Dublin, are made so as to afford Irish candidates an opportunity of making application; is he aware that one of his predecessors admitted, in answer to a question by Mr. Sexton, in July 1890, that out of nine appointments to professorships in this institution made during the preceding 18 years one only had been given to an Irishman, and if since that date (July, 1890), two professorships then held by Irishmen became vacant and have been filled by Englishmen; is he also aware that some of the Englishmen appointed professors have subsequently obtained additional appointments in public service and elsewhere: and, will he take steps to prevent any more of those dual appointments being made or new offices created in his Department?

Notices of vacancies in the staff of the College are generally given in Nature, which is the leading scientific journal, but it is not found necessary to issue advertisements. I am not aware that any such statement as that during 18 years only one appointment was given to an Irishman was made. I am informed that one of the two professors appointed since 1890 happens to be an Irishman, but nationality is never taken into account by the Committee of Council—[Nationalist cheers]—in making scientific appointments. The time during which professors are not engaged at the college is at their own disposal. I have heard of two who have undertaken to assist the staff of the Dublin Museum in arranging scientific collections. Otherwise I do nor know how their leisure is employed. No appointments or officers are created by the Committee of Council for the benefit of particular persons.

We never receive this paper called Nature. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to arrange that some advertisements on the subject shall be put in some Irish paper, say a Tory paper?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any inquiry, departmental or otherwise, has been held into the working of Prisoners' Aid Societies; and, whether such inquiry extends to the operation of such societies in Ireland, if so, what evidence has been called from that country?

Yes, Sir, such an inquiry has been made by Mr. Merrick, the Chaplain of Holloway Prison, whose report is expected shortly. The inquiry was undertaken in consequence of the recommendation of the Committee appointed by my predecessor to report on the English prison system, and did not extend to Ireland.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, is he aware that William Elliott, recently appointed postmaster of Dunraymond, county Monaghan, and letter carrier, attended an Orange procession at Newbliss on the 13th July instant, wearing Orange regalia, and taking part in the performance of party music by an Orange band; and, whether it is in accordance with the regulations of the Department for postmasters and letter carriers to take part in such processions; and, if not, does he propose to take any steps to maintain discipline in the postal service in this regard?

On inquiry the Postmaster General learns that it is the fact that the sub-postmaster of Dunraymond and his son, an auxiliary postman, joined the procession and that the postman played in the band. Neither father nor son were any regalia. At present there is no regulation prohibiting specifically Post Office servants from taking part in such processions; but the Postmaster General will consider whether one should not be laid down.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state what legal authority the governors of the County Carlow Infirmary have for admitting into that institution for medical care and treatment inhabitants of the neighbouring counties, and thus impose a largely increased expenditure on the ratepayers of county Carlow?

The governors of the Infirmary are aware of no legal authority for or against the admission to the Infirmary of patients from adjoining counties. As the hon. Member is aware, the Infirmary is situated on the borders of three counties, and I do not know whether he wishes to suggest that the responsible authorities in charge of the institution would be justified, legally or morally, in refusing to admit a dying patient, simply because he resided outside the county Carlow though within half a mile of the Infirmary. As a matter of fact very few cases from neighbouring counties have been admitted, and all those who have been admitted were either patients who paid for their maintenance and thus cost the Carlow ratepayers nothing, or cases of urgency where danger to life would be incurred by refusing admission.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) whether he is aware that the main portion of the supplies required for the County Carlow Infirmary were not procured by public tender at contract prices; that the matron procured what she thought necessary where and at what price she thought proper; that these goods were received into the institution by her; that she certified the account, as correct; and that such accounts have been regularly paid by the governors out of the public funds without being checked or examined by any other person; and (2) whether, under these circumstances, he will cause inquiry to be made into the administration of this institution?

I am informed that the facts are not generally as stated in the Question. Tenders are invited for the main portion of the supplies, but in the case of minor supplies, which are not contracted for, the matron procures such as she considers necessary and certifies for the small expenditure, which is submitted to the Board of Governors. As to the second paragraph, I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question of the 21st May on the same subject.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will consider the necessity of establishing a district, post office at Kellerig, County Carlow, as much risk and inconvenience is now experienced by a large number of people owing to the present unsatisfactory postal arrangements for that district.

The Postmaster General will consider the necessity of establishing a post office at Kellerig (County Carlow), and will inform the hon. Member of the result.

I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether the East Preston (Sussex) Guardians have inquired of the Board whether they can legally vote money out of the rates as a contribution to a voluntary church rate; and, if so, what reply has been given to the inquiry.

The Guardians of the East Preston Union informed the Board of their proposal to make an annual contribution to the voluntary church rate fund in the parish where the inmates of the workhouse attend divine service. The Board informed the Guardians that, if in a voluntary church rate a sum was assessed on them in respect of property in their occupation, they were empowered to pay the amount by Section 7 of the 31& 32 Vict. cap. 109. The Board added that if the sum proposed to be paid was not really a church rate, but a reasonable payment to enable the Guardians to secure accommodation in the church for the inmates of the workhouse, the Board consider that the payment might be made without any sanction on their part.

asked if the President of the Local Government Board would allow him to have a copy of the communication sent to the Board?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether representations have been made to him by the Scottish fish curers as to the inadequacy of accommodation for landing herrings at St. Petersburg, and the consequent losses which are sustained by the delay; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps to submit the matter to the Russian Government with a view of securing further landing accommodation?

Representations were received from Mr. Anderson of Stornoway, and Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg was instructed by telegraph on the 7th instant to take any steps he properly could to expedite the discharge and bracking of Scotch herrings. Since then I have received renewed representations from Mr. Anderson and also from the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn on the same subject; and a further telegram has now been sent to Sir N. O'Conor drawing his attention to the continuance of the complaint and instructing him to render what assistance he can.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make the experiment of placing a first-class torpedo-boat in the Ports of London, Liverpool, Bristol, or other suitable place, provided that properly-instructed volunteer crews be found for such boats, and provided that a suitable organisation responsible for the housing, maintenance, etc., of the boat be formed in the port selected?

I am aware of the great attention given by my hon. Friend to the question of combining a Volunteer system with the manning of torpedo-boats, but the difficulties which have been placed before me in respect of the execution of such a plan as my hon. Friend has devised are very great, and, as at present advised, I do not see my way to the experiment. It is extremely difficult to meet all the objections which caused the dissolution of the late Naval Artillery Volunteers, and which would not be removed by the substitution of torpedo-boats for gun vessels in their training. In some respects, indeed, the difficulties would be aggravated.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government is prepared, in concert with the other Great Powers, to enforce the observance of the engagements unreservedly entered into by the Porte in respect to a general amnesty in Crete by more efficient means than by collective remonstrances, which proved wholly ineffectual to prevent the murder of so many thousands of the Sultan's Armenian subjects?

Her Majesty's Government cannot make any announcement as to what course the Great Powers, with whom they are acting in concert, will pursue.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether, in view of the objection taken by the Powers of Europe to carrying out the instructions given by Her Majesty's Government to Her Majesty's Consul in Crete relative to distributing relief, and of the consequent postponement of the Consul's action, Her Majesty's Government will, in future, consult and concert and come to an agreement with the Powers before giving similar instructions to British Consuls under similar circumstances?

The hon. Member is mistaken in assuming that definite instructions had been sent to Her Majesty's Consul in Crete to distribute relief. The matter was in course of arrangement when the journey was suspended in consequence of objections raised by representatives of the Powers at Constantinople. Her Majesty's Government do not need to be reminded of the expediency of acting in concert with the other Powers in regard to Cretan affairs—since they have hitherto done, and are still doing so—but they must exercise their own discretion as to the method of procedure best adopted to secure that object.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Ambassadors of the Powers have made a representation to the Porte pointing out the present impossible situation at Crete, the difficulty of the presence of a Military Governor holding superior rank to the Vali, and recommending this difficulty should be remedied; is the Military Commander therein referred to Abdulla Pasha; and is the Foreign Office aware that Abdulla Pasha has repeatedly repudiated the authority of the Governor General?

The Representatives of the Powers at Constantinople have informed the Porte that in their opinion the command of the troops in Crete should be given to an officer of lower rank than Abdulla Pasha, and that the officer selected should receive strict orders to remain entirely on the defensive in accordance with the engagements which the Porte has undertaken. Her Majesty's Government have no information that the authority of the Governor General has been repeatedly repudiated by Abdulla Pasha, though there seems reason to believe that the Governor General has not been consulted with regard to the naval and military operations recently undertaken against the inhabitants.

Have the Foreign Office any information that Abdulla Pasha has been replaced in his military command on the island?

I saw a statement to that effect in a newspaper this morning, but we have not any confirmation of it at present.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on the night of the 13th or early on the morning of the 14th instant the National Federation Hall at Sheep-bridge, near Newry, county Down, was set fire to; whether he can give any particulars of the outrage; and, whether the police have made any arrests in connection with it?

On Friday last I replied to a similar question, addressed to me by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. At present I can only add that no evidence is forthcoming that the thatch of the cabin, known as the Federation Hall, was set on fire, as alleged, by Orangemen, or that the burning was malicious. No arrests have been made, and the police are endeavouring to ascertain the origin of the occurrence.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury is he aware that, under sections 33 to 35 of 58 Geo. 3, c. 35, a sum of £15,000 was deposited with the Irish Government by the old Royal Canal Company for the purposes of the obligations of the Company; can he state whether that fund is still available; and, if so, will the Irish Board of Works, to whom the powers of the Directors of Inland Navigation in Ireland were transferred by 1 and 2 Will. 4, c. 33, now apply that sum, as authorised by Section 38 of the said Act of Geo. 3, to the carrying out of whatever works may be necessary to put the canal in a proper navigable condition, the present owners, the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland, as successors of the Royal Canal Company, having failed to do so, as proved by the reports of the inspectors of the Board of Trade; can he state the purport of the quarterly reports of the Midland Railway Company to the Lord Lieutenant as to the condition of the canal immediately before the inspections by Major General Hutchinson and Major Marindin; and, whether the representations of the company were found to agree with the reports of the inspectors?

I have not yet received a report from the Board of Works on this subject, so perhaps the hon. Member will kindly defer his Question for a few days.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will consider the desirability of enforcing a qualifying attendance of a certain number of times in each half-year on ex-officio members of boards of guardians in order to qualify them to vote on any question coming before the board for its decision?

The carrying out of the suggestion in this Question could only be effected by Act of Parliament, and, if legislation were considered desirable in reference to this matter, its scope could hardly be confined to the ex-officio guardians. Many of the elected guardians attend as seldom as some of the ex-officio guardians.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in accordance with the expectation he expressed on the 7th of this month, he has yet heard from the Directors of the British South Africa Company as to the withdrawal of the power of attorney given to Mr. Cecil Rhodes by the Company to manage its affairs in South Africa, and for that purpose to do all such acts as he might in his absolute discretion deem expedient?

The directors of the British South Africa Company informed me on the 9th inst. that they had revoked the power of attorney given by them to Mr. Rhodes.

On behalf of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR), I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, having regard to the proceedings in the case of cruelty to cattle heard before the Colchester Magistrates on the 7th instant, the Board of Trade will call the attention of all Railway Companies to the cruelties inflicted on cattle under the present system, and will endeavour to induce the railway managers to alter the cattle trucks and to fit them with moveable compartments, so that each animal may have the equivalent of a separate stall.

Perhaps the hon. Member will refer to a reply which I gave to a question put upon this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for southeast Essex on the 13th inst. I hope the railway companies will deal with this subject themselves as far as they are able, but I fear, putting mechanical difficulties aside, that such an alteration in the trucks as that suggested would involve a great increase in the cost of carriage.

Is it to be understood that the Directors of this great company do not know about this lamentable occurrence on their line?

All I can say is that they perfectly naturally think they should have some time to make inquiries.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the public meeting recently held in Belfast, under the chairmanship of the Lord Mayor, to take steps to prevent by force if necessary the threatened attempt to invade the rights of the public to free access to the Giant's Causeway; and, whether he will refuse to give the assistance of the constabulary to the syndicate in their efforts to convert into private property the rights of way so long used by the public?

I have seen a report of the proceedings at the meeting referred to. The syndicate would not be entitled to demand, or to receive, the assistance of the constabulary in any steps which they may take in order to assert rights which that body may consider it possesses.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether post office employés are permitted to stand for, and, if elected to serve on town councils; and, whether post office employés are debarred by any existing rule of the service from criticising municipal action through the medium of the public Press?

Post Office servants are at liberty to become members of town councils provided their official duties are not interfered with thereby. There is no rule debarring post office servants from criticising municipal action in the Press. But, having regard to their relations with the public, it is of course desirable that they should abstain from taking a controversial part in local politics.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether it is contemplated making such arrangements in connection with the forthcoming naval manœuvres as will afford the representatives of the people an opportunity of forming a judgment on the efficiency of the Navy?

I do not know whether my hon. Friend has more in his mind than a sight of the ships at anchor. If so, I may say that it is not contemplated to have a pageant or review, but the ships under Lord Walter Kerr, numbering nearly 50, including torpedo-boat destroyers, will, on the completion of the manœuvres, be at Spithead for a few-days, about the 4th, 5th, and 6th of August, previous to their dispersion, and facilities could be given to hon. Members to see them there if they wished it, but without a ceremonial.

I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for War, whether he is aware that Mr. Savers, until lately a sergeant in the 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment, now stationed at Devonport, was recently tried by Court Martial for changing with a corporal his hours of duty in charge of the guard, was found guilty, and reduced to the ranks; whether he is aware that Sayers was a non-commissioned officer for 10 years, that during a large portion of that time he was an instructor of recruits, and that since his degradation he has been compelled to drill with the recruits on the barrack ground for four hours a day; whether he is aware that at his trial by Court Martial the Court refused to allow Sayers to cross-examine witnesses as to credit; that, in contravention of Rule 82 of the "Rules of Procedure," the Court required questions put by him in cross-examination to be put in writing before they were answered by the witness; and that the prosecutor was privately closeted in conference with the members of the Court whilst the prisoner was kept outside the door; and, whether he will direct inquiry to be made into these irregularities, and as far as possible remedy their effects?

Private Sayers was reduced to the ranks by sentence of a Court Martial for the offence of leaving his post when sergeant on gate duty. Sayers total service is less than nine and a half years, and he, was two and a half years a sergeant. There is no information as to his drilling with recruits since his degradation. The Judge Advocate General is of opinion that the proceedings of the Court Martial were regular, and no inquiry appears under the circumstances to be necessary.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, will he explain why, as under the new mobilisation scheme the City of London Artillery and the two regiments of Middlesex Artillery are detailed for the defence of the Thames and the Medway, they are only armed with 9-inch to 12·5-inch guns; whether it is with in his knowledge that they are required to drill with guns which have been obsolete for 20 years; and, if it would be possible to furnish 9-inch guns and fittings to be furnished by the Admiralty stores, the Admiralty being now engaged in replacing guns of the type in the forts with breechloaders and quick firers?

The guns with which these corps practice; are those of the defences to which they would be allotted in case of mobilisation. As garrison artillery they have no guns of their own. Although not of the newest type, the guns are far from obsolete; they will probably be replaced by breechloaders as funds become available.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the Government have any official confirmation of the alleged pillage of the town of Egin, in the Diarbekir district, and the massacre of 400 Armenians; whether he can give the House any information as to the position of affairs at Aintab, where another massacre is reported to be imminent; and whether, in view of the fact of the perpetration of further massacres and the continuance of disorder in the Armenian province subsequent to the period dealt with in the last Blue-book on the subject, he can give the House an assurance that another Blue-book, dealing with the Armenian Question from January last up to the present date, will be issued before the end of the Session?

Her Majesty's Government have no official confirmation of the alleged pillage and massacre of the Armenians at Egin. A Report has just been issued with regard to the position of affairs at Aintab; from which I gather that, owing to the attitude of the Turkish authorities, a feeling of insecurity and apprehension has revived. Correspondence relative to any special event of importance could be laid before the House, as in the case of Mr. Fitzmaurice's last Reports; but it is doubtful whether any general collection of Papers would add materially to the information already in the possession of the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, will he explain why it is that a parcel on which 10.½d. has been paid is redirected from the House of Commons to Eaton Square free of charge, but when redirected from the House of Commons to the Grand Hotel, Charing Cross, an additional charge of 10½d. is levied; and whether he will take steps to place parcels on the same footing as other postal packets with respect to free redirection, seeing that before the existing regulations were made, on the 31st of May 1892, a parcel and, in fact, all postal packets might be redirected from one point to another within the metropolis free of charge?

Under the present regulations, parcels are redirected free of charge only when the original and the new address are in the delivery of the same post-office; and, consequently, a parcel redirected from the House of Commons to Charing Cross, which are in different districts, would be liable to fresh postage; while a parcel redirected from the House of Commons to Eaton Square, which are in the same district, would be sent on free of charge. The Postmaster General cannot see his way clear to extend the privilege of free redirection to parcels or to modify the present regulations so as to admit of parcels being redirected without charge from one part of London to another.

I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will be good enough to explain how it has been ascertained that the remission of the Land Tax provided for by the Finance Bill cannot possibly apply to cases in which the tax has been redeemed without the land being exonerated?

The lands on which the tax has been redeemed, but not exonerated, will continue subject to assessment at the same rate as other unexonerated lands in the same parish, and may or may not be affected by the provisions referred to. The rights of the person who is entitled to receive the purchased Land Tax are secured by Sections 82 and 85 of the Act 38 George III., cap. 60, and cannot be effected by a diminution of the tax on the particular property.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether the attention of the Scotch Office has been called to Section 31 of the Finance Bill, whereby the quota of the Land Tax payable to the Imperial Treasury by England will be reduced by an estimated amount of between £90,000 and £100,000 per annum, whilst the amount of the quota payable by Scotland will, by the operation of the same clause, be reduced, if to any, only to an infinitesimal extent; and whether the Scotch Office has made or intends making on the Treasury any demand for an equivalent grant similar to that allowed in the case of grants out of the Imperial purse for agricultural rates in England?

I must refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Question put to him by the hon. Member on the 17th instant. Any possible bearing the concession may have in the direction indicated under the second paragraph of the question will no doubt be considered when the Finance Bill has become law and the amount of the sum in question is definitely ascertained.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to give any information with regard to the serious disturbances, accompanied by loss of life, which have occurred in the province of Diarbekir?

Her Majesty's Government have received no confirmation of the reported disturbances and loss of life in the vilayet of Diarbekir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Great Britain and France have succeeded in securing the recall of the Governor of Diarbekir, whose continued presence was stated by their representatives at Constantinople to be likely to conduce to a fresh massacre?

The Turkish Government, in reply to the repeated representations made by the French Ambassador and Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople, have stated that the charges made against the Vali of Diarbekir are unfounded. The Vali has not so far been recalled; but the warnings given have been sufficient to call the serious attention of the Porte to the state of affairs existing in the vilayet.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, in view of the rebellion of the native population in the territories of the Chartered Company, and of the serious condition of affairs existing there, Her Majesty's Government will, at an early date, place Rhodesia under direct Imperial rule, a régime which has proved so beneficial in Basutoland, Bechuanaland, and the Lakes Protectorate?

I have already stated the reasons which make me think it would be undesirable to take the course suggested, and I can only add that I do not consider the crisis of the rebellion a favourable moment for considering the question of altering the administrative machinery of the Chartered Company's territories. The circumstances of the latter are wholly different from those of the other territories referred to in the hon. Member's Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether he has any fresh information from the authorities in Rhodesia as to the sufficiency of the military forces there, and as to the food supplies in the country?

I have no information which would lead me to suppose that Sir F. Carrington has altered his opinion as to the sufficiency of the forces at his command. The primary responsibility for the arrangement of the general food supply of the country rests with the British South Africa Company, and I have no reason to think that they fail to realise the importance of the matter. As I have previously had occasion to remind the House, the difficulties of transport are immense. I have no information with regard to the alleged resignation of Colonel Napier and other officers.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he is in a position to state what effect has been given to the promise made by him, that early attention should be given to the development of India by an extension of the railways.

Since the date of the speech referred to by my hon. Friend considerable progress has been made in extending and accelerating schemes of railway construction in India, and, among other measures, provision has been made for an expenditure during the three years ending March 1899, of 27 crores of rupees on railway extension—a sum much in excess of the expenditure of the last three years. In addition to this, favourable terms have been offered to the public for the further extension of Indian railways, by private agency, by the con struction of branch lines forming feeders to the existing main systems. Any capital expenditure in connection with such branch lines will be outside the limit of 27 crores before-mentioned. Under both these combined heads of expenditure works of construction are in progress, and a sum of about 12½ crores of rupees will have been expended on the extension of the existing Indian railway system during the present financial year.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, whether he is aware that the Treasury advanced £65,000 to the Cavan and Leitrim Light Railway Company on the security of their shares, and, in consequence of the Tramways Amendment (Ireland) Act passed last Session, the shares increased very considerably in value; whether the Treasury have since sold out their shares in the company at a large profit, and applied the surplus so as to reduce the light railway tax in the South Leitrim portion of the guaranteeing area one penny farthing in the pound during the present half year; and, whether he is prepared to state in detail the sums at which the Treasury bought and sold out these shares?

The Board of Works lent £65,000 on the security of 13,000 £5 Baronial Guaranteed shares taken at par. Before the passing of the Tramways Amendment Act 1895, some of the shares had been sold at a premium. Since the Act became law, the shares have realised a higher premium, but in the opinion of the Board of Works this rise in price was not solely, if at all, due to the Act. Of the 13,000 shares 10,262 have been sold. The value of the shares sold would at par be £51,310, but owing to the above-mentioned rise in price, they have fetched £64,425, the sum required to wipe out the outstanding balance of the loan as reduced by the annual sinking fund. This leaves 2,738 shares still outstanding, of which 650 are guaranteed by part of Cavan and 2,088 by part of Leitrim. The par value of the two sets is £3,250 and £10,440 respectively. These shares have been surrendered to the company for cancellation. The consequent saving to the guaranteeing area in the County of Leitrim will be approximately l¼d. in the pound yearly on the valuation of that area. The prices fetched by the £5 shares sold have been as follows:—1,269 shares have sold at 5⅝, 283 shares have sold at 5¾, 6,100 shares have sold at 513/16, 32 shares have sold at 7, 2,578 shares have sold at 7¾. The hon. Member is incorrect in speaking of any of the shares as having been bought by the Treasury.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in consideration of the unsettled state of affairs in Mashonaland and Matabeleland, and reports that are being daily received of the alleged unreliability of some of our native allies, whether he, has considered the advisability of reinforcing the troops engaged in suppressing the Matabele rising by a considerable number of trained mounted infantry from the Imperial regiments now serving at home and in South Africa; whether arrangements can be made for supplying any number that may be sent with the necessary horses and equipment on the spot; and, whether his latest communications with the Military authorities at the Cape, lead him to believe that there is not likely to be any necessity for such reinforcements?

As regards the question of reinforcements generally, I have to refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I have given on three or four previous occasions on the subject. As regards the use of mounted infantry (in addition to the Hussars), I believe that 500 at least have already been sent to the front with the necessary horses and equipment; that there are more mounted infantry available in South Africa if required, and that, as at present advised, Sir F. Carrington does not wish any more sent from this country.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether she can state if any and, if so, how much time it is proposed to save by Irish mail trains between Euston and Holyhead, and vice versâ, under the new contract with the London and North Western Rail way Company, as compared with the existing contract; and, whether it will be arranged that an equally good service will he provided on the Irish mails as on the Scotch mail and express trains as regards speed, accommodation, and third class and dining carriages?

It is proposed to save half-an-hour in the running of the night mail trains between Euston and Holyhead in both directions. It is not proposed to alter the speed of the day mail trains. The Postmaster General is aware of the time taken by the London and North Western Railway Company on the Scotch mail and express trains. The rate of speed of the Scotch night mail between London and Carlisle, as recently accelerated is 47 or 48 miles an hour, of the Irish night mail between Euston and Holyhead the speed at the present time is 43·12 miles an hour, but it will be 46·95 under the acceleration in April next. The rate of speed of the Scotch day mail is 38·18 miles an hour; and of the Irish day mail 43·35 miles an hour. On the whole the comparison as to speed is not unfavourable to the Irish service. As regards passenger accommodation, some communication has passed between the company and the Post Office, but the company cannot see their way to provide for third class passengers. Whether dining carriages can be run is also a question which must be left to the railway company.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he is aware that the family of a National School teacher named Burke, in County Cork, who died in the early part of this year, did not receive the retiring gratuity to which he was entitled as sanctioned by the Treasury; and, whether, seeing that under precisely similar circumstances the retiring gratuity was paid in the case of the family of a teacher named M'Carthy who died at Belfast in April last, he will reconsider his decision in this case?

In the case of M'Carthy it happened that the condition of execution by the Lord Lieutenant of the warrant for gratuity was fulfilled prior to the death of the applicant, whereas in the case of Burke this condition was not fulfilled prior to Burke's death, so that the two cases were not precisely similar. The decision in these cases is governed by statutory requirement and in no sense can be regarded as my decision.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, if the police of Castleshane have made any report to the effect that a man named Francis M'Adam, on Thursday the 9th of the present month, while engaged in driving his cattle along the road to a portion of his farm, received several pellets of shot in his head and face, in consequence of a gamekeeper firing at a dog within a few yards of the road, and that the gamekeeper threatened to shoot the caretaker of the dog; and, will he issue any instructions for the exercise of greater caution in discharge of firearms?

The fads appear to be substantially as stated. It appears that at the time of the occurrence the gamekeeper and M'Adam were on different sides of a thick hedge, and that the gamekeeper in firing at the dog, which was in pursuit of a rabbit, did not see. M'Adam. The injuries to the latter were very slight and both he and the gamekeeper admit that they were accidentally inflicted.

I Leg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, will he explain for what purpose and under what terms does a man called Hanley hold possession of the house and premises erected on the land enclosed at the Curragh Camp some years ago for the purposes of a sewage farm; and, whether it is in accordance with the provisions of the Curragh Act that portions of the commonage are enclosed and allowed to be occupied by private persons?

Mr. Hanley holds the house and land under a lease, at a rental of £27 a year, for the purpose of working it as a sewage farm for the disposal of the sewage from the Camp at the Curragh. With such an object it is clear that the land must be enclosed, and as it is used for military purposes it does not appear that the provisions of the Curragh Act are contravened.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, in view of the fact that loans are granted in Ireland for building national school teachers' dwellings repayable in 35 years, and that this charge is as a rule paid by the teacher and presses heavily on his slender income, he will see the necessity of extending the period for repayment to the same time as that allowed for the repayment of loans granted for the building of school houses and under the same terms and conditions?

The Question is based on a misapprehension of facts. The terms of repayment of loans for teachers' residences and for building school houses are the same in each case. The annuity of five per cent. payable on loans for residences is not paid by teachers. A moiety of this annual rent charge is in every case paid by the Commissioners, and managers are prohibited from charging, by way of rent on the residences, a sum in excess of the remaining moiety of 2½ per cent.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will consider the desirability of recommending to the consideration of the Commissioners of National Education, Ireland, the justice of placing all national school teachers on the same footing with regard to the number of years' service and the amount allowed for each year's service when calculating an officer's pension as all civil servants in Ireland, and also of making some allowance to each teacher, on his retiring, for his services before he had reached the age of 21 years?

This Question involves further extension of the benefits that were provided under the rules issued pursuant to the Teachers' Pension Act of 1879. These rules were revised in December 1885, and the benefits to the teachers materially increased. The action then taken has been regarded by the Treasury as in excess of the capacity of the pension fund and a main cause of its since become insolvent. Under present circumstances there seems to be no warranty for recommending that the rate of pension to teachers should be determined on the same principles as those of civil servants, or that service rendered under the minimum age prescribed by the pension rules of 1885 should be counted.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he will refer the Agricultural Rating (Scotland) Bill to a Standing Committee, including all the Scottish Members of Parliament?

As the hon. Member is aware, the practice of the House has always been that, though there may be a Grand Committee on which Scottish opinion is very fully represented, the constitution of that Committee as regards the distribution of the parties ought to be a reflection of the constitution of the House. As regards the particular Bill which the hon. Member desires to refer to a Grand Committee, I will point out that it has been stated by Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, for reasons I do not fully comprehend, to be a Measure of a highly controversial character, and in these circumstances, I think, it would be improper to send it to a Grand Committee?

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in the event of the suspension of the Twelve O'clock Rule for the remainder of the Session, he will give an assurance that the Benefices Bill shall not be taken after midnight?

Yes, Sir; I shall refer to the Bill later on.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he can yet state if he can take any steps before the close of the Session towards preparing for the promised Inquiry into the financial relations between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom:

I am not sure who gave the promise to which the hon. Member refers, but it was not Her Majesty's present advisers. In any case, the question could not even be discussed until we have had an opportunity of studying the methods and results of the Inquiry into the financial relations with Ireland.

I beg to ask you, Mr. Speaker, as a point of Order, whether under the Resolution passed by the House on 27th February, the First Lord of the Treasury can move that Clauses 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15 of the Land Bill be withdrawn, seeing that, with regard to Clause 4, it is not a withdrawal in the ordinary Committee practice, but a withdrawal in order to substitute another clause for it. The next point is whether the Motion to withdraw must not be made before the claim is reached, and whether Clause 4 has not already been reached, inasmuch as the Question 'that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill" has already been put to the House and partly discussed.

As to the first Question there can be no doubt as to the right to move to withdraw the I clauses. The right hon. Gentleman's point will arise later on when the Motion is made to add this now clause and when the Chairman of Committees is in the Chair, and it would not be right for me to anticipate the Chairman's decision. As to the second point, that is also one on which I ought not to express an opinion. The right hon. Gentleman asks me to give an opinion as to the effect of certain proceedings taken in Committee on Thursday upon a question which will be raised in Committee to-day. That, I take it, is a matter on which I should be wrong in offering any opinion, as the whole of the facts are within the knowledge of the Chairman of Committees, and not in my knowledge, and the responsibility is with him. I should be quite wrong if I attempted to anticipate his decision.

rose to move:—

"That for the remainder of the Session Government business he not interruped under the provisions of any Standing Order regulating the sittings of the House, and may be entered upon at any hour, though opposed; and that at the conclusion of Government business each day Mr. Speaker do adjourn the House without question put."

He said: In rising to make the Motion which stands in my name, and which is identical in terms with that made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the year before last, it will be proper, and the House will expect, that I should give it some idea of the views of the Government with regard to the present position and future prospects of public business. I may, perhaps, conveniently begin by telling the House how matters stand with regard to Supply. The new Rule has been in operation for 18 days out of the 20 minimum days allowed by the Standing Order. On the whole, I think it will be admitted, whether the Rule has worked ill or well for the prospect of Government legislation, it has undoubtedly worked well for the proper discussion of Supply. [Cheers.] There is no doubt that to give up the Friday in each week, which might otherwise be occupied for Government business, is a certain amount of sacrifice, on the part of the Government; but I think it has been a sacrifice well bestowed. ["Hear, hear!"] If the House agrees with me in thinking that it is for its dignity and utility and for the convenience of private Members anxious to make their criticism known that this rule should be maintained, I hope they will make it a success in this its first year of trial. We have actually to vote £73,436,148 in the course of the Session, and of that amount we have in round numbers voted £66,000,000—[cheers]—leaving, therefore, £7,300,000 still to be dealt with. In the actual number of Votes we have not made so satisfactory a progress, as there are a large number of items still to be disposed of, but these are for the most part of a very uncontroversial character, and they have habitually gone through without any serious discussion, and I hope we shall get through the vast majority of them before the last day comes under the Standing Order. I do not propose to hold the House to the minimum of 20 days—["hear, hear!"]—but my idea is to give the full additional three days which we are permitted to do under the Standing Order. I hope in these three days we shall be seconded by Gentlemen in all parts of the House, so that next year there will be no doubt in any quarter of the House but that a Rule similar to this should be re-enacted as part of our permanent procedure. It is evident we must pass, before separating for the holidays, the Finance Bill, the Light Railways Bill, which has reached the Third Reading stage, the Conciliation Bill, the Truck, the Coal Mines, and the Locomotives Bills, which have passed through Grand Committee, and which stand now for discussion on the Report stage. These are not Measures which ought to take any prolonged discussion. They are Measures which we must undoubtedly pass into law before we separate. While making that statement I do not think we shall have severely to tax the patience or endurance of the House. In the Committee stage there still remain the Scotch Rating Bill, the West Highland Railway (Guarantee) Bill. In the Second Reading stage there is the Uganda Railway Bill, and there still remains to be introduced by the Chief Secretary the Irish Rating Bill, dealing with the share of Ireland of the grant which falls to that country in consequence of the passing of the English Rating Bill. Whether it should be a Bill handing the money over to the Irish Local Taxation Account, or whether the money must be actually allocated to agricultural purposes in Ireland in the course of the present Session, is still a matter open to doubt. There are, in addition to these general Bills, certain Departmental Bills that must be passed. There is the Telegraph Money Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill, the Expiring Laws Continuation Bill, the Friendly Societies Bill, and the Collecting Societies Bill. I believe these two last are Consolidation Bills, on which no discussion need be expected. I now come to the category of Bills which ought to pass, and which I believe can be passed. There is the Military Manœuvres Bill—[cheers]—which is very advanced in the Committee stage, in which every desire has been shown by my hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to meet the views of critics opposite, for which there has been a very strong wish expressed—among others sitting on the other side of the House, by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean—and the passage of which, for the sake of our military efficiency, ought not long to be delayed. [Cheers.] Then there is a Bill to which I have more than once made reference, the Military Works Loans Bill, which is in effect a continuance Bill to the Bill passed two or three years ago, to provide money by loan for building barracks, for which there is now very urgent need, and completing certain other necessary works. That Bill has not yet been introduced, but it is ready to be introduced at any time. Then there remains another military Bill for which, I believe, there is a general desire in all parts of the House—the Military Lands Bill. [Opposition cries of "No, no!"] I understand it is not seriously opposed. I understand that this is a Bill which, having for its object the provision of ranges in various parts of the country, Gentlemen representing all classes of constituencies would desire to see passed. ["Hear, hear!"] Then I come to the series of Bills which I have no hope of passing if there is any serious opposition to them. In many cases I do not think they will be seriously opposed, and it rests with the House to say whether' they shall become law or not during the present Session. They are the Irish Light Railways Bill, the Naval Reserve Bill, the London University Bill, the Stannaries Bill, the Official Secrets Bill, the Election Petitions Bill—which I believe was brought in by Lord Herschell during the time of the last Government and has for its principal object the relief from severe penalties of a gentleman who has suffered under the Election Laws the Housing of the Working Classes (Scotland) Bill, the Railway Assessors (Scotland) Bill, the Larceny Bill, the Burglary Bill, and the Public Health Bill. I believe these Bills are not seriously opposed, but if they are there will be no attempt made to pass them. We abandoned on Thursday last a considerable number of Bills, and in addition to those we propose to take off the Order Paper the Local Government (Aldershot and Farnborough) Bill, the Stipendiary Magistrates (Ireland) Bill—[Nationalist cheers]—the Berriew School Bill, the Post Office, Consolidation Bill, the Teachers' Registration Bill, the Land Tax Commissioners Bill, and the Army Reserve Bill. These Bills will be discharged at as early a date as possible. So far I have dealt, as the House will see, simply with Government Bills, and there remains the more painful task of dealing with those private Bills which still remain on the Paper, and with which considerable progress has been made. The House will have perceived that the Resolution is so drawn that no private Bill can, as it stands, have any chance at all of coming on for further discussion, and I see no possibility of relaxing that Rule in any respect with regard to any Bill to which even the smallest opposition is offered. The House will readily understand the reason why I make that statement. My predecessors, and indeed I myself, have had to make similar statements on similar occasions, and a very disagreeable task it is for the Minister who has to make the statement. The two Bills which have been through Grand Committee, and which seemed likely at one time to have full advantage of the Rule which gives private Bills which have gone through Grand Committee precedence after Whitsuntide, are the Shop Hours Bill and the Benefices Bill. The Shop Hours Bill has indeed passed through Grand Committee, but the Report stage has not yet been even begun, and in view of the opposition which I know will be offered to that Bill, my right hon. Friend who is in charge of the Bill, and who has taken so much trouble in connection with it will not be surprised, though I fear he will be pained, at learning that I can hold out no hope whatever that any opportunity can be given whatever for making further progress with the Bill. The Benefices Bill stands in a more favourable position, because not only has it passed through Grand Committee, but two full Wednesdays have already been devoted to its discussion on the Report stage. Yet, having taken the utmost pains to satisfy myself with regard to the Parliamentary prospects of that Bill, I have to state to the House that I think it would be quite impossible to find the necessary time for carrying the Bill further. [Opposition cheers.]The Bill was discussed for nine days in Grand Committee—a most unusual period—and during the two days on which it was discussed on the Report stage, those in charge of the Bill were not able to make further progress than to get to the end of Clause 1; and I think I am stating what is within the knowledge of every man who has carefully watched the proceedings of the House with regard to the Bill, when I state that whereas the opposition to the Bill hitherto had been confined, during all this long discussion, for the most part to persons sitting on this side of the House, who I hope are in sympathy with Church reform—["Hear, hear!"]—there is a not unimportant phalanx of Gentlemen, not, perhaps, so anxious for Church reform, who are quite ready to throw in the full force of their opposition at the last moment, should the energy of my hon. Friends on this side of the House show any signs of flagging. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter, because in view of the enormous majority by which the Bill was passed, and in view of the great interests with which it deals, I confess I think it is a very lamentable thing that we should now, at the eleventh hour, be obliged to abandon the fruit of so much sustained Parliamentary and extra-Parliamentary labour. [Cheers.] I certainly should hope that the subject of this Bill may at no distant date be taken up under circumstances which will make the prospects of passing a Measure dealing with this part of the law more happy than they could be under the conditions under which this Bill was introduced. The truth is, and I think my noble Friend in charge of the Measure will be prepared to admit it, that the prospect of getting through a Bill of this magnitude, complexity, and controversial character, in the time that can be allotted to a Bill introduced by a private Member, is so slight that those who set themselves the task will have to learn something by experience, and have to deal with the question more piecemeal—["Hear, hear!"]—and in a somewhat less ambitious manner. Still, I hope that the ambition, the noble ambition of the promoters of the Bill will bear fruit in the future, and that this Parliament will show itself not unequal to the task of dealing with those wants of the Church of England of which it is in so large a measure the guardian. ["Hear, hear!"] It now only remains for me to state the actual terms of the Motion, and to recommend them to the House; but before I do that I would wish to repeat that if there be a private Bill which is in the condition of a Bill that can pass after 12 o'clock—that is to say to which there is no opposition at all—I think arrangements may be made by a well-known method for giving such a Bill an opportunity of passing.

What about the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill?

Having dashed for the moment, though, I hope, only for the moment, the hopes of hon. Friends of my own who are interested in the Benefices Bill, I am not likely to find extra-Parliamentary time for the Deceased Wife's Sister Bill. [Hear, hear!"] With regard to the Motion itself, I have followed with a faithful, and I hope he will regard it as a flattering, accuracy the example of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, when he was in charge of the business of the House. It is true that he made his Motion at a relatively later period of the Session, and when the bulk, perhaps all, of the controversial business had been got through—[Opposition cheers]—but I would remind those who regard that point as material that what had not been got through in 1894 was Supply. [Cheers.] It has been my object, as far as possible, to get Supply on at reasonable hours, so that the discussion on questions arising out of the Votes might be taken when the House was still fresh. ["Hear, hear!"] I have no expectation that if this House consents to pass this Resolution tonight, any unnecessary or undue burdens will be thrown on hon. Members. It is not the intention of the Government to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to occupy that chair night after night till the small hours of the morning. If the legislative business of the House passes, as I hope it may pass, smoothly and easily, there really will be no reason whatever why we should sit frequently to any late hour at all. In the course of the present Session we have had a good many long sittings, and if similar difficulties arise during the remainder of the Session, we shall be compelled, much against our will, to adopt methods we have before adopted. I have no ground, however, for thinking that such a state of things is possible. I hope we have passed the acutely controversial stage of the Session, and that we may get through the not very formidable programme I have asked the House to consider without requiring Members of the House to be deprived of necessary rest for any length of time. The 12 o'clock Rule was devised for the convenience of the House. I am asking the House to dispense with the 12 o'clock Rule for its own convenience and for no other purpose. If the Measures were rejected by the House the result would not be that we should drop Bills I have stated that we mean to pass, but the result would be that we should have to sit longer to pass them; and, looking at matters from all sides, I really think that Members in all quarters of the House would prefer to sit an hour or so longer every night and get their holidays earlier than stop short at 12 o'clock and be here late in August. ["Hear, hear!" and "No!"] I have explained the policy of the Government. I hope it will commend itself to both sides of the House. No doubt I have said some things which may be unpalatable to those who take an interest in private Bills.

Has the right hon. Gentleman dropped the Irish Land Bill? [Nationalist laughter and cheers.]

I did not mention the Irish Land Bill. The peculiar position of the Bill has been stated so often by myself and so recently by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies that I did not think any special notice of it was necessary. Perhaps here I ought to say that it will not be in the power of the Government to accept some of the Amendments to the Motion that are on the Paper. The two Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lanark I have already answered. With regard to the first and third Amendments, it is evident that the Government cannot accept them. We must pass the Agricultural Rating (Scotland) Bill, and anything which impedes its passing cannot be accepted by us. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs, I think he will see that, whereas he appears to have intended to substitute 1 o'clock for 12 'clock, it will not have that effect, and if it had it is not a limitation of procedure that we could accept. I beg, Sir, to move the Motion that stands in my name. [Cheers.]

who was received with Opposition cheers, said: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say he had offered me the flattery of adopting the words of the Resolution which I moved in the year 1894. He alluded in a rather cursory manner to the fact that the Resolution applied itself to a condition of things absolutely different from that to which he now proposes to apply it. I desire to state to the House what has been the practice of Parliament, adopted after the fullest consideration, with reference to the Motion for suspending the 12 o'clock rule en permanence, as I may describe it. That matter was considered in 1893, when Mr. Gladstone was Leader of the House. Mr. Gladstone originally suggested the Motion for suspending the 12 o'clock rule, which would have covered various controversial Bills. It may be in the recollection of many Members of the House that, after the Home Rule Bill had passed in the September, it was proposed to have an autumn or winter Session in November to pass two Bills—the Employers' Liability Bill and the Parish Councils Bill. Mr. Gladstone, before presenting that Motion to the House, altered it in a most material form—that it should not he understood to cover any controversial legislation whatever. That was the great point argued and decided upon that occasion. He also introduced into his Motion a condition that prevented the House sitting at all after 1 o'clock. Therefore, these two principles were laid down—first of all, that the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule should not cover any controversial legislation; and, secondly, that the sitting should not he prolonged beyond 1 o'clock. Now, it was on these conditions and these alone that the Motion was accepted by the Opposition, which was then led by the right hon. Gentleman, and he expressed himself in terms which are deserving of the attention of the House upon the subject of the 12 o'clock rule. He said that in old days the protection that the House had against a Government with a majority abusing its powers by late sittings upon Bills had been effective for that purpose for the protection of the minority. But the 12 o'clock rule, when introduced, was a better protection, and he then pointed out what would be the effect of a Resolution such as that which he has now put into the Speaker's hand when it covered controversial legislation. These were his words, and I quote them in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will adhere to them. He said:—

"To abolish the 12 o'clock rule and sweep away the old system "

(the system of Motions for adjournments)

"at the same time is to hand over the minority, bound hand and foot, to the majority, and, as we know, this particular Opposition and all Oppositions are people upon whom devolves the carrying on of such criticism of Government Bills as may he necessary."

Therefore, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, to suspend the 12 o'clock rule in a general form is to deprive——

With a proviso that no Motions for adjournment were made.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.

"The Government themselves"

(this, I think, is well-founded criticism)

"usually take so favourable a view of their own legislative projects that they think they are quite good enough to pass through the House without any discussion at all."

These are the one-clause Bills of which we have heard.

"It is plain there would be great temptation to a Government possessing, as they must always, a large majority towards the end of the Session to carry to an undue length the discussion of their business unless the minority have restored to them the weapon with which alone they fought before the 12 o'clock rule was established."

That was the doctrine the right hon. Gentleman laid down, and he insisted that the only conditions upon which the House should accept the Motion to suspend the 12 o'clock rule should be that no controversial Measures should be proceeded with after that hour. That was accepted by the Government, and it fell to me (for Mr. Gladstone had to leave the House after making the Motion) to give a pledge to the House that no controversial legislative Measures should be taken when the rule was suspended. There was a long discussion as to what controversial Bills should be proceeded with, and upon that we had the doctrine I have referred to laid down by the right hon. Gentleman himself and the First Lord of the Admiralty. One Bill which was greatly discussed as to whether it should come within the rule was the Equalisation of Rates Bill for London. That Bill was supported by almost all the London Members except the Member for St. George's Hanover Square. [Laughter.] The present Leader of the House laid down the rule that it was not because a Bill was approved of by a majority in both Houses that it was a non-controversial Bill. He said:—

"I wish to be perfectly clear on the point that Bills are not only controversial, but, if objected to on this side of the House, as against Members on that side, and full of detail, would require a considerable amount of discussion."

That was the test laid down by the right hon. Gentleman and accepted by the Government of the day, and every controversial Measure was excepted and dismissed as soon as this rule was passed. On September 7 I stated the Bills that would be proceeded with, and all those of a controversial character were abandoned. The House would not suspend the 12 o'clock rule until all controversial legislative business was at an end. When I became responsible for the business of the House in 1894 I fully accepted and acted upon that principle. It was as near as possible at this date in 1894. The Session of that year was shorter by one month than the present Session. It began on March 12, after the retirement of Mr. Gladstone, and therefore, we had arrived, with a month less of the Session, at the same date at which we stand, and it was on July 18 that I stated the Measures which the Government intended to adopt. I did not ask for the suspension of the 12 o' clock rule. I stated the Bills we intended to proceed with in the ordinary course, without any extraordinary proceedings, and I held out the expectation to the House that we should conclude by the end of August. The right hon. Gentleman agreed with the justice of that course in regard to the Measures I read out, which I may say were about half the number the right hon. Gentleman has now read to the House. But the next day the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the adjournment of the House in order to attack the Government upon the legislative programme, which we had laid before the House. The right hon. Gentleman treated me with severe sarcasm on that occasion. The present Colonial Secretary also entered into an elaborate calculation to show how impossible it was that the programme could be got through before November. I proposed to give two days to the Indian Budget, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the House said that in the circumstances the Indian Budget would come on about the middle of November. But I endured that ridicule, remembering the proverb that those laugh best that laugh last, and it so happened that by August 16 the whole of that programme, almost without exception, and several other Bills, were carried into law. [Cheers.] After that demonstration I shall not criticise the list of Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has laid before us. Learning wisdom by experience, I shall not attempt to give an arithmetical calculation as to the number of days each Bill—including the Irish Land Bill and the Scotch Bating Bill—will require. I shall not expose myself to the refutation of facts which overwhelmed the prognostications of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. [Cheers.] I hope they may have as fortunate a fate as I experienced in 1894. That, then, is what we did in 1894. We laid before the House what we thought a reasonable programme which could be carried without recourse to exceptional measures. We did not ask for the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule at all until the whole of that programme had been accomplished. [Cheers.] I should say that on that occasion the present Secretary to the Colonies said—

"Since I have been in the House of Commons, I admit that every Government in turn have accused the Opposition of obstruction. Opposition to the Government always appears like obstruction; and I think great credit is due to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for not having repented that hackneyed cry."

[Cheers.] I thanked the right hon. Gentleman then and I thank him now for having done me that justice. [Cheers.] I do not think it wise or even dignified to be always whining about obstruction. [Loud cheers.] I always remember the old saying that it is the bad workman who complains of his tools. [Cheers.] The reason why the Colonial Secretary implored us in 1894 not to go on with the programme we successfully carried through was that the actual Session only began on March 12; that it was a very short Session, and had already done good work. The right hon. Gentleman asked was it not a good record for the House of Commons to make in a single Session to carry through three such Bills as the Budget Bill, the Employers' Liability Bill, and the Parish Councils Bill? "I do not I think," he said,—

"that in the history of our legislation for the last 20 years you could find any Parliament in which more has been done that is, as to the importance of the Bills that have been passed."

[Cheers.] I hope these words will he remembered when the Mouse of Commons is charged, by men who are its Leaders, with being incapable of doing its business. [Loud cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman also said,—

"I say again that this Session of Parliament has done more legislative work than any Parliament which has sat for 20 years,"

and he went into an elaborate proof of how Parliament had done more work and was capable of doing more work than it had done before obstruction was heard of. "You may say," he said,—

"that this Parliament has done as much as was accomplished during the eventful years of 1869 to 1874."

That was the testimony of the Colonial Secretary as to what, the last Parliament was able to accomplish; and it was not found necessary in that Parliament to suspend the 12 o'clock rule in order to carry its legislative business. [Cheers.] It was not until our programme for the Session of 1894 was accomplished that, on August 16, I moved to suspend the 12 o'clock rule. I should like to state the terms in which I gave notice of that Motion. On the 15th of August I said:—

"I desire to give notice that to-morrow I will move, as is usual when the legislative business of the Session practically reaches its end, the following Resolution."

and then I read the words which the right hon. Gentleman has adopted. But why has not the right hon. Gentleman accepted the preamble, that the legislative business of the Session has been completed? [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman then accepted that Motion. He said:—

"It was to apply to Supply only, but he hoped the House would not be asked to sit at undue length, and that if an important vote came on after 12 o'clock the Government would not enforce its being discussed, but would go on to a less controversial vote."

I say it is impossible to conceive a more careful and deliberate decision of the House of Commons only to suspend the 12 o'clock rule in regard to non-controversial Measures. [Cheers.] That is what the present Government when in Opposition demanded—that is what the present Opposition when in Government agreed to, as the proper method of dealing with the question of the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. [Cheers.] I ask, then what is the meaning of the right hon. Gentleman coming forward and making this proposal to cover controversial legislative business? What is the justification for it? [Cheers.] We passed our Measures and concluded the Session in 1894 in the time we appointed without having to resort to the course which is now proposed. I said the Session would conclude by the end of August. It concluded on the 23rd of August, earlier than I had reason to anticipate. What is the meaning, therefore, of this demand—a demand which has never been made upon the House before, a demand which is contrary to the whole practice of the House, a demand which is contrary to the precedent solemnly established in 1894? [Cheers.] A great deal has been said on the subject of Closure by compartments. Gentlemen opposite say they disapprove of it. [Ministerial cheers.] So do I. [Cheers.] I think it a very reprehensible practice. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; but it is to your ingenuity we owe it; it was you who set the precedent for the first time. [Cheers.]

It was set in 1882.

No; I think it was during the Coercion Act of 1887. [Cheers.] But I do not wish to raise these controversies. [Ministerial laughter.] If you like I will, and I will insist that it was you who set the precedent, because it is the fact. [Cheers.] It is, I think, a most undesirable practice, and I have never been a party to it, except with great reluctance, It is a curious fact that it has only been applied in connection with Irish Bills. But if it is justifiable at all, it can only be justified by extreme necessity. Everyone will, I think, admit that. But, in my opinion, Closure by all-night sittings is a very much worse form of Closure. [Cheers.] It has precisely the same effect. It passes legislative Measures without proper discussion, and it passes them with greater inconvenience to everybody than Closure by compartments, It is extremely inconvenient to the minority, but it is stil more inconvenient to the majority because there are more of them—[laughter]—and it is therefore about the worst form of Closure that you could possibly apply. For what is the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule? It is practically giving the Government the right to perpetual all-night sittings. [Cheers.] Of course you may say you will not use it unless you want it. But you have no right to ask the minority to pass such Bills as the Irish Land Bill and the Scotch Rating Bill—the two most controversial Bills of the Session during all-night sittings. [Cheers.] It is too much to ask the House to accept. There is nothing to prevent the Government if they like from passing every one of their controversial Measures by all-night sittings. Where is the proof of the necessity of anything like what the right hon. Gentleman proposes? I point to the years 1893 and 1894 to show that a Government can, without asking for any power of this kind, pass legislation of a very respectable character. In the short Session between March 12 and August 16, 1894, we passed the Finance Act, the Local Government (Scotland) Act, the Equalisation of Rates (London) Act, the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, the Housing of the Working Classes Act, and, of smaller Measures, the Notices of Accidents Act, the Building Societies Act, the Merchant Shipping Consolidated Act, the Diseases of Animals Act, the London Improvement Act, the Thames Conservancy Act, the Wild Birds Protection Act, and others. Those were passed without suspending the 12 o'clock rule at all. I know the right hon. Gentleman entertains a low opinion of the power of the House of Commons to do business. ["Hear, hear!"] He has said,—

"One lesson that I drew is that until the Rules of Procedure are fundamentally altered, if that time has ever to come, it is absolutely necessary to deal with legislative problems by short Bills,"

and he added,—

"I am unable to conceive a situation under which in future it will he possible for any Government to bring in a long and contentious Measure, and hope to pass it through the House of Commons in one Session."

What has led him to that conclusion? Your Parliament and your majority? But it was not impossible for our Parliament with our majority to pass a long Bill during a single Session. [Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: "Hear, hear!"] There is the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman who cheers me that no Parliament ever passed so many important Bills. I dare say the right hon. Gentle man means the Closure by compartments of the Home Rule Bill, but let me mention to him some other Bills. Was the Parish Council Bill a short Bill? The last Parliament did not find it impossible to pass the Parish Council Bill, which took 40 days and was encountered by an opposition—I do not like to use the adjectives—persistent and, to borrow a phrase of the right hon. Gentleman, garrulous. [Laughter.] The right hon. Gentleman, assuming the new character of a Parliamentary handicapper, has told us, on the authority of Admiral Rous, that there is not a difference of more than 4 lb. or 6 lb. between one jockey than another. [Laughter.] I do not Is now that I should call my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton exactly a lightweight [laughter]—I should hardly like to place myself in that category—[Renewed laughter]—but my right hon. Friend did not abandon the Parish Council Bill, after five days in Committee, on account of obstruction. No, Sir, my right hon. Friend could give the present Government 2 stone and a beating. [Laughter.] But the right hon. Gentleman's images are not at an end, for he tells us he thinks the Angel Gabriel would have been a very moderate manager of the House of Commons. [Renewed laughter.] I dare say he would. We do not pretend to the attributes of the Angel Gabriel, but we never found that difficulty in passing a long Bill in a single Session. I should like to ask whether the Finance Bill of 1894 was a short Bill. In that short Session that long Bill went through. There were 37 days given to it. Amendments after Amendments were piled upon it every morning, but we did not whimper about obstruction. We went on with it and we did not turn round after five days in Committee, and say, "Oh, the House of Commons is incapable of doing business." We went on to show that the House of Commons was capable of doing business. ["Hear, hear!" and cheers.] The House of Commons is—I was almost going to use the word—slandered by its Leader, and is held' up to the country as a body which is incapable of doing its business I think the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman used, in order to explain his disasters, was "that it was due to the essential characteristics of Debate in the modern House of Commons." No; it was not due to the characteristics of Debate in the modern House of Commons. It was due to the characteristics of the present Administration. [Cheers.] That is the ground of these denunciations of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that one of his great misfortunes is that he has not got any Opposition. [Laughter.] That is most unfortunate; we do our best to accommodate him; if we can do better I promise him we will try. [Renewed laughter.] He said that in the old days there was always a homogeneous Opposition. Was there? What was the Opposition from 1880 to 1885? [Cheers.] Was there not a Tory Party supported by Mr. Parnell and his followers, and, I will not say supported, but harried by the Party which sat below the Gangway—the Fourth Party. The right hon. Gentleman may remember these things when he talks of former days. [Laughter.] Oh, no, it is not the want of an Opposition, it is not the incapacity of the House of Commons to pass a long Bill in a short Session, that has led to the disaster which induced the right hon. Gentleman to ask for methods of coercion which have never been given before and which I hope the House of Commons will never give. If you wobble with your Bills; if you do not know your own mind; if you put down Amendments one day and withdraw them the next—["hear, hear!"]—and after having withdrawn the Amendments, withdraw the clause to which they were proposed; if the Measures you bring forward are not supported by your own Party; if you have a divided council and a distracted Party, well, then, you cannot expect to pass either long Bills or short Bills in a single Session. I protest against this endeavour to hold up the House of Commons to the contempt of the country. [Loud cheers.] Why, in 1896, is the House of Commons, with a great Conservative majority, incapable of passing a long Bill in a single Session? Some explanation of that is required from the Leader of the House before he denounces the impotence and the incapacity of the House before the country. At the beginning of his speech the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Supply. We have not come yet to the guillotine, and there was an old saying of a wise man that you call no man happy till his death. I therefore shall not venture to express an opinion upon your scheme of Supply until Supply has come to a close; but the right hon. Gentleman said that in 1894 we gave less time to Supply than you are giving. As far as I can ascertain, the number of days we gave to Supply in that short Session was, as near as possible, the same number that you will give this year. With Supply I hope the House will deal reasonably; I have no reason to anticipate they will do otherwise. As to the Bills the right hon. Gentleman referred to, I have only to say that many of them, I have no doubt, are Bills that might, with advantage, be passed in the few weeks which still remain before the time contemplated for proroguing Parliament. But amongst, those Bills are Bills of the gravest importance, and of the most controversial character, and for which, I say, he has no right to suspend the 12 o'clock rule. What I would recommend him to do is to postpone, as he did in 1894, to a later period the making of this Motion. He should adjourn this Debate, go on with the controversial Measures, and when he has got rid of the controversial Measures and reached the point which we reached in the middle of August 1894, come forward with this Motion, which would receive the support of the Opposition, as it did in 1894. That is what we are entitled to ask. I have been always extremely ready and willing to enter into arrangements with reference to the close of the Session, and I have always found the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in Opposition, prepared to make similar amicable arrangements. But arrangements have only been concluded on the basis of not suspending the 12 o'clock rule with reference to controversial business. We took a month for legislative. Measures after the statement that. I made on July 18, and they were all completed by August 16. If they had not been completed some of them would have been dropped. When they had been disposed of, there being some Supply left, we made the Motion similar to this. Those are the circumstances in which this Motion should be applied, and I cannot conceive why the right hon. Gentleman should not take the same course. Let him take his chance for the next month with his controversial Measures and then let him make this Motion for the disposal of such business as Supply, and he will not meet with opposition. But if this Motion is to hang as a sword over our heads, if it is intended to force through by all-night sittings Measures of a most controversial character, we must offer most strenuous opposition both to the Resolution and its application. [Cheers.]

observed that his memory went back to the days when there; was neither a 12 o'clock Rule nor even a 12.30 Rule, and when Ministers had only two days a week at their disposal, and were, nevertheless, able to carry through a good many Measures. The Leader of the Opposition had reminded the House of former achievements and failures, but that list was of no more interest than the pages of a long disused Bradshaw's Railway Guide. What they had to regard now was the present state of business and the view the country took of the position. From one end of the country to the other men were asking what was the use of a Parliamentary majority of 150—[ironical Opposition cheers]—if it could not legislate. The nation expected that an earnest effort would be made to pass useful Measures which it had been demonstrated were wanted. Nothing could be more dangerous from the point of view of those who wished business to be done than to take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and to defer the request for an extension of their hours. If this Motion were deferred they would be driven into a corner and it would become almost hopeless to pass the Measures awaiting disposal. They ought to take steps to prevent this Session from being a ghastly failure. Would the House of Commons retain its credit if it should fail as a legislative machine, and was not the view already largely prevalent that the House was not fulfilling the very purpose for which it existed? The practice of wasting Parliamentary time and thus defeating Measures had become almost an exact science which this Session had reached a point never attained in former years. Hon. Members ought to be willing to sacrifice, if necessary, a portion of their holidays. It was absurd to talk as if a prorogation in the middle of August was the one thing which must not be lost sight of. Only after the Bills which the Government thought ought to be passed had become law ought the House to think of holidays. If the Leader of the House made a point of carrying all the most important Measures of the Government his Party would stand by him. ["Hear!"]

, referring to the views expressed by the right hon. Baronet, said that, in his opinion, nothing was more likely to render this Session a ghastly failure and to destroy the credit of the House of Commons than the passing of a Motion of this kind. ["Hear, hear!"] It was not only without precedent, but would strike a severe blow at their methods of procedure. It would interfere with their comfort, and was opposed to the public interest. He would show how. He did not care that the reports of their proceedings should be very full, but there ought to be a fairly full and accurate record of what passed in that House, so that those outside who were interested in different subjects might know what was done. If this Motion were adopted such a record would not be supplied. They would undoubtedly sit up night after night until a very late hour, if not all night, and the business would be transacted by relays of Members under the control of Whips. In those circumstances, they could not expect an accurate report of their Debates, it being impossible to organise relief staffs of reporters of the same calibre as those who ordinarily reported the proceedings in that House. Then the proposal of the Government was a very serious thing as regarded the health of Members. There were, no doubt, objections to longer Sessions, but surely the disadvantages of sitting up very late night after night for a month were far greater than those that would be involved in their meeting for a longer period of the year. This rule would apply in the case of far more important Measures than any to which such a Motion had ever applied before, and it applied to Wednesdays as well as other days. There would, in fact, be nothing to prevent the House from sitting permanently. He did not know what a jury would say if the health of Members broke down and the Leader of the House were committed on a charge of murder.

The speech of the right hon. Baronet is based on the hypothesis that the desire of the Government is to have all-night sittings. I did not say that; in fact, I said precisely the contrary.

remarked that Members of the Front Ministerial Bench always said that. It was the long list of Measures that had to be disposed of that must be taken into account. Governments, of course, always said that it was not their intention to keep the House sitting all night, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said that on the two last occasions when he suspended the 12 o'clock Rule, and yet the House did sit all night. No doubt they would not feel the full force of what they were doing for a few days. The Government Whips would be anxious to falsify the predictions of their opponents, and would arrange with Members that Bills should not be taken on a particular night; but when they came to consider the importance of the Bills on the Paper it was certain the House would be asked to sit night after night all night under circumstances which would justify a fair jury in bringing in a verdict of attempted murder against the Leader of the House—[a laugh]—for the proceedings he was asking the House to take. With regard to the condition of Supply, he did not know whether they were to have a Vote—he rather imagined they were—in regard to the Soudan war; but putting that aside—and he need hardly say the Vote would be highly controversial—there were left over for discussion the Debates on those Government Departments, the administration of which had to be criticised by the House with that fair and full scrutiny which was the object of the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman. There were, for example, the Home Office Vote, the Local Government Board Vote, the Board of Trade Vote, and the Vote for the Office of Woods, and so forth. It was only under the Home Office Vote they could criticise the administration of the Factory Acts and the great changes introduced during the last few years. It was neither lengthy nor hostile criticism that was likely to be aroused, but criticism which a great many people wanted to have at an hour when they would know what was going on. The right hon. Gentleman thought he proved his case with regard to the successful working of the new rule for Supply by quoting the millions of money that had been voted, but in point of fact the importance of a discussion in Supply had nothing to do with the amount of money involved. Take the Ordnance Factories Vote. That was only a Vote for £100, the bulk of the money being repaid from other Departments, and it was put on the Estimates at the desire of the Comptroller and Auditor General simply in order that the enormously important subjects, military and labour, which it raised, should be adequately discussed. There were other contentious Measures to which different observations applied, and he held that they would defeat one of the main reasons for which Parliament existed if they I carried on its proceedings in the dead of night.[Ministerial cheers.] There were some bills which were not controversial, but which yet contained points that ought to be dealt with in the day time. Take the Truck Bill and the Coal Mines Bill—he would not mention the Conciliation Bill. There were Amendments upon each of these Bills, not likely indeed to take very long, but specially interesting to important classes outside the House, who would want to know what had passed when these Amendments were discussed. He would bring these remarks to a conclusion by saying that in his opinion discussion, reasonable and legitimate, was one of the duties which Parliament had to discharge, and that discussion was no real discussion if it was forced on in the dead hours of night when the proceedings of Parliament could not be properly reported in the Press.

said that he had that day a very disagreeable; duty to perform, and that was to vote against the Leader of his Party, because the Motion appeared to him to be in the present case absolutely unjustifiable. His right hon. Friend, according to a speech he made the other day, evidently looked upon the House of Commons as a machine that was rather out of working order owing to the development of eloquence and power of speech. Now, he looked upon that as one of the greatest safeguards of the institutions of the country. [Cheers.] He looked upon it as impossible in the present day to carry through this House any contentious Measure upon which there was not a certainty that the will of the country was absolutely bound up. If the opinion of the country had been clearly ascertained about some of the Measures which they were discussing this Session, in his opinion they never would have been dropped, and they ultimately probably would have become law. His right hon. Friend, he believed, never would have made this Motion, but for the Irish Land Bill. He himself looked upon that Bill as one of the gravest interest to Ireland. A controversial Measure like the Irish Land Bill, affecting, as it did, the gravest interests in Ireland, and the principles which used to belong to the Conservative Party ought not to be discussed in the early hours of the morning in the present canicular atmosphere. [Laughter.] To force on the discussion of such a Bill at this period of the Session was, to his mind, not a satisfactory method of procedure, and was unjust to the Unionist Members of the House. His right hon. Friend in a recent very interesting speech, in alluding to the difficulties of the Government, compared his position as the Leader of the House to that of the manager of a music-hall, the artists of which were not satisfied with one performance, but consented to receive one, two, three, four, and sometimes five encores—["Hear, hear! "and laughter]—which very naturally impeded the business, and brought the performance to an untimely end at midnight. Perhaps it might be of use to his right hon. Friend if he, ventured to express the views of the House of Commons side of the subject. [Laughter.] He would use the same method, and would take the case of the manager of a music-hall, with artists of distinguished ability, their time being limited to 12 o'clock. The artists were told to perform in public, with only one restriction, namely, that they were to go on until the audience would listen to them no longer. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] The last item would be an Irish manifestation of ingenuity—an Irish artist, as they knew, could sing for three hours and 20 minutes. ["Hear, hear!" and laughter.] What happened? When the time limit for the performance was nearly exhausted, the manager came forward and said:—

"We will cram all the remainder of our programme into the extreme end of the performance."

And so, on a question of such vital importance as the Irish Land Bill, the Government wished to force the House of Commons to discuss and decide upon the questions it involved at a time which would absolutely preclude the possibility of fair Debate. ["Hear, hear!"]

I never said that.

said that, at all events, that was what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the language he had used. It did not require great ingenuity to look forward to what an Irish landlord would be in the immediate future—he would be a melancholy spectacle, attenuated by the administration of drastic Land Bills and predatory Land Commissions, who would meander over what was once his property in search of his incorporeal hereditaments. ["Hear, hear!"] He protested against the House of Commons dealing with questions of such importance at the end of the Session without time being given them to fairly discuss the various provisions of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] He was surprised to find that the Government whose position on the Treasury Bench depended upon a majority mainly composed of Conservatives were ready at the end of the Session to force down the throats of their own followers a Bill of this kind without adequate discussion. The course which the Government had thought fit to adopt was an innovation upon the procedure of that House which had never been attempted before. ["Hear, hear!"]

said that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House must by this time greatly regret the speech that he had delivered the other night in which he had compared the House of Commons to a music hall. In his view the comparison was a most degrading one. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] Hon. Members opposite might laugh, but he was satisfied that in their hearts they approved of his remark. The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his observations had made two important omissions. The right hon. Gentleman had said nothing about the Irish Land Bill and he had omitted to give any indication of the date when he expected the House would adjourn. No statement had been made with reference to the Measures which the Government intended to proceed with or when they expected that the Session would be brought to an end. Even assuming that the discussion upon the Irish Land Bill would be brought to an end that week there would only remain 12 days for the Government to complete their business in. How were they to get through the mass of business before them by that time. The present proposal if carried would enable the Government to compel the House to sit up all night as often as they pleased. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the object of the 12 o'clock rule was to meet the convenience of hon. Members, but its real object was to conduce to the better conduct of public business. It was quite impossible for the business to be properly conducted at a late hour in the morning. The right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, been unnecessarily hard with regard to private Bills. Of course it was clear that it was practically impossible for any private Member to get through highly - contentious Measures like the Benefices Bill, but there were a number of private Bills on the Order Paper which were practically non-contentious, or which were only objected to by a single individual. There was one Bill, in charge of his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lanark, which he had been asked to support by Conservatives in Scotland, and he did not think his hon. Friend should be deprived of his last chance of getting that Bill through. There had been during the Session only two sittings of the House devoted to Scotch business—the consideration of the Scotch Rating Bill. That was not a very long Bill, but it had the longest title of any short Bill that he had had experience of. The reason for that was that it was really four Bills rolled into one. Many Scotch Members might be inclined to support one portion of it and not another, and English Members might take an interest in one part of it and not another. Surely Scotch Members had a claim, having received so little attention and time from the Government, that at any rate this Bill should be fully and fairly considered in Committee. The West Highland Railway Bill was of course a much smaller matter, but it involved a very important principle. He was strongly opposed to that Bill, and he thought they ought to have an opportunity of discussing it at a reasonable hour of the night. He would therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give them an undertaking that, as regards that class of Bills which he had mentioned, beginning with the Conciliation Trades Disputes Bill, and ending with the Irish Bating Bill—Bills which he had acknowledged were of very considerable importance—their consideration should not be entered upon after 12 o'clock.

called the attention of the House to the extreme importance of the step they were asked to take, which was practically the abrogation of the 12 o'clock Rule. Did the House desire that this Rule should be whittled away piece by piece? When the Rule was instituted, the House, by painful and practical experience, had found that prolonged sittings were injurious not only to the health but to the lives of Members of the House, and that the character of legislation and of Parliament suffered by these lengthened proceedings. He ventured to say that the country cared uncommonly little about the details of their Rules of Procedure, but the country liked to know what they were doing, and, as had been pointed out by the right hon. Member for the Forest of Dean, they were now proposing to conduct their sittings practically in camera. [Opposition cheers.] They were proposing to rush important legislation through Parliament behind the back of the country. To suppose that discussions would be reported after midnight was to fly in the face of well-known facts. The early publication of the daily Press precluded late Debates from being adequately reported in their columns, and it was very well known that Debates carried on into the small hours of the morning did not generally get into print at all unless they led to discreditable scenes, in which case they were reproduced in the evening papers under the head of "Disorderly Proceedings," or "Disgraceful Scenes." [Laughter.] When the Rule was instituted a distinct assurance was given, acquiesced in by the Leaders on both sides of the House, that it should not be suspended except under special and exceptional circumstances, and it was indicated that those circumstances were when it was sought to bring a great Debate to a close. During the course of this Session there had been more frequent suspensions of this Rule than, he thought, had ever been known—[Opposition cheers]—and the Rule had been suspended for the purpose of enabling controversial Measures to be forced through Parliament by dint of sheer physical pressure. He thought the House had unwisely allowed the Report of Supply to be excepted, and to allow financial Bills to be excepted was open to grave abuse. The Measure embodying the financial proposals of the year was actually called upon and taken after midnight, and that, he thought, was a grave abuse of the Rule, in direct conflict with the assurances given to the House when the Rule was instituted. He knew that it was an open secret that some Members of the Government were not particularly in sympathy with the 12 o'clock Rule. Unless the House of Commons took very good care they would find that bit by bit attempts would be made practically to abolish this Rule. There was not a single argument which had been used that night by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House which could not equally be applied to that object. They might be told that they ought to be wise in time and take precautions in February and March, when the Session was young. What the House had to consider was, did it or did it not intend to stand by the 12 o'clock Rule? If any one thing more than another could discredit the Government and the House of Commons, it was doing work in a slipshod fashion at hours when all decent people ought to be in bed. [Laughter and Opposition cheers.] He was not quarrelling with the arbitrary limitation of the Session. On the contrary, he believed that the country, if it meant anything by its recent electoral decision, meant that very little legislation should be obtruded on the notice of Parliament, that Departmental Ministers were to efface themselves for a time, and that Parliament was not to have its time occupied with the fruitless discussion of Bills that were ultimately to be abandoned, and that it ought not to have its energies exhausted by excessive attempts at legislation. The Leader of the Opposition made what seemed to him a very fair offer. He offered to cooperate with the Government in a friendly manner with a view to bringing the Session to a reasonably early close. He thought that the time was not passed when his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House might take the right hon. Gentleman at his word. In the old days Sessions were brought to a close not by gag and the guillotine, not by the abrogation of the Rules of the House, but by friendly conversations between the representatives of the various Parties in the House, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had been acting in accordance with the old Parliamentary traditions when he signified his willingness to cooperate with the Government with a view to terminating the Session within a reasonable time. He hoped the Debate would not close without that offer being accepted. ["Hear, hear!"]

observed that, looking to the keen and impartial opposition that had been developed on the other side, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Sir J. Fergusson) was somewhat premature and ill-informed when he declared that the Ministerial Party were going to stand by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to this Motion. [Ironical cheers.] With regard to the present position of Supply, he acknowledged that the Leader of the House had made a great concession to private Members in arranging to take Supply once a week, but the accompanying condition limiting Supply to a certain number of days would, he contended, militate against its successful working. Now, they had, according to the arrangement, five more days in Supply. One of these was already pledged to Ireland, one would be given to African affairs, one to Scotland, and then there was Class 5, about which not one word had been said up to the present time, including, though it did, the Foreign and Colonial and Consular Services. That would pretty well dispose, and more than dispose, of the five additional days in Supply. Yet, in all this not one word would be said about the President of the Board of Trade's Department, the Board of Agriculture, the Office of Works, or the Treasury, one of the most important Departments of this country. There would, he estimated, be 50 or 60 Votes about which there would be no possibility of saying a word. It was time to protest—and this was the last opportunity of doing so—about this extraordinary state of affairs. Then, with regard to the Bills, he assented that it was quite impossible, even if they sat till 2 or 3 o'clock every night, that the Bills the right hon. Gentleman bad enumerated could receive anything like reasonable discussion if they were to be passed this year. It was clear that the right hon. Gentleman must either abandon some of the Bills he had named, or else he was going to ignore his pledge about the House rising towards the middle of August. He wished to know what the Government proposed to do with regard to the closure of Supply on the 23rd night.

hoped that the Government would not press the University of London Bill. The present Charter provided that no change should be made without the consent of Convocation. The Bill, however, contained no such provision, and his constituents had done nothing to forfeit their right. They were not opposed to some changes which would bring the Senate into closer touch with the colleges, but in its present form the Bill was opposed by the great majority of the graduates. He trusted the Government would not use the suspension of the 12 o'clock Rule to force the Bill through. He admitted that it was for the general convenience of the House that the Rule should be suspended, so as to facilitate the winding up of the business of the Session. But this was new legislation, and had not yet even been introduced into the House of Commons. ["Hear, hear"] He very much regretted the announcement made by the Leader of the House with reference to the Early Closing Bill. He regretted it, not of course on his own account, but on account of the thousands of their countrymen and countrywomen who were now working 14 hours a day. The Bill might be divided into two parts, one dealing with early closing generally, and the other with the question of a half-holiday. He believed that many of those who opposed the first portion would not only not oppose, but even support, the second; and if he could, by confining the Bill to this part, remove the opposition, or reduce it to very narrow limits, he hoped that his right hon. Friend would do what he could to permit the passage of the Bill.

I hope the Debate will soon come to an end, but I now rise to reply to some observations which ought to be replied to. My right hon. Friend has asked me two questions with regard to two Bills in which he is interested—the London University Bill and the Shop Hours Bill. He has announced on his own part and on the part of the important University body which he represents that the London University Bill will necessarily require a certain amount of time for discussion; and if my right hon. Friend persists in that view it will be impossible for the Government to endeavour to pass the Measure into law during the course of the present Session. With regard to the Shop Hours Bill, I do not believe that any process of vivisection carried out on that Measure will reduce it to the condition of an absolutely uncontroversial Bill, and unless it can be done it would be impossible for me to depart in its favour from the general principle which I have laid down with regard to all private legislation. ["Hear, hear!"] With regard to the more general criticism made on the Motion, let me dismiss in the first place that part of our Debate which was concerned, not with the Motion before the House nor with the speech in which it was introduced, but with a speech delivered in another place to a different audience on Friday night. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seems to have passed a congenial Sunday in devising an answer to that speech—[laughter]—and I dare say the answer he has devised is a very good one, but it had little to do with the Motion before the House, and if I had been in his place I should have reserved it for one of those embarrassing moments when a public speech has to be made on a public platform and when no very congenial topic suggests itself. [Laughter and cheers.] So profoundly do I appear to have impressed hon. Gentlemen with those humble remarks of mine on Friday, that no fewer than two other Members have spent a good deal of their time in discussing, in commenting, in expanding, and in making general scholastic glosses on my answers. [Laughter.] I hope that the speech was worth all the trouble expended on it—[laughter]—but I confess that until I heard the Debate this evening I had no suspicion that this was the case. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs, and the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean both commented in a spirit of lugubrious prophecy upon the prospects of the Rule with regard to Supply. I am the last to deny that if it is the intention or the desire of a minority of the House to make that Rule unworkable it is easy for them to do so; and there are plenty of persons who think that so far as Government business is concerned we should get on better without it, and that the old plan of getting through Government business in the earlier part of the Session and reserving Supply to be huddled through after 12 o' clock in the middle or at the end of August is a plan which, however little it may suit private Members, or is suitable for the convenience of those who wish to discuss the policy of the Government, is, at all events, a very convenient plan for the Government. I hope that the moral we shall have to draw from this Session will not be that moral. The only remaining point which requires to be discussed is the fallacy which has run through every speech delivered against this Motion. It has been assumed by my right hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet, and assumed by most speakers on the other side of the House—it formed the whole basis and substance of the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean—that the Government proposed to have a series of all-night sittings in order to drive controversial legislation through the House at a time when a report of our proceedings would be impossible. No such intention has been entertained by the Government, and I do not entertain an expectation that this will happen. Hon. Members have used the expression, "Taking power by this Motion to have an all-night sitting." We are not doing anything of the kind. ["Oh, oh!"] We have that power at the present moment, and therefore we cannot be taking it by this Motion. Have we not heard to-night complaints from hon. Members of the number of times the House has been asked to sit to a late hour? All those sittings were taken without this Rule.

You had a separate Motion for them.

Of course; but that Motion is carried without Debate. Those long night sittings are in the power of the Government already, and therefore the power is not given by this Motion. What this Motion does give is the power no doubt of having those all-night sittings without putting the House to the trouble of a Division; and what is much more material, and what was in the mind of the Government when they proposed the Resolution, was that it will enable them to go on for an hour or an hour and a halt after 12 o'clock—perhaps not so much, very likely not so much—but at all events until it is no longer in the power of a single individual to prevent Progress from being made which the House desires and would like to see. I am asked: "What date will put an end to the Session?" The House must see that as there is a certain amount of business to be got through, we must either take more days or longer days. After all, the matter rests more in the hands of the Opposition than in the hands of the Government. As for our part, I shall do my best in this as in every other case to meet the general convenience of the House. [Cheers.] I am the last person who likes all-night sittings, and I should not like to deprive the country of the pleasure which I understand it derives from reading a full report of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen by carrying on our Debates to a very late hour.

said the complaint which they made was that the right hon. Gentleman had not massacred a sufficient lumber of his innocents. With the programme which he had sketched they could not possibly rise in the middle of August unless they performed their duty in a very perfunctory manner. As far as he was concerned, he did not sympathise with those hon. Members who spoke of their health suffering from long sittings of the House. There was sitting opposite to him a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. James Lowther). They had been in the House together in years gone by and they had had some long sittings there, but he observed that his right hon. Friend seemed to bear his years exceedingly well. It was, therefore, a perfect delusion to suppose that their health would suffer by sitting up later at night. Another reason given was that they could not, have their speeches reported, but he could assure hon. Members that the country would take that matter uncommonly cool. The country would bear up against the loss. It might be supposed from these remarks that he was going to vote for the Motion, but anyone who supposed that did not know the resources of the mind of the Opposition. [Laughter,] He was one of those who advocated regular hours. He did not think that this was a reasonable proposal; the right hon. Gentleman was putting too much into the Session; he was breaking too severely into the 12 o'clock Rule. He observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House made a speech on Friday. He did not devote the whole of Sunday to reading that speech, but he did give part of his time because he thought it a very good speech. [Cheers.] The right hon. Gentleman had stated in his speech of last Friday that the Angel Gabriel could not carry on the business of the country with the present rules of the House. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not only of that opinion, but he thought the other Angel—the Opposition Angel—who was probably a more astute Parliamentarian—[laughter]—could not do so either. What they wished was that the right hon. Gentleman should propose a drastic reform of the Rules of Procedure. Put the Members behind the right hon. Gentleman thought that the less legislation there was the better. [Ministerial cries of "Hear, hear!"]

, whose rising was received with Ministerial cries of "Divide," said he thought the hon. Member for Northampton had received the sympathy of the House under false pretences. He had foreshadowed longer days and more days, but he, Mr. Bowles had constantly known the hon. Member to leave the country in August for Homburg. [Laughter.]

said he had spoken from a purely unselfish point of view. He was going away on the 5th or 6th of August, and he should, when abroad, read the reports of the sittings of the House with great pleasure. [Lauthter.]

continued his speech under continued interruption from his own side, the Opposition sometimes supporting him by cries of "Order." If, he said, the House did not wish to hear him, he would sit down. [Loud Ministerial cheers and laughter.] He objected to the waste of time involved in sitting up all night. He thought it a little hard, however great the Tory majority might be, that it should be impatient of listening to the expression of the views of a private Member in favour of the independence of the House. [Cheers, and cries of "Divide!"] There were times when the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule might be necessary, but never before had a general, final-to-the-end-of-the-Session suspension of the 12 o'clock rule been proposed in circumstances like these. [Cries of "Divide!"] When the present Leader of the Opposition proposed it there remained only nine days of the Session, but now, according to the First Lord of the Treasury himself, there remained 20 days. ["Hear, hear!"] Moreover, such a Motion had never been brought forward except as the last despairing resort of the Government proposing it. ["Hear, hear!" and interruptions.] Dealing with the question of Supply the hon. Gentleman, who spoke amid constant cries of "Divide!" and interruptions, was understood to contend that fewer Parliamentary days would be devoted to this subject under the right hon. Gentleman's arrangement than had been the average for many years past. He was continuing his observations when,

declined then to put that Question.

concluded by expressing his intention of voting against the Motion.

rose with great diffidence to make an appeal to the House. The importance of this question nobody could doubt, and he should be the last to be so foolish as to suggest that the Opposition were not within their right in discussing it adequately. But he ventured to submit that adequate discussion of the Motion had already been had. ["Hear, hear!"] He would point out that what was really at stake at that moment was the Irish Land Bill. All through the Session the Irish Members had waited for the occasion to arrive when a certain measure of time would be allotted for the consideration of a question which, by the admission of all parties, was one of most vital importance to the peasantry of Ireland. They had arrived almost at the end of the Session; a very small modicum of time, indeed, had been allotted to the discussion of the Land Bill, and the question whether it could pass or not depended not upon days, but almost upon hours. That being so, he appealed to Members of all Parties not unnecessarily to prolong discussion' even on the important question now before them, bearing in mind that every hour they passed in its discussion was an hour eaten out of the time allotted to the discussion of the Irish Land Bill, and which would consequently diminish its chance of passing into law during the present Session, although he was sure no section of the House desired to defeat the Bill, ["Hear, hear!"]

seconded the Amendment.

remarked that, as he had informed the House at the beginning of the Debate, the form of the Motion had been taken textually from that proposed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in 1894, and in that Motion no mention was made of Wednesdays. He quite recognised the force of what the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment had said, but it was never the intention of the Government to take the time of the House after half-past 5 on Wednesdays. Under these circumstances, he had no objection to accepting the Amendment, and he appealed to the House to come to a decision on the question before them.

asked the Leader of the House whether, in case of Amendments being made in the House of Lords in the Irish Land Bill, he would undertake that those Amendments should be considered at the beginning of business, and not at a late hour.

said he had no doubt that, if important alterations were made in the Bill in another place, it would be necessary to bring them on when the House could discuss them properly. With regard to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared to him to have a double disadvantage. If the Resolution were carried in the form the right hon. Gentleman suggested, the Government would either have to substitute a 1 o'clock rule for the 12 o'clock rule, or have to encounter a wrangle every night at 1 o'clock. ["Hear, hear!"] On the other hand, he could well conceive circumstances in which it might be perfectly proper for an hon. Member to move the adjournment of the House before 1 o'clock. For this double reason he could not accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

said it had been laid down from the Chair, as the House was aware, that when the 12 o'clock rule was suspended the Chair would not entertain a Motion for adjournment after 12 o'clock and before 1 o'clock. After 1 o'clock, he maintained that hon. Members ought to have the power of moving the adjournment. It was for that express purpose that in 1893 Mr. Gladstone proposed the words suggested by his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman opposite insisted on them as necessary for the protection of the House against the abuse by the Government of the power given them by the suspension of the 12 o'clock rule. He thought the Government ought to do one of two things. They ought either to accept those words or to give the House some assurance that they did not mean to go beyond 1 o'clock. If the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, would say that he did not intend to proceed with controversial Fills beyond 1 o'clock, he for one would accept that assurance. ["Hear, hear!"]

said he desired to ask the Speaker whether the ruling to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had referred—namely, that dilatory Motions were not admissible after 12 o'clock—was guided by the fact that the House had made a specific order with regard to a particular Bill.

said that the ruling had no doubt been generally applied to the case of specific exempted Bills, but he thought he should feel it binding to the same extent when there was a general order of the kind proposed.

said that those on his side were equally anxious with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite to pass the Irish Land Bill, and they would be quite satisfied if they had assurance from the Government that it would not be proceeded with later than 1 o' clock.

assured his hon. and gallant Friend that there was not the slightest intention to take what were called all-night sittings. If he understood the practice of the Chair it was that, even if this Resolution were passed in the form suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the late Secretary of State for India, the Chairman would probably hold that after one dilatory Motion had been made and rejected after 1 o'clock some interval, depending on the discretion of the Chair, should intervene before he allowed another dilatory Motion to be made by a private Member. He did not know whether he was right in his representation of the practice of the Chair.

was understood to say that the Chair would be guided by what it understood to be the motive of the House in passing the Motion. If the motive appeared to be to reserve to the Opposition the right to make successive Motions immediately after 1 o'clock the Chair would act accordingly. He thought that after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for W. Monmouthshire, the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton would, if adopted, carry that construction.

thought, then, that the Government would not accept the words proposed, because it would be far simpler to say that 1 o'clock should be substituted for 12 o'clock.

said the question wag that Clause 4 stand part of of the Bill.

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. The Committee stands in rather a peculiar Position. The question before the Committee is that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill, but you, Sir, pointed out on Thursday night last, that the Committee was in a position of difficulty, and that the regular way out of this difficulty would be for the First Lord of the Treasury to withdraw his Motion that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. Then we should find ourselves face to face with Clause 4 with the Amendments to it. But now the First Lord of the Treasury has upon the Notice Paper a Motion to withdraw Clauses 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15, I think. I want to ask you, Sir, in what position the Committee stands in regard, first of all, to the question you have just put from the Chair; and, secondly, how the First Lord of the Treasury can make the Motion which stands in his name. Upon that Motion I shall submit two points of Order afterwards.

The position in which the Committee stands at present is this. We are now resuming the Debate which was interrupted by the ordinary Rule last Thursday, and, therefore, I put the question to-day that Clause 4 stand part of the Bill. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated, I pointed out last Thursday that the position would be regularised if the Leader of the House would withdraw the Motion which he then made, and then the clause would come up for consideration. When that point is reached the Motion of the Leader of the House which stands first on the separate Paper would then come on in due course, and I could then deal with any subsequent point of Order which the right hon. Gentleman desired to raise.

After what has fallen from you, Sir, I would under any circumstances withdraw the Motion which we were discussing on Thursday night. I beg, therefore, to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw my Motion.

desired to submit two points of Order. In the first place he submitted that under the new Sessional Order the withdrawal of the clause was meant to be final and definite. In the next place, he urged that notice of the withdrawal should have been given two clear days before the clause was reached and discussed. The clause had been reached and discussed for some 20 minutes on Thursday.

On the first point submitted by the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say that the form of words specially laid down in the new Order is, "That a certain clause or certain clauses shall cease to form part of the Bill," and the ordinary form of words after any Amendments have been disposed of is, "That the clause stand part of the Bill." I confess that I do not see myself any distinction of effect between these two forms of words. The ordinary practice of the House, when it desires that a clause be withdrawn, is that it is negatived. This is sometimes done in order that a similar clause may afterwards be brought up as a new clause. That is by no means a new form of procedure. Sometimes it has been discovered that an Amendment, which should have been inserted in an earlier part of a clause has not been inserted—that the clause does not carry out the intention of the Committee. Thereupon the clause is negatived in order that a corrected clause may be reintroduced as a new clause. I do not see that I can draw any distinction between the two forms of words to which I have referred. In these matters it appears to me that I ought to consider what is the intention of the House in negativing the clause. If a Committee negatived a clause because it desired to deal with it in an amended shape as a new clause, I think it would be in order to consider such revised clause when it comes up as a new clause. If, again, it should be the intention of the Committee to reject a clause because it does not approve the principle of the clause, then it would not be in order to reintroduce a clause to the same effect at a later period. With regard to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I do not read the Rule in the same way that he does. I read the Sessional Order in this way. When a Member in charge of a Bill in Committee desires to withdraw from a Bill any clause he may, after two days previous notice move, either at the commencement of public business at any sitting before such clause is reached to leave out such clause, or he may make the Motion when such clause comes on for consideration in Committee. There are two opportunities afforded an hon. Member after he has given two days' notice to deal with the clause or clauses. The first is at the commencement of public business—that is to say, after the termination of Questions. The hon. Member may then move that such clause cease to form part of the Bill, or he may make the same Motion in Committee when such clause or the first of such clauses comes on for consideration. That is the way I read the Rule, and upon that reading I shall hold that if the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury moves the Motion which stands in his name it will be in order for him to do so.

said he bad no desire whatever to dispute the ruling of the Chairman, but he would suggest whether the word "consideration" did not refer to procedure on the Report stage.

The word "consideration" does frequently bear the interpretation suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but it often bears another meaning. In the Standing Order referring to the Closure, for instance, the words are "if a clause be then under consideration" these obviously apply to the Committee stage, and not to the Report stage only. I have considered the point suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

said his only object in raising these points before the Speaker and the Chairman was that the matter was a very important one, and because this was the first time in which this important Resolution had been applied, and he thought it was very desirable that the whole question should be clearly understood. ["Hear, hear!"]

said the right hon. Gentleman had only done his duty in raising a doubtful point for decision by the Chair. He would now move the Motion standing in his name—

"That Clauses 4, 5, 13, 14, and 15 cense to form part of the Bill."

In doing so he wished merely to reiterate the statement that while Clause 4 was abandoned only to be brought up in another form the other clauses included in the Motion were to be permanently abandoned.

suggested, as a point of Order, whether it would not be a more convenient course to take the clauses separately.

said that the House had now seisin of the question. ["Hear, hear!"]

I have put the question as it stands upon the Paper. Two forms are sanctioned by the Rule—namely, that the said clause or clauses cease to form part of the Bill.

said he had no objection to offer to the withdrawal of Clauses 5, 13, 14, and 15, but Clause 4 stood in an entirely different position. Everybody knew that Clause 4 formed the most debateable part of the Bill. It affected the question of improvements, and whether they took the landlords' or the tenants' point of view the clause certainly formed the most disputable part of the Measure. It had long been a well-known practice in introducing Bills to place the disputable clause or clauses—the principle upon which the Bill was going to be framed—in the very forefront of the Measure. ["Hear, hear!"] It could not be alleged that anything like obstruction had been offered to the 4th Clause when the Bill was before the House on Thursday, nor to any other part of it. The 3rd Clause, which dealt with sub-letting and was a very important clause, was disposed "of in half an hour. He was, therefore, bound to ask what motive the Government could have in making this change—postponing all discussion on Clause 4, by means of its withdrawal, until the end of the Bill? He knew the argument the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House would use—namely, that the clause in the Bill and the Amendments on the Paper were obscure and intricate, and that the Committee would not have the advantage of discussing the clause with all the provisions of the Bill in full view. On Thursday night he thought there might be something in that contention, but when he looked at the Bill and the Amendments he could not conceive a weaker foundation for such a course as the Government had taken in this case. As far as he could make out there were Amendments proposing six changes, mainly in the Improvement Clauses of the Bill, and none of those Amendments were of an intricate, obscure, or complex character. He contended that the issues raised by the proposed changes were made perfectly clear and intelligible by the language and terms of Amendments submitted, and there was no sufficient reason, therefore, to postpone the 4th Clause to the end of the Bill. For instance, the change to be proposed in regard to the 1st Sub-section, which referred to the question of fixing fair rents, was to be made in a very simple way—by striking out the sub-section as it stood, and inserting a perfectly clear sub-section in its place. Then there was the 3rd Subsection, dealing with the vital question of whether any extra allowance was to be made to the tenant over and above the allowance by way of interest for his outlay. It was proposed to deal with the Amendment relating to that subsection also in a very clear and simple way—namely, by omitting the subsection. There was nothing obscure or difficult in that. Again, in the 6th Sub-section, the right hon. Gentleman proposed to substitute the phrase "valuable consideration" for that of "money or money's worth." Amendments of the simplest character would place the issue before the Committee and enable them to come to a decision upon it. The same kind of remark applied to the 7th Sub-section, which related to improvements. That was capable of one Amendment which was perfectly simple of comprehension. He was at a loss to know exactly why it was that the Government withdrew the clause. The reason advanced—namely, that the clause was put by the Amendments in such a state of confusion that the Committee would really not be able to make their way through the intricacies—was clearly not a solid or valid one, or one for which either of the two right hon. Gentlemen concerned in the Bill would seriously argue. His submission to the Government was that the issues raised in Clause 4, which, in his view, were vital to the worth of the Bill, ought to be raised now. In his opinion the worth of the Bill depended entirely upon the shape which the Improvement Clauses took. He asked the Committee to consider how they stood with the reforms compared with the Government compared with the reforms proposed by the Select Committee. The Statutory term was not to be abridged, and there were to be no provisions for making future tenants into tenant tenants. The only thing, apart from the Purchase Clauses, which made the Bill worth caring about, was a satisfactory form and shape being given to the Improvement Clauses. The one fact which was pressed upon the Committee more than any other was the state of uncertainty in which the law was left upon the great question how the increased letting value, over and above the interest allowed to the tenant for his outlay, was to be apportioned between the landlord and tenant. All the witnesses, including two learned Judges, urged that the matter should be put at rest. There was a sub-section in the Bill as introduced, dealing with the apportionment of the increased letting value. The Government were so sensible of its importance that it appeared in the separate draft, and now it was withdrawn. If that sub-section was withdrawn, if the Bill left the House without any attempt to deal with that crucial point, he would not care one straw whether the Bill were withdrawn or not. He was not very sanguine as to the improvement of the Purchase clauses, but, from his point of view, the Tenure Clauses were vital. He did not know what course hon. Members from Ireland would take, but his course was perfectly clear, and it was that unless they had some assurance from the Government that Clause 4 would be restored in something like the shape in which it originally stood, and in which it appeared in the first separate draft, he would cease to care whether the Bill became law or not, because if the new Amendments were adopted the Bill would have lost its value from the point of view of the tenants. These remarks were in order, because they supported his contention that they ought to take Clause 4 in its proper place. When they found what the attitude of the Government was upon that clause they would be able to decide whether it was worth while to try and amend the other parts of the Bill. He strenuously objected to this departure from the ordinary practice.

hoped that whatever view the Committee might take as to the propriety of the course the Government had suggested, they would come to a decision at once and proceed with the discussion of the Bill. ["Hear, hear!"] The right hon. Gentleman regarded not one clause but one sub-section as vital to the Bill. He was convinced that that was a view which no one acquainted with the Irish Land Question, either from the landlords' or tenants' side, would for a moment take. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the custom to put the contentious parts of a Bill first. That was a draftsman's practice, but there was no constitutional usage in the matter. The Government thought the clause would be better discussed if brought up in the form in which the Government desired. The right hon. Gentleman replied that the Amendments were so simple that any human being could understand them, and that it was not necessary to wait until the end of the Bill. If they proceeded with Clause 4, they would simply have to discuss Amendments to Amendments to Amendments, and they would be landed in a most complicated position. He trusted the Committee would feel that the Government conscientiously wished to make progress with the Bill, and that whether the course proposed was well advised or ill-advised it was to the interest of everybody they should come to an immediate decision on what after all was not a question of substance, but of procedure. ["Hear, hear!"]

objected to the postponement of Clause 4, owing principally to the shape of the proposed new clause. He and his hon. Friends were placed in a very extraordinary position by the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. If they were to oppose the Motion it might be taken that they were opposed to the dropping of some of the most objectionable clauses of the Bill. But the proposal in Subsection 2 of Clause 15 was a most useful one, and if the present Motion were adopted that sub-section would be lost. He protested against the course proposed to be adopted by the Government with respect to Clause 4. There were many clauses in the Bill which were desired in Ireland. They were good clauses, inasmuch as they would benefit a limited number of tenants who had been excluded hitherto from the operation of the Land Acts. But there were other grievances needing remedy, and among the most important was the grievance respecting improvements. The public in Ireland were intensely interested in this question. The Government now proposed to drop Clause 4, after all the permutations and combinations to which it had been subjected, and to reintroduce it in an altered form at the end of the Bill. That course taken in connection with the language which the First Lord of the Treasury had used conveyed the impression that the Government had abandoned all hope of solving the improvements question. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that it was only by general consent that a clause like Clause 4 could pass, and that if a large section of the House were opposed to it in its altered shape it could not become law. That was practically an invitation to the opponents of this legislation to show their hands and to oppose the clause.

said that the position of the Government had been explained over and over again. The basis upon which they had acted from the first was that if the Bill was treated as controversial it could not be passed, but that they hoped it would not be opposed controversially.

said that the law as it stood empowered a landlord to exact a large amount of rent on the value of the tenants improvements. Was it not absurd to say that if the Landlord Party would not agree to a clause remedying that grievance the clause would be dropped? (The FIRST LORD of the TREASURY: "That is not what I said.") Undoubtedly the impression which would be caused by the action of the Government was that they intended to abandon the attempt to solve this great question during the present Session, and that by postponing Clause 4 until after the purchase clauses they hoped to carry a purchase scheme in which the landlords were interested, with the result that tenants would have to buy their own improvements in the land. Such a conclusion as that would cause a great amount of dissatisfaction. The Government would break their pledges if they did not legislate on the improvements question. The clause was now quite different from the original version, and the changes it had undergone had made it considerably worse. They were entitled to ask the Government for some declaration of their policy with regard to the whole question of improvements. Was the law to be left unchanged, or was it to be made worse? Were they threatened with this use of the great power they had now placed in the hands of the Government that at some hour late at night, when they were all tired out, Clause 4 might be driven through Committee in such shape that the tenant would be left worse than he was under the present law?

thought the Government, so far as Clause 4 was concerned, had taken the wisest course. He must say, however, he thought it deplorable that the Government should embark in Irish land legislation without having definitely fixed in their own mind the principles they were going to follow. He was one of those who were ready to support any Measure which would promote a reasonable settlement of this question in Ireland, if it be possible, but he thought the difficulty was largely increased by the oscillation of the Government, not in matters of detail, but in matters of principle, involving enormous issues. An hon. Gentleman opposite said he would vote to amend Clauses 5, 13, 14 and 15, but against omitting Clause 4. He was in favour of exactly the opposite course, because he thought the Clauses 5, 13 and 14 were necessary and useful clauses. He regretted that they were asked to give one vote on a whole heap of clauses, because, in his opinion, they were worthy of discussion separately.

asked what was to prevent hon. Gentlemen opposite who wished the law as laid down in "Adams v. Dunseath" to remain as it is, forming themselves into such a large section of the House as would lead the Government, in the words of the right hon. Gentleman, to abandon Clause 4? In discussing the remaining clauses the Committee were more or less groping in the dark. The Government were taking a course most unsatisfactory to the tenants. It would have been far better, in his judgment, to have reported progress even for a few hours, and for the Government to have come up to-morrow with Clause 4 in its proper shape, so that they could see what they were about.

thought Clause 4 should be postponed until the other sections of the Bill were considered. He apprehended that, after the other portions of the Bill had been discussed, measures would be taken by the friends of the landlords on the other side the effect of which would be to throw overboard Clause 4 altogether. Should that be the result, it would be eminently unsatisfactory to the tenantry of Ireland. Clause 4, as it stood in the original Bill after six months' deliberation, and with the assistance of the Law Officers of the Crown, was considerably better and more favourable to the tenants than the Amendment which appeared now upon the Notice Paper.

asked if it was in order to discuss the comparative merits of the Bill as originally introduced and the Amendments now on the Paper?

I do not think that when the House passed this Order it was intended that the details of clauses should be gone into at any great length. On the other hand, it is open to hon. Members to refer to the clauses which are proposed to be postponed in order to state the reasons why they should desire them to be proceeded with in due order, but it would not be in order to go into detail on the various sub-sections.

explained that he was simply contrasting the two clauses for the purpose of showing that the second Clause 4 was more unfavourable to the tenants than the clause as it originally stood, and in order that the position of the Government should be clearly ascertained before the country with regard to the question of improvements.

said that the Amendment would practically allow the Land Court to secure to the tenant rights of turbary on holdings in regard to which no fair rents could be fixed at all.

No.

That may not be the intention of the hon. Member, but it is the interpretation of his Amendment.

I am quite willing to amend it.

said that, as to the intention of the hon. Member, he admitted that there was a good deal to be said in favour of the Amendment; but if this right was given to all tenants the effect would be that tenants who had fair rents fixed already would be entitled to go into Court and have the whole circumstances of their holdings again inquired into in order practically to have a fair rent fixed on turbary. The evils were not so serious as to justify the Government taking the course suggested, which would undoubtedly lead to great litigation.

said the Government ought to adopt one of two courses. Where the landlord had initiated litigation in regard to turbary by an injunction in the Court of Chancery, the tenant should be allowed to repair to the Land Court for protection. Or, better still, injunctions in regard to turbary on holdings where fair rents were to be fixed should be tried, not in the Court of Chancery, but in the Land Commission Court. One or the other of those courses should be assented to by the Government if this clause was to be of any value.

said the far-reaching effect of the Amendment would be seen when he explained that it proposed to abolish the power of the Court of Chancery to issue injunctions when rights were infringed. That was the cool proposition brought forward with a view to remedy the defects of the Land Act of 1881. If the tenant had taken a holding to which there were turbary rights attached, or any other privilege, he was by this proposal entitled to effectually maintain as against his landlord any injunction. The cool proposition of the hon. and learned Member, for which he was sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman say there was a good deal to be said, was, that if the landlord wished to withdraw that which had been granted as a mere matter of grace or favour, and not as a contract at all, and the tenant persisted in acting in such a way as if the favour were still to continue, the landlord was to have no power whatever of enforcing the rights upon his own property. If this was to be the line of concession, as seemed to be indicated, it would be better to say that from and after the passing of this Act the landlord in Ireland should have no authority whatever, not only in relation to the holding which was let to the tenant, but in relation to any other property of his at all. The hon. and learned Member would prefer that the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery in this matter should be transferred to the Land Commission Court, but if so, there was no reason why they should not abolish the Court of Chancery altogether.

said there was no form of legislation which had been so frequently abused in Ireland as this form of jurisdiction before the Court of Chancery. He ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman was desirous to avoid the expense of litigation, he would accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Louth. Application to the Land Court was a cheaper, readier, and better remedy for the landlord than was the Court of Chancery.

said that "an injunction before the Land Commission Court" seemed to be the euphemistic phrase for "stealing my turbary," or "cutting my turf." It astonished him that the right hon. Gentleman should have said that there was a great deal in this contention. He had given easements of different kinds to his tenants hundreds of times, but it was an extraordinary thing that the House of Commons should be asked to force the landlords by law absolutely and at once to surrender the property which always belonged to them, and for which the tenants had never paid anything at all.

thought the Committee had wandered somewhat from the point. The Court would have to judge whether it was necessary that the privilege once given should be maintained. If an order had already been made by the Land Commission on fixing a fair rent, then any question arising in connection with the order would be heard and decided by the Land Court; but if the hon. and learned Member desired that the Land Court should be the Court to be appealed to for an order which had been made under this section, it appeared to him to be practically asking what the Government could not grant. He admitted that if it was desirable to decide these matters when application to fix a fair rent was made, there was something to be said for allowing the question to be decided at other times, but it appeared to him distinctly that the balance of argument was against it. He thought the hon. and learned Member would see that it might be a very serious matter if the tenant was entitled to go to Court on the question of turbary alone, as it might increase the business of the Land Commission very seriously, and it was on that ground that they could not consent to the Amendment. But as far as the principle of the Amendment was concerned it seemed to him that it was the same as that of the clause itself.