On behalf of the honourable Member for East Antrim I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, in regard to the district council of Antrim, that township and its rural electors, numbering 810 voters, are to have six representatives, while the town and rural electors of Ballyclare, in the same district council, numbering 925 voters, are to have but two representatives; and whether he will direct the attention of the Local Government Board to the matter, so that the anomaly may be amended?

In fixing the number of councillors for towns under section 23 of the Act of last year, the general principle followed was to give the towns as nearly as possible the same representation on the district councils, in proportion to the total number of councillors, as they had on the board of guardians. When the number of district councillors in a rural electoral division was made two instead of one by an Amendment carried in the House of Lords, the number of councillors assigned to the electoral division of Antrim, which previously had three guardians, was also doubled, in order to keep the proportion the same. Of the six councillors thus assigned to the original electoral division of Antrim, four were assigned to Antrim Urban, and the other two, in accordance with the Act, to Antrim Rural. Ballyclare is a purely rural division. No dissatisfaction was expressed at the number of councillors to be returned for it until the Orders of the Local Government Board had been issued, and the question of adding to its representation was not considered. There are, undoubtedly. anomalies in connection with the population and representation of different electoral divisions in many cases throughout Ireland, but, as I have already explained, it would have been impossible to have remedied this state of things without carefully examining the circumstances of some 4,000 constituencies.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the allotments system in force in England will be extended to Ireland; and, if so, when may it be expected?

In answer to this Question, I would refer the honourable Member to my reply to a somewhat similar Question put to me on the 8th February 1897 by the honourable Member for South Mayo. The circumstances of Ireland as compared with those of England are not identical, and I am not prepared to give any undertaking on the subject.

If a Bill is brought in by our Party, will the right honourable Gentleman afford facilities for it?

I cannot promise that.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, if any difficulty has of late been experienced and complained of in the house-to-house delivery of letters in the district of Killinardrish. in Mid Cork; and what steps will be taken to remedy this alleged grievance?

No complaints have been brought to the notice of the Postmaster-General, but proposals for extending the house-to-house delivery in the parts of the Killinardrish district, where it is not yet established, are being framed, and will be carried out as soon as possible.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty by what launches, at what dates, he proposes to free slips for the construction of the two battleships of the 1899–1900 Programme; and whether he can now make his promised explanation as to additional slips?

The "Venerable," which will be launched at Chatham about September next, and the "Bulwark," which will be launched at Devonport in October or November, will free two slips on which the new battleships can be laid down. Provision has been made for commencing an additional building slip at Chatham in 1899–1900, and for making preparations for commencing one at Devonport. Provision has also been made for lengthening a building slip at Portsmouth, and another at Pembroke.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state how many convictions were obtained in the year 1898 against persons engaged in illegal trawling in Scottish waters, and in how many instances there was a repetition of this offence by the same master; will he state in how many cases the men elected to go to prison rather than pay the fines imposed; and whether in all cases the trawling gear of convicted trawlers was confiscated?

I am informed by the Fishery Board that there were five prosecutions for illegal trawling in Scottish waters undertaken in 1898, and convictions were obtained in four of them; in the remaining case, that of a foreign trawler, the verdict was "Not proven." In none of the four instances was there a repetition of the offence by the same master. In two cases the men chose the alternative of imprisonment. The gear belonging to two of the trawlers implicated was seized and forfeited.

Is not the present state of affairs a direct incentive to the breaking of the law—

Order, order! That is a matter of opinion.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will state the sum received annually during the last 10 years from the unimprovable rents sold by the Office of Woods and Forests in the year ending 31st March 1898 for £11,564 9s. 4d.?

The sums received annually during the last 10 years in respect of the unimprovable rents sold in the year ending 31st March 1898 are approximately as follows:—England, Wales, and Ireland, £432 19s. 9d.; Scotland, £8 15s. 1d.; Island of Man, £24 0s. 5d; total, £465 15s. 3d.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate if he will state the names and nationality of foreign trawlers observed by the Fishery Board cruisers in the Moray Firth during the year ending 31st December, 1898?

I am informed by the Fishery Board that trawlers of the following nationalities were observed by their cruisers in the Moray Firth during the year 1898:—Four Dutch, 10 German, four French, nine Belgian, and five Danish. If the honourable Member desires the names of the vessels, he can have them on applying to the Scottish Office.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the day room in the Rathfarnham barrack, where persons arrested for drunkenness and other offences are in future to be detained, is the place in which the police take their meals; an arrangement which is very inconvenient to the police; whether deduc- tions are made from the pay of the police towards the rent of the barrack in which they are stationed; and, whether, considering that four or five years ago a sum of £250 appeared on the Estimates for the purpose of procuring a more suitable barrack for the police stationed at Rathfarnham, he will state whether the money has been so applied.

I am informed that three unmarried constables at this station have taken their meals in the day room. There is no objection to their using another room for the purpose. The statutory deduction of one shilling per week for barrack accommodation is made from the pay of each of the men at Rathfarnham, as elsewhere. The reply to the third paragraph is in the negative. It appears that the vendor's title was not sound enough to justify the purchase, and the sum voted was accordingly surrendered to the Exchequer.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the cases of Betty Riordan, of Millstreet, County Cork, who died on 15th October, and John Riordan, of the same place, who died on 2nd November, both being insured in the Prudential Insurance Society; if the poor claimants, being next-of-kin, asked the local registrar eight times to register their deaths; if he is aware that the poor claimants buried the aged couple, and, despite the non-production of the certificates from the registrar, humanely paid their claims unconditionally on 23rd January; and, whether some steps will be taken to improve the existing condition of the Law of registration in Ireland?

In the two cases mentioned in the first paragraph, it is a fact that the registrar refused to register the deaths at the ages tendered, namely 67 in the case of the female, and 71 in the case of the male. It appears that the registrar, who was also the medical attendant of the deceased persons, had reason to believe from statements they made to him during their illnesses, that both were considerably older than was represented, and an examination of the census records showed that the woman was 87 years of age at her death, and that the man was 84 when he died. This information was communicated to the parties by the registrar, who also acquainted them he would register the deaths if the certified ages were given. The lives of the deceased were insured, but I am unable to answer the third. paragraph. The suggestion in the last paragraph seems to have been made under a misconception of the actual

May I ask if it is not a fact that the action taken was calculated to deprive these poor children of the right of inheritance? I will put another question on this.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that, before Sir Georgo Kekewich and a bench of magistrates at the petty sessions, Sunbury, Edward Wainwright, aged 19, charged with stealing, was remanded to give him an opportunity to enlist; that he had not done so, and was remanded to Hollo way, where a recruiting officer was to visit him; and whether ho will take steps to stop the degradation brought upon the Army by such a practice?

This youth was remanded at Sunbury "on condition that he enlisted," and the recruiting staff officer at St. George's Barracks was so informed by a missionary. The recruiting officer immediately informed the magistrates that "under no circumstances whatever would we accept a recruit while in custody, or in any way make enlistment an alternative to imprisonment." The lad was discharged by the magistrates, and subsequently presented himself for enlistment. Wainwright produced a good character extending over nine years from the missionary, and he had a brother serving in the Army. The recruiting officer enlisted him and sent him to join his brother's regiment. I may add that Sir George Kekewich is not chairman of the Bench, and did not deal with the case.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he can state whether the 10 new field batteries will be formed by reducing the 20 six-gun batteries to a strength of four guns?

There are 59 field batteries on the six-gun establishment —46 abroad and 13 at home. None of these will be reduced in order to form the four-gun batteries.

I beg to ask the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education whether, having regard to the unsatisfactory state of elementary education in rural districts, Her Majesty's Government will propose legislation with a view to improve the existing law: and whether, pending any such legislation, he can by regulations in the Education Code encourage local school authorities so to arrange the school vacations as to enable children to obtain suitable employment during periods of exceptional agricultural activity, while maintaining a high standard of attendance when the school is open?

There is no prospect of such legislation during the present Session. The Committee of Council will consider how far alterations in the Code are necessary or possible to carry out the suggestion in the second paragraph.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, considering the frequency of accidental poisoning by carbolic acid, the Government will now consent to the addition of this substance to the schedule of poisons within the meaning of the Pharmacy Act, 1868, thus making it subject to the poison regulations recently adopted by the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, in accordance with Act, which require that all lotions containing poison shall be sent out in bottles readily distinguishable by touch from ordinary medicine bottles?

The Secretary of State understands that the Privy Council, while not thinking it expedient to include carbolic acid in the schedule to the Pharmacy Act, are of opinion that regulations should be made with regard to its sale, and have prepared a Bill for that purpose. It is, however, impossible to say whether the state of public business will permit of the Bill being introduced this Session.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War if he will state what marching tours of battalions and detachments through their territorial districts for recruiting purposes took place during 1898 beyond the live instances in the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting of that year; the number of recruits enlisted whilst the march was taking place, and during the four weeks immediately succeeding its termination in each of the experiments mentioned in the Report; and also the number of miles and time occupied by each march, and the additional expenditure entailed in each instance?

There were no marches for recruiting purposes other than the five referred to in the Annual Report of the Inspector-General of Recruiting. The detailed information for which the honourable Member asked is too lengthy to read to the House, but I shall be glad to supply him with it privately.

How is it the Inspector-General of Recruiting in his Report mentions these five cases "among others" which took place if there were no others?

I am informed no others took place.

I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for War if he could state to the House what was the total expenditure on the provision of barrack accommodation, excluding maintenance, in England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively during the years 1887–97, and what were the sums allowed each country for last year and for this year respectively?

The sums are as follows:—Total expenditure from 1887–8 to 1896–7 inclusive: England, £3,182,495; Scotland, £73,399; Ireland, £903,372. The sums expended in 1897–98 were:—England, £231,789; Scotland, £11,893; Ireland, £136,131. The sums provided for 1898–99 were:—England, £330,851; Scotland, £23,262: Ireland, £148,498.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the Bill introduced on Friday, the 10th instant, in the Legislative Council of India, imposing a countervailing duty on bounty-fed sugar?

On Tuesday last my right honourable Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated, on my behalf, in reply to a Question, that the responsibility for Indian legislation is thrown by the law, firstly, upon the Legislative Council, and, secondly, upon the Secretary of State for India, on whose advice any Bill may, if he thinks fit, be disallowed, and that to lay a copy of an Indian Bill during its passage through the Council upon the Table of this House would involve a transference of responsibility to which I am not prepared to agree. It is hardly necessary for me to add that I am responsible to this House for the advice which I may give on each case; and I shall be perfectly ready, if this Bill is passed, to lay a copy of it on the Table, and, if necessary, to justify the course which I have taken.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether instructions can be given to the police authorities at Belfast to place a sufficient number of policemen in plain clothes each Sunday in St. Clement's Church, with directions to arrest and prosecute anyone attempting to interfere with the service?

The proposal to place policemen in plain clothes in the church for the purpose of identifying and proceeding against persons making the disturbance has already been considered by the Government, who, however, are of opinion that disturbers of the services should be brought into a court of law by the churchwardens rather than by the police. The police are prepared to assist the church wardens to prevent persons entering the church, if the churchwardens are empowered by the bishop or the rector to exercise this authority.

I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture what knowledge, if any, the Board of Agriculture has of the registration of margarine factories; whether the local authorities are the bodies charged with the duty of registering margarine factories: and whether they are bound to communicate the names of factories so registered to any department of Government: and, if not, whether he will provide for this contingency in the Bill at present before Parliament for the Sale of Food and Drugs?

As my honourable Friend is aware, section 9 of the Margarine Act provides for the registration of margarine manufactories with the local authority, and sub-section (4) of clause 7 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Bill requires the local authority to notify such registration to the Board of Agriculture. We shall therefore, I think, have no difficulty in obtaining the information we require for the exercise of the powers proposed to be conferred upon us by the clause in question.

Are these margarine factories open to periodical inspection?

That I cannot say.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any foundation for the report that Italy is about to cede Erythrea, or any portion of it, to Great Britian?

No. Sir; the answer is in the negative.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any investigation has been made by him as to the breach of trust of some one in his Department, by which information respecting the Navy Estimates, intentionally withheld from the House of Commons, was supplied to a particular newspaper; and, if so, with what result?

I see that the Question refers to a "par- ticular newspaper." May I ask the right honourable Gentleman whether it is not the case that one provincial newspaper, as well as a London newspaper, also had the information referred to in the Question—namely, the "Birmingham Daily Post?"

I have no personal knowledge of that. I am aware that in several newspapers guesses were made as to the Naval Estimates, some of which were much nearer than that which was given in the paragraph to which the honourable Gentleman refers. As regards the Question on the Paper, I am desired by the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that he demurs to the statement that a breach of trust necessarily occurred within the Department. The case is not one of the abstraction of documents which might be traced. The several figures given were known to scores of men, and I see no means by which any clue could be arrived at as to information which was probably verbally given.

Can the honourable Gentleman name any newspaper that contained a more accurate forecast than the "Birmingham Daily Post" except the "Times"?

Yes, the Daily Telegraph."

May I ask the honourable Gentleman whether the First Lord of the Admiralty did not speak of it as a breach of trust?

I have been asked by the First Lord of the Admiralty to ask that any further question may be deferred until he is in his place in the House.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the dog kept by Ann Mackay, Drynie Park, Muir of Ord, for the purpose of tending cattle on her croft, is of precisely the same breed as a dog kept by her next-door neighbour, Peter MacLennan, to whom a certificate of ex- emption from dog tax has been granted; and with regard to the report of the supervisor that Ann Mackay's dog is of no use for tending cattle, will he state what particular section of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1878, empowers the Board of Inland Revenue to determine what particular breed of dog shall be kept by a crofter for tending sheep or cattle in order to secure a certificate of exemption from dog tax?

There is no such section as that to which reference is made in the second paragraph of the Question. In granting certificates of exemption the Board of Inland Revenue consider all the qualities of the dog, not merely its breed.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Vesey Stoney, who was allowed to serve on the last grand jury for the county of Mayo, was dismissed from the deputy lieutenancy, the magistracy, and the managership of a national school, on the ground of repeated misconduct in swindling the Government of emigration grants and being guilty of notorious acts of immorality; whether Mr. Stoney has again been summoned to act on the grand jury for the Spring Assizes; who has jurisdiction over the sheriff with reference to the selection of persons as grand jurors; and will the Government convey to the proper quarter their disapprobation of the summoning a person with such a record as a county grand juror?

I am not aware whether Mr. Stoney was summoned to act on the grand jury at the Spring Assizes. Grand juries are appointed by the high sheriffs at each assizes, and the Executive Government exejcises no control whatever over a high sheriff in the selection of persons to serve on a grand jury. This being so, it does not appear to me that I am called upon to make any observations in reply to the first paragraph of the Question.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster-General, whether he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the Post Office officials in Castlebar, county Mayo, by the want of space in, and the insanitary condition of, the present Post Office; and have any steps been taken to remedy this state of things?

An advertisement has been issued for a suitable site for a new building. Several offers have been received and examined, but only in one case, that of a property opposite to Christ Church, is the price such as the amount of the business would warrant. The owner has been asked to make an amended offer with a rather wider frontage.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Garvey, of Murrisk, county Mayo, was dismissed from the Royal Navy and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with hard labour for stealing the money of a brother Naval Officer, and that he was subsequently employed as petty sessions clerk at Louisburgh, county Mayo, but had to be called on to resign in consequence of defalcations in his accounts; and, if so, whether, under the circumstances, Mr. Garvey will be continued in his present position, in which he is entrusted with the distribution of the funds of the Congested Districts Board in connection with the improvement of the breed of farm stock and poultry?

A similar Question was put to me by the honourable Member or. Monday last, containing reference to a claim by Mr. Garvey for compensation, which it was suggested was of a fraudulent character. I then requested the honourable Member to postpone the Question until after the Assizes, which open on Saturday next, in order to avoid any risk of prejudicing the case when it comes before the judge at the Assizes. Under the circumstances, I must request be honourable Member to be good enough to postpone the present Question also for the same reason.

Is Mr. Garvey still discharging his duties, or is he suspended temporarily?

I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether the position as regards wages and working hours of the employees in the Lighting, Heating, and Ventilating Department of the Houses of Parliament has been brought to his notice; and whether he will consider the advisability of improving that position, seeing the general improvement that has taken place in recent years throughout the Metropolis in respect of wages and working hours?

I informed the honourable Member for Stepney on the 28th ultimo of the improvements which I had decided to introduce into this Department, as regards hours, and I promised to give further consideration to the rates of pay—a promise which has not been lost sight of.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War whether he can state the exact training in months and years of the Army nursing sister and of the Army orderly respectively: and whether the men of the Medical Staff Corps are employed in many other duties besides nursing, such as cooking, gardening, clerking, and general cleaning work?

An Army nursing sister is required to have had three years training in a civil hospital and six months' probation in the Army Nursing Service before her appointment is confirmed. A private of the Royal Army Medical Corps receives theoretical and practical instruction at the depot at Aldershot for about five months. He is then attached as a supernumerary to a large military hospital to learn practical nursing and ward work, and he remains there until he is considered efficient. His education, however, is systematically continued throughout his service with the colours. That it is sound may be inferred from the fact that many on leaving the colours obtain employment at good salaries as nurses in institutions and for private cases. The Royal Army Medical Corps is responsible for all hospital duties, including those mentioned in the second paragraph, but all the men are available for nursing duties, and perform them in turn. Where there is gardening to be done pensioners are as far as possible employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is true that the funds set apart for the Irish Committee in connection with the Royal Commission on the Paris Exhibition have been cut off; whether the Irish Committee and Sub-Committee are about to be dissolved; and whether, if this is so, any steps are to be taken to facilitate intending Irish exhibitors at the Exhibition of 1900?

The Treasury is under no responsibility for the details of the Commission's expenditure, but understand that the facts are as follows: The Royal Commission placed the sum of £800 at the disposal of its Irish Committee for the current financial year to cover all the expenses of the Committee and its Sub-Committees. On the 24th of February last, however, they pointed out to the Lord-Lieutenant, as Chairman of the Irish Committee, that the allotment of space to exhibitors would shortly be completed, and that any communications which it might then be necessary to make to Irish exhibitors would be sent equally to them and to exhibitors from other parts of the United Kingdom from the central office of the Royal Commission. They, therefore, expressed the hope that it would not be necessary to extend the appointment of the Secretary or to provide funds for the use of the Committee beyond the end of the financial year. The Irish Committee thereupon considered that its duties had ceased, and resolved to discontinue its functions on the 31st of March next. The same facilities will, of course, be given by the Royal Commission to Irish exhibitors as to the exhibitors from other parts of the United Kingdom.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can say when the Bill announced in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, for enabling local authorities to assist the occupiers of small dwellings in the purchase of their houses, will be introduced by Her Majesty's Government?

My honourable Friend will see by the Paper that my right honourable Friend the Secretary for the Colonies proposes to introduce the Bill on Tuesday.

May I ask the right honourable Gentleman if we are to understand that it is seriously intended that this Bill, which must be one of the most important Bills of the Session, is to be introduced under such circumstances that there cannot be a discussion upon it?

The Bill is an important one, but I should not think that it will be a very controversial one, and I am not aware that there is any reason why it should not be introduced under the Ten Minutes Rule.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether the Government have yet received the answer to the further dispatch stated to have been sent to the Government of Madras last year, on the subject of land revenue defaulters and the general administration of land revenue in that Presidency; and, if so, whether he is now prepared to lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence on the subject as promised in his answer last Session?

I am unable to trace, in the reports of the answers given by me last Session, any promise of the kind referred to in the honourable Member's Question, but I find that I offered to furnish the honourable Member with copies of the Madras Land Revenue Reports for 1894–5 and 1895–6, adding that I did not propose to lay them on the Table. I am now in a position to supply him with the Report for 1896–7, if he wishes it; but I do not see any sufficient reason for presenting papers on the subject.

I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is yet in a position to say whether officers of the Inland Revenue in Ireland are allowed by the rules of the service to become candidates for, and, if elected, to sit on county councils, urban district councils, and town commissions created under the Local Government (Ireland) Act; is he aware that an Inland Revenue officer on the staff is at present a member of one of those bodies in the west of Ireland; and what is proposed to be done in his case?

By a Treasury Minute in 1894, it was laid down with regard to Great Britain that members of the Civil Service are not allowed to undertake outside work of any description which is incompatible with the devotion of their whole official time to the public, and that they cannot, therefore, serve on county councils, nor on any district council, the meetings of which are held during hours required for official duty, but that it is within the discretion of the head of a department to allow a civil servant to serve on a parish council, if the necessary attendance does not interfere with his official duties. This Rule will now apply to Inland Revenue officers in Ireland. Under it, members of the Civil Service will be expected to inform the heads of their departments before they allow themselves to be nominated for a district council. An Inland Revenue officer at Loughrea was recently elected a town commissioner without having given such notice, and the Board of Inland Revenue have stated that they will not object to his serving for the term for which he has been elected, but that he must not offer himself for re-election.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Government have any intention of introducing during this Session any proposals for the establishment of a Ministry or Department of Agriculture and Industries in Ireland; and, if so, at what date?

I have already stated it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill this Session for the purpose mentioned. I am not yet able to say on what date the Rill will be introduced.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if we are to take it for granted that the London Government Bill would not be brought in before Easter?

I hope my honourable Friend will take it for granted that it will be taken before Easter.

I wish to ask the Under Secretary for War a Question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether the Order in Council published in the newspapers on Saturday relating to the distribution of duties among the chief officers of the War Department can be laid on the Table of the House, together with the Order in Council which it supersedes, so that the alteration may be apparent?

Yes, Sir, they will be laid on the Table of the House.

May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Bill relating to Lord Kitchener will be introduced before Easter?

No, Sir, it will not be introduced before Easter.

I do not know that it is necessary I should remind the House in general of what took place last Friday, because probably most of the honourable Gentlemen whom I am now addressing were present on that occasion; but the honourable Member for Northampton, who is interested in the business to-morrow, appears not to have been here on Friday, and in the complete ignorance in which he was with regard to what took place on that occasion he has written a letter to the newspapers, which has been brought to my notice, in which he accuses the Government of not having been fair and straightforward in their management of the proceedings of the House, and in which he further states that it was owing to some error on my part that the business of the Army Estimates was not placed on the Paper for Friday.

In the letter I did not in the least attribute anything like want of straightforwardness with regard to not putting the notice on the Paper.

The phrase I referred to was—

"I submit, not as a question of personal claim, or of the specific Motions on the Paper, but as a question of ordinary fair and straightforward procedure, that Mr. Balfour's proposal should be withdrawn."

Hear, hear!

I am glad he assents; but that is directly contrary to what he states in his letter, as I understand it. What actually did take place on Friday was that objection was first taken by the right honourable Baronet the Member for he Forest of Dean. He stated, I think, that he and some honourable Gentlemen on this side had formed the conclusion, on receiving the Blue Papers on Friday morning, that these Estimates were not to be taken on Friday evening, and that the honourable Members, therefore, made arrangements which would prevent them from being here.

I made that statement on behalf of other Members of the House, not on my own.

In answer to the right honourable Baronet, I said it made very little difference to the Government; that if the actual objection taken was held to be sufficient, we should be driven to the alternative course of taking Tuesday. The House had some few minutes to consider that alternative proposal, and the Debate went on for some time after I made that statement, and then the honourable and gallant Member for Aberdeen got up and pressed me very strongly, in the interest of himself and other persons interested, not to insist that the Army Estimates should be proceeded with. Under the circumstances, I felt driven to take the alternative course. I then informed the House I should be compelled to take it if we did not proceed with the Army Estimates. The House has a right to know why it is that, in the interest of Supply, it is necessary we should either have had last Friday or have to-morrow. The case as regards Supply before Easter stands thus: We have to get the First Reading of the Appropriation Bill not later than Tuesday the 21st, in order that we may take the Second Reading on Wednesday the 22nd, get through Committee on Thursday the 23rd, and take the Third Reading on Friday the 24th. That leaves us to-day, and to-morrow, and Thursday, Friday, and Monday to finish our work in Committee of the whole House. Of those days we propose that to-day, Thursday, and Friday should be devoted to the Navy Estimates, tomorrow to the Army Votes, and next Monday to the Vote on Account. I do not know that it is possible to narrow down the time I have allocated to these necessary Services to any smaller length than that which I have assigned to them. We are driven, in the interests of public business, to take to-morrow, and to devote Thursday, Friday, and Monday entirely to the work of Supply. I hope that justification of the policy of the Government will be deemed sufficient, and that, without further curtailment of time, the House will grant the privilege I now ask.

In the course of this Parliament we have witnessed some extraordinary demands made upon the House of Commons, but I cannot help thinking that this is one of the most unjustifiable that have ever been submitted to the House by a responsible Minister. I can assure the right honourable Gentleman that, so far as time is necessary to proceed with the requisite financial business of the current year, he will receive every assistance from every part of the House. I am not in a position to either acquiesce in or controvert the programme he has drawn up of the necessary manner of spending the time available for that purpose, but I demur altogether to the view he has communicated to the House of what occurred on Friday, and I would carry my glance a little bit further, and invite the House to consider the progress of business last week. If there is this great necessity to have so many days devoted to the voting of Supply before the Finance Bill is introduced, the necessity existed a week ago or more just as strongly as it does now. But I will deal first with the case of Friday last. The right honourable Gentleman speaks as if he were an aggrieved person because he was not allowed to pro- ceed with the discussion of the Army Estimates on Friday last. Whether it be his fault, or the fault of some person under him—

Not under me.

Matters not to us, because, after all, whatever may have been said of the intentions of the Government as to business on a certain day, the latest word that Members receive, the latest information, and therefore the most accurate information, of the intentions of the Government for any particular day is usually contained in what is known as the Blue Paper, which is circulated in the morning. The right honourable Gentleman had said, no doubt, that it was intended to take the Army Estimates on Friday, but when an honourable Member received his Blue Paper, and did not find the Army Estimates down, he naturally concluded that the Government had changed their minds, and that for some reason known only to themselves they were postponing the consideration of the Army Estimates to another day. I have nothing but praise for the courtesy and consideration with which the right honourable Gentleman at once accepted the situation on Friday last. Whether it was his own, or some one's acting on his instructions, or whether it was the convenient printers, it was somebody's error, and for that somebody's error I am afraid the right honourable Gentleman must be held responsible.

. Oh, oh!

Surely he is responsible in the result—not in the intention. But I go further back than last Friday. With this great pressure of financial business before them, what were the Government doing on Monday and Thursday last? They occupied those days with a Bill which, so far from being urgent, was taken prematurely, was taken before the country had had an opportunity of considering it, and the right honourable Gentleman himself acknowledges that it was in a rather premature condition, because at the moment the Second Reading was taken he promised to allow a considerable interval to elapse before he asked the House to go into Committee on the Bill, on the very ground that it was not long since the Bill had been printed and was in the hands of those interested in it. Both of the days of last week which were devoted to the Food and Drugs Bill might have been devoted to that financial business, as to which there was urgent pressure of time: So that the right honourable Gentleman has nobody but himself to blame for the position in which he finds himself. Finding himself in that position, the right honourable Gentleman proposes to take Tuesday from my honourable Friend the Member for Northamptonshire. I know that on these occasions any honourable Member who has a Motion upon the Paper can always make out a very strong case, so far as that particular Motion is concerned, for extreme urgency, but it does not seem to me that in this case there is really a strong case, as was pointed out in the letter to which the right honourable Gentleman has referred. The honourable Gentleman the Member for Northampton is going to bring forward a Motion of the deepest interest to all those who are connected with or interested in the agricultural industries of the country; the question of tuberculosis. That Motion, if not absolutely necessary, is most desirable, in order to clear the air and point the way with regard to certain private Bills that have to be dealt with on Thursday next. That is the point. Certain private Bills of great importance, both to towns and the agricultural community throughout the country, are to be brought forward on Thursday, and with that view, it is, if not absolutely necessary, highly expedient that we should know the views of the Government upon the Question, and that opportunity will be forfeited by my honourable Friend if he is unable to bring on his Motion on Tuesday. But I base my opposition to the proposals of the right honourable Gentleman, not upon that, but on the facts previously deduced, which show that if the Government had exercised reasonable precaution and looked a little ahead some 10 days ago they would have absorbed the time at their command in such a manner as would have prevented there being any necessity for trespassing at this early period of the Session upon the time of the private Members of this House in a manner which makes it-ridiculous to set up the right of private Members to Tuesdays at all. I would not press the rights of private Members too far, but they are, after all, human beings, and the)' have certain rights which have been in the most coldblooded manner infringed. So far as we are concerned, the right honourable Gentleman may be sure, as I commenced by saying, so far as the financial business of the year is concerned, we shall give him every assistance, but we cannot be parties to proceeding in this way, which seems so much to trespass upon the time of the private Members.

The right honourable Gentleman the leader of the Oposi-tion has really said all that I might have wished to say upon this question. The right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in dealing with this question, appeared to consider that the letter which I sent to the "Times" newspaper in some way reflected upon his honour and fairness in the conduct of the business of this House. I want to relieve him from any feeling of that kind which he may have in his mind. But what I do wish to insist upon is this: that throwing away four or five hours of Government time, which he was at perfect liberty to occupy by the ruling of the Chair, and then taking Tuesday for the Government business, does constitute a wholly novel and a very dangerous precedent in the taking away of the time of private Members. I think it is a very serious thing indeed to have a precedent of that kind introduced into the procedure of the House. The ruling of the Deputy Speaker was perfectly clear, and, as a matter of fact, there was a similar ruling given some years ago under the same circumstances. But the right honourable Gentleman, acting apparently out of the impulsive generosity of his heart, on the appeal of one or two Members on this side of the House, deliberately threw away four or five hours of the time of the House on Friday last which the Chairman told him were perfectly at his disposal. That is a fact that the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not touch upon. I am always perfectly ready, and I think that private Members generally are ready, to make any sacrifice that may be necessary for the promotion of the genuine business of the House, in the stress of public affairs, or when there are great arrears of Votes which have to be cleared off. But that is not so here. The right honourable Gentleman has stated his case as to the position of Supply in such strong terms to-day that it seems to me absolutely inconceivable that he could not have seen the force of his own arguments on Friday, and instead of allowing the whole of this time on Friday to be wasted, that he should not have used it for the purpose of carrying a great number of Votes, as he might easily have done in the temper of the House that night. Now, with regard to the Motion which stands in my name for to-morrow, the essential point raised by that Motion —I should be out of order in attempting to-day to discuss the details—the essential point raised is to obtain some statement from the Government as to their general policy on a question of the most urgent interest to public health. It is of the utmost importance to the consumers of milk, and to the local authorities who represent their interests all over the country, as it is of the utmost importance to agriculturists to know whether the Government is going to deal with this question of tuberculosis on a uniform plan, with uniform machinery, and with compensation where necessary all over the country. The course adopted by the right honourable Gentleman is injurious to the interests of these great towns which are promoting Bills on this subject, one of which is Manchester, and another of which is Leeds. I think that the interests of these communities and these towns have been very greatly prejudiced by the action taken in this matter by the right honourable Gentleman. I think that he has given us no reason whatever, nor has he given us any precedent for deliberately throwing away four or five hours of the time of this House, which it was perfectly open to him to occupy, and then to calmly appropriate the time of the private Members. That is a practice which up to now has been utterly unknown to Parliamentary history. It is adopted now to the prejudice of the interests of agriculture, and to the loss of all those who are interested in the urgent Question which I proposed to bring forward to-morrow.

I think that the private Members of this House ought to second the gallant efforts which have been made on their behalf 'by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition by saying a word or two upon their own rights. This is an occasion upon which private Members are suffering through their not having committed any fault of their own. They are suffering, in the opinion of my honourable Friend opposite, by having the most convenient day for the discussion of an extremely important agricultural question, and at the same time an extremely important question with regard to public health, taken away from them without any compensation being offered to them. If it so happens that this discussion on tuberculosis cannot be proceeded with next Tuesday, the Government, I sincerely hope, will attempt to provide some other convenient opportunity for the discussion of that very important question. We know that after Easter the Government propose to take every Tuesday from the private Members, and therefore, if no effort is made by them, we shall have no opportunity at all of discussing what in my opinion is one of the most important questions of the day. Under those circumstances, it is surely not too much to hope that some time at least will be left to my honourable Friend opposite next Tuesday, if the Army Members of this House will confine their remarks within reasonable limits. Do I understand my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to say that the only Government business for which he asks precedence, and the only business which he will place upon the Paper next Tuesday, is the remaining Army Votes?

Only the Army Vote.

Very well: if that be so, then I think there is a reasonable chance of getting a discussion upon the question of tuberculosis after that business is concluded; but if that discussion does not take place, then I really do think the Government, in all fairness to the private Members of the House, should find some other opportunity for the discussion of this very important subject, and I hope that they will do their best to do so.

I am one of those who always support the private Members when the Government proposes to take away their time, but upon this occasion I cannot quite agree with my honourable Friend the Member for Northamptonshire. But I do feel that there is some force in the remarks made by the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that the Government might have taken these Votes at an earlier period of the Session. At the same time, we have now to consider the state of things in which we find ourselves to-day, and the days being so few before the period at which these Votes must be taken, I confess that it appears to me that my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury has made out an unanswerable case. Much as I regret his taking away the time of private Members I cannot but admit that upon this occasion a good case has certainly been made out. At the same time, it was the practice in other days that when the Government found themselves compelled by the nature of their business to take away a private Member's night they always felt they were under some obligation to him on that account, and they always gave him some other opportunity to bring his Question forward. I am very glad to hear from the right honourable Gentleman the Leader of the House that if there is any time on Tuesday night after taking the Army Votes that my honourable Friend opposite will be able to bring forward his Motion on the question of tuberculosis, and further, I would make an urgent appeal to the Government that, if it so happens that they occupy the whole of the time on Tuesday, that they will place my honourable Friend in the position he would otherwise have occupied by giving him another opportunity of bringing this matter forward.

I am very sorry to hear the right honourable Baronet the Member for the London University say that the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury has made out a good case for appropriating the time of the private Members of this House. Believe me when I say I will not follow the most pernicious example of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord in wasting the time of the House, to which I only intend to address a very few words. And I am speaking really more in sorrow than in anger when I say that the right honourable Gentleman deliberately and wantonly wasted on Friday evening four or five hours of military time, and now desires to curtail the rights of the private Members to the time of the House to-morrow night. What is his excuse for acting in this manner? He simply relies on a printer's error, and he performs a miracle, a miracle which the right honourable Gentleman only is capable of preforming—that is, he converts a "printer's devil" into a Parliamentary Statement. No other honourable Member would ever dream of doing that. I really believe that a Motion of this kind is calculated to very much weaken all Parliamentary institution. This Parliament is old: it is the mother of all Parliaments, and is, I believe, 700 years old; then why does the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, who I have always understood loves all old institutions, and respects them, try to weaken one of the oldest institutions of this country. But in this particular case I have a personal' grievance against the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. I, on Friday night, was prepared to speak at some length upon the Army Votes. and had prepared all my information, and. so to speak, got all my ammunition ready for the conflict. But what was my surprise when I found that the right honourable Gentleman, without any reason whatsoever, merely intimated that he would adjourn the Army Estimates and take the time on Tuesday for the discussion of them. I was prepared to do this; I was prepared to respect the rights of the honourable Gentlemen who had various motions for reduction down upon the Paper, and when I brought forward my own points —I knew from experience, having heard some of their speeches three times over —I was prepared, when I brought forward my points, to move the reductions and to say what the honourable Gentlemen would be likely to say. The Gentlemen who debate upon the Army Estimates may be divided into two classes. There is the military class, and there are the civilian experts. Now, in order to assist the Government in getting these Votes through, I was prepared, after my own speech was over, to make a speech upon the general details of the Votes, and then I was prepared to make what might be termed a military speech, which, embracing all the views of the military Members, would tend to shorten the "discussion, but, instead of giving us that opportunity, the right honourable Gentleman allowed his night to go by, and now has attached ours. On Friday ho sent us away early from this House to our own homes, where we were not expected, possibly to the great inconvenience of our families, and now proposes to appropriate our time. There is one other point which ought to be mentioned in this connection. Perhaps honourable Gentlemen may not have noticed it, but there is another Motion which is down to come on on Tuesday. After the subject of tuberculosis had been discussed, we were to discuss the position of the Eight Honourable Cecil Rhodes as a Privy Councillor. Is that to be burked in order to allow this Vote to be taken? I rather suspect that that is the true inwardness of the Government's desire to take Tuesday. I don't know whether that is so or not, but all I can say is that I cannot fail to have that impression. [Cries of "Divide, divide!"] Honourable Gentlemen on the other side of the House are crying out "Divide!" It is the only opportunity that many of them have of speaking, and it is the only speech that they can make or have ever made in this House. The right honourable Gentleman must recollect this—that this Moton gives- him no promise that the Army Estimates will be discussed shortly when they do come on.

I should like, before this discussion comes to an end, to make some appeal to the generosity of the right honourable Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury in reference to the time of private Members. The point which is to come under discussion on Tuesday is of the greatest interest to a very large section of the people outside this House, as well as to a large number of Members here, and the loss of an opportunity to discuss so serious a question, which conflicts with so many interests, is very greatly felt under these circumstances; and, as I think that we arc rather hardly treated in this matter, I would earnestly appeal to the right honourable Gentleman to try and make some way for this discussion to come on. I think if he limited the Government efforts on Tuesday to the carrying of Vote 1 of Army Estimates there would be no objection to that, and the rest of the day might then be devoted to a discussion on the very important subject of tuberculosis. Vote I would give him enough money to go on with for some months, and I think that the carrying of the Vote, and the discussion of it, might be concluded within the limits of a morning sitting on Tuesday. Under those circumstances, we might afterwards ventilate what is of the greatest interest to those interested in the public health, and, not only that, but that which is of the first importance to all those who have any regard for the agricultural interest of this country. I do hope that the right honourable Gentleman will take such a course as to do away with what seems to be ungenerous and hard lines meted out to the private Members of this House in preventing the discussion on so important a matter as that of tuberculosis.

The honourable Member for the Ilkeston Division has made one very practical suggestion, and I rise to make one of another character, though it leads to exactly the same result. The Leader of the House has promised to give such time as remains after the Army Estimates have been disposed of to the consideration of this question. He has stated that he will confine himself to the passing of the Army Votes on Tuesday, and after that the subject of tuberculosis can be discussed. Of course, if the discussion of the Army Estimates goes on it will be very doubtful whether there will be any time left for that purpose. My honourable Friend has just suggested that Vote 1 only should be taken, and that should be taken at a morning sitting. Now, if that is practicable, that will solve the difficulty. The right honourable Baronet the Member for the London University also has pointed out that he remembers the time when these matters were the subject of an arrange- ment between the Government and the J private Members, and that the Government gave compensation for whatever time they took. Now, I am going to suggest that the method of compensation should be adopted. I do not say anything about Tuesday. But what about Thursday the 23rd? The right honourable Gentleman proposes to bring in the Financial Appropriations Bill on Tuesday the 21st; to be read a second time on Wednesday the 22nd; and on Thursday the 23rd, it is to go into Committee. Now, the Committee stage, as we all know, cannot take any time, as no Amendments can be moved. Now, why should not the Government give Thursday the 23rd, after the Committee stage of the Financial Appropriations Bill is over to the discussion of tuberculosis? No doubt it might be taken in that manner. But it is possible that the London Bill will be taken on that night. I do not think it is probable, because there are so many honourable Members who are interested in it that J you could not get rid of it in one sitting: therefore I do not think that the right honourable Gentleman would make a very great sacrifice if on the 23rd, after the Committee stage of the Financial Appropriations Bill is disposed of, he gave up the rest of the time to the private Members of the House.

Although this is a question that greatly affects the interest of agriculture, it is certainly a question which affects the interest of boroughs and towns quite as much as it does the country, and, upon that ground, I do earnestly press my right honourable Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to allow us to have some facility for bringing on this Motion to deal with the question of tuberculosis. It is so very important, in order that we might know what the Government are going to do in regard to the matter. If you are not going to have a Debate upon the question, it is likely to be very much misunderstood. I speak from great experience of the importance of this matter, and I do hope that some time will be given to us for this discussion. The right honourable Gentleman who has just sat down has talked with regard to a day which the Government might place at our disposal, but if the Government could see their way to-giving us a day before the Easter Recess, we should raise no difficulty in the discussion of the Army Estimates tomorrow.

So far as I can recollect, last Tuesday the First Lord of the Treasury made a statement as to the business that he intended to take on the following Friday: in the course of that statement he said that he proposed to take the Vote on the Army Estimates. And that was the Vote which we expected to take, but which we did not see upon the Blue Papers, and which, consequently was understood was not to be taken then. Now, I apprehend that the right honourable Gentleman has made some promise as to what he will take to-morrow. He has said that he will simply take the Army Estimates, and that, after the Army Estimates are disposed of, he will take nothing more. I think he might be induced to take only Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. I beg to move an Amendment—

"To omit the words 'Government Business,' in order to insert the words 'the proceedings on Army Estimates, Vote 1.'"

The honourable Gentleman opposite has enforced, in the form of an Amendment, the appeal that has been made to me on this occasion from oilier parts of the House. I cannot go the length which the honourable Gentleman desires me to go, but I should be prepared to go on with Vote I and the three non-effective Votes, and, if the House will give me those, I should be perfectly willing to put down no further Supply to-morrow. I do not think that I can accede to the appeal of my honourable Friend behind me with regard to Thursday week, because he has based his claim to further Government time upon some error which he supposes I have committed. But I do not admit that I have committed any error at all, and, therefore, I do not think it is possible for me to respond to his suggestion, on that ground, at all events. The honourable Member for Northampton, East, attacks me for not having accepted the ruling of Mr. Deputy Speaker, and insisting upon going on with Vote 1 on Friday last, but there he is in direct opposition with, his own Leader, who told the House that I could have done nothing less than yield, as I did yield, to the appeal made to me from the other side on Friday last. But surely, when the right honourable Gentleman himself says that I should have arranged the business of last Thursday and last Monday so as to have got Supply in such a condition that no claim could be made on Tuesday, the right honourable Gentleman has given me credit for a gift of prophecy which I assure him I do not possess. If I could have foreseen that there would be this mistake in the Blue Paper last Friday, I should have made all necessary arrangements for that particular contingency: but, as I could not foresee it, and as I did not foresee it, I did not make the necessary arrangements, and we are obliged, therefore, in order to get through the necessary business of the year, to ask private Members to make this sacrifice which we now ask. If they will consent to give us Vote 1, which is on the third day of the discussion of Army Estimates already, and the non-controversial Votes to which I have referred, I will undertake that there shall be no further Government business taken on Thursday.

I acknowledge the spirit in which the right, honourable Gentleman has spoken, but I wish to put in a little addition to that speech. If the Government obtains Vote 1 and the non-effective Votes, they obtain a very large sum of money; and, therefore, the further consideration in Committee of Supply of the Army Estimates may be put off to a very advanced tune in the Session. Now. if the right honourable Gentleman will agree that we shall have a good night—a good effective night—or two nights, not in the decaying days of the Session, to discuss the Army Estimates, at a more convenient time to the House then I think his offer might be accepted. If we were to take his offer without some such provision, we might be in the woful plight of having all the Army Estimates put off until the month of August. I feel sure, however, that that is not the intention of the right honourable Gentleman. This year the sum to be granted is especially large, and if the right honourable Gentleman would give us a full opportunity for the discussion of this money question I shall be ready to accept the offer he has made.

The right honourable Gentleman knows, and probably has present in his mind, that any privileges which I grant in respect of the Army Votes must be necessarily carved out of the time at the disposal of the House to discuss the other Votes. Therefore, it would not be fair that in respect of those other Votes the House should dwell too long a time in discussing the Army Votes. If, however, the right honourable Gentleman will make an appeal to me with regard to any special Friday on which he would like the Army Estimates to be considered, that appeal will certainly be met by me.

With reference to the question of the Army Votes being taken on Tuesday, I assume that it is the intention of those who are entering into this arrangement that it shall be taken at a reasonably early hour of the evening that will allow of some discussion. That, of course, depends upon the number of military speeches to which we shall be called upon to listen. There is a very important question connected with the Army which we desire to bring forward, and which may lead to a long discussion unless a favourable answer is received from the Under Secretary of State for War. I do not rise for the purpose of prolonging this discussion, and I only do so in order to say that we are no parties to this arrangement and we shall claim our right, to the best of our ability, to demand a fair hearing on Vote 1 in the Army Estimates, for I feel sure that upon that occasion both sides of the House will agree when they have heard what we have got to say—that the question is one demanding the attention of the House.

I understand that in this arrangement the right honourable Gentleman has not assumed that he may find it necessary to move the Closure at any particular hour of the night with regard to Vote 1 of the Army Estimates. For my part I am not anxious that the right honourable Gentleman should get his Votes for the Army at all, and I think the less he gets, and the longer the time it takes him to get them, the better it will be for the community. We do not enter into any bargain on this side of the House that we are going to arrest the flow of eloquence with regard to the Army. Under this arrangement the Leader of the House is really trying to get an advantage for himself out of the mistake of this unfortunate printer, and he hopes to be able to get these Votes in a, few hours instead of the ordinary time generally occupied on that Vote. I have simply risen to say that while it may be that the Vote will be taken at an hour at which tuberculosis can be brought in. we enter into no sort of pledge, after a certain hour of the night, not to move any Amendment.

I do hope that the Government will be able to give us some definite suggestion as to when an opportunity will be given in which this subject of tuberculosis can be discussed. It is a very important question, and one upon which we desire to learn the opinion of the Leaders of the House. I think we ought to be grateful to the Government for giving the House an early opportunity of recognising and defining the position of the private Member. It seems to me that the private Member has become an

I should like to ask one Question, and that is. whether tomorrow will be counted as one of the days allotted to Supply under the Standing Order, and whether it will be a whole day?

Yes.

I think I shall—

I rise to a point of order, and I desire to ask whether a Member who secures priority by ballot, and who puts his notice on the Paper, is not entitled to priority.

The honourable Member has not got an Amendment down on the Paper.

May I ask if that is the reason why I am not entitled to Priority?

I could not give the honourable Member priority over other Amendments, because all he has done is to put a notice on the Paper that he will call attention to a particular matter. In a general discussion I call upon the honourable Member who catches my eye first.