I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether the Transvaal Law, No. 22, 1899, whereby a tax of 30 per cent. in some cases and 50 per cent. in others placed on the gross yield of gold from the mines in the South African Republic, has been repealed; and, if not, whether its provisions are being at the present time enforced.

I understand that this law has now been repealed. As far as I know it was never put in force by the Government of the late South African Republic. The question of the taxation to be levied in future on the gold industry is being considered by Lord Milner and His Majesty's Government.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give me the date of the repeal?

I am unable to do that.

Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries?

Certainly, if the hon. Member desires to have that special information. I have had to telegraph to Lord Milner for the information I have given, but I do not think his reply, which I have not with me here, contains the date.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can state in which of the Natal concentration camps the wife of General De Wet is confined; on what ground she is treated as a prisoner; under what circumstances she was originally placed in a concentration camp; and whether she has been informed that she is at liberty to join her husband or any of the Boer forces in the field.

Mrs. De Wet is at Maritzburg. I have already telegraphed for further information on the other points, but I may mention that Lord Kitchener has informed me that the Governor of Natal visited her twice to see that she was comfortable and she had no complaints to make.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the Question, whether she has been informed that she is at liberty to join her husband or any of the Boer forces in the field?

I am awaiting a telegram from Lord Kitchener. I do not know under what circumstances Mrs. De Wet has recently been taken into the concentration camp. I have given all the information I have to the House.

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will state whether Mrs. De Wet is at liberty to go to Cape Colony or to join her husband?

If Mrs. De Wet's position is such that there would be no military disadvantage in regard to information in her leaving her present situation and going to Cape Colony, no objection would be made.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care that no expense is put on the public funds through frivolous telegraphing?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state approximately or lay upon the Table an approximate Return showing the nationality of the prisoners recently taken in South Africa, that is to say, about what proportion of them belong to the Transvaal and Orange River Colony, about what proportion belong to the Cape Colony and Natal, and about what proportion are Europeans, or from other parts of the world, who have gone to South Africa since the war began, distinguishing, if possible, the countries from which they have come.

No, Sir. No information of the nature referred to is at present available.

Can it not be obtained from the prisoners?

I believe some statements have been made by the prisoners.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether, in view of the continued prevalence of enteric fever in the Army in South Africa, he will lay upon the Table at an early date the Report of the Commission on Enteric Fever and Dysentery appointed to proceed to South Africa in August, 1900.

The Report is not yet complete. I am not therefore at present in a position to reply to the Question.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state what the offence was of which Dr. Reinecke, a British subject residing at Ceres, in the Cape Colony, was suspected when he was arrested by the Military on the 27th August, 1901; whether he has since then been tried for such alleged offence; and, if so, by what tribunal, at what date, and with what result; and where is he now detained.

Dr. Reinecke, who served with Boer ambulance outside Ladysmith, was arrested on suspicion of communicating with the enemy, who were then threatening Ceres, where he was residing. He was subsequently released on bail, and is now being granted permission to proceed to Europe, his bail bonds being cancelled.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state how soon he will be able to give the Return of Extracts of Proceedings of Military Courts held under Martial Law, which is to be laid upon the Table of the House; and whether this Return will include all cases during the period which it covers in which death sentences have been passed, and the names and rank of the officers who formed the Courts.

I am still awaiting certain Returns from South Africa, and I cannot therefore state when the general Return will be ready. The death sentences will be included. The names of the members of the Courts in these cases will also be published.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state what was the estimated amount for which provision was made in the Army Estimates for 1899–1900 to cover the cost for that year of the personnel of the Intelligence Branch of the War Office and the Remount Department of the War Office respectively.

The sums estimated amounted to—Intelligence Branch, £16,679; Remount Department, £,6983.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can say how much money was paid during the years 1899, 1900, and 1901 for the call on horses in case of war; how many horses were requisitioned and bought; and whether the horses were claimed through the Remount Department; and will he state whether some firms who have received money for some years have had no requisition made upon them.

The sums paid as retaining fees for the financial years 1899, 1900, and 1901 to date, amount to £15,707. The number of registered horses which were requisitioned and bought during this period was 6,350. The horses were claimed through the Remount Department, Some firms who have received retaining fees had no requisition made on them because their horses were not of the stamp required for the special conditions of service in South Africa.

Are these horses examined yearly to see whether it is worth the while of the country to pay the requisition fee?

Yes, Sir; they are.

In what country would these horses be available if they are not available in South Africa?

That is another Question, and the hon. Member must give notice of it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he can state the number of officers and clerks, respectively, employed in the Remount Department of the War Office on each of the following dates, viz.:—1st April, 1st July, and 1st October, 1899, 1st January, 1900, and 1st January of this year.

The numbers are as follows:—

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Military Court of Inquiry, to be assembled at the request of General Truman on the management of the Remount Department, will be a court merely to collect evidence, or whether it will have power to give an opinion on officers or soldiers connected with that Department; if the latter, whether it will be a Statutory Court empowered to take evidence on oath.

This Court of Inquiry will be a Statutory Court; it will take evidence on oath, and will give an opinion on General Truman's management of the Remount Department.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether a preliminary contract was entered into by the Imperial Yeomanry Committee with Mr. Vickers to deliver 2,000 Hungarian horses at Cape Town for £49 15s., which was subsequently reduced to 1,000 horses; whether Mr. Vickers informed Colonel St. Quintin that he had made a personal contract with Mr. Van Laun to transport the horses from Fiume or Trieste to Cape Town for £16 per head; whether, when the Yeomanry Committee declined to sign a definite contract with Mr. Vickers, a contract was signed by it with Mr. Van Laun to transport 1,500 Hungarian horses from Fiume to Cape Town at £18 10s. per head, and 2,500 at £20 per head; and, if so, can he explain why this higher price was paid.

A discussion took place with Mr. Vickers in reference to a proposal to deliver 2,000 Hungarian horses at Cape Town at £35 each. This was subsequently raised to £49 15s., it being found impossible to provide the horses at the lower price, but no contract was entered into with Mr. Vickers at one sum or the other. Nothing is known of his alleged communication to Colonel St. Quintin. A contract was subsequently entered into with Messrs. Van Laun & Co. for the supply of transport for all the horses purchased for the Imperial Yeomanry in Hungary, in full cargoes on first-class British steamers from Fiume or Trieste, at £26 3s. 4d. per head for the first 1,500, and £28 per head for all over that number, inclusive of the supply of fodder, water, fittings, attendance, and insurance to Cape Town, and also victualling and transport of attendants from Szabadka to the ship.

May I ask whether it is not a fact that all the Yeomanry Committee have been decorated for their valuable services in this matter?

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether his attention has been called to a statement made by a witness before the Parliamentary Committee on the Remounts, that at the time when the Leveson horses were being bought a South African Company was also buying horses at the same place, and that Major Armstrong was concerned in these latter purchases; whether he has any knowledge whether this South African Company was connected with purchases of horses either on behalf of His Majesty's Government or of any British authorities in South Africa; and whether Major Armstrong is in the public service.

I have no information whatever concerning the South African Company and the officer referred to.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether he can state how many horses have been sent under contract with the War Office from Argentina to South Africa, and what was the contract price paid to Messrs. Houlder per head for their transport across the sea.

The number of horses was 25,872. The average contract price per head paid to Houlder Brothers for sea transport was £14 5s. 3d.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, whether, seeing that the War Office has entered into a contract with Mr. Victor Wolff to provide horses from the Don Country for South Africa, he can say what is the price to be paid per horse; and whether, since concluding this contract, the contractor has been informed that the number of horses contracted for must be largely reduced. And, whether he can state by whom Mr. Victor Wolff was introduced to the War Office as a contractor for horses.

No contract has been made with Mr. Victor Wolff for such supply.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the necessities of Imperial Defence, he will communicate with the various horse breeding colonies, requesting them to subsidise owners of horses suitable for warlike purposes in order that the Mother Country may have a right to claim such horses in time of war on payment of a reasonable price.

The whole question of remounts is under consideration.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State of War, whether he will lay upon the Table, for circulation among the Members of the House, a Copy of the regulations in force on the 30th September, 1899, defining the duties assigned to each of the following, viz.: the Intelligence Branch of the War Office, the Remount Department of the War Office, and to our Military Attachés at Foreign Courts.

As regards the Intelligence Branch and the Remount Department, my hon. and gallant friend will find the information he requires in two Parliamentary Papers presented in 1899, viz.: Orders in Council defining the duties of the Principal Officers charged with the Administration of the Army, printed 17th March, 1899, and Memorandum showing the duties of the Principal Officers and Departments of the War Office, and details of Office Procedure under Order in Council of 7th March, 1899, numbered C.9230. As regards the Military Attachés, they take their instructions from the Foreign Office.

I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office, whether the Mr. Weil, who tendered for the South African meat contract, is the same gentleman who is one of the partners or the guarantors in the contract which was entered into with Mr. Bergl.

Mr. Weil was not one of the guarantors, but he is a shareholder in, and is to be a director of, the company to which the contract has now been assigned.

Is he the gentleman who submitted the first contract.

Yes, Sir, and I think it shows how right we were.

How long has he been naturalised?

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he can now state approximately the amount paid or payable under contracts made with persons or firms in South Africa in connection with the war up to the latest date for which such information is procurable.

No, Sir. no information has as yet arrived from South Africa on this subject.

The inquiry was made last June.

Yes, but the Return asked for involves information being collected from a very large number of different sources, and in view of the enormous pressure on officers in South Africa, it has been difficult to get it. It will be issued as soon as we get it.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he is aware that a number of sorting clerks and telegraphists of the Post Office in response to an invitation issued went to South Africa and were attached to the Army Post Office Corps, and were paid at the ordinary rate of private soldiers though understanding when in England that they would be placed upon an equality with the Telegraphists serving with the Royal Engineers; and, seeing that the Army Authorities in South Africa recommended that these men should receive the same pay as their colleagues in the Engineers, whether the concession can now be made.

These men are Infantry men and not Engineers, and are therefore not entitled to Engineer pay. Moreover in view of the fact that they are drawing their full civil salaries in addition to their pay as soldiers their remuneration would appear adequate.

Do I understand that these representations are unfounded?

According to the answer I have given they are.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether his attention has been directed to the verminous condition of Military prisoners, as set out on pages 56, 59, 60, 63, 65, 72, and 74 of the Report of the Director of Military Prisons; and whether he will have inquiry made thereon.

Instructions were given to General Officers to take measures to prevent the recurrence of the matters alluded to.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether he will state by whose authority huts have been erected on Thorn Hill, Aldershot, specially for the reception of smallpox cases, the site being within a stone's throw of the abattoir established for the killing of animals for the troops at that station.

This service was carried out by the General Officer, commanding 1st Army Corps, on his own initiative. The site is close to the existing isolation hospital. It is 200 yards from the present supply depot and 400 yards from the new abattoir, which is nearly finished.

Is this the same genius as he who ordered sewage milk to be served out to the troops at Aldershot?

No sewage milk has ever been served out to the troops.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the distance to avoid danger is more than 400 yards, and will he cause the huts to be placed in a position which will not entail danger to the men working at the depôt or the abattoir?

I have no doubt medical authorities were consulted in regard to the distance. Medical authorities do sometimes disagree on these points.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether he will state the reason of the recent discharge of labourers, fitters joiners, and other men at Chatham Dockyard.

The total number of discharges from Chatham Dockyard is 100, and includes 20 joiners who were temporarily entered to replace men sent to Portsmouth for the completion of the Royal Yacht, 66 workmen temporarily entered to complete work on the "Irresistible" which has now been commissioned, and 25 labourers. I may add that it is clearly impossible in a great establishment employing over 8,000 men to avoid occasional discharges, as otherwise all temporary entries would involve permanent additions to the total numbers employed.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether in recognition of the services of our mercantile marine, and especially in connection with the transport of the army with all its requisites to the seat of war in South Africa without any loss of life, and considering that the transports have been manned to a great extent by officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve, His Majesty's Government will have armed and equipped one or more of the Royal Naval Reserve merchant steamers on the subventioned list, to be manned by officers and men of the Royal Naval Reserve, to represent the British mercantile marine at the forthcoming Naval Review at Spithead, in celebration of the Coronation of His Majesty the King.

The arrangements with respect to the ships which are to take part in the Naval Review on the occasion of His Majesty's Coronation are still under consideration, and I regret therefore, I am not in a position to reply to the hon. Members Question.

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether Great Britain, through her Ambassadors, ever proposed a Joint Note in which the Powers should declare that Europe did not regard the armed intervention of the United States in Cuba as justifiable, and whether, in consequence of the refusal of Germany this step was abandoned; and whether he can make any further statement upon the subject.

No. Great Britain never proposed through Her Majesty's Ambassadors or otherwise any declaration adverse to the United States in regard to their intervention in Cuba. On the contrary Her Majesty's Government declined to assent to any such proposal.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, whether, having regard to the experience gained in the working of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, the Government will now consider the extension of the benefits conferred under the Act to the seamen and firemen of the mercantile marine.

The Government are of opinion, as indicated in this House and elsewhere, that the time has not yet come for any definite proposals amending and extending the Workmen's Compensation Act. When it does, the case of seamen and firemen in the Mercantile Marine will certainly be considered, though there are special circumstances which place them on a different footing from other trades at present outside the Act.

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he will state why the delay has occurred in distributing to Members the Licensing Bill which was introduced on the 31st ultimo, and can he say when the Bill will be in the hands of the Members.

The Bill has been sent to the printers, and I hope that it will be issued within a very few days. I cannot say when the Second Reading will be taken.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he will now arrange that the public shall be supplied with postal orders bearing counterfoils, on the plan adopted in certain foreign countries and in Colonies of the British Empire, each counterfoil being marked with the number of the attached order as well as the amount and office stamp, so as to facilitate the detection in the case of theft, and relieve the transmitters of small sums from the task of noting these particulars; and, whether, if objections taken to this reform on the ground of expense, he will give an opportunity to tenderers to supply postal orders equally as good as the present ones at a reduction in cost.

The Postmaster General has not yet arrived at any final conclusion on this subject. But he is disposed to doubt whether, in existing circumstances, any appreciable advantage would be gained from the addition of counterfoils to postal orders. He will, however, continue to give attention to the matter.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessors have been considering this matter for ten years?

I am not aware of that, but I do know that it has been under the consideration of my noble friend for some time.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he has yet considered the expediency of sending the mails for South Uist, Barra, and islands west of Skye, viâ Mallaig instead of viâ Oban as at present; and, seeing that the distance from Mallaig to South Uist is 56 miles, and from Oban 105 miles, will he arrange to invite tenders for a steamer service from Mallaig.

The Postmaster General has considered the expediency of sending mails for South Uist, Barra, and islands west of Skye, viâ Mallaig, instead of viâOban as at present; but for the reasons stated in the letter addressed from the Post Office to the hon. Member on the l6th August last, the Postmaster General does not see his way to take any steps for arranging a service to the islands in question by way of Mallaig.

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he can state whether there are any provisions in the contract for the printing of the House of Commons Debates to prevent its being sent to firms who employ hands at rates of wages not recognised by the trade; whether Messrs. Wyman and Sons house at Reading is known in the printing trade as a fair house; and whether, before renewing the contract, inquiries will be made as to whether the existing contract is being carried out in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons.

Messrs. Wymans are bound to conform to the Fair Wages Resolution of the House of Commons, and I have no reason to suppose that they are not doing so. If any specific allegation of a breach of the terms of their contract is laid before me, I will at once investigate it.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman what he considers a fair wage for women in accordance with Fair Wages Resolution. Is there any standard?

That is obviously a question to which no general answer can be given. It depends on the circumstances of each trade and locality.

How then can this contract be carried out in accordance with the Fair Wages Resolution—

Order, Order.

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, if he will state what progress has been made with the arrangements for the proposed pier at Armadale, Skye.

Progress in the matter referred to by the hon. Member rested with the promoters of the Armadale Pier scheme. They did not make an application within the prescribed time to the Board of Trade, for the Provincial Order which must be obtained before the Grant promised by the Congested Districts Board towards the cost of the works can be forthcoming or the work proceeded with.

I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, whether he will explain why a body of private individuals conducting an educational agitation have been allowed to hold their meetings in one of the offices of the Board of Education, and have, with the assistance of permanent officers of the Department, had access to official documents which were not generally accessible, and will such practices be put a stop to in future.

I am desired to reply that the terms of the Question are not sufficiently specific to enable an answer to be given; but that if the right hon. Gentleman will give notice of a further Question of a more definite character, all the information which the Board of Education possess shall be given to him.

Perhaps I may relieve the right hon. Gentleman of lengthened inquiry if I ask has Sir George Kekewich personally taken part in these proceedings?

I must ask for notice of that.

I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, whether he is aware that the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division of the High Court of Justice adjourned his Court on Thursday, 30th January during the hearing of a case, the reason given being that the President was occupied with duties elsewhere during the week; will he state what were the nature of the duties which prevented the President continuing the hearing of the case; and whether, in the interest of suitors, he will advise His Majesty's Government to appoint another judge while the President is attending to his duties elsewhere.

The adjournment referred to in the Question took place at 2 p.m., in order that the President might preside at a sitting of the Mercantile Marine Committee. It is altogether unnecessary that another judge should be appointed to act in that division, inasmuch as it is expected that by the end of the sitting every case ready for hearing will have been disposed of.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, pending a discussion in this House of the action of the Executive in regard to the recent prosecutions at Gurteen and Ballinlough, the Irish Executive will suspend the enforcement of the sentences of imprisonment against certain Members of this House and other citizens.

No, Sir; as I stated in reply to the hon. Member's Question of Tuesday last, the Executive has no authority to arrest further legal proceedings consequent on the decision of the King's Bench Division in the case mentioned. The action of the Executive which the hon. Member wishes to impugn, was taken in December and was criticised on the Amendment to the Address moved by the hon. Member for Waterford. I shall be prepared to defend it again on any appropriate occasion.

Can the right hon. Gentleman state for the convenience of the hon. Members concerned how soon the orders for their imprisonment will be ready, and when they will be required to surrender to their bail.

I have been at some pains to find out, but I am afraid I cannot now give a definite reply. I will, however, give the hon. Members due notice.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether, in view of the judgment delivered last week by the Lord Chief Baron in Dublin, he can now state when he will afford an opportunity of discussing the action of the Executive in Ireland in connection with the recent prosecutions of Members of this House and other citizens before specially constituted Courts at Gurteen and Ballinlough.

The revised form of the judgment of the Court has not yet, I believe, been placed in the hands of my right hon. friend. It can not, therefore, be laid on the Table. I have endeavoured to make myself generally acquainted with the contents, but I can not say that it has any bearing upon the action of the Irish Executive. That action, which is as old as December last, came under review of the House during the discussion on the King's Speech. Therefore I do not think that any exceptional opportunity for discussion is necessary.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will state what steps he proposes to take to enable Irish County Council desirous of so doing to revert to the system of half-yearly meetings and half-yearly reports, and when he proposes to take action in the matter. And if he will consider the advisability of extending for two years the warrants of rate collectors, as was formerly done with the warrants of high constables under the grand juries.

A Bill has been drafted amending the Local Government (Ireland) Acts, 1898–1901, which contains a clause empowering County Councils, with the consent of the Local Government Board, to hold half-yearly meetings. I hope to be able to introduce this Bill at an early date. It has been decided in the High Court that the effect of Section 73 of the Act 1 & 2 Vic. cap. 56 is to keep in force for the recovery of poor rate the powers given to Cess Collectors by the repealed sections of the Grand Jury Act, 1836, but the question as to the period for which collectors' warrants at present may remain in force has not yet come before the Courts.

Is this the same Bill as was circulated last year?

No, I believe there are several matters in it which were not contemplated last year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman circulate it soon, so that the Irish Councils may have an opportunity of considering it?

I will consider that. It might be done if the Bill were read a first time.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he can state when it is proposed to hear the Maconochy Estate appeal cases in Longford; and if, before decisions are given, the Court will direct another inspector to value instead of the person now employed.

The hearing of these appeals will be commenced on the 19th March. The selection of a Valuer by the Land Commissioners is a matter which falls entirely within their discretion, and the Government has no authority whatever to intervene.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the case in which a bribe of half a year's rent was offered to the tenants to forego their rights?

Order, order! That does not arise out of the Question.

I will put a Question down on the subject.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether under the Police Code a constable on marriage in his district has to be removed to another county and district; whether he is aware that the postmistress at Woodlawn, County Galway, is married to a police constable in the same district; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter with a view to the carrying out of the proper regulations.

The rule to which the hon. Member refers does not apply to this case, inasmuch as the wife of the constable in question is not a native of the county.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether, when he is laying upon the Table of the House the judgments of the Judges of the King's Bench Division on the two Crimes Act cases decided by them on the 3rd of February, 1902, he will cause to be attached thereto copies of the charges contained in the summons served upon the defendants; copies of the convictions made in each case by the resident magistrates who heard the charges; and copies of the orders made by the King's Bench Division on the cases stated, which were argued before them.

Yes, Sir; this will be done.

I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether he will lay upon the Table the three last Reports of the Privy Council Judicial Committee meetings held to consider appeals against Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board under the Labourers (Ireland) Acts.

The effect of the Reports made by the Judicial Committee to the Lord Lieutenant is shown in the Orders in Council, which are published from time to time in the Dublin Gazette. The Reports themselves are confidential documents and cannot be laid upon the Table.

What objection can there be to publishing the evidence on which the decisions are based?

Expense, for one thing. It would involve the printing of some 500 folios of notes, and I do not see that any useful purpose would be served thereby. The inquiries are always open to the public.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of publishing the judgment?

The decision come to is published.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these discussions as a rule give very great dissatisfaction?

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, as representing the Postmaster General, whether he is aware that inconvenience is caused in New Ross by the inadequacy of the Post Office for the requirements of the town, and can he state when it is proposed to commence the building of the new Post Office.

The Post Office at New Ross is too small, and the question of obtaining a better one has been under consideration; but no definite scheme has yet been approved. A site has been examined; but it is not possible to state when a new building will be begun, if it be decided to erect one.

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, whether he proposes to withdraw the Supplementary Civil Service Estimate recently presented.

I may remind the Home that this Question was put down at my request. As appeared by yesterday's debate, the bulk of the Members were not aware of the proposed change in the form of the Civil Service Supplementary Estimate, though that method was part of our general scheme of dealing with the Estimates. Under those circumstances, I think it is desirable that a formal opportunity should be given to the House for expressing its assent to this part of our plan. Whether that should be done in the form of a separate Motion, or in the form of an Amendment to the Supply Rule, I have not absolutely decided, but I think probably the latter course would be the most convenient. Under these circumstances, I shall be prepared to reprint the Estimates for this year and introduce them in their former shape, if there is a general understanding, as I am sure there will be, that no unreasonable obstacle will be placed in the way of their passing, and also that no objection will be raised on the ground that hon. Members may not have them in their new shape on Friday morning. I may say, as regards the discussion yesterday, the hon. Member for Waterford has given a very distinct and specific intimation, so far as he and his friends are concerned, that there will be no undue or prolonged discussion. I do not ask for a pledge from other parts of the House. I feel I do not wish any Gentleman to go to the trouble of volunteering pledges. I think I may say it is understood that, if the Government so far meets the views of the Members of the House, the House will, in its turn, consider the general convenience by the brevity of the discussion.

May I ask whether "prolonged" discussion and "unreasonable" discussion are not very different terms.

I think in Parliamentary language they have exactly the same meaning.