Commons Sitting of 6 December 1878

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Ordered—First Reading—Permissive Prohibitory Liquor* [6]; Burial Law Amendment [10]; Money Laws (Ireland)* [12]; Consecration of Churchyards Act (1867) Amendment [13]; Licensing Boards (Scotland)* [15]; Clerical Disabilities* [18]; Spirits in Bond* [19]; Joint Stock Banks (Accounts) [23]; Interments in Churchyards [24]; Licensing Laws Amendment [25]; Intoxicating Liquors (Ireland) [32]; Church of Scotland [39]; Burials* [42]
Ordered—First Reading—Married Women's Property (Scotland)* [1]; Medical Act (1858) Amendment* [2]; Hypothec Abolition (Scotland)* [3]; Convention (Ireland) Act Re-
176
peal* [4]; Volunteer Corps (Ireland)* [5]; Elective County Boards (Ireland)* [7]; Waste Lands Reclamation (Ireland)* [8]; Municipal Corporations (Property Qualification Abolition)* [9]; Hours of Polling (Boroughs)* [11]; Rating of Towns (Ireland)* [14]; Valuation of Lands (Scotland) Amendment* [16]; Colonial Marriages* [17]; Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday* [20]; Employers and Workmen Act, 1875 (Extension to Seamen)* [21]; Disqualification by Medical Relief* [22]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland)* [26]; Relief of Insane Poor* [27]; Cruelty to Animals* [28]; Voters Registration (Ireland)* [29]; Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* [30]; Artizans' Dwellings Act (1868) Extension* [31]; Public Health Act (1875) Amendment* [33]; Contagious Diseases Acts Repeal* [34]; Poor Law Guardians (Election by Ballot) (Ireland)* [35]; Duration of Parliament* [36]; Ulster Tenant Right* [37]; Inhabited House Duty and Income Tax* [38]; County Courts* [40]; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act (1870) Amendment* [41]; Libel Law Amendment* [43]; Poor Law Amendment Act (1876) Amendment* [44]; Bills of Sale (Ireland) * [45]; County Infirmaries (Ireland)* [46]; Habitual Drunkards* [47]; Racecourses (Metropolis)* [48].

NOTICES OF MOTION.

  AFGHANISTAN—AMENDMENTS ON THE ADDRESS.
  MR. WHITBREAD: I beg to give Notice that it is my intention to call attention to the Papers on Afghanistan, and to move—
  "That this House disapproves the conduct of Her Majesty's Government which has resulted in the War with Afghanistan."
  With regard to the day on which I can bring that forward, I am, of course, very much in the hands of the Government. Having given Notice of a Motion which directly challenges the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, I am, of course, anxious to bring it forward at the earliest opportunity; and I presume that Her Majesty's Government—and, indeed, both sides of the House—would desire, as is usual, that not a day should be lost in bringing it forward. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman what day he will give me for the Motion?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Undoubtedly, Sir, under ordinary circumstances it would be the desire of the Government to give the very earliest day for a Motion that is in the nature of a Vote of Censure upon the Government, a Motion brought forward

  177
  by an hon. Member of the standing of the hon. Member for Bedford, and with, as I have some reason to suppose, the general approval of the leading Members of the Party sitting opposite to me; but I would remind the House and the hon. Gentleman that on this occasion Parliament has been called together for the special purpose of discharging a Constitutional and statutory obligation entered into by the Government; and that in order to fulfil that obligation it will be necessary for us immediately to submit to Parliament a Vote giving the required consent of both Houses of Parliament to the course which is proposed to be taken. That being so, it would be impossible for us to set aside proceeding with the Motion of which Notice has been given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. It was, of course, open to the hon. Member for Bedford or for his Friends to have brought forward a Motion such as that of which he has now given Notice yesterday upon the Address; or it would, be open for him to bring forward his Motion as an Amendment to the proposal of my hon. Friend to which I have just referred. It is not for me, of course, to say what would be the most convenient or proper course for the hon. Member to take; but all I can say is, that if the question of the hon. Gentleman points to our giving up Monday and putting off the Resolution which we have already given Notice of, in order to enable his Resolution to be brought forward, I think it would be impossible for us to comply.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to give Notice that on the Resolution of the hon. Member for Bedford I will move the following addition:—
  "And this House regrets that, in the present instance, the consent of the Nation, through its representatives, was not obtained before War was declared; and that the Government withheld from publication, until after the Declaration of War, the Papers which would have enabled a correct opinion to be formed as to its justice and necessity."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I desire to make an appeal to the Government to re-consider the decision which has just been announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but I am under the impression that it would be irregular for any discussion to take place at this stage of the proceedings. It
  178
  would possibly be more in Order if I were to postpone any appeal I have to make until after the Notices of Motions and Questions have been put.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: We shall have to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON: It becomes my duty now to move that the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Monday next."—(Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I intended, if I had been enabled, to have made an appeal to the Government, before the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the determination of the Government, to take into consideration the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford. My hon. Friend has given Notice of a Resolution which is undoubtedly a Resolution of Censure—or, at all events, of Want of Confidence in the Government. From the, observations that I made yesterday I think it will be easily understood that I and those who act with me are prepared to support that Motion. Well, Sir, under these circumstances, I wish, as I have said, to appeal to the Government to re-consider their intention of moving on Monday the Resolution of which they have given Notice, and to give precedence to that of my hon. Friend. It occurs to me that that would be the most convenient course for two reasons. In the first place, as, I think, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has admitted, the Government would, under ordinary circumstances, be anxious to give the earliest possible opportunity for a vote involving the question of the confidence of the House in the Government. But, in the next place, there are peculiar circumstances which seem to me to render this course even more desirable. What will take place on Monday? On Monday the Under Secretary of State for India will make a statement which will not be confined to the financial question, but will open the whole case of the Government in reference to the proceedings in Afghanistan. The hon. Member will be followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett), who has

  179
  given Notice of a Resolution which raises the question whether the cost of the war shall be borne by the Revenues of this country or by those of India. Now, the course taken by my hon. Friend precludes the possibility, even if it had been otherwise desirable, of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford moving his Resolution as an Amendment to the Resolution which will be moved by the Under Secretary of State. But I have ascertained that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney is not disposed, even if that were thought desirable, to give way in order that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford's Resolution might come on. I cannot complain of the decision at which my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney has arrived, because I believe it will be the only opportunity which he will have in his power of raising the very important question which he wishes to submit to the House. What will be the result? We shall have had a general statement of the policy of the Government from the Government Bench; we shall then be invited by the hon Member for Hackney to consider a most important but still a subsidiary point; and the debate which is commenced and conducted under these circumstances cannot possibly be a very satisfactory one. We shall have on one side speeches made directed to the whole policy of the Government; and, on the other hand, we shall have speeches made directed to that subsidiary point raised by the hon. Member. Now, it strikes me it would be far more logical and convenient if we should decide, in the first instance, on the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford as to the policy, or want of policy, of the proceedings which have led to war. Having disposed of that question, we could then consider on a subsequent occasion the issue raised by the hon. Member for Hackney as to the source from which the cost should be defrayed. That certainly seems to me to be by far the most convenient course; and I cannot help thinking that if the Government will consider it they will agree with that view, and they may possibly be disposed to allow precedence to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to point out that the Parliamentary case does not appear to me to rest exactly as it was described by the Chancellor of the
  180
  Exchequer. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that it was in the option of Gentlemen on this side of the House to raise the general question on the Address to Her Majesty, and that, having voluntarily foregone that opportunity, there still remained to them the question of an Amendment to the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite, who represents the Indian Department. But I think, Sir, it escaped the recollection of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we have not yet done with the Address to Her Majesty, and that it is in the option of any person either to move an Amendment on the Report of the Address, or, if it is thought fit, to move the postponement of the consideration of the Address until Monday, when it would of necessity be taken as the first Business, and when, therefore, the Opposition in this House would be enabled to give effect to their view, which I understand to be, as expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford and my noble Friend, that the general question of the conduct of the Government, and of their policy, ought to be discussed and disposed of before we come to consider the subaltern and collateral, although a most important, question, which is wholly distinct from that general question. I frankly own I do not know why Her Majesty's Government object to the proposal that has been made by my noble Friend. I cannot conceive what disadvantage they are to undergo if they should think fit to give way to it. I would also point out that the two questions not only are not the same in subject-matter, but are not the same in any degree as regards the opinions that hon. Gentlemen might be disposed to entertain. It is perfectly possible that there may be those on this side of the House who object to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, but, notwithstanding, who might be disposed to support the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite on the part of the Government; and, vice versâ, it is perfectly possible that there may be those on that side of the House, or elsewhere, who may be prepared to give a strong support to the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and yet who may think that, under all the circumstances of the case, it is not desirable that the cost of these hostilities should be imposed upon the burdened

  181
  finances of India. I would entreat Her Majesty's Government to consider that point, which appears to me to be undeniable. In truth, as I view the matter—although I can understand it arises without the slightest intention to perplex the Business of the House—the proposal of the Government that we should take the discussion on the Motion and Amendment now before the House would come to nothing more nor less than this—that, first of all, we should be compelled to debate together, and in hotch-potch, so to speak, two questions which are both of very great importance, even if not of equal importance, and which are perfectly distinct from one another; and then that, having so discussed these two questions together, we should go to a division, in which it would be absolutely impossible for anyone to know whether he was voting on the one side or the other. Now, Sir, that is a state of things in which it cannot be acceptable or desirable to Her Majesty's Government that the Business of the House should stand. I apprehend no one is desirous to interfere with the progress of the Report of the Address to-night. If we are driven to the alternative between making an attempt to discuss the policy of the Government upon the Report of the Address, where the discussion would undoubtedly be legitimate and in place, and discussing upon another occasion when it would not be legitimate nor in place, and where it would only throw the Business of the House into confusion, I know not what position my noble Friend might take; but I see nothing but inconvenience to the proceedings of the House in consequence. Then, also, I think Her Majesty's Government may do well to recollect that they are not now, as at the end of the Session, masters of all the days of the week. If it is insisted that the debate on Monday shall be the debate on the Motion of my hon. Friend opposite, and also that that Motion shall be the only occasion given us for considering the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, the consequence will be that the debate will spread over several nights, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford would, I apprehend, decline to move his Motion as an Amendment. But suppose my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, declining to move his Motion as an
  182
  Amendment, should think proper to avail himself of his privilege to bring forward his Motion on Tuesday, what, then, will be the position of the House? That we shall begin on Monday the debate on the question of Indian finance with a considerable admixture of the other subject; that my hon. Friend, I apprehend, will not give way on Tuesday; and his debate will then commence and be continued during Tuesday night. But then the Government will retort upon my hon. Friend the disadvantage which it has been in his power to inflict upon them, and on Thursday we should resume the debate, and so go on on the Motion about Indian finance. I hope I have not appeared to put this question in a hostile point of view; I have only argued it in the interests of the general convenience, and I hope the suggestion of my noble Friend will be entertained.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I must confess, after listening to the speech which has just been delivered, I feel very much like the picture that was exhibited to us in a comic periodical the other day, of "John Bull in a Fog." After the number of suggestions made by my right hon. Friend as to the different modes in which those who oppose Her Majesty's Government may attack us, I feel the situation is perfectly bewildering. I should have thought that there was but one possible mode in which the Motion could be brought forward, and that that mode depended upon the formal decision of the Government; but after hearing the wealth of suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, and considering how many arrangements might be made by Gentlemen opposite—who have only got to arrange amongst themselves in which particular way they would like it discussed—I do not think the case is strengthened by the speech which has been made to us. But what I wish to point out is this—we have taken the unusual course of advising Her Majesty to summon Parliament at this inconvenient season for a particular object, to fulfil the statutory obligation which is laid upon us to obtain the consent of both Houses of Parliament to the application of the Indian Revenues to certain military operations. I wish to point out, in passing, that that is a very different thing from saying we are asking Parliament now to agree to charge

  183
  the whole of the expenses on the Indian Revenue. That is a point which has been raised in this Motion. I only point out that by the way; but at this time we are making an appeal to Parliament, asking it for the authority required by the Act. The proper time for making that proposal is the very first day of Business that we can command, and it it is proposed to make that proposal on Monday next. Well, we are told, whether that proposal should or should not be assented to, it is desired to challenge the whole policy with regard to the war itself. But that might have been challenged on the Address, and it may still be challenged on the Report of the Address; or it might be challenged by some arrangement between the different Members of the Opposition—which obviously suggests itself, but which we are told cannot take place; or, lastly, it might be arranged, after a decision had been taken upon the questions which will be raised by the Amendment and Motion, a substantive Motion should be brought forward by the hon. Member for Bedford, which would raise the general policy as to the war. But I think the proper and most convenient course is that which the Government proposes to pursue, and that is that we should be allowed, to take the opportunity which would naturally be afforded us, on moving for the statutory consent of this House to the application of the Revenues of India to those purposes, of stating our case. Our object is to explain our case, and to let such discussion arise as may be thought desirable. I really think that we are taking the most convenient course, not only for ourselves, but for the House generally. We have to consider the convenience of the House generally, especially upon such an occasion as this; and I am, therefore, very sorry that it is not in my power to comply with the request of the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there was one point on which he wished clearly to understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Opposition had been, he would not say taunted, but it had been pointed out that they might have taken the course of moving this Amendment on the Address. Now, his noble Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated on the previous night the reasons which had induced him not to
  184
  take that course, expecting, no doubt, at the time, that the Government would have made no difficulty with reference to a day for this Motion. ["Oh, oh!"] His noble Friend might have been wrong—and it would now appear he was wrong—at all events, he entertained that expectation. But his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich had pointed out that the House had not yet done with the Address. The Report of the Address was still in the hands of the House; and he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India was prepared to state the case of the Government that night, and if not, the best course to take would be the one suggested by his right hon. Friend, and that was that upon the Report of the Address, to move that it be postponed till Monday. They should then place the Government and the Opposition really in the position which the Government considered the latter ought to have taken up in the first instance. Therefore, he should like to know what the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought of this—that when the Report of the Address was moved that evening a proposal for an adjournment till Monday should be agreed to, and then the Government, on the Report, would state their case, and the hon. Member for Bedford would move his Amendment. He did not see that any time would be lost. The hon. Member for Bedford's Motion would then be an Amendment on the Report, and he should like to know whether the Government would assent to this.
  MR. WHITBREADthought the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not quite understood the position. ["Oh!" "Order!"] That was his opinion, and he begged leave to state it. The position of affairs was this: The Opposition desired to challenge the conduct of the Government in two particulars—those raised by the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, and by his (Mr. Whitbread's) own Motion—but the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that the Government should state the whole of the Government case on Monday; and then, after that, that the House should go into a discussion on the particular point raised by the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett). Did the Chancellor of the Exchequer really think that the case

  185
  of the Government could be dealt with in its entirety, having stated that the discussion would be confined to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I did not make that suggestion. I said the case of the Government would be stated on Monday, and it would be for those who opposed the Government to take what course they deemed necessary.
  MR. WHITBREADreminded the House that his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, who had already given Notice to raise a particular issue, had declined to give way. He did not complain of his hon. Friend for taking that course, as the point he wished to raise was an important one; but the effect of it would be that they should have the general statement made by the Under Secretary of State for India, they should then have the particular issue raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, and, afterwards, a great many Gentlemen would reply on the whole case, while others would state their opinions of the Amendment, so that they should have a desultory debate, not dealing satisfactorily either with the particular point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, nor brought to a point where the decision of the House would be taken on the whole question. The course proposed by the Government would lead to a long and desultory debate; and when the Opposition came afterwards to raise the questions involved in his Motion, complaints would be made from the Ministerial Benches of their going over the ground again, and prolonging the Sitting at this inconvenient time of the year. It was not in his power to press the Chancellor of the Exchequer further. In the course of his experience of that House—which was not a short one—he had generally found the Government anxious to provide every facility for bringing forward Motions which challenged their policy. Often last Session and the Session before they used this sort of language—"Why don't you bring your opinions to the test of a vote? It you disapprove the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, why don't you bring a Vote of Censure?" Well, he wanted to propose a Vote of Censure. But the way in which the Government
  186
  proposed to deal with that matter was by postponing it. He had expressed his desire to enter the lists with the Government on the earliest possible occasion; but, of course, it was not in his power to compel the Government to accept that challenge sooner than they liked.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, that he was totally unable to understand the complaint of the hon. Member for Bedford, that the Government was unwilling to meet a direct challenge. As the question presented itself to him, the complaint of the Government was that the Opposition had hesitated and declined to make a direct challenge. There had certainly been plenty of time for all the Leaders, for all who wished to be Leaders, and for all who thought themselves Leaders of the Opposition to have arranged their plans of operation. Those various classes of Leaders might have assembled together; they might have squabbled together, and then made up their differences, and agreed upon some Amendment with which they could have appeared as the great united. Party they were well known to be. It would have been both natural and easy for them to have arranged an Amendment to the Address, which in a crisis like this was the ancient and well-known course of procedure. But they were totally unprepared, and their bewilderment did not even stop here; they seemed totally to have forgotten that there was a Report on the Address. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, in his character of the good angel who sat watching aloft, the super-Leader or post-Leader of his Party—which he was it was difficult to know, for he always appeared after the Leader to supply the casual deficiencies in the Leader's speech—stepped forward to refresh their memories, and his suggestion that there was a Report on the Address seemed a sudden revelation to Gentlemen opposite. But the hon. Member for Bedford was much too experienced a Member to have forgotten that there was a Report; and why he did not give Notice of his Amendment last night was the one thing which he had not explained. His solicitation amounted to a confession that the Liberal Party had out-generalled themselves in taking up a defenceless position, and had to fall back upon an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the

  187
  command of their forces and lead them out of their own difficulty.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he thought there was one point in the present situation that ought not to be lost sight of by the House. It had been customary—and he believed the Government considered it a very convenient custom—that the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne should be assented to unanimously. But there were exceptions; and he took it for granted that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition (the Marquess of Hartington) was actuated by a desire to meet the convenience of the House by not moving an Amendment on the Address. In taking that course the noble Lord had disappointed the expectations of some of those who followed his Leadership, and who would have been glad if the question had been raised at the earliest possible moment, as an Amendment on the Address. He could also say that the noble Lord had disappointed a large number of earnest members of his own Party throughout the country, who were watching the proceedings of that House with the greatest anxiety, and they were most desirous that the first opportunity should be embraced for entering a protest against a war which they believed to be one of the most infamous ever waged. He, and those who thought with him, would, at all events, have the courage of their convictions. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) taunted the Liberal Party with its divisions; but they were quite prepared, out of regard for the convenience of the House, and out of respect to the noble Lord who led their Party, to keep back for a time their protest, but how were they met? in such a way that he hoped that the dilettante mode of dealing with Addresses to the Throne would be done away with. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to say that while the noble Lord had not, out of courtesy, brought forward the question on the Address to the Throne the Government would cheerfully give every opportunity for its full discussion. They had found out by a mere accident that the terms of the Address were most unusual, and if it had not been altered it would have committed the whole House to an approval of the origin of the war. If that Address had not been altered they would have challenged the opinion of
  188
  the House. It was subsequently altered, for the express purpose of preventing the necessity for an Amendment. This was only on a piece with the conduct of the Government, who had been acting in the same manner for several months past, leading the House on by assurances in which they were afterwards disappointed. They had treated the House of Commons—or, at all events, the Liberal Party—with contempt; they had kept back information from the House—["No, no!"]—the only opportunity they would have of raising the important Constitutional question would be on such a Motion as that of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, which the Government refused to give an opportunity of discussing. They hoped to have an opportunity for discussing, not only the war, but many questions relating to the war; and if the Government did not give the House an opportunity for discussing the Vote of Censure—from which they shrank—they would use all the Forms of the House which were in their possession with the view of discussing this Resolution of the hon. Gentleman on conditions which should ensure a fair and full discussion. Even now, he hoped the Government would give his hon. Friend Monday night for his Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEperfectly understood the position of the Opposition, and in the circumstances of this war, the contingencies of which were so wide, it was to the credit of the Opposition that they should have been unwilling even to appear to refuse the means of carrying it on. He rejoiced that Her Majesty's Government had convened Parliament in deference to what he had always understood to be the requirements of the law with respect to the employment of Indian troops out of India. But now that Parliament was assembled, Her Majesty's Government had declined to afford an opportunity to the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) to discuss a censure of their policy. ["No, no!"] That he understood to be the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had replied to the hon. Member for Bedford, the noble Lord the Member for Radnor, and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, that there were opportunities at the command of the Opposition and at the general command of the House, and they must avail themselves of some of

  189
  these. That was an answer which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a perfect right to make; but inferences would be drawn from it which might not be agreeable. The answer might be given from a sense of duty; but, if so, the duty devolved upon the Opposition to avail itself of the privileges they possessed as Members of the House. He trusted that what had occurred would render Her Majesty's Opposition and the great body of the House careful how they parted with their privileges.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Government have not yet favoured us with their opinion as to the course which it has been indicated from this side must be necessary—namely, that unless the Government can make a satisfactory arrangement for the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford, the discussion on the Report on the Address ought to be adjourned, so that on that Report my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford may move his Amendment. I am sure the Government do not wish this discussion to close without giving us their views on that point; and I wish to know in what spirit the Government desire these debates on this most important issue to be conducted? The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. B. Hope) indicated his views of the Opposition; but I trust the public will not be misled by pleasantries of that sort. The point of the case is this—that the Opposition desire a clear and unmistakable opportunity of debating the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The Government proposal is to this effect—that the discussion of the Vote of Censure is to be mixed up in an inextricable manner with another proposal which is only subsidiary. They charge us now with an omission in not moving an Amendment on the Address. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Not "charge."] Not to the same extent in this House, perhaps; but in "another place" the charge was made in the most direct manner. To that charge we reply that the inexplicable delay in the issue of the Papers placed before us rendered it impossible to come to an adequate conclusion on the great issues involved in time to take that course. Hon. Members could not make up their minds without knowing the facts disclosed in that most important volume containing the Asian
  190
  Papers. If they had known how the Government acted with Russia, and what weak remonstrances they made as to the advances in Central Asia, while they were making demonstrations against Afghanistan, it might have been possible to debate the subject without perusing the Papers. But, on this side at least, we feel there is an immense responsibility involved in the case; and we did not think it possible to debate it in the manner in which the country desired until those Papers had been thoroughly mastered. That is a fair and proper statement of the matter. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition placed that argument before the House, and it was not challenged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wish now to know whether hon. Members opposite and the Government do not desire that my noble Friend should continue to act in that loyal, patriotic, and Constitutional manner in which he discharged his duties to his Party and the country; or I should like to know whether they wish this side to have recourse to what they would be the first to call factious opposition the moment it was adopted, and if they, on their part, intend to disregard traditionary forms? The traditionary form is, that on Notice of a Vote of Censure the Government immediately postpone all other Business in order to take the opinion of the House upon that issue. In the first place, by delaying the Papers they have put us in a position that a debate upon the Address would have been too early and inadequate, and now they wish to reduce us to the position that the debate must be put off and be unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says "we must state our case." So far it is clear. What is to follow? The hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Fawcett) will propose a Motion on a subsidiary point, and a general discussion will take place upon it. It is perfectly clear that in that case the issues themselves which it is desired to raise cannot be satisfactorily discussed; and the country will know, if you refuse to give us this adequate discussion upon your conduct, that you are attempting to confuse our challenge with other issues. I wish to know the opinion of the Government with regard to the adjournment of the Report on the Address.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: We all regret that in debates on such, a serious question as we are going to be engaged in next week, proceedings should be begun by any heated arguments, on one side or the other, entirely on side issues. I understood from the noble Lord last night that nothing was further from his desire than that it should be the case; and when we are accused of having placed matters in an awkward position before the House, we are entitled to deny that that awkwardness originated with us. How did this matter come before us? Both Houses were called together for one special purpose. Of course, an Address had to be moved to the Crown. The natural course on such a question as this is not unknown to the noble Lord, for it was successfully applied in his case in former years, and he is therefore perfectly aware of it. It was to challenge the policy of the Government in an Amendment on the Address. The noble Lord declined to do that; and I think I am not wrong in saying that he declined to do it because he did not wish to do anything in the way of stopping Supplies absolutely necessary for the war.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman is somewhat under a misapprehension. "What I said was that, in my opinion, an Amendment to the Address might have been a proper—perhaps the most proper—way of meeting the question; but that the conduct of the Government in keeping back the Papers until almost immediately before the meeting of Parliament rendered the adoption of that course impossible.
  MR. ASSHETON CROSS: And, at the same time, the noble Lord said he did not want there to be a semblance of opposing Supplies. If the course now suggested were followed, that would practically be the result. It was, however, open to those who challenged the policy of the Government to move an Amendment to the Address, which, in my opinion, would have been the most proper way of proceeding; or to have given Notice of moving an Amendment on the Report, or on the Motion which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India proposes to submit to the House on Monday next. If the hon. Member for Bedford had announced it to be his intention to bring
  192
  forward his Amendment on that Motion, I feel sure the hon. Member for Hackney would not have disputed his right to do so. The hon. Member for Bedford, however, has not chosen to take advantage of any of the three opportunities which were open to him. My purpose in rising was to make a suggestion that will, it seems to me, remove the difficulty, if hon. Members opposite will agree amongst themselves. Suppose the Report on the Address is taken to-day, and that on Monday the Under Secretary of State for India lays the case of the Government open on the withdrawal of the hon. Member for Hackney, no one will be injured. It is convenient that the course in both Houses should be the same. The Under Secretary of State could then be followed by the hon. Member for Bedford, and then we should go into the whole question, and it would be thoroughly discussed. If the hon. Gentleman succeeded in carrying his Amendment, the hon. Member for Hackney would, I have no doubt, be satisfied with the result; but if, on the other hand, the Amendment were to be defeated, then the Question put would be that "the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," and the Amendment of the hon. Member for Hackney, being a simple negative of the Resolution proposed by the Government, he would be afforded an ample opportunity of discussing the question which he desires to raise in the fullest manner. That, in my opinion, would be the simplest and best course to adopt.
  MR. FAWCETTsaid, he would consult the convenience of the House in reference to his Amendment; but his Amendment was a very important one, and was totally distinct from the question raised by the hon. Member for Bedford. He had reason to believe that on both sides of the House there existed considerable difference of opinion as to the manner in which the financial burdens should be apportioned. If the war was Imperial rather than Indian in its scope and its results, it would be monstrously unjust to make the people of India pay for it; if, on the other hand, it was of the contrary character, its expense should be defrayed by India. That was, in short, the point raised by his Motion, which, as the hon. Member for Bedford would see, had no relation to his own Resolution. In the few re-

  193
  marks he would have to make he should avoid any consideration of the purposes of the war, beyond what was necessary to show that the charge should not be borne by the people of India. The Home Secretary had suggested a course which he must be well aware would place him (Mr. Fawcett) in a position of such absurdity as to his opportunity that he could not agree to it. There would be a debate of four nights, one of the greatest debates which had taken place for a quarter of a century, and the suggestion of the Home Secretary would lead to his rising at 3 o'clock in the morning when the division on the Vote of Censure took place to propose his Amendment. He would not further discuss that impracticable suggestion; but would only add that, in common with many hon. Members on that side of the House, he would have preferred the more direct and simple course of bringing forward the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford on the Address. As, however, that had not been done, it seemed to him that the best remaining plan would be to bring it forward on the Report.
  MR. A. MILLSconfessed that he had been so much struck by the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, as to the necessity for keeping the discussion on the merits of the war distinct from considerations of finance, that he could not but agree with him in hoping that the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford would be brought forward as an Amendment to the Report. He regretted that the traditional usage had not been followed; but it was necessary, at any rate, to preserve the distinction between the Motions of the hon. Members for Hackney and Bedford.
  MR. RATHBONEremarked that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it convenient that the plan he suggested should be adopted. He wished, however, to know to whom it was convenient, and for what reason? All the Opposition wanted was to have the question clearly and definitively debated, in the belief that the Government had a bad case; and, that being so, he could understand that it would be very convenient for them so to cloud and trouble the waters of the discussion that the country would not be able to judge between the two parties. That was a convenience they had no intention of affording.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that it would probably now be admitted on all sides that his noble Friend had been right in not proposing any Amendment to the Address on account of the short time they had had for perusing 500 pages of Blue Book; but when it had been remarked that a different course had been taken by him on another occasion, he would remind the House that that was after the General Election of 1859, when the Reform question had been discussed for months. At the present moment they were at great disadvantage, because the usual methods for discussing the policy of a war had been deliberately taken out of their hands. Take the nearest analogous case—that of the summoning of Parliament on account of the Abyssinian War. On that occasion not one, but several distinct opportunities were afforded for discussing the whole question. After the Address had been adopted the entire case of the Government was stated, on the Motion for Supply, by the Leader of the House. That was followed by a Ways and Means debate, and then by a Motion as to the charge on the Revenues of India. Some objected, in the debate in Supply, both to the action of the then Government and to that of their Predecessors; but that debate had been concluded before the specific question of the charge on India for the expenses of the war had been discussed. In the present case, however, the question was simply the lesser and more specific one raised by the difference of opinion as to what share of the military burden should be borne by India. It would seem that the Government were disposed to take advantage of the fact that no Amendment had been moved to the Address, in order to preclude the Opposition from a general debate before the comparatively less important—though still very important—subject raised by the Under Secretary of State came before the House on Monday. The Home Secretary had suggested that when his Colleague came to move a Resolution relating to the payment of the expenses of the war by India, an Amendment might be moved by the hon. Member for Bedford; and that after this matter was disposed of the hon. Member for Hackney might satisfy himself by merely voting a negative to the original Motion. But why should the hon Member for

  195
  Hackney so satisfy himself? He might wish to qualify that opposition by language and a Resolution very different from a bare negative. He (Mr. Childers) did not think there was any precedent for such a proposal. It had been suggested that this question should be now raised on the Report. But this could not be done to-day, for it was not possible to propose an Amendment without Notice, and no Notice could have been given until to-day. The House would agree that the first available day ought to be taken; and he thought they had bettor adjourn the Report of the Address that night, and take it on Monday. They could then thresh out the whole question of the war on the important Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford. It would be time to consider the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney after this subject had been discussed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that, having already spoken, he had no right to say anything further except by the indulgence of the House. He thought that the convenience of the House would be consulted by accepting the proposal that had just been made. The Government had, of course, no desire in any way to preclude discussion; but he thought the proposal made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department would have given the hon. Member for Hackney every advantage that he could have obtained by any other course. Whatever course was taken, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) understood there would be a general discussion of the whole merits of the war in the first instance, and then a subsequent discussion would be raised by the hon. Member for Hackney as to how it was to be charged. According to the proposal made by his right hon. Friend, they would take the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford first, and then take another night for the other. Nobody would ever have supposed they could take up the Motion of the hon. Member for Hackney at 3 o'clock in the morning. If it had come up at such an hour, it would have been allowed to stand over until the following day. The Government had no desire to force the matter forward upon the House. They would agree to the adjournment of the discussion on the Report of the Address till Monday. Before sitting down, however,
  196
  he must take notice of the observation of the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Goschen), that the Government had intentionally kept back the Papers. That was a remark that ought not to have been made. The Government had endeavoured until the last moment to bring about an amicable settlement. It was not until the Ameer declined to send an answer to the Ultimatum that warlike measures were found necessary; and then the Government took immediate steps to prepare the Papers and lay them on the Table of the House. He assumed that if the discussion on the Report and the Motion of the hon. Member for Bedford were resumed on Monday the House would be prepared to continue it de die in diem.
  MR. WHITBREADassented.
  Motion agreed to.
  House, at rising, to adjourn till Monday next.

QUESTIONS.
  AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIA AND THE AMEER—GENERAL KAUFFMANN.

    QUESTION.
    MR. A. MILLSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any official information has been received by the Government concerning the alleged presentation of an address by General Kauffmann on behalf of the Emperor of Russia, to the Ameer of Afghanistan?
    MR. BOURKE: No information has been received on the subject.

    AFGHANISTAN—REPULSE OF THE MISSION.—QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, What is the authority for Lord Lytton's statement in the telegram of September 26th, 1878 (not contained among the facts which were given in his three previous messages), viz.:—
    "Officer commanding fort said … but for personal friendship he would, in obedience to the Ameer's orders, have shot down Cavagnari and his suite;"
    why neither the account given by the Indian Government on the same day (p. 239), nor that of October 3rd (p. 247),

    197
    mention such a grave occurrence; if he could explain why Major Cavagnari, in his report of the affair, says—
    "Faiz Muhammed Khan, from first to last, has behaved in a most courteous manner, and very favourably impressed both Colonel Jenkins and myself;"
    and, why Sir Neville Chamberlain, in writing his demand on September 22nd, (p. 259) to the Commander of Ali Musjid, said—
    "You declared that you had received no instructions to permit the British Mission to pass, and stated that you would certainly oppose it by force if it advanced?"
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, if my noble Friend will turn to the next page to that which he has quoted from the Blue Book I think he will find an answer to his Question. At page 249 he will find a Report from Major Cavagnari to Sir Neville Chamberlain, and the 11th paragraph contains a full account of what took place. It is there stated by Major Cavagnari that Faiz Muhammed Khan came down to meet them, and stated that he was not allowed to proceed, and then he makes this observation—
    "That if he had not been friendly disposed he would not have consented to the present interview or have restrained his levies from firing on my party."
    At page 251, in the Report from Colonel Jenkins, who was present on the same occasion, there is the following passage:—
    "Major Cavagnari then asked whether, under these circumstances, the Sirdar would oppose the passage of the Mission; and the Sirdar said that he would certainly do so. He further said 'You may take it as a kindness, and because I remember friendship, that I do not fire upon you for what you have done already.'"
    These are the grounds upon which the Indian Government spoke of the armed opposition by which they were encountered, and I think that is an answer to the Question. The noble Lord asks me, whether I can explain how it was that Major Cavagnari, in his report of the affair, said that—
    "From first to last Faiz Muhammed Khan behaved in the most courteous manner, and very favourably impressed Colonel Jenkins and myself."
    No doubt Faiz Muhammed Khan had a very disagreeable duty imposed upon him in resisting the English Mission, and I presume that he discharged that
    198
    disagreeable duty with courtesy, and like a gentleman, as no doubt he is. It is stated that he favourably impressed both Major Cavagnari and Colonel Jenkins. His restraining his levies from firing would favourably impress them.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he does not think such an interpretation of the words quoted is inconsistent with those other words quoted by Sir Neville Chamberlain; and whether the real meaning of them is not this—"You see how perfectly friendly I am to you. You see I still maintain my ancient friendship." ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKERremarked that the noble Lord was not entitled to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for an expression of opinion on this point.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Then I will ask whether this is not the meaning of the words—"As a proof of my great friendship for you, I have restrained my levies from firing on you."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: That was not the impression that was made on the minds of our two emissaries. Colonel Jenkins, in his Report to Sir Neville Chamberlain, says that had it not been for the great courtesy and care exercised by Major Cavagnari a collision would probably have taken place. No doubt there was considerable danger; and if Major Cavagnari had not, with considerable dexterity and tact, changed the subject, it is extremely likely that serious consequences would have ensued.

  THE EASTERN QUESTION—THE TREATY OF BERLIN—ARTICLE 24.

    QUESTION.
    MR. W. CARTWEIGHTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any Communications have been addressed to, or any Correspondence exchanged between Her Majesty's Government and France or any other signatory Power of the Berlin Treaty in respect of some proposed action in the sense of Article 24 of that Treaty, with the view of facilitating the rectification of the frontier between Greece and Turkey, as suggested in Protocol 13 of the Berlin Congress; and, if there has been any such Communication or Correspondence, whether Her

    199
    Majesty's Government intend to lay it before Parliament.
    MR. BOURKE: The subject mentioned in the Question is still under negotiation, and when these negotiations are finished the Papers will be submitted to Parliament.

  AFGHANISTAN—RUSSIAN POLICY.

    QUESTION.
    LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with regard to the following statement made by Lord Lytton and Sir Lewis Pelly on 10th October, 1876 (p. 183):—
    "Our only interest in maintaining the independence of Afghanistan is to provide for the security of our frontier. But the moment we cease to regard Afghanistan as a friendly and firmly allied State, what is there to prevent us from providing for the security of our frontier by an understanding with Russia, which might have the effect of wiping Afghanistan out of the map altogether? If the Ameer does not desire to come to a speedy understanding with us, Russia does; and she desires it at his expense;"
    to what negotiation or proposal did the Viceroy allude; and, whether, as Afghanistan is now not a friendly State, any understanding has been come to between England and Russia on the subject?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, that as he read the passage referred to by the noble Lord, and as it was understood by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for India, it simply conveyed the general impression which the Viceroy had derived from the conversation with the Russian Minister as to the action of Russia. There was no ground for interpreting it as referring to any formal proposals by Russia on the subject.

  THE BOARD OF WORKS (IRELAND).

    QUESTION.
    MAJOR NOLANasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If the Government intend to take steps towards the re-organization of the Board of Works in Ireland?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The Board of Works is under the control of the Treasury, and my hon. Friend the Secretary of that Department informs me that steps are being taken with a view to a re-organization of the Board. I, however, have no personal knowledge of the matter, which is not in my Department.
    MAJOR NOLAN: I cannot say that I am satisfied with the answer which is given me by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I give Notice that I shall repeat the Question to the Secretary to the Treasury, and shall also ask him if the Government intend to make any announcement on the subject before the adjournment of the House for the Christmas Recess.

  PURCHASE OF LAND (IRELAND)—OCCUPYING TENANTS.

    QUESTION.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a measure for the purpose of giving greater facilities for occupying tenants of land in Ireland to become owners of their holdings by purchase in pursuance of the evidence and Report of the Committee of last Session on this subject?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: The Report of the Select Committee referred to and the Evidence are now engaging the attention of the Government, and it would be premature for me to state now what the decision of the Government may be. In due time it will be communicated to the House.
    MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I shall call attention to the subject again, and move a Resolution, when the House meets after the Recess, in case the course proposed by the Government should prove unsatisfactory.

    INDIAN DESPATCHES—OPINIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF INDIA.—QUESTION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether any opinions were given by any Members of the Council of India with respect to the Despatches from the Secretary of State for India to the Governor General of India, dated 22nd January and 19th November, 1875; and, if so, whether the Government will give the House their opinions; whether he can give the House Captain Grey's Letter to Noor Mahemed Shah, referred to in Dr. Bellew's Memorandum, dated Peshawur, 28th January 1877; whether there is any record of Sir Lewis Pelly's demand from the Cabul Envoy for an explanation of the reported hostility of

    201
    the Ameer's language and conduct while engaged in friendly and pacific negotiation with the British Government, referred to in paragraph 33 of Lord Lytton's Despatch of 10th May 1877, and of the Envoy's reply to this demand, referred to in paragraph 34 of the same Despatch; and, if there be such record, whether it can be produced; and, whether the Native Agent, Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan, made any report of his Mission to Cabul on his return to Simla in October 1878; and, whether, if so, such report can be produced?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The letters of Captain Grey and also the letters which passed between Sir Lewis Pelly and the Envoy shall be included in the forthcoming Papers. The only official account which we have received at the India Office of the Report of our Native Agent is a very short telegraphic Report; but my noble Friend is in communication with the Viceroy on the subject. With respect to Lord Salisbury's despatches to the Governor General of India, dated the 22nd January and 19th November, 1875, no opinions by any Members of the Council are recorded in the proceedings. They were approved by the Secret Committee of the Council. [Mr. FAWCETT: The Political Committee of the Council?] I prefer to call it by the name of the Political and Secret Committee. While under discussion notes were written by three of the Members for the consideration of their Colleagues and the Secretary of State. These notes were of a strictly confidential character, and it has never been the practice to communicate their contents, or, in fact, to make their existence known. If such notes were to be published, a Secret Committee would be useless, and I am afraid we cannot, therefore, undertake to produce them. The letter of the Native Agent will be produced with the rest of the Papers.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that with reference to the Report of the Native Agent's Mission to Cabul there were three letters written by Nawab Gholam Hussein Khan, but only abstracts or extracts were given of the contents in the Blue Book. As the letters were written letters, he presumed they might be given as well as the telegraphic extracts.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Do I understand that we shall receive these Papers as early as possible on Monday?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: They will be ready early to-morrow.

    THE AFGHAN PAPERS.—QUESTIONS.
    GENERAL SIR GEOEGE BALFOURasked the Under Secretary of State for India, If the Papers referred to at page 70 of the Afghan Papers will be laid before the House?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: The Papers referred to by the hon. and gallant Member consist of voluminous Minutes relating mainly to the affairs of Quetta and Beloochistan, and should be produced together with the Papers relating to the subject. That is the reason why they have not been included among the present series.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: Can I see them before the debate?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: No, Sir.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOUR: I thought so. ["Order!"]
    MR. E. STANHOPE: It is not usual to show Papers to any individual Member which have been refused to the House generally.

    AFGHANISTAN (EXPENSES OF MILITARY OCCUPATION.)—QUESTIONS.
    MR. FAWCETTasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether the consent of the Council of the Secretary of State for India has been obtained to any of the expenditure hitherto incurred in connection with the Military Expedition against the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, when this consent was obtained and whether it was unanimous; and, whether any opinions have been recorded by the Council as to the justice of throwing these charges upon the Revenue of India; and, if so, whether there will be any objection to lay the record of these opinions before Parliament?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: On Tuesday last a proposal came before the Council of the Secretary of State for increasing the Native Army in India. It was agreed to by a unanimous vote of the Council. Since that time certain opinions and reasons have, I understand, been prepared, but have not yet been recorded

    203
    in the proceedings of the Council. When they are so recorded, if the hon. Member likes to move for them, there will be no objection to their production.
    MR. FAWCETT: I will move for them; but the Under Secretary of State has not answered my Question. It was, Whether the consent of the Council has been obtained to the expenditure which has been incurred in Afghanistan; and, if so, on what day?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I would ask a further Question, and that is, whether the Council of India has been consulted on any single point connected with the outbreak of this war before Tuesday last?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give Notice of that Question. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Hackney, as I understand it, the object was to know whether certain dissents of the Members of the Council had been made, and whether we knew of them. I have already told him that when such dissents are entered upon the records, if the hon. Member moves for them, they will be presented to Parliament.
    MR. FAWCETT: I am extremely sorry to trouble the Under Secretary of State for India, but my Question is divided into two parts. The Under Secretary has answered the latter part of the Question; but the first part is absolutely distinct, and refers to the expenditure "hitherto incurred." What I want to know is, whether the consent of the Council of the Secretary of State for India has been obtained to any of the expenditure hitherto incurred in connection with the military expedition against the Ameer of Afghanistan; and, if so, when that consent was obtained, and whether it was unanimous?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I have to say that the consent of the Council has not been necessary in any case that has hitherto occurred. The only occasion in which any reference to past expenditure has come before the Council was on Tuesday last.
    MR. FAWCETT: Then I will ask—and repeat the Question on Monday, if necessary—if the consent of the Council of the Secretary of State for India has not been obtained to the expenditure which has hitherto been incurred—considering it is distinctly provided by the
    204
    41st section of the Government of India Act that no expenditure of the Revenues of India, whether in India or elsewhere, can be allowed, except by the consent of a majority of the Council of the Secretary of State for India—by whose authority this expenditure has been incurred?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I think the House will at once see that that is an argumentative Question. At the same time, I may say that I do not at all agree with this reading of the statute; and I shall at the proper time be prepared to argue the matter at much greater length than I could devote to it now.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked, if it was the intention of the Government to lay Papers on the Table connected with the assumption of the Ameer of Afghanistan in respect to Quetta?

    PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUSINESS.—QUESTIONS.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to know, whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to submit to the House the Resolutions which had been agreed to by the Committee on Public Business last Session? No. 3 of those Resolutions was to the effect that no hon. Member should move for the second reading of a Bill which he might introduce a day later than one month from the date of the first reading. There were 51 Notices of Bills.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to know, whether the hon. Member was not making use of the indulgence of the House in a very unusual way?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he understood the hon. Member for North Warwickshire did not intend to raise any discussion. At the same time, he must point out to him that he could only put any Question by the indulgence of the House.
    MR. NEWDEGATEthought it would have been competent to him to have raised the question on the first Bill; but that would be invidious, and therefore he had preferred to take his present course. There were 34 Wednesdays between now and the end of July.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now going into matter which he is not entitled to go into.
    MR. NEWDEGATEwould not trespass on the House. There were 51 No-

    205
    tices; and he asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he would move the second and third Resolutions which he carried in the Committee on Public Business last Session?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was afraid that he could not give a very full answer to the Question. Undoubtedly the Resolution was adopted by the Committee to which the hon. Gentleman referred; but he was not at the present moment able to say whether he would make proposals to that effect in the House. He would not do so, at any rate, in the present short Session.

    CRIMINAL LAW—THE MURDER IN KENT.—QUESTION.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENwished to ask the Home Secretary a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether the Government were in possession of information more detailed than that which had appeared in the newspapers in reference to the terrible murder in Kent; and also whether, considering the circumstances of the case, the Government had any intention of offering a reward for the discovery of the murderer?
    MR. ASSHETON CROSS, in reply, said, he had no information at all on the subject, but he expected to be in possession of some to-morrow. If it should appear desirable to offer a reward, he should do so; but, as his right hon. Friend knew, rewards were not offered by the Home Office until a verdict had been returned by the Coroner's Jury.

    THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
    Report of Address brought up, and read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Address be now read a second time."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be adjourned till Monday next."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS.
  BURIAL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. BALFOUR MR. BALFOUR moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Burial Laws."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEtook that opportunity of giving Notice that, on the second reading of the Bill, and at any subsequent stage, he would give it every opposition in his power, as he believed it to be a measure eminently calculated to add infinite confusion to a question infinitely confounded already.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported;—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. BALFOUR, Lord FRANCIS HERVEY, and Mr. WAIT.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 10.]

  CONSECRATION OF CHURCHYARDS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. MONK MR. MONK moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend 'The Consecration of Churchyards Act, 1867.'"
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, he thought it better to oppose the Bill—the object of which was to allow clergymen to set apart a portion of the graveyard for the interment of Dissenters—on the first reading, as it would save the time of the House, if the Bill was one which the House was likely to reject. He had long considered that the practice of introducing Private Bills as a matter of course should be put an end to. The Public Business of the House had become so enormous that something should be done to relieve the pressure; and he would commence by opposing this particular Bill, which, if introduced, would help to crowd the Orders of the House without a probability of its being carried.
    MR. NEWDEGATEdid not dispute the right to oppose the introduction of a Bill; but there was this difficulty in pursuing that course—that it was impossible for the House to know upon what it was voting. He had suggested to the Committee upon Public Business that a copy of the Bill should be deposited in the Public Bill Office three days before the Motion for introduction must be made, but the Committee did not adopt the suggestion. There were 51 Notices for introduction of Bills already on the Paper, and there would be only 31 "Wednesdays down to the end of July, so that there would be something like two Bills for every Wednesday. Some private Members' Bills might, no doubt, be down for Tuesdays; but one effect of this would be that unless Government should consent to give exceptional privileges in favour of a Bill, that scarcely anybody wanted, most important measures might be strangled. Looking forward to the time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would submit the Resolution to the House, he was not prepared to oppose the first reading of this Bill. He advocated the printing of Bills before they were read a first time.
    MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENdeprecated the premature discussion of Resolutions, some of them adopted only by a majority of the Select Committee on Public Business last year. He had put on the Notice Paper a Question, asking the Government what course they intended to take with regard to the Resolutions of that Committee? Without seeing the Bill, he was not prepared to oppose the first reading, although he should probably resist its further progress. For the present they had better adhere to the old Rule, under which all that was implied by a first reading was that the subject was one which it was fitting the House should consider.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he must protest against the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) stealing a march on the other Members of the Public Business Committee by quoting from its Report at such length recommendations which were, after all, very likely to come to nothing. It was taking an undue advantage of those other Members who were just as able to do the same, but who refrained from such an irregularity. At the same time, he
    208
    hoped that the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) would not persevere with his Motion. He was himself not averse from considering how the custom of dealing with proposed legislation at that stage might, with due precautions, be revived. After all, it had not been so long obsolete; for he had himself in the last Parliament, not so many Sessions back, defeated Mr. Auberon Herbert on a Motion for leave to bring in a Bill. But he did not think it quite fair on the part of the hon. Member for Swansea arbitrarily to select one out of many Bills, and, without Notice, attempt to strangle it.
    MR. OSBORNE MORGANremarked, that if this Bill was the same as that brought in last year, it was about the worst measure ever introduced, and he should give it his most strenuous opposition. The hon. Member (Mr. Monk) was greatly mistaken if he thought it would satisfy the claims of Nonconformists. He hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) would be satisfied with calling attention to the subject, and would not divide against the introduction of the Bill.
    MR. MONKthought his hon. Friend might have given Notice of his intended opposition to the Bill, as he knew perfectly well that it had been read a second time in the last Session; and that, although it was then opposed, the opposition had not been carried to a division, the feeling of the House being almost unanimous in its favour. He should, however, be perfectly ready to meet his hon. Friend at the proper time.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I think it would be most undesirable at the present moment, and on a single question of this kind, to make a change in our practical system of proceeding. I think it open to very great doubt whether it might not be wise for the House to return to a practice which is perfectly legal, but has become almost obsolete—namely, to object to Bills on their first reading. It is a practice on which there is a great deal to be said; but it should be practised under the full understanding that the House had considered the proposal. I do not certainly think that on this occasion it would be proper to put it in practice without further investigation.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there were occasions on which it was distinctly desirable that Bills should be

    209
    opposed on their first reading, and he would give Notice that he would oppose the Licensing Bill that night, but he appealed to his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillwyn) not to oppose this particular Bill.
    MR. ASSHETONsupported the Bill.
    MR. DILLWYNexplained that his object had been to curtail the Business of the House by relieving the overcrowded state of the Order Book. He would give way to the appeal made to him, and not press his opposition to the introduction of the Bill.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MONK, Mr. GRANTHAM, and Mr. FORSYTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 13.]

  INTERMENTS IN CHURCHYARDS BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. RITCHIE MR. RITCHIE moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Incumbents of parishes or ecclesiastical districts, or Ministers in charge of the same, to permit Interments in Churchyards with a religious service other than that of the Church of England, or without any religious service."
    MR. DILLWYNsaid, that he had an objection to this Bill; but in deference to the feeling of the House he would not oppose its introduction, though he hoped that a different course would next year be taken in regard to the introduction of Bills.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. RITCHIE, Mr. GORST, Mr. WOODD, and Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 24.]

  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    MR. STAVELEY HILL MR. STAVELEY HILL moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Licensing Laws."
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that his objection to this Motion was
    210
    that it ought to be made later. Last Session the Government recommended the hon. Member to wait for the Report of the Lords' Committee; he did not do so, however, but endeavoured to press the Bill. The Lords' Committee had not yet reported, and the Government would give no encouragement for carrying Bills of this kind until the Lords' Committee had reported.
    MR. MUNDELLAhoped that the same privilege would be extended to the hon. and learned Member as had been afforded to every other hon. Member, and that the Bill would be allowed to be introduced and read a first time. All the magistrates in the country were in favour of it. It related to the important subject of grocers' licences, and it was very desirable that the subject should be discussed.
    MR. STAVELEY HILLhoped the House would allow the measure to be discussed by giving leave for its introduction.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONpointed out that there were six drink Bills on the Paper, and that four had been allowed to be introduced sub silentio; and it would be rather hard upon the hon. and learned Member not to allow this Bill to be brought in at once, as the Lords' Committee might sit for ever.
    SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONsaid, he did not think it fair that this measure should be singled out from a number of others for opposition. Until it was so decided by some Resolution of the House, it would not be well to subject Bills of this sort to opposition on the Motion for Leave to introduce them. The Bill would not be taken for second reading until after the Lords' Committee had reported, if that Report were made in sufficient time, and when it came on again the Government would state what they proposed to do.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN (for Sir CHARLES W. DILKE)said, that no division was intended to be taken at this stage. He submitted, however, that the question was one of very great importance, and required the urgent attention of the House.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. STAVELEY HILL, Mr. MUNDELLA, and Mr. RODWELL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 25.]

  CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BILL.

    LEAVE. FIRST READING.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    SIR ALEXANDER GORDON SIR ALEXANDER GORDON moved—
    "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave he given to bring in a Bill to make further provisions in regard to the Church of Scotland; to facilitate the re-union therewith of other Presbyterian Churches in Scotland; and for other purposes relating thereto."
    MR. M'LARENwished to ask the Speaker, whether it was competent to a private Member to introduce a Bill which affected the Church of Scotland?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, there was no objection to the introduction of the Bill; but it could not be passed through the subsequent stages if it touched the interests of the Crown without the consent of the Crown being first given.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir ALEXANDER GORDEN, and Mr. MACKINTOSH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 39.]

    MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Anderson, Bill to amend the Law regarding the Property of Married Women in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Sir ROBERT ANSTRUTHER, Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. M'LAREN, and Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR.
    Bill presented, and road the first time. [Bill 1.]

    MEDICAL ACT (1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. LUSH, Bill to amend "The Medical Act, 1868," ordered to be brought in by Dr. LUSH, Sir TREVOR LAWRENCE, and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 2.]

    HYPOTHEC ABOLITION (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. VANS AGNEW, Bill to abolish the Landlord's right of Hypothec for Bent of Land in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. VANS AGNEW, Mr. BAILLIE HAMILTON, Sir GEORGE DOUGLAS, and Colonel ALEXANDER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 3.]

    CONVENTION (IRELAND) ACT REPEAL BILL.
    On Motion of Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Bill to repeal "The Convention (Ireland) Act," ordered to be brought in by Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA, Mr. P. J. SMYTH, and Mr. DOWNING.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 4.]

    VOLUNTEER CORPS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. O'CLERY, Bill to authorise the enrolment of Volunteer Corps in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'CLERY, Major NOLAN, Lord FRANCIS CONYNGHAM, and Major O'BEIRNE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 5.]

    PERMISSIVE PROHIBITORY LIQUOR BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Owners and Occupiers of Property in certain districts to prevent the common sale of Intoxicating Liquors within such districts.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir WILFRID LAWSON, Sir THOMAS BAZLEY, Mr. RICHARD, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. DALWAY, Mr. DOWNING, and Mr. CHARLES LEWIS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 6.]

    ELECTIVE COUNTY BOARDS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Major NOLAN, Bill to establish Elective County Boards in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Major NOLAN, Mr. O'CLERY, Mr. FAY, and Mr. O'SULLIVAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 7.]

    WASTE LANDS RECLAMATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. COLLINS, Bill for the Reclamation of Waste Lands in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. COLLINS, Mr. MACCARTHY, Mr. DOWNING, and Major NOLAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 8.]

    MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (PROPERTY QUALIFICATION ABOLITION) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MUNDELLA, Bill to abolish the Property Qualification for Members of Municipal Corporations and Local Governing Bodies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Mr. BURT, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 9.]

    HOURS OF POLLING (BOROUGHS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Bill to extend the Hours of Polling at Elections in Boroughs other than metropolitan, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHAMBERLAIN, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, Dr. CAMERON, Major NOLAN, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. RATHBONE, and Mr. HENRY SAMUELSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 11.]

    MONEY LAWS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Money Laws of Ireland.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DELAHUNTY and Mr. RICHARD POWER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 12.]

    RATING OF TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Bill to alter the Law with regard to the Rating of Towns in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY, Mr. BUTT, and Sir JOSEPH M'KENNA.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 14.]

    LICENSING BOARDS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable Ratepayers in Scotland to elect Licensing Boards.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. FORTESCUE HARRISON, Sir GEORGE BALEOUR, and Dr. CAMERON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 15.]

    VALUATION OF LANDS (SCOTLAND) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER, Bill to amend the Act relating to the Valuation of Lands and Heritages in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER, Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, and Sir GRAHAM MONTGOMERY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 16.]

    COLONIAL MARRIAGES BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN, Bill to amend the Law with respect to certain Colonial Marriages, ordered to be brought in by Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN and Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 17.]

    CLERICAL DISABILITIES BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of "The Clerical Disabilities Removal Act, 1870."
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. GOLDNEY, Mr. HIBBERT, and Sir WINDHAM ANSTRUTHER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 18.]

    SPIRITS IN BOND BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for the improvement of the quality of Spirits in Bond.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. O'SULLIVAN, Major NOLAN, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, Captain Pim, and Mr. STACPOOLE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 19.]

    SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. STEVENSON, Bill to prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday, ordered to be brought in by Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. CHARLES WILSON, Mr. BIRLEY, Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR, and Mr. JAMES.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 20.]

    EMPLOYERS AND WORKMEN ACT, 1875 (EXTENSION TO SEAMEN) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. BURT, Bill to extend the provisions of "The Employers and Workmen Act, 1875," to seamen whilst they are in British waters, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BURT, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. GOURLEY, and Mr. GORST.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 21.]

    DISQUALIFICATION BY MEDICAL RELIEF BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RATHBONE, Bill to remove disqualification by Medical Relief for Infectious or Contagious Disease, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RATHBONE, Sir JOHN KENNAWAY, Sir CHARLES W. DILKE, and Mr. RITCHIE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 22.]

    JOINT STOCK BANKS (ACCOUNTS) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman he directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory audit of

    215
    the Accounts of Joint Stock Banks, and for the annual publication by them of Statements of Accounts according to a prescribed form.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Mr. STEVENSON, Mr. BENJAMIN WHITWORTH, Mr. PENNINGTON, and Mr. JAMES STEWART.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 23.]

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HERBERT, Bill to provide for the equitable settlement of Rent in certain cases of difference between Landlords and Tenants in Ireland; and to make better provision as to Notices to Quit; and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HERBERT, Mr. KING-HARMAN, and Mr. DEASE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 26.]

    RELIEF OF INSANE POOR BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. RODWELL, Bill to make better provision for the maintenance, reception, and relief of the Insane, Imbecile, or Infirm Poor chargeable in Unions and Parishes in England other than in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RODWELL, Sir BALDWIN LEIGHTON, and Mr. BRISTOWE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 27.]

    CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HOLT, Bill to amend the Law relating to Cruelty to Animals, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HOLT, Mr. ASHLEY, Mr. HARDCASTLE, Sir CHARLES LEGARD, and Mr. CHARLES WILSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 28.]

    VOTERS REGISTRATION (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to assimilate the Law relating to the Registration of Parliamentary Voters in England and in Ireland, and to amend the Law relating to the Registration of Voters in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON, Mr. BUTT, and Mr. MITCHELL HENRY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 29.]

    MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL.
    On Motion of Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Bill to render lawful Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister, ordered to be brought in by Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, Mr. MORLEY, and Dr. CAMERON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 30.]

    ARTIZANS' DWELLINGS ACT (1868) EXTENSION BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. TORRENS, Bill to extend the powers of the Artizans' Dwellings Act of 1868 by provisions for compensation and rebuilding, ordered to be brought in by Mr. TORRENS, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, and Mr. GOLDNEY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 31.]

    INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the earlier closing on Saturday evenings of public houses in Ireland; and for other amendments of the Laws relating to the sale of Intoxicating Liquors in that country.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. DEASE, Mr. MELDON, and Mr. WHITWORTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 32.]

    PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Bill to amend "The Public Health Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. ALEXANDER BROWN, Mr. WHITWELL, and. Mr. RYDER.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 33.]

    CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS REPEAL BILL.
    On Motion of Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Bill to Repeal the Contagious Diseases Acts, ordered to be brought in by Sir HARCOURT JOHNSTONE, Mr. STANSFELD, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. MUNDELLA.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 34.]

    POOR LAW GUARDIANS (ELECTION BY BALLOT) (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ERRINGTON, Bill to provide for the Election of Poor Law Guardians in Ireland by Ballot, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ERRINGTON, Mr. BLENNERHASSETT, and Mr. O'REILLY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 35.]

    DURATION OF PARLIAMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Bill to shorten the Duration of Parliaments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. JOHN HOLMS, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. COLLINS, and Mr. HENRY SAMUELSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

    ULSTER TENANT RIGHT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MACARTNEY, Bill to secure more effectually the Tenant Right Custom in the province of Ulster, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MACARTNEY, Mr. CHARLES LEWIS, and Mr. WILLIAM WILSON.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

    INHABITED HOUSE DUTY AND INCOME TAX BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HUBBARD, Bill to amend the administration of the Inhabited House Duty and Income Tax, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUBBARD and Mr. SAMPSON LLOYD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

    COUNTY COURTS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. NORWOOD, Bill to extend the jurisdiction of the County Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. NORWOOD, Sir J. EARDLEY WILMOT, and Mr. ROWLEY HILL.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 40.]

    LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. DANIEL TAYLOR, Bill to amend "The Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870," ordered to be brought in by Mr. DANIEL TAYLOR, Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, and Mr. BENJAMIN WHITWORTH.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 41.]

    BURIALS BILL.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Burial Laws.
    Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN, Mr. LEFEVRE, Mr. WILLIAM M'ARTHUR, and Mr. RICHARD.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 42.]

    LIBEL LAW AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. HUTCHINSON, Bill to amend the Law of Libel, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUTCHINSON, Dr. CAMERON, Mr. JOSEPH COWEN, Mr. PULESTON, Mr. MORLEY, Mr. WADDY, Mr. EDWARD JENKINS, Mr. GOURLEY, and Mr. SULLIVAN.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 43.]

    POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT (1876) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MELLOR, Bill to amend "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELLOR, Mr. MEREWETHER, Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. MUNDELLA, Mr. Serjeant SIMON, Mr. HIBBERT, and Mr. TORRENS.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 44.]

    BILLS OF SALE (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to Bills of Sale in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 45.]

    COUNTY INFIRMARIES (IRELAND) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MELDON, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Management of County Infirmaries in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELDON, Mr. SHAW, Mr. ERRINGTON, and Mr. ARTHUR MOORE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 46.]

    HABITUAL DRUNKARDS BILL.
    On Motion of Dr. CAMERON, Bill to facilitate the control and cure of Habitual Drunkards, ordered to be brought in by Dr. CAMERON, Mr. CLARE READ, Mr. ASHLEY, Sir HENRY JACKSON, Mr. EDWARD JENKINS, Mr. WILLIAM HOLMS, and Mr. O'SHAUOHNESSY.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 47.]

    RACECOURSES (METROPOLIS) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. ANDERSON, Bill for the Licensing of Metropolitan Suburban Racecourses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ANDERSON, Sir THOMAS CHAMBERS, and Sir JAMES LAWRENCE.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 48.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday next.