reported from the Committee on Group 3 of Railway Bill; That, for the convenience of parties, they had adjourned till Monday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if Her Majesty's Government are aware that there exists at Port Arthur a naval dock (410 feet long by 72 feet wide) which is uninjured; and whether the forts by which the place was defended were, at the request of China, left virtually intact at the time of the evacuation by Japan?

The Naval dock at Port Arthur is believed to be undamaged and intact, except for some machinery which was removed by the Japanese. The forts have not been much damaged, but all the interior buildings, comprising magazines, accommodation for troops, etc., were destroyed, and all the guns, with their mountings, removed by the Japanese.

May I suppose that that answer is to be taken as withdrawing the statement made in the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to me the other day, that there were no forts at Port Arthur?

No, Sir, there is no contradiction between the two.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the West River, which was to be opened last year, is, as a fact, open through all its navigable course, or whether the opening has been restricted to about one-fourth of the navigable course; whether this restriction of the promised trade facilities has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government; and in what sense the opening of inland navigation generally throughout China is now understood by Her Majesty's Government?

The right hon. Baronet will see, if he refers to the terms of the Agreement between Great Britain and China of February, 1897, that certain ports on the West River—namely, Wuchow-fu, Samshui, and Kong Kun—were opened as Treaty Ports, and four other places as ports of call. We have not heard of any restriction of the trade facilities promised in the Agreement. Regulations with reference to the recent opening of all internal navigation are being drawn up by the Inspector General of Maritime Customs at Peking, and will be communicated to Parliament as soon as they are received.

Will Nan-ning be among the open ports on the river?

I have named the ports which have been opened, and the hon. Gentleman will see their names if he refers to the Agreement.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether any further plans have been made for the completion of the South Kensington Museum; and, if so, by whom; whether he will have copies placed in the Tea Room before they are finally accepted?

Mr. Aston Webb, who in 1891 prepared the plans for additions to the South Kensington Museum, will be instructed to draw up revised plans for the extended scheme now proposed. Hon. Members shall have an opportunity of inspecting them before they are finally accepted.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence of the Sheriff in the Glasgow Summary Court on 8th March in the case of an assault arising out of the Bookbinders' dispute in Glasgow; and whether, in view of the conflicting evidence, he will consider the desirability of reducing the sentence or of making further inquiry?

I beg, at the same time, to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the sentence of 60 days' imprisonment imposed by a Sheriff-substitute in Glasgow, on the 8th instant, on two bookbinders, charged, in connection with a trade dispute, with having been members of a riotous mob which, acting with a common purpose, assaulted certain persons; and whether, taking into consideration the conflicting nature of the evidence, the previous good character of the prisoners, and the punishment imposed, he will consult with the Secretary for Scotland as to advising the modification of the sentence?

In reply to the Questions put to me by the hon. Member for the College and Bridgeton Divisions of Glasgow, I can only inform them that petitions in favour of a remission of sentence in the case referred to are at present under the consideration of the Secretary for Scotland, who will be in a position to announce his decision on an early day.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether, seeing that there are Turkish, French, Austrian, and Russian post offices in Salonica, but no English post office, although more than two-thirds of the letters sent out from Salonica daily are for the United Kingdom, he will reconsider the decision he came to some time ago not to establish an English post office in Salonica, in view of the fact that extensive harbour works and other improvements are being made, and consequently Salonica is now becoming a place of great importance; and whether he can state what the cost and estimated revenue of a British post office would be?

Fresh representations in favour of the establishment of a British post office agency at Salonica are at the present moment under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but the Postmaster General has no means of forecasting, with any approach to accuracy, what the cost and the amount of revenue would be.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War is he aware that the Roman Catholic soldiers in the Inniskilling Dragoons at Dundalk are paraded on Sundays for the Protestant Church parade at 10 a.m., although the mass which the Roman Catholic troopers attend when free is held at 9.30; what is the proportion of Roman Catholic and Protestant troopers at the 10 a.m. church parade; and have many of the Roman Catholics lost mass on Sundays owing to being obliged to attend it?

The Roman Catholic soldiers leave barracks at 9.20 for the 9.30 mass, and there is no 10 o'clock parade for Catholics.

Does the right hon. Gentleman say there is no foundation for the statements made in this Question?

I believe that at some time the arrangement was as stated in the Question, but it has now been altered.

Was it not the arrangement till yesterday?

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland have the Government the material for a Return showing the existing poor rate and county cess throughout Ireland and the valuations of the non-agricultural hereditaments and buildings in each union; and, if so, would they present it to Parliament?

The materials for a Return showing the poor rate and county cess for the year 1897–98 are not yet available, nor could the figures for that year be checked till after the audit by the Local Government Board's auditors at the end of the year. I can, however, give a Return showing in respect of the standard year the total valuation of each Poor Law union of all rateable hereditaments not agricultural land as defined in the Local Government Bill. If such a Return is desired I am prepared to lay it on the Table of the House.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will any figures or returns be given by the Government on which they calculated the amount of the agricultural grant for Ireland in the Local Government Bill?

The estimated total amount levied on account of local rates on agricultural land in Ireland during the standard year 1896–97 was in respect of poor rate about £615,890, and in respect of county cess about £924,637, making a total of £1,540,527. From this latter sum deductions amounting in the aggregate to £113,316 are to be made, leaving a sum of £1,427,211. One half of the latter amount is £713,605, which, added to £13,140 for union rating, makes £726,745, or, say, £730,000 as the estimated amount of the agricultural grant. It must, of course, be understood that the figures on which this estimate is based are merely approximate, and that I cannot guarantee their precise accuracy.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much of the rates were on holdings under £4?

I am afraid I cannot do that.

Have instructions been given to the valuation officers to alter the rates on buildings on the land?

No, Sir; the rate on the buildings on the land will remain as now.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether there are at present several acting sorting clerks under nomination for appointment in the sorting office at Limerick, who entered the Post Office under the disamalgamated scheme, and, after spending a considerable number of years in the service of the Department, are now called upon to qualify in telegraphy before being placed on the establishment; and whether, in con- sideration of their long and faithful service, and in view of the fact that persons advanced in years are unlikely to ever become efficient telegraphists, he will place those deserving officers on the established list without the necessary telegraphic qualifications?

There are at present four acting sorting clerks at Limerick, who entered the Post Office as auxiliary sorters prior to the 1st February, 1896—the date of the amalgamation of Provincial sorting clerks and telegraphists; and in accordance with the rule of the service, these officers, on being nominated to established appointments in the summer of 1897, were required to qualify in telegraphy before being placed on the establishment. One has already qualified, but the others—although they have known for nearly two years' past that telegraphic knowledge is required of them—have failed to qualify. As an act of grace, they have, within the last few days, been granted three months further probation, in order that they may qualify, and vacancies are being kept open in the hope that they may do so. These officers are aged respectively, 23, 23, and 24 years, and certainly cannot be described as persons so far advanced in years as to be unlikely to ever become efficient telegraphists. In these circumstances the Postmaster General feels that he would not be justified in appointing them without the necessary qualifications.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what reduction has been made in the number of officers, non-commissioned officers, and men of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the last 12 months, and what saving will be effected in the expenditure of that Department; whether the Government intend to devote the amount thus saved to some special work for the benefit of the Irish people; and whether he would set aside a small portion of that amount towards the cost of rebuilding the houses of the Clongery evicted tenants?

The reduction in numbers during the past year has been four officers, 12 head constables, and 467 men, and the total saving effected amounts to £22,006 per annum. The answer to the second and third paragraphs is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the prejudice prevailing in Shetland against taking service in the Navy owing to the employment of the pressgang in the early years of this century; and whether he will endeavour to remove this prejudice by sending ships of war to visit the ports of these islands, and particularly by ordering a part of the Channel Fleet to visit Lerwick in the course of its annual summer cruise, and so draw the attention of seamen to the favourable conditions of service offered by the Royal Navy?

I am not aware of any prejudice in the Shetland Islands against service in the Navy, and no undertaking can be given with regard to a visit of the Channel Squadron to Lerwick.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether a new equipment of breechloading guns has been provided for the Royal Naval Reserve training station at Lerwick to replace the present antiquated armament?

One 6-inch breech-loading gun and two 3-pounder quick-firing guns have recently been mounted in the R.N.R. Battery at Lerwick, and are now in use for drilling R.N.R. men.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will consider the desirability of allowing young men seeking employment in the Post Office as probationers, who do so with the hope of getting permanent employment under that Department in the future, to be examined by their medical officer in the first instance, and, when taken on as probationers, not allow the rule to continue whereby a probationer may act as such for many years at a nominal salary in the hope of being able to get on the permanent staff, and at the end of that time find he is unable to pass the medical examination?

It is already the practice to a considerable extent to require young persons seeking employment in the Post Office to be medically examined before their employment is authorised. All open competition candidates are required to satisfy the medical officer before they are admitted; and also all paid learners and all assistant postmen are now required to obtain Civil Service certificates, and a satisfactory medical report is one of the conditions of obtaining such certificates. But in the case of unpaid learners and persons employed by postmasters as assistants this rule does not prevail, and, having regard to the conditions of their employment, it is not deemed desirable to submit them to a medical examination.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, seeing that soldiers who have left the Army can, since 1st January, return without refunding deferred pay, it is possible to introduce a regulation which would condone the fault committed by men who re-entered the Army before the above date under assumed names to avoid the obligation of repayment, so as to put these men on the same footing as present recruits, and allow them to resume their proper names?

No, Sir. We are unable to adopt the course suggested.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Royal Irish Constabulary authorities intend to erect huts at Killiney, county Dublin, for the housing of the local police force; whether he is aware that Killiney is one of the most fashionable watering-places in the neighbourhood, and that the erection of these huts is regarded with disfavour by the inhabitants; also that a suitable site is available at Loughlinstown, within a quarter of a mile of the present police station; and whether he will see that these huts are not put up in the locality?

The Constabulary are under notice to quit the existing barrack at Ballybrack, and the Government are in communication with the War Department with a view to obtaining the Martello Tower and premises for the accommodation of the police. The question of quartering the police in huts could only come up for consideration in the event of the failure of the Government to secure the Martello Tower, or any other suitable building in which to accommodate the men.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will insert a clause in the Irish Local Government Bill to give powers to the County Councils, and the other bodies to be created under it, to enforce the Fair Wages Clause and to prevent what is known as the sweating system in trades, as is done by the Government when contracting for supplies for the various departments of the public service?

I am afraid I cannot consent to the insertion in the Bill of a clause having the objects stated in the Question. The Fair Wages Resolution, dated the 13th February, 1891, is expressly limited to Government contracts, and does not include those of local public bodies. There has been no legislation on the subject of the Resolution in so far as concerns the contracts entered into by County Councils and other local authorities in England, nor, so I am informed, does the English Local Government Board interfere in any way with respect to the conditions on which such contracts are carried out.

I will endeavour to amend the Bill on this point in Committee.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, will he explain why recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary, which was discontinued some time ago, has been recently resumed; and if he will state what special circumstances called for an increase in the force?

Recruiting for the Royal Irish Constabulary was discontinued until the strength of the force was wasted down by operation of retirements, etc., to a fixed number, and this number having been reached, recruiting has been resumed in order to maintain the force at that strength. The force has not been increased.

Is the wasting down represented by the figures given just now in answer to the hon. Member for North Kildare?

Yes, Sir; that is so.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether it is intended to make applicable to provincial postmen the order recently issued to postmen in certain London offices by which men at present holding one or more stripes will be allowed to count for further stripes their previous auxiliary or unestablished service; whether provincial postmen, as well as London men, will come under the new regulation mentioned in the same order with regard to regaining stripes withdrawn for misconduct; and is he aware that the provisions of this new order are not being carried out in provincial offices?

Yes, Sir. The regulations apply to all established postmen throughout the Kingdom. The Postmaster General is not aware of the omissions to carry out the regulations to which the hon. Member refers, and will be glad if he will give him details of these cases, so that he may investigate them.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether the previous service of auxiliary or unestablished postmen performing duties of more than four hours daily, and paid out of the allowance to sub-postmasters, will count towards stripes; if not, what is the ground for the exclusion of this class of men?

Good conduct stripes are awarded to established postmen only, and auxiliary service is allowed to count as half-time towards stripes; but service paid for by allowances is not reckoned, as men so employed are not directly the servants of the Postmaster General, and he has no official records of their attendance and conduct.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to statements alleged to have been made by Sir William, Robinson, the late Governor of Hong Kong, relative to the defences of that place; whether Sir William Robinson did make such statements; and whether Colonial Office regulations prohibit ex-governors communicating to the public Press information relating to the defence of Colonies acquired during their tenure of office?

My attention has been called to the statements alleged to have been made by Sir William Robinson to a Press representative. I do not know whether the report is correct or not, but I may say, generally, that I entirely disapprove of the practice which has recently become common of officials in the Colonial Service, or recently in that Service, allowing themselves to be interviewed on leaving or arriving in England, and giving their opinions on debateable questions of public policy or on matters affecting the defence and military resources of British possessions. I am causing a circular to this effect to be addressed to all officers in the Colonial Service abroad.

I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, arising out of this Question, whether it is the fact that the defenceless position of Hong Kong, referred to in—

Order, order! Notice must be given of that Question.

Sir, I do not think you have heard my Question. Sir, if you will be good enough to listen to it, it is—whether it is not the fact that the statements made or alleged to have been made by Sir William Robinson only embrace facts that are known to the whole world?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question; neither is it one which should be put without notice.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will reconsider the proposed alteration to Article 16F of Schedule VII. of the Day School Code, 1898, which requires that the accommodation of an infant school shall be no longer calculated at eight square feet for each child as hitherto, but at nine square feet, inasmuch as the said addition will largely increase the cost of the building of infant schools?

The Committee of Council are of opinion that at least nine square feet per child in infant schools is necessary for the health of the children and the efficiency of the school. The Regulation will be enforced in all new schools.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he can now lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Departmental Committee on the West Highland Mail Steamer Service?

Yes; I think it will be a convenient course to lay the Papers on the Table, and it will be done in a day or two.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether inducements are now being held out to Reserve men, without reference to the regiments in which they served before, to join the new double-linked battalion regiments; whether there is any necessity for a course to be taken which may seriously interfere with regimental spirit and discipline in these regiments; whether this sending in of large numbers of men from outside into the new double-linked battalion regiments is considered advisable by their commanding officers; and whether there would be any objection to allow Reserve men only who formerly served in the 6th, 7th, or 20th Regiments to rejoin the Colours of their former battalions, and to direct the commanding officers concerned to raise their battalions to full strength by the usual methods, instead of by filling their ranks with men trained in other corps under different systems, and possibly in other and different branches of the Service to their own?

The number of men who are returning to the Colours from the Reserve under recent regulations is larger than was anticipated, and a limited number of Reservists will, therefore, if they desire it, be enrolled in the new battalions, where they will have a better chance of promotion. In order that the new battalions may become effective as soon as possible, it is highly desirable that they should contain a larger proportion of seasoned soldiers than the Reserve of those regiments would be likely to supply. There is no intention of making any such general transfers as my hon. and gallant Friend assumes, and care will be taken not to encourage the transfer of men whose own regiments are in a weak state.

Arising out of the answer, may I ask whether it is the intention of the War Office to give all men an opportunity of joining the new battalions?

Yes; it is intended in all cases to give them an opportunity of joining new battalions.

Are the new battalions to be made up indiscriminately of men of different regiments who have joined the Reserve?

It will not be done indiscriminately, but it is regarded as most desirable that the battalions should contain a larger proportion of seasoned soldiers than raw recruits.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will at an early date lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to the proceedings of the Legislative Council at Calcutta in connection with the passage of the Bills dealing with the law of sedition in India, Including the Amendment of the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, and the Post Office Act?

I have already stated that I will lay the Acts in question upon the Table of the House when I have received and considered them.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the Royal Artillery being at present below its establishment, and of the considerable increase authorised by the Army Estimates, it is intended to permit the re-engagement of Reservists in like manner to those of the Line?

Yes, Sir.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War why the new canteen at the Royal Military College, for which provision was made in the Estimates of 1897–8, has not been commenced, as stated in the Visitors' Report; and whether arrangements have yet been made to provide a recreation room for the numerous servants and soldiers employed in the establishment?

The new canteen is expected to be completed by the end of the present month. The question of the recreation room is postponed for consideration with next year's Estimates.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department by what authority the Rev. G. Merrick, Inspector of Prisons, lately ordered at Wandsworth Prison the hymn-books served out to Roman Catholic prisoners to be taken away from them; and whether it is in accordance with prison law for the Protestant clergyman to interfere in these matters with Roman Catholic prisoners?

It lately came to the notice of the Visiting Chaplain that the devotional books authorised for Roman Catholics were not being distributed at Wandsworth, and that other books which had not been so authorised were being distributed instead. The authorised books, five in number, were settled after consultation with the authorities of that Church, who approved them as suitable, good, and sufficient; and the Commissioners gave orders that only those books which had been so approved should be in use. There was no intention of interfering in such a matter with Roman Catholic prisoners.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can ascertain the number of children of both sexes who do not attend school in Dublin owing to the non-application by the Corporation of the Compulsory Education Act?

The Commissioners of National Education have no statistics of the number of children who do not at present attend school in Dublin owing to the non-application of the compulsory attendance clauses of the Act of 1892, in the case of children between 6 and 14 years of age. The number of such children in the city of Dublin at the date of the last census in 1891 was 36,624, of whom 33,048 had been in attendance at school during the year ended 31st March, 1891. And of these 33,048 children 9,283 attended 150 days or upwards. This is the latest official information on the subject.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the refusal of the Commissioners of Irish Lights to put up a light and fog signal on Blackhead, though pressed to do so by the Belfast Harbour Board; and whether, under the circumstances, the Belfast Harbour Board would be empowered to put up a light and fog signal to remove the serious risk to life and marine property caused by the present position?

Yes, Sir. In 1894 and 1895 the Board of Trade received several representations as to the desirability of establishing a lighthouse and fog signal on Blackhead, but the Board agreed with the Irish Lights Commissioners that a light and signal at that place, being only for the benefit of local traffic, could not properly be provided at the cost of the Mercantile Marine Fund. I have no reason to doubt that if the Belfast Harbour Board, as the local lighthouse authority, apply to the Irish Lights Commissioners under Section 653 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, for their sanction to the erection of a lighthouse at the cost of the local lighthouse authority, the application will receive favourable consideration, but the Board of Trade have no power of initiation in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the great dissatisfaction and disappointment caused in Belfast and the neighbourhood by the disinclination on the part of the Government to place a training ship in Belfast Lough; whether he has had before him the Resolutions of the Belfast Harbour Board, the Local Marine Board, and the Chamber of Commerce, as well as that of the County Antrim Grand Jury; and whether he will make further special inquiries, by a Departmental Committee or otherwise, as to the great importance to the public service of complying in this matter with the universal desire of Ulster?

I have nothing to add to the statement I made on Fridays last during the discussion of the Navy Estimates.

If the hon. Member will not send a training ship, will a guardship be sent?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the action of the Vicar of Holt, Denbighshire, in refusing to accept a notice tendered to him under Section 1 of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880, for the burial in Holt Churchyard of a deceased person without the performance in the manner prescribed by the law of the Service for the Burial of the Dead according to the rites of the Church of England; whether he is aware that the Vicar declined to allow a Nonconformist minister to officiate in the churchyard at the funeral of such deceased person; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent a repetition of such conduct in future, as being contrary to the provisions and the spirit of the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880?

I have inquired into the facts of this case, a report of which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me. Permission for the burial to take place with Nonconformist rites was refused on the ground that the deceased lady was a non-parishioner, and consequently had no right of interment. The Act of 1880 does not operate to confer such right of interment in any place where it does not otherwise exist. I have no authority to decide the point of law involved.

May I ask whether, in the event of the deceased person owning the ground, the grave being a family grave, the Vicar is entitled to refuse the right of burial or the performance of the ceremony with Nonconformist rites?

If these people had a right of interment there, the Vicar had no right to refuse to allow the performance of the ceremony.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the stipulated number of hours of daily duty of prison warders and civil guards in the prisons of England and Wales, including night duty; and what amount of time is allowed in the year for holidays to such officers?

The average number of hours of day duty in convict prisons is nine hours five minutes, in local prisons eight hours 48 minutes; of night duty in convict prisons eight hours 15 minutes, in local prisons 10 hours. Roughly, officers with more than five years' service are allowed 13 days, officers with less, 10 days, in addition to the Queen's Birthday.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the governors and deputy governors of the convict and local prisons of England and Wales are ex-officers of the Army, Navy, or Militia, and how many are civilians; and whether two-thirds or more of the warders, assistant warders, and civil guards employed in the said prisons are men who have served in the Army or Navy?

The numbers asked for in the first paragraph are 36 and 35. Of the officers mentioned in the second, 939 had served in the Army, Navy, or Marines, and 996 were civilians.

Would it be possible to give the remainder of the positions to men who have served in either the Army or Navy?

I do not think it desirable that all the positions should be thus given.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, when the Light Railway Commissioners were holding an inquiry at Beverley, the Commissioners inspected the site of a proposed railway, accompanied by the counsel for the promoters and by the chief promoter, at whose house they and the counsel were staying as guests, without having given notice to parties who dissented from the scheme, and thus giving them an opportunity to be present; and whether the Board of Trade, before confirming the order made by the Commissioners under these circumstances, will direct that a further inquiry be held by an official of the Board?

The Commissioners inform me that they drove into Beverley, for the purpose of holding the local inquiry, along the road which runs to that place which runs near the proposed route of the railway, but this was in no sense an official inspection of the line of route. The Light Railways Act expressly provides that the Board shall hear objections to the confirmation of the Order, and this will of course be done if any objections are submitted to them.

Were they with the counsel at the house of the chief promoter as stated in the Question?

I have received no denial of that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, in view of the Regulations issued in December last, 1897, that when the normal (nine days per annum) rate is exceeded during two consecutive years, when an officer has been absent on twelve separate occasions in two years, or when in any one year the sick leave of any officer has amounted to 100 days, a full report of the case must be made, together with a statement from the medical officer whether or not, in his opinion, the officer concerned is likely in future to render permanent and regular useful service to the Department; and whether it is to be understood by the Regulation that, in the event of a telegraph operator having been absent from work during nine days in two consecutive years owing to illness, he can be discharged on the declaration of the medical officer that he is not likely in future to render permanent and regular service to the Department; if so, whether this regulation is applicable to any other Civil servants of the Crown besides telegraph operators?

The Regulations referred to by the hon. Member, which were issued in consequence of the excessive sick absence in some branches of the Service, are to the effect which the hon. Member states. But it is not the fact that a telegraphist absent from work during nine days in two consecutive years, owing to illness, can be discharged on the declaration of the medical officer that he is not likely to render in future permanent and regular service. Each case, on the contrary, is considered by the Postmaster General on its merits, and there is no desire on his part to refuse sick leave in any case where the circumstances require it, or to call on any officer to retire whose health enables him to discharge the duties of his office. The Regulation is applicable not only to telegraphists, but to all Post Office servants.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the punitive police force which was imposed upon the city of Poona after the murders of Mr. Rand and Lieutenant Ayerst has yet been removed; if not, can he state how long it will be continued there; whether he can state what has been the approximate cost of the force to the city of Poona per month; and if it is the intention of the Government of India to relieve that municipality of the whole or any part of the cost?

The punitive police force was imposed upon the city of Poona for a period of two years, from June, 1897, and the approximate cost, the whole of which was intended to be borne by the municipality of Poona, is about Rs. 9,600 a month. I have up to the present received no information which leads me to suppose that any change is contemplated.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the American line s.s. Belgenland reported at Cork on the 15th instant having passed on the 14th instant (one day's sail only from Cork) a sailing vessel's mast standing upright with rigging attached to it about six or eight feet out of water, indicating a floating submerged wreck attached thereto, and that this obstruction constituted a grave danger to ocean-going steamers, being in the midst of their course between here and America; and whether, its being situated within one day's sail of the coast of Ireland, he will direct the Trinity Board to send out their steamer to search for it, and attach to it a gas-buoy, so as to warn sailing vessels and steamers of its dangerous proximity?

It appears, from the report in the Shipping Gazette, that the wreck complained of was seen in Latitude 50.17 North, Longitude 19.49 West, which would be about 430 miles from the coast of Ireland. The authority to deal with obstructions or dangers to navigation off the coast of Ireland would be the Irish Lights Commissioners, not the Trinity House, but it is no part of the business of the Commissioners to search for wrecks at such a distance from the coast, nor are their vessels adapted for the purpose. I am advised that it would not be practicable to effectually mark the wreck with a gas-buoy, even if the wreck were found. The buoy itself would be a danger to navigation when the light went out.

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works (1) whether, in connection with his statement about new buildings for the South Kensington Museum, it is to be understood that the science collections now housed on the west side of Exhibition Road are to be moved to the new buildings to be erected on the east side of Exhibition Road; (2) whether it is also proposed to move the Indian and Oriental collections to the new galleries; and (3) what is proposed to be done with the large extent of land upon the west side of Exhibition Road and the buildings now occupied by the science collections?

With regard to the first and second paragraphs of the Question of my noble Friend the answer is in the affirmative. With regard to the third paragraph I can only say that it is a matter which will receive the attention of the Government when the new buildings it is proposed to erect on the eastern side of the road approach completion.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been drawn to the formation of a limited liability company at Eastbourne to build schools and let them at a profit to voluntary managers; whether he is aware that the prospectus of the company contemplates that the schools it builds shall pay, from, the various Parliamentary Grants, an annual sum equal to five per cent. on the cost of construction; and whether the Parliamentary Grant for education can be legally applied in providing a commercial interest on capital?

Yes. The Scheme, of which a copy has been sent to the Education Department, contemplates the Parliamentary Grants being used to pay a rent for the school. Unless the proposed buildings are held in trust for educational purposes, such application of the grants would not be illegal.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that the Militia which have for many years been trained in Longford are this year to be trained not there, but at Maryborough or elsewhere; and, if so, what is the reason of the change?

The 6th Battalion of the Rifle Brigade, which has for several years been trained by itself at Longford, will this year form part of a brigade trained on Maryborough Heath. Militia battalions benefit greatly by training with other battalions; and the opportunity of so training this battalion has at length arrived.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland what is the amount collected on foot of the local taxation licences scheduled in the Local Government (Ireland) Bill within the city of Dublin for each of the last three financial years, and also the amount collected on foot of the Dog Tax and Hackney Tax for the same period?

The information as to the amount of local taxation licences collected in the city of Dublin has been called for by the Inland Revenue Department, who inform me that it may take a week to obtain. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. Member will postpone the Question until Monday next.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether fishing boats are to pay fees for registration and other purposes under Section 3 of the Merchant Shipping (Mercantile Marine Fund) Bill?

It is not intended that the fees mentioned in Clause 3 and in the First Schedule of the Bill should be payable in respect of the registration of fishing boats as such. I will take care that this point is made clear in the Bill.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the German Government have taken any action which alters their position in regard to the administration of affairs in Crete; whether the other Powers still hold themselves jointly responsible for the government of the island; whether measures are in progress for the establishment of Prince George of Greece as Governor of the island; and whether, in February, 1881, Prince Bismarck himself proposed that under certain circumstances Crete should become a portion of the kingdom of Greece, and that Her Majesty's Government gave a favourable answer to that proposal?

The German Government have withdrawn their flag from Crete. Her Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the attitude of the other Powers has undergone any change. No measures are at present in progress for the establishment of Prince George of Greece as Governor of the island. The answer to both Questions in the last paragraph is in the affirmative. The correspondence was laid before Parliament in "Greece No. 6, 1881."

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a gunner of the City of Dublin Artillery stationed at Linnenhall Barracks, Dublin, was ordered to take shamrock out of his cap by his superior officer on St. Patrick's Day, and for refusing to do so was threatened with punishment; will he state whether the man was punished; and, if so, in what way; and whether, seeing that about the hour that this occurrence took place soldiers engaged in trooping the colours in Dublin Castle Yard were the shamrock, as did also the Lord Lieutenant, he will see that this private soldier is not punished for his alleged offence?

The officer commanding the City of Dublin Artillery has reported as follows—

"A man was ordered by a non-commissioned officer to remove shamrock from his cap; but on the man reporting the matter to higher authority he was allowed to wear it. He was neither punished nor threatened punishment."

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the scheme which has received the sanction of the Secretary of State and the Treasury by which an identical system of skilled instruction of trades has been established for local and convict prisons, and to which reference is made in the statement of the Prison Commissioners just issued?

I am afraid I cannot promise to lay upon the Table further information about this scheme than is contained in the Commissioners' statement. The scheme deals with questions of detail, which it would not be desirable to publish.

I beg to ask the Secretary for the Home Department, with reference to the statement of the Prison Commissioners dissenting from a recommendation of the Prisons Committee on the ground that the presence of a medical expert on the Board would not facilitate the work of the other Commissioners and would seriously hinder his own, whether he is aware that the Irish Prisons Board includes a medical expert; and whether the Commissioners have made inquiry as to the effect of this constitution of the Irish Prisons Board?

Yes; I was aware of the constitution of the Irish Prisons Board. I may say that every aspect of the question was very fully considered by me before I decided against adopting the recommendation of the Committee.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the correspondent of the China Gazette at Shanghai to the effect that the correspondent himself had recently seen large numbers of Russian troops in Manchuria, and especially 3,000 Russian soldiers at Kirin, the capital; whether similar statements have been made by the other English travellers in Manchuria; and whether, in view of these facts, Her Majesty's Government will ask their Minister at Pekin to obtain definite information as to the numbers and position of the Russian troops in Manchuria, the object of their presence in that province, and the period of its duration?

I have not myself seen any statement on the subject, except that by a recent correspondent of the Times. But inquiry has been addressed to Her Majesty's Minister at Pekin.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the county cess, struck in the year 1896 by the Grand Jury of county Monaghan, was £3,571 10s. 4d. less than the year 1895, and £1,935 10s. 8d. less than 1897; and whether he can state why, seeing that an exceptionally low cess was levied in 1896, the Government selected that year as the standard under the Local Government (Ireland) Bill?

The figures in the first paragraph are, I believe, substantially correct. I have already explained to the hon. Member the reasons for the selection by Government of the year 1896–7 as the standard year under the Bill.

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the effect which a case such as that pointed out in the Question would have on the occupier in a county like this?

Order, order! That is rather a matter for debate on the Bill, and does not properly arise as a question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a peculiarity in the same direction in every other county in Ireland?

Order, order!

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, if he will print and circulate to Members the agreement made between the Postmaster General and the National Telephone Company in 1894, a draft copy of which was printed in Parliamentary Paper, No. 267, of 1894?

The Agreement to which the hon. Member refers was not arrived at till the 25th March, 1896. There is no objection to lay this Agreement, and the Supplementary Agreement of the 26th March, 1896, before the House, and the necessary steps will be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, when the proposed conference to discuss Imperial postal rates will be held; and whether he has read the cable message from Australia to the effect that the Australasian Prime Ministers have decided not to introduce 2d. postage to England?

It is proposed that the conference on postal rates within the British Empire shall be held next June. The Postmaster General is aware that, according to a telegram which appeared in the Times newspaper on the 14th of March, the Australian Prime Ministers have decided that they "could not advise a reduction of postage rates to Great Britain," which is not quite the same thing as my hon. Friend's statement; but he has received no such message from Australia himself.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, what is the cause of the delay in establishing a parcel post between Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America; and how many years have elapsed since the negotiations were begun to carry out this reform?

The delay in establishing a parcel post between this country and the United States of America has been due to the reluctance which the Government of the States has displayed to set up such a service. That Government was first approached on the subject in January, 1885; the negotiations have been continued since that time, they were personally renewed by the British Delegates at the recent Congress at Wash ington, and there are reasons for hoping that some arrangement may shortly be made which will enable parcels to be exchanged through the British Post Office between this country and the United States.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland if his attention has been called to the action of the Clerk of the Mallow Union in refusing to allow a candidate for Clenor Electoral Division to inspect claims to vote at the election for said division, although the sanction of the Board of Guardians had been obtained; whether there is any enactment or regulation to prevent a candidate, or his agent, inspecting such claims; and if the candidate for Clenor Electoral Division will now be permitted to examine claims to vote lodged with the clerk?

My attention has been called to the matter referred to, and I am informed that no order was made by that Board of Guardians that Mr. Barry should be permitted to inspect these claims, nor was permission to do so refused by the Clerk of the Union. The Guardians, at their meeting on the 25th ult., when Mr. Barry applied to be permitted to inspect these claims, determined to refer the matter to the Local Government Board for advice. They did so, and were informed by the Local Government Board that there was no enactment or regulation under which a ratepayer, candidate, or his agent can demand an inspection of these documents before an election. The matter is apparently entirely in the discretion of the Guardians.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why a different practice prevails in this, as compared with other Unions?

I have explained that the matter is one entirely within the discretion of the Guardians.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the brigade now being organised for service in the Tochi Valley district of Waziristan, consisting of five regiments of infantry, two squadrons of cavalry, with artillery consisting of mountain guns and five Maxims, is to be permanently maintained in that region, and if that territory is regarded as within British; when, how, and by what authority the transfer was effected; what has been the outlay since 1893 on land, forts, and cantonments needed for such location of British Indian troops, and what is the estimated amount required for maintenance of such troops beyond the frontier of British India; and from what funds is the cost of this occupation and maintenance of forces in Waziristan since 1893 to be defrayed?

I am unable, so long as the pending negotiations and arrangements with the tribes are incomplete, to give any information as to the disposition of forces which may be thought necessary hence-forward. As to the expenditure which has been already incurred for the purposes mentioned in the Question, I have asked for information, but have not yet received it. In any case the cost of such measures as may be adopted for the defence of the frontiers of India, and for the maintenance of peace and order upon those frontiers, will be defrayed in the future, as in the past, from Indian revenues.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General whether he is aware that, in defiance of 55 Vic, c. 4 (Betting and Loans (Infants) Act), money lenders are in the habit of sending letters to infants, especially in the Army, inviting them to borrow money, and that the police decline to prosecute; and whether he will consider the advisability of directing the Public Prosecutor to prosecute in cases that are brought before him?

My attention has not been called to the facts mentioned in the first paragraph of my hon. Friend's Question. If he will bring the circumstances of any case before me I will consider whether I can take any action in the matter.

I beg to ask the First Lord to the Treasury whether the Government will take into consideration the desirability of proposing an alteration in the Standing Orders by placing Orders of the Day before Notices of Motion on Tuesdays, in consequence of the frequency of counts-out on those evenings, and of the time occupied in Debates of a purely academic interest preceding the consideration of Bills, some of which, though introduced by private Members, have passed the Second Reading by large majorities, but eventually became dropped Orders through the operation of the 12 o'clock Rules, and the inability of the Members in charge of them to find an opportunity of carrying them through any further stage?

In answer to my hon. Friend I have to remind him that ever since he and I have been in the House, and for a long time before, Tuesday, by universal practice, has been given to Resolutions; and I cannot think that any large section of the House would have any great sympathy with the change which my hon. Friend suggests. Indeed, I think the House at present thoroughly enjoys its Tuesdays.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Easter holidays will begin, and how long they will last?

I see no reason why we should not separate for the holidays after a morning sitting on Tuesday, April 5th; but this, of course, must depend on the progress we make with public business. I am quite ready to take the House into my confidence as to the business I hope to pass before Easter, and I do not think it will consider that my demands are excessive. The Second Reading of the Irish Local Government Bill we shall, of course, get to-day, to-morrow, or Wednesday. On Thursday we shall take the Second Reading of the Prisons Bill and of the Public Buildings Bill, and probably I shall have to ask the House to take the first stage of the Greek Loan Bill, which will in all probability have to pass before Easter, and, being a Money Bill, it will have to be brought in in Committee of the whole House, and no two stages can be taken on one day. But I understand that the principle of the Bill is thoroughly accepted by all sections of the House, and it ought not, therefore, to take any important fraction of Parliamentary time. I have to safeguard myself with regard to that Bill, because it is impossible to say on what day the various stages will be taken. On Monday, the 28th, I shall propose to take the Second Reading of the Scotch Private Bill Procedure Bill, and on Thursday, the 31st, the Second Reading of the Criminal Evidence Bill. On Monday, the 4th, we hope to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the Civil Service Estimates. Of course, this general outline of the programme does not necessarily exclude the Government from advancing small Departmental Bills a stage; but it gives a general notion of the business which we ought without difficulty to get through before Easter, and, if we do, we can confidently reckon on separating on the Tuesday. [An hon. MEMBER: Till when?] Till the following Monday week. In order to avoid misconception, let me say that the various stages of the Public Buildings Bill must be got through within the financial year.

I presume that the Budget will be taken immediately after Easter?

I believe it is the intention, of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take it on Thursday, the 21st.

What Supply will be taken on Friday?

The Army Estimates, beginning with Vote 10.

May the House understand that the Dogs Regulation Bill will not be taken before Easter?

I think my hon. Friend indicates by this Question that he means to take an active interest in that Bill. It will not be taken before Easter.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, under the Light Railways Act of 1896, the Government could establish a coaching service between Druminure and Nenagh, and Ennis and Scariff, in connection with the Shannon Developments steamers; and whether such a course will be adopted?

There are no funds available under the Act for either of the schemes mentioned in the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the number of seamen who have joined the Royal Naval Reserve since its formation; the date upon which Naval Reserve pensions first became payable; also the number of Naval Reserve men who have received such pensions and the number now in receipt of pensions; whether he is aware that for several years Naval Reserve men have petitioned the various Governments to reduce the age at which Naval Reserve seamen are entitled to receive pensions from 60 to 50 years of age; and whether the Admiralty intend in any way to accede to the petitions of the men?

81,830 seamen, including 4,134 firemen, have joined the Royal Naval Reserve since its formation in 1860. The first Naval Reserve pension for disability was awarded in August, 1866, and for service in August 1880. The number of Naval Reserve men who have received such pensions to this date is:—Disability, 914; Service, 906. The number now in receipt of pensions is:—Disability, 470; Service, 752. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative, and to the third paragraph in the negative.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that it is becoming a common practice in mercantile marine offices to permit men to sign on as able seamen without demanding such proof of actual previous sea service as is specifically required by Section 126, Sub-sections 1 and 2 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894; and that, upon seamen being unable to produce the necessary proof, it is the practice of mercantile marine officials to write the letters "N.P." (not proven) on the ship's articles of agreement opposite the man's name, and allow the man to be rated "A.B." as though he had proved his title to be so rated; and whether he will issue such instructions to mercantile marine officers as will insure the due observance of the law as set forth in Section 126, Sub-sections 1 and 2 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?

The superintendents of Mercantile Marine Offices are instructed, before entering a seaman as an "A.B." in any agreement, to ask for proof of his qualification to be so rated; and the Board of Trade have no reason to think that they neglect this duty. If proof is not given the letters "N.P." are placed against the seaman's name, but the Board of Trade are advised that they have no power to decline to allow a man to be shipped as "A.B." because he cannot prove the requisite service.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that seamen, upon being engaged to serve on British registered sailing ships at the port of New York, U.S.A., "sign on" to receive three months' advance of wages, the larger portion of which goes into the pockets of "shipping masters" and "crimps"; whether he is aware that Section 140 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, provides that such advances shall not exceed one month's wages; and whether he will caused to be issued to H.B.M. Consul General at New York instructions that in future seamen will only be permitted to receive, on signing on, one month's advance of wages, in accordance with Section 140 of The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894?

I am aware that Section 140 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, limits a conditional advance to a seaman to the amount of one month's wages, but that, as the Board of Trade are advised, is only when he goes to sea from a port in the United Kingdom. As to the practice at New York I am informed that advances in excess of one month's wages are given, but I am not able to say what becomes of the money.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, in which they direct the attention of the Parliamentary representatives of Limerick, Clare, and Kerry to the great inconvenience caused to the public by the late arrivals of the mails in Limerick, owing to the refusal of the General Post Office authorities to pay the sum of £3 for a special train from the Junction to Limerick whenever the train from Dublin, is late; and whether the views of the Commissioners in this matter can be met by the Post Office authorities?

The Postmaster General understands that such a resolution as the hon. Member describes was passed at a recent meeting of the Limerick Harbour Commissioners, but the resolution has not yet readied him officially. It is not the case that a grant of £3 on each occasion would set at rest the question of running special trains from Limerick Junction when the morning mail train from Dublin is late. A train from Limerick Junction to Limerick only would cost about that sum, but, if the arrangement which was resorted to temporarily in the winter of 1896–7 were made permanent, the special train from Limerick Junction to Limerick would have to go on as far as Newcastle in order to overtake there the Tralee day mail train, and there must be a second special train from Limerick Junction in the other direction to Waterford, the whole expense on each occasion being no less than £17 7s. So costly an arrangement does not seem to the Postmaster General to be justified. But he is prepared to fix somewhat later hours of departure for the day mail trains in both directions from Limerick Junction with a view to reduce the number of failures, if this would be preferrerd to the maintenance of the existing hours, which are sometimes found to afford an insufficient margin. He has asked the Limerick Harbour Commissioners and others interested for an expression of their views on this point, and he is still waiting their replies before communicating with the Railway Company upon the subject.

About what date will this arrangement come into operation?

That depends on the Commissioners and the time they take to answer.

I beg to move that the several stages of the Local Government (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all orders of the day and notices of Motion on every day for which the Bill is appointed.

I have an Amendment down on the Paper to omit the Wednesdays on which the Miners' Eight Hours Bill and the Mines Regulation Bill are down for Second Reading. The former is a Bill which possesses very great interest for a large section of the community. I think, if the First Lord of the Treasury will give us some assurance that he will not put down the Irish Local Government Bill for that day or for the day on which the Mines Regulation Bill is to be taken it would be satisfactory—at any rate, as far as I am concerned. I have had representations made to me, and many Members are very anxious that they should again have the opportunity of considering this Bill. There is, too, a Bill down for next Wednesday, which is of great interest to Nonconformists, relating to registrars. This has for a long time been felt to be a Measure of the greatest importance, and I think perhaps the First Lord of the Treasury might give us some assurance that that day also will not be taken. I should have included it in the Amendment on the Paper had I not believed that the Bill might have been read a second time on that date. I object to this Motion of the First Lord of the Treasury for another reason. It allows the Government to pick and choose exactly what days they will deprive private Members of. If there is a Measure put down by their own side that they think is of interest to a section of their own Party they need not take the day put down for that Measure, and they can leave it alone, but if the Motion is put down by an hon. Member on this side they can cut out that day if they think the Measure would prejudice their interests in the constituencies. I think we ought to have some assurance which Wednesday they will leave us, so that we shall know what Measures are likely to come up for discussion.

I beg leave to second the Amendment, and I wish simply to mention that there is a Bill that has been before Parliament for eight years now, and it is to be put on one side. That Bill has priority on the 18th May over the Bills to which hon. Gentlemen have alluded, and I think that after waiting patiently all that time I should now be rewarded.

I am somewhat surprised at seeing my right hon. Friend propose a Motion to deprive us of our opportunity of moving my Motion to-morrow evening relating to the Education Bill which is down in my name. For a good many years past there has been a continual tendency to encroach upon the rights of private Members, and this is almost the first time it has been done without any special reasons being given. We have now very few opportunities of bringing forward Measures, and I am afraid that I shall have no other opportunity this Session if to-morrow is taken.

Order, order! The date under consideration is the 18th of May.

Before dealing with the comparatively narrow point raised by the Amendment, let me just say one word upon this question, and let me preface that word by taking up, if I may, the charge which my right hon. Friend behind me has made, that I am the first person occupying the position of Leader of the House who has introduced such a Motion without any explanation or comment at all. Well, it is my misfortune to inflict myself upon the House, but I do not wish to make speeches in which everybody knows precisely what I am going to say before I say it, and everybody knows why this Motion is put forward. The Bill in respect of which it is put forward is the biggest Measure of the Session, and it is one which must take a considerable amount of time in Committee. Certainly it is quite in accordance with usage, and it is certainly for the convenience of the House, that when the discussions on any stage of that Bill are commenced they should be continued de die in diem with as little interruption as possible. These are the broad grounds of the appeal I make to the House, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend will remember this before he reproaches me with having unnecessarily taken up the opportunities of private Members with regard to the special Motion before us, which is that a particular Wednesday should be reserved from the operation of this Rule. I may remind the House that it is quite impossible, I think, to manage the business of this House if we are to make exceptions here and there, either in accordance with our own particular views or in accordance with the views or prejudices of any particular section of this House. Endless confusion and complications would arise, and if the House consents to such a Motion it must do so with the distinct understanding that the Motion is worked impartially, and that, however legitimate may be the desire of certain hon. Gentlemen in the House to discuss these Bills which they have secured days for, it is quite impossible to meet their wishes, desirous as we are of doing so, without introducing difficulties into the general management of the business of the House of Commons. I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will think that this has not any special reference to his Bill, because it is applied equally to all Bills, from whatever part of the House they proceed. I hope, therefore, the House will not be put to the trouble of dividing.

I think I am speaking correctly when I say that for one or two years, within the last six years, a special exemption has been made of the Miners' Eight Hours Bill. I think the Leader of the House of Commons in the last administration, on one or two occasions, had specially exempted the Eight Hours Bill from all Measures exempted. Great interest is taken in this question, not only in the House of Commons, but outside of it, and I think the right hon. Gentleman might reasonably and sympathetically consider the appeal which is made in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I would appeal respectfully to him, and ask him to really reconsider the attitude he has taken up in regard to these Bills included in the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I hope he will make the exemption asked for.

I rather agree, speaking generally, with what has fallen from the Leader of the House. I think it is very difficult to make exceptions, and that in all these matters goose and gander must be served with the same sauce. But I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this Miners' Bill has had a great deal of interest taken in it in the country, and it comes up for consideration on the first Wednesday after the Easter holidays, if we meet on a Monday. We know perfectly well that important Bills are not, as a matter of fact, taken immediately after the holidays, so that in all probability, without interfering either with Irish gentlemen, who very often want to prolong their holidays a little while in Ireland, and without interfering with the general scheme of the Government, we might make this exception. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman will take the Irish Bill that day, so that I really think he might say that he will consider the matter and see whether it is possible to make exemptions in this instance without interfering with the general arrangements of the Government.

The proposal of my right hon. Friend, which he spoke of as being in conformity with general practice, seems to me, upon the other hand, to lead us a long way further than we have been asked to go upon any previous occasion in the direction of extinguishing the rights of unofficial Members. My right hon. Friend speaks of the particular Bill he desires to proceed with as being of great importance. Government always consider their Measures as of great importance, so that what we are now asked to do is to establish a precedent by means of which the Government of the day may be able at its discretion to absorb the whole time of the House for its own business. If, however, any proposal of the kind is to be adopted, we ought, at any rate, to carry it out impartially, and not to make exceptions in favour of any one or more private Members' Bills. I further would express a hope that my right hon. Friend does not propose to set aside the regular Rules and Standing Orders under which the business of the House is supposed to be conducted, except upon very special occasions.

I would like to make an appeal to the Leader of the House with regard to the Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) Bill, which is first Order on the 4th of May.

I wish to enter my protest against the right hon. Gentleman making any concessions of the kind asked for by the hon. Members who have spoken. I have a Motion down on the Paper upon a most important Colonial matter, and I consider that I should not be doing my duty if I did not surrender my Motion in the interests of the Empire.