Commons Sitting of 21 December 1888

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Committee—Report—Considered as amended—Third Reading—Friendly Societies Act, 1875,
Amendment (No. 4)* [398], and passed.
Withdrawn—Cruelty to Children (Prevention)* [378].

QUESTION.

  ECCLESIASTICAL LAW—BREAKING UP OF A VAULT IN HEMEL HEMPSTEAD CHURCH.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has now received further representations relative to the desecration of the vault of the Combe family in Hemel Hempstead Church, to the effect that the coffins were removed and broken up, and the lead sent away by railway, the remains in such coffins being placed in a hole in the churchyard; whether an official inquiry into the facts of the case has been asked for by a descendant of the Combe family; and, if so, whether such inquiry will be instituted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): Yes, Sir. I have received the representations mentioned in this Question from a person claiming to descend from the Combe family. The circumstances referred to by the complainant are, however, disputed by the incumbent. If there has been, in fact, a removal of remains such as is complained of, I may point out that there is a legal remedy by summary proceedings prescribed by Statute. If an ecclesiastical offence has been committed, the matter is for the Ordinary, who, I learn, is making inquiry. Therefore, I do not propose to take any action.

  THE AUSTRALASIAN COLONIES—THE MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any of the Australasian Governments have adopted the provisions of the Merchandise Marks Act; and whether the Colony of New
  954
  South Wales has yet signified its intention of doing so?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to state that all these Colonies have promised legislation, except New South Wales, from which no despatch has yet been received; but the Colonial Acts of the Session have not yet arrived.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked, whether the hon. Gentleman would inquire the reason why New South Wales had sent no response to the Circular?
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSreplied that he would do so.

  EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ART—GRANTS IN AID TO PROVINCIAL COLLEGES.
  MR. MUNDELLAasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If he is now able to remove the uncertainty and embarrassment of the Provincial Colleges, by publishing his scheme for Grants in Aid; and, whether, in consideration of the delay which has already taken place, and the pecuniary position of several Colleges, he will provide that the grants shall take effect from the 1st of January next?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am not yet able to make any statement as to the particulars of a scheme for Grants in Aid to University Colleges in the Provinces. In any case, it would not be possible for the grants to take effect from the 1st of January next, as they will be included in the Estimates for the financial year 1889–90, which does not commence till the 31st of March, nor can the grants be of such amounts as to retrieve the position of any College which is in serious financial embarrassment. Government grants, though they will be a valuable addition, can in no case be, and are not intended to be, an effective substitute for local contributions, which must always bear the greater share of the burden. With respect to the scheme in general, I am anxious to state that any delay which has arisen is due entirely to the number and importance of the subjects competing for the attention of the Government during the present Session. We regard grants to Local Colleges as a step of great importance,

  955
  and possibly of far-reaching effects. It was absolutely impossible to propose a scheme without the most careful consideration of its bearings, more especially the proportions in which and the conditions on which any assistance from Imperial funds should be given to Local Institutions for higher class education. It is not from any neglect of the matter, but rather from our sense of its extreme importance, that we have not yet been able to formulate our proposal, although we hope to do so at a very early date.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—BOARD SCHOOL, QUADRING FEN, LINCOLNSHIRE.
  MR. HALLEY STEWARTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the Order excluding boys over 10 years of age from the Board School, Quadring Fen, Lincolnshire, was made from any inability on the part of the mistress to keep boys over 10 years of age under control; whether he is aware that the schoolmistress has 50 pupils under her sole control without the help of an assistant or pupil teacher; whether the Order made, excluding boys over 10 years of age, is due to the large number of scholars in the care of the mistress; and, whether he will urge the School Board to provide such teaching assistance to the mistress that the School may be opened again to the excluded boys resident near the school?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY)(who replied)said: My right hon. Friend the Vice President desires me to say that the hon. Member makes it necessary to repeat for the third time that the main reason for the exclusion of these boys was the difficulty the teacher had in keeping them under proper control; but there was an absolute necessity to reduce the number in any case, as the school only accommodates 42 children, and last year there were more than 41 in average attendance.

  JAMAICA—PURCHASE OF THE GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS.
  MR. KELLY(for Sir GEORGE BADEN-POWELL) (Liverpool, Kirkdale)asked the Under Secretary of
  956
  State for the Colonies, Whether he can now state the terms that have been offered by the New York Syndicate for the purchase of the Jamaica Government Railways; whether it is open to the public to tender for the purchase of those railways; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, in the event of sale, will only accept payment either in cash or in bonds, or shares, enjoying absolute priority of lien on the railway property?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): The proposals that have been made are being considered; and they cannot now be stated. This answer must be taken to cover the remaining parts of my hon. Friend's Question.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE FORCE EXPENDITURE—INITIATION OF POLICE RECEIVER.
  MR. KELLY(for Sir GEORGE BADEN-POWELL) (Liverpool, Kirkdale)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can state for how long
  "all proposals involving police expenditure, except as to repairs to stations, have been initiated by the Chief Commissioner of Police;"
  whether the late Commissioner made strong recommendations to the effect that the Police Receiver should cease to initiate expenditure in regard to stores and buildings; and, whether the Secretary of State declined at the time to accept those recommendations; and, if so, at what date, and for what reason, were those recommendations subsequently accepted?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The practice as to the police expenditure, which I described generally in answer to my hon. Friend on the 3rd instant, has been in existence for very many years. The late Commissioner made various recommendations from time to time, to the effect that economy would result from giving to the Commissioner the initiative as to the repair of stations, and greater control over the contracts and other financial arrangements made by the Receiver. All these recommendations, and the whole subject of the relations between the Commissioner and Receiver, were referred by the Secretary of State to examination by a Com

  957
  mittee, of which my hon. Friend is aware, and, pending the inquiry, the old practice has been continued. The subject is too complex to be adequately explained by Questions and answers in this House.

  INCOME TAX—REPAYMENT OF OVERPAID TAX.
  MR. KELLYasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any reason exists why claimants who have appeared before the Income Tax Commissioners, and have obtained, by the production of their accounts for the three years, a reduction in the assessment of the profits of their profession or trade for the current year, should not, in view of the fact that the decisions are absolutely final, and, also, that claimants in such cases must necessarily have been put to great inconvenience, trouble, and loss of time, be entitled, ipso facto, to relief and repayment of overpaid tax for the previous year, in accordance with the provisions of sec. 133 of 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35, as amended by sec. 6 of 28 & 29 Vict. c. 30; whether, in many such cases, the General Commissioners express the opinion that such claimants ought not to be compelled to come before them a second time, nor be called upon to prove the same thing twice over; but that it is in the discretion of the Surveyor of Taxes to refuse to give effect to such recommendations, on the ground of the claimants having appealed under one section of the Act and not another; and, whether he would consider whether it would be in the public interest that the Board of Inland Revenue should instruct Surveyors of Taxes not to resist the refunding of overpaid tax for the previous year in any case where a claimant has proved to the satisfaction of the Commissioners for Special Purposes, or the Commissioners for General Purposes, that he is entitled to a decreased assessment, and has obtained such decreased assessment for the current year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to inform him that it need not follow that a parson is entitled to a reduction in the assessment for the past year because he is allowed a reduction for the current year. To establish a
  958
  claim for reduction for the present year, he must first give notice of appeal and then produce his accounts, and prove to the Commissioners, during the autumn of this year, that the sum assessed exceeds his average annual profits for the last three years; his assessment would then be reduced to the amount of that average. But to establish a similar claim for last year he must first give his notice of appeal as soon after the 5th of April this year as can reasonably be expected, and then prove that the assessment exceeded his actual profits during last year; and he would then be entitled to have it reduced either to the amount of those profits, or to the amount of his average annual profits for the last three years, including the year of assessment, whichever amount is the greater. But if last year's profits were not less than the sum assessed he has no right of appeal, even though the average profits may have been less. With regard to the last two paragraphs of the hon. Member's Question, I would state that no such expression of opinion on the part of the General Commissioners as that quoted has been brought to the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue; but, should a case occur, the Surveyor would be instructed to raise no objection on the grounds stated, provided that the accounts produced by the claimant were satisfactory.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—PAIR RENTS—LORD CASTLETOWN'S ESTATE.
  MR. KILBRIDEasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that, although a large number of tenants on the estate of Lord Castletown in Upper Ossory served originating notices with a view to having fair rents fixed two years ago last November, the cases are still unheard; can he state when it is likely that the Court will be able to adjudicate upon them; and, what is the cause of the delay?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN): The Land Commissioners report that the number of cases remaining unheard is 42. It is intended that a Sub-Commission shall sit in the Union of Urlingford about the month of March, when such of the cases referred to as are situated in that union will

  959
  appear in the list. The delay arose through the necessity of taking the unions in rotation.

  CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT, 1887—ARREST OF FATHER KENNEDY, MEELIN CO.
  MR. FLYNNasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that in connection with the imprisonment of Father Kennedy, Meelin, last August, the police, previous to the arrest, served the reverend gentleman with a notification from the Exchequer Court, signed by an official of that Court, to the effect that the Court, having heard the arguments in his case, gave judgment that the sentence of the Lower Court should stand confirmed; can he state why a similar notification from the Court was not served upon Father Kennedy by the police authorities in connection with the second case previous to his recent arrest; and, if it is necessary that such official notification should be served, why did the police authorities depart from the procedure observed upon the previous occasion?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said: The Constabulary authorities report that it is the case that a notification from the Exchequer Court was served previous to the first arrest; also that no similar notice was served on the second occasion, inasmuch as none was received by them for service. I may add that in neither case was there any legal necessity for such a notice.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BOARD (IRELAND)—JAMES ADAMS, RATE COLLECTOR—TULLYHOGUE ELECTORAL DIVISION.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a Memorial has been lodged with the Local Government Board, protesting against the appointment of James Adams as rate collector for the Electoral Division of Tullyhogue, in the Poor Law Union of Cookstown; whether James Adams has acted as official objector at the Revision Courts in East Tyrone, on behalf of the Unionist Party, for several years past;
  960
  if it is the fact that ex officio Guardians, who had not attended the meetings of the Board for three years previously, were present at this election of rate collector and voted for Mr. Adams, and that the elected Guardians, with the exception of three, voted for William Parks, the other candidate, who is a Presbyterian and a ratepayer, residing in the Division; whether James Adams resides in the Division, or is a ratepayer; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Local Government Board will refuse to sanction his appointment?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said, The reply to the inquiry in the first paragraph is in the affirmative. Mr. Adams has not acted in the capacity mentioned in the second paragraph for the last three or four years; but he did act in the capacity formerly. It is not the fact that the ex officio Guardians, who had not attended for the three years previously, attended on this occasion and voted for Mr. Adams; nor does the statement in the Question correctly represent the Guardians as voting for the other candidate. Mr. Adams resides about three miles outside the district, and he is not a ratepayer; but there is no Regulation requiring the person appointed to be a ratepayer; and the Local Government Board see no reason to refuse to sanction the appointment made by the Board of Guardians.

  POST OFFICE—PARCEL POST—EXTENSION TO UNITED STATES.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the Postmaster General, If he would consider the practicability of extending the advantages of the Parcel Post to the Postal Service between this country and the United States of America?
  THE POST MASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES): With the exception of the United States, there is now no civilized and scarcely any uncivilized country which has not the advantage of the Parcel Post. I can assure the hon. Member that I am fully alive to the importance of extending the Parcel Post to the United States, and I have lost no opportunity of pressing the question upon the attention of the United States Post Office. The difficulty hitherto has been that American

  961
  law stood in the way; and in the hope of being able to make some temporary arrangement, short of an actual Convention, an officer of my Department was some time ago sent specially to New York and Washington to collect information. Recent circumstances have led me to believe that the difficulty in American law which barred the way to a Convention may have been overcome; and the hon. Member may rest satisfied that I will avail myself of the first occasion which presents itself of again pressing my proposals for the extension of the Parcel Post to the United States.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION AT SHEEPWASH, NORTH DEVON.
  MR. COURTNEY KENNYasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he is aware that in the elementary public school at Sheepwash, North Devon, the vicar, when giving religious instruction to the children, is in the habit of teaching them that it is a sin to attend public worship elsewhere than in the Established Church, that Nonconformist ministers have no right to preach, and that baptisms by such ministers are invalid; whether, owing to there being no other school within reach of the village, the vicar has been requested by the parents of some of the children to discontinue such teaching, but has declined to do so; whether such teaching is permitted by the Education Department in a village school which the children of Nonconformists are compelled by law to attend; and, whether the Education Department will inquire into the circumstances of this case?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY)(who replied)said: My right hon. Friend the Vice President desires me to say that it is expressly laid down in the Statute that it is no part of the duty of the Department to inquire into any instruction in religious subjects; but every parent has the right of withdrawing a child from such instruction, and if any infringement of that right is reported to the Department it will be dealt with at once.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SALE OF THE VERNER AND GREVILLE ESTATES.
  MR. MAHONYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House the correspondence between Mr. J. A. O'Sullivan, Solicitor for the Trustees of the Verner Estate and the Land Commission, relative to the Circular issued to the tenants by Mr. O'Sullivan; whether it is a fact that the Greville Estate has been sold to the tenants, Mr. O'Sullivan acting for the landlord; and, whether Mr. O'Sullivan accepted promissory notes from the tenants on this estate in payment of rent due, so as to enable them to show a clear receipt to the Land Commissioners?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said: There is no objection to lay upon the Table a copy of the Correspondence referred to, beyond the inconvenience of multiplying Parliamentary Returns; but I shall be happy to let the hon. Member see it if he so desires. The Land Commissioners are not aware whether Mr. O'Sullivan has been concerned in the negotiation for the sale to the tenants on the Greville Estate, nor that he accepted promissory notes from the tenants in payment of rent due; but the deeds of conveyance released all such rents, pursuant to rule.
  MR. CLANCYasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman thought it was the duty of the Commissioners to inquire whether the promissory notes had been given?
  MR. MADDENsaid, it was not for him to advise the Commissioners, particularly as there was a case affecting promissory notes now pending.
  THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON)asked the hon. and learned Gentleman to lay the Correspondence on the Table, so that hon. Members could form their own judgment on the matter.
  MR. MADDENpromised to consider that.

  SALES OF CATTLE BY LIVE WEIGHT—RETURN.
  MR. MAHONYasked the President of the Board of Trade,

  963
  Whether sales of cattle by live weight, and sales after cattle have been weighed, have considerably increased in number during the past two months in Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dublin, Newcastle, Liverpool, and Islington; and, whether he can now say when he will issue to Members the first Return of such sales?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I have caused inquiries to be made of the clerks of the different markets. The result is that the practice of sales by weight or sales after weighing has been introduced; but at most of the markets named there are still few such sales, and in one or two none are reported. The practice cannot be said to have increased to a considerable extent generally in the last two months, though it appears to be making progress. At Liverpool the number of cattle weighed has increased considerably, and the sales of cattle by live weight have also increased. At Islington a commencement was made two months ago, and altogether about 400 beasts have been weighed there, the weekly numbers being, on an average, about 90 in the last three weeks. At Dublin the number of beasts weighed has increased from 715 to 748, comparing the eight weeks ending the 18th of October with the eight weeks ending the 13th of December. The Board of Trade hope to publish some information of the description referred to in the latter part of the hon. Member's Question in the Return which has been agreed to on the Motion of the hon. Member for Shropshire.

  CEYLON—BUDDHIST TEMPORALITIES.
  MR. W. A. M'ARTHURasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Draft Ordinance brought in in the Legislative Council of Ceylon by the Government of Ceylon, dealing with Buddhist temporalities, as stated in The Daily News of December 18; whether this provides, among other objects, for the maintenance of Buddhist services, rites, processions, and buildings; whether the said temporalities are to be vested in certain Trust Bodies, who will be compelled to keep their accounts subject to the direction and under the control of Commissioners appointed by and
  964
  responsible to Her Majesty's District Judges; whether it is true, as reported in The Ceylon Observer, that the Governor has publicly intimated that the Draft Ordinance has been already approved by the Secretary of State; and, whether there is any special reason for this course being taken?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): A Draft Ordinance has been brought in by the Government of Ceylon in the Legislative Council dealing with Buddhist temporalities, which provides, among other objects, for the maintenance out of the property belonging to the Buddhist temples of Buddhist services, rites, processions, and buildings. The Draft Ordinance proposes to vest the temporalities in Trustees, whose accounts will be audited by persons appointed by the District Courts; and the District Courts will be empowered to prescribe the form in which such accounts are to be kept. The policy of this Ordinance was referred to at great length by Sir Arthur Gordon in his speech opening the Legislative Council on the 31st of October. He explained that the measure is an attempt to carry out the principles laid down by his predecessor, Sir J. Longden, and by Lords Kimberley and Derby; and stated that the draft had received the approval of Her Majesty's Government. It is not unusual for the Governor of a Crown Colony to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State before introducing an important Draft Ordinance, and to inform the Legislative Council of the fact.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT CLONDULANE.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the report that, at the eviction of William O'Connell, at Clondulane, on the 18th instant, a Mrs. Ryan, who was present, on laughing at a jesting remark made on the police, was caught by the hair by one of the constables and dragged about; and, if this report is true, whether steps will be immediately taken to punish the policeman in question?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said: The Consta

  965
  bulary authorities reported that the allegations contained in this Question had no foundation whatever in fact.
  DR. TANNER: Is it not a fact that this poor, unfortunate woman had a handful of hair pulled out of her head by a brutal constable?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY FOR INJURIES TO WORKMEN BILL—INSURANCE FUND FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYES.
  MR. AIRDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will, during the Recess, consider the desirability of introducing a clause in the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill, to be introduced next Session, requiring the Government to institute an Insurance Fund for all Government employés, whether attached or otherwise (to which fund the Government should contribute), so as to secure provision in case of continued illness, and provision for the family in case of death?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): The subject mentioned by my hon. Friend is one of much interest, and I shall have much pleasure in considering it; but I do not think it will be desirable to make any exceptional provisions for Government employés in the Employers' Liability for Injuries to Workmen Bill.

  ARMY—THE HONOURABLE ARTILLERY COMPANY.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the Secretary of State for War, If he can inform the House the reasons which led to the disarmament of the Honourable Artillery Company?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I gave a full explanation and answer to this Question yesterday. No inquiry was necessary into the reasons which led to the disarmament of the Honourable Artillery Company. The War Office is fully aware of the cause; and I explained yesterday the reason which led to that disarmament.
  MR. WEBSTERasked the right hon. Gentleman, whether he had had an interview that day with members of the Honourable Artillery Company; and
  966
  whether he was in a position to give the House any information on the subject?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: It is true I did receive a deputation to-day of members of the Honourable Artillery Company; but I do not think that the interests of the Service would be promoted by my giving the House any details of what took place.

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—SITTING OF A SUB-COMMISSION AT EDENDERRY.
  DR. FOXasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will arrange for a Land Sub-Commission to sit at Edenderry to hear the large number of cases listed in that and the surrounding districts?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said: The Land Commissioners report that a Sub-Commission will commence its sittings at Navan on the 9th of January, for the County Meath, and will probably reach the union of Edenderry about Easter.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—THE COUNTY COUNCIL—QUALIFICATION OF CANDIDATES.
  MR. T. E. ELLISasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether a Registrar and High Bailiff of a County Court is eligible as a candidate for the County Council?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. RITCHIE), in reply, said, it would be inadvisable for him to advise as to the qualifications of candidates for the County Council. The disqualifications were set forth in Section 12 of the Municipal Corporations Act. His private opinion was that the Registrar of a County Court was not legally ineligible.

  COAL MINES REGULATION—THE HARGREAVES EXECUTORS' BURNLEY WEIGHING CASE (APPEAL.)
  MR. SLAGGasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give any information as to the continued delay in the hearing of the Hargreaves Executors' Burnley Weighing Case (Appeal); whe

  967
  ther he is aware that during this delay the miners of Burnley are deprived of the right enjoyed by other miners in Lancashire of having their coal weighed; and, whether he can give any definite information as to when the case will be heard?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. MATTHEWS): I am informed by the Treasury Solicitor that, the parties having been unable to agree, instructions were given on November 23 to have the draft case settled by the Justices. I certainly hope that these initial proceedings will not be farther protracted, and that the case may be heard during the next sittings. It cannot be heard before.

  RULES OF DEBATE—QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
  MR. H. S. WRIGHTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of proposing early next Session some method of reducing the number of Questions to be asked and answered vivâ voce in the House, either by having all Questions and their answers printed and allowing no individual Member more than a fixed number of vivâ voce Questions during each Session, or by some other method?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): In reply to the hon. Member I beg to say that I can give him no opinion on behalf of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the course which he proposes in his Question; but I am quite sure that the object of reducing the enormous number of Questions which are now asked, and which absorb so large a portion of the time of the House, will have the sympathy, not only of the Members of the Government, but of a very largo proportion of the Members of the House itself.

  THE HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND—THE SPECIAL GRANT OF £30,000.
  MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could state, for the information of the districts concerned, on what principle and basis is it proposed to allocate the special Grant
  968
  in Aid of £30,000 to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING)(who replied)said: In the event of the Probate Duties (Scotland and Ireland) Bill becoming law, the principle on which it is proposed to allocate the special grant of £30,000 is to divide the parishes in the counties specified in the Bill into four classes, according to the proportion between the rateable value and the population of each. In this way the poorer parishes will receive the larger share of the grant. In certain cases, where the Parochial Boards are in default of payment to the School Boards, it may be necessary to devote the money to aid in meeting their obligations in that respect; and, in addition, a small proportion of the £30,000 maybe excluded from the division, and assigned directly to meet exceptional cases of educational difficulty.
  DR. CLARK: Are we to understand that the money is to go to education?
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING: Not entirely.

  ARMY—PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS—ERRORS IN EXAMINATION PAPERS.
  MR. HUBBARDasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the Army Preliminary Examination, on 13th December, Question 5 was set in the Algebra Paper, which is incapable of solution—
  "Write down all the seven factors common to xy (x4−16) (y2−9) and x4 (x+4) (y−3);"
  why Question 12 was set in the Arithmetic Paper—
  "If 1 cubic foot=·028 cubic metre, and if 1 kilogram=2·2 lbs., find the number of ounces in 1 cubic foot of water"—
  a knowledge of the metric system not being required by the syllabus; and, if his attention has been drawn to the two letters in The Standard newspaper, of 18th December, signed by "C. C. T. P." and John H. Robson, which seem to throw doubt on the accuracy of Algebra Question No. 5, and on the suitability of the whole Algebra Paper for a preliminary examination?
  THE SECRETARY (Mr. JACKSON): In the earlier part of Question 5 candidates were asked to

  969
  define a factor; and I am informed that, according to the correct definition of a factor, there are seven factors common to the two expressions. As regards Question 12 of the Arithmetical Paper, I am informed that there is no such syllabus as is implied in the hon. Member's Question, and that the metrical system is included in the well-known text-book, Colenso's Arithmetic. A general statement is made as to the knowledge of arithmetic required from candidates; but the strict interpretation of it desired by the hon. Member would exclude a knowledge of the English as well as of the metrical system of weights and measures. The hon. Member has kindly forwarded me the letters from The Standard to which he refers; but I do not think I need comment on them, as, so far as I can see, they answer each other.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—COUNTY COUNCILS—CANDIDATURE OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, When the Treasury Minute respecting the candidature of Civil servants for County Councils will be issued; and, whether similar Minutes will be issued as regards officers of the Army and Navy?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): The Minute in question was issued two days ago. It is not for me to decide whether similar Minutes should be issued as regards officers of the Army and Navy?
  MR. PICKERSGILLasked the Secretary of State for War, whether he proposed to issue a similar Circular affecting officers in the Army?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE)said, it was exceedingly desirable that any step taken in this matter with regard to officers in the Army should be similar to that taken with regard to officers in the Navy. He had not had an opportunity of consulting his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty; but, so far as he was concerned, he would be very glad if it were possible to agree with him to issue an Order prohibiting officers on full pay from serving as members of County Councils.

  NAVY—ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE—CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE.
  MR. ROWNTREEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If it will be practicable to include in the certificate of service granted to men of the Royal Naval Reserve who have served their full time, an endorsement of character as reported from time to time by the Drill Instructors, and similar to that given to seamen leaving the Royal Navy, in order to assist men of good character in obtaining employment ashore when no longer able on account of age to follow their calling at sea?
  THE PRESIDENT (Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH): I will at once direct communications to be made to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty on the subject, with a view to considering whether the suggestion made by the hon. Member can be carried into effect.

  AFRICA (WEST COAST)—THE GOLD COAST GRUSHI SLAVES.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government of the Gold Coast has given bounties to the owners of Grushi slaves on condition that the said slaves would enlist as soldiers in the service of the Colony; whether the Governor of the Gold Coast, in reply to a question by one of his officers, said—"Bring me the men, that is all you have to understand;" whether a British officer in March last forcibly seized a number of Grushis outside the British frontier, and without attesting them brought them down to the Gold Coast Protectorate to serve for a term of years in the Constabulary Force; whether 100 lashes were inflicted upon certain constabulary men by a junior officer, without making the required entries in the regimental defaulters' sheet, and without reporting to the officer in command?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Baron HENRY DE WORMS): (1.) The Governor has reported that some Grushis, who were fugitives from Ashantee, have been enlisted to serve in the Gold Coast Constabulary; and that the usual bounties were paid to the chiefs of the

  971
  country in which they were living. (2.) The remark attributed to the Governor is absolutely inconsistent with the orders given by him to the recruiting officer; and it is impossible to believe that he made it. (3.) This Question must refer to the same Grushis as the first Question. They were not seized forcibly; but the conditions of their proposed employment were carefully explained to them before they left Kratchie, and again on their arriving at Accra; and they all agreed to serve in the constabulary, except two men as to whose wishes there was some doubt. (4.) No information has been received with regard to this last question; but inquiry will be made.

  ROYAL IRISH OONSTABULARY—THE POLICE AT NAAS.
  MR. CAREWasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the Resolution which was passed at a meeting of the inhabitants of Naas on the 12th instant, demanding a sworn inquiry into the conduct of the officers responsible for the attack by the police on the people on the evening of the 3rd instant; and, if so, what steps he intends to take in the matter?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said, the Resolution had been referred to the authorities in Ireland for a Report, which had not yet been received.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (SCOTLAND)—SCHOOL BOARD OF BARVAS (HIGHLANDS OF SCOTLAND).
  MR. CALDWELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the case that the rateable value of the parish of Barvas, in the Highlands of Scotland, amounts to only £2,908, whilst the population numbers 5,325; whether the school rate is 5s. 4d. per £1 of the rateable value; as much as 4s. 3d. per £1 being required to meet the charges of the building account; whether he is aware that the Parochial Board has declined to assess for a higher school rate than 1s. per £1 of rental, which brings in only £145, as against £1,100, the estimated expenditure for the current
  972
  year, and that a young lady teacher has been put out of her lodgings owing to her inability to pay them, the inability being caused by her not having received a single penny of salary since the 15th of May last; how long these facts have been known to the Scotch Education Department; whether the members of the School Board have all resigned; and, what steps the Scotch Education Department propose to take to carry on the work of education in Barvas Parish?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. M. T. STORMONTH DARLING)(who replied)said: The facts stated by the hon. Member with regard to the rateable value, population, and amount of school-rate are, so far as the Scottish Education Department are aware, generally correct, although they are not prepared to pledge themselves as to the amount of the rate required for the special expenses referred to. The position of matters has been known to them, and has been under their careful consideration for some time. They have received no information with regard to the alleged resignation of the School Board of Barvas, or the facts stated with respect to the teacher referred to. The Scotch Education Department are in communication with the School Board in question and others similarly situated, and have completed proposals for dealing with the difficulties, which are now being submitted to these School Boards.
  DR. CLARKasked the Solicitor General, if he was also aware that the neighbouring parishes of Lochs and Uig were in the same position? He would further like to know by what means the Education Commissioners would know that these School Boards resigned?
  MR. M. T. STORMONTH DARLINGsaid, with regard to the latter part of the Question, it was obvious that the School Boards might intimate their resignation to the Scotch Education Department; and that they had not yet done so. With regard to the former part of the Question, undoubtedly the position of these other School Boards which the hon. Member referred to was known to be serious, and was in the full view of the Education Department.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—RIOT AT MACROOM—TRIAL AT CORK WINTER ASSIZES.
  DR. TANNERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether on the recent trial of the man Lucy and four others, at the Cork Winter Assizes, on a charge of riot at Macroom, on the 18th of October last, the jury acquitted Lucy, and found his original arrest, out of which the riot arose, to have been unjustifiable; whether his attention has been called to the fact that in convicting the other prisoners the jury unanimously recommended them to mercy, expressly on the ground of the illegality of Lucy's arrest, and that the Lord Chief Baron promised to give effect to the recommendation of the jury; and, whether any steps will be taken against the policeman whose unjustifiable action in arresting Lucy led to the disturbance?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN)(who replied)said: I am informed that the jury, in acquitting Lucy, expressed no ground, so far as can be ascertained, for their action. It is not the fact that the jury based their recommendation to mercy in the case of the other prisoners on the ground alleged in the Question. On the contrary, they stated that they did so on the ground that the attack on the police was unpremeditated. It is the case that the Lord Chief Baron said that the recommendation would have due weight with him. That the attack on the police was a serious one is evident from the fact that, notwithstanding this recommendation, the sentence inflicted was in the case of one of the prisoners six months' imprisonment with hard labour, and in the case of each of the three others, three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—COUNTY COUNCILLORS AND ELECTION AGENTS.
  MR. P. STANHOPEasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether candidates for the County Council may appoint and remunerate election agents?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CLARKE)(who replied)said, the Question was not altogether free from difficulty; but the better opinion was that candidates for
  974
  the County Council might appoint election agents, but were not allowed to pay them anything whatever.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT, 1888—REGISTER OF COUNTY ELECTORS.
  MR. LAWSONasked the Government whether, in some parts of the Metropolis, the Register of County Council electors was being issued separately from the Parliamentary list, causing double expense to those who wished to possess both; and whether this was not contrary to the arrangement which had been come to on the subject?
  MR. RITCHIEasked for Notice of the Question.

  ARMY—THE BATTLE AT SUAKIN—THE BROKEN SWORDS OF THE 20TH HUSSARS.
  GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it was true, as reported, that in the charge of the Hussars against the rebels at Suakin on Thursday three of the Hussars' swords broke short; and whether, if so, he would cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): Certainly, Sir; inquiry will be made into that statement, which has reached me through the kindness of my hon. and gallant Friend, who handed me the extract from the newspapers.

  SAVINGS BANK RULES.
  MR. HOWELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he was aware that serious inconvenience had arisen, and was likely to arise, in consequence of the new Rule of the Savings Bank, which required the whole of the Trustees to sign the form of withdrawal of money, whereas hitherto it had been sufficient if two or three signed; and whether action would be taken, in conjunction with the Post Office authorities, so as to prevent such inconvenience in the future?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN), in reply, said, he had no knowledge of the Rule to which the hon. Member referred; but he would not fail to make inquiries at once.

  AFRICA (EAST COAST)—EXECUTIONS AT ZANZIBAR.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question which I think he can answer without notice. It is, whether it is true that the Sultan of Zanzibar has gone off his head?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON): I have already stated that the Sultan of Zanzibar had entered on a course of conduct of which Her Majesty's Government disapproved. From what cause that course of conduct originates is a matter of conjecture.

  EGYPT—THE OPERATIONS AT SUAKIN.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he could confirm the news which came from Egypt this morning that the British troops return to Suakin forthwith, and that nothing more was to be done?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. E. STANHOPE): I confess I have not seen that statement in the papers this morning.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: It is in The Times.
  MR. CREMER: I wish to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any further information to impart to the House with reference to the operations before Suakin; and, I also desire to ask the total number of British and Egyptian troops either killed and wounded, and the number of troops—rebels as they are called—that have been killed and wounded; and, whether there are any more "glad tidings of great joy" to impart to the House this Session?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I wish to ask, Whether there is any truth in the statement that appears in the Papers that the troops are about to proceed to Handoub?
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I have not seen any such report in the newspapers. And with regard to the Question of the hon. Member, I can only say I have not received any further news what
  976
  ever from Suakin this day; and all the news as to the losses of our own troops as well as of our foes was contained in the telegram which we took care to have published yesterday.

  MEETING OF PARLIAMENT NEXT SESSION.
  MR. ILLINGWORTHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he could indicate the probable time of the meeting of Parliament next Session?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I am afraid it would be contrary to precedent to do so, and, of course, it is impossible to foresee what contingencies may arise. As regards the re-assembling of Parliament, I am sure the great majority of Members on both sides will desire that we should have a good holiday.
  DR. TANNER: No.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  (Mr. Courtney, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Jackson.)
  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Sir JOHN GORST in the Chair.
    Clause 1 (Issue of £20,984,191 out of the Consolidated Fund).
    MR. CONYBEARErose to address the Committee—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Has the hon. Member an Amendment to propose?
    MR. CONYBEARE: No, Sir.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Member will not be in Order in addressing the Committee. The Question is "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: I rise for the specific purpose of getting an answer about a Question which I addressed to Her Majesty's Government the day before yesterday, as to whether it is advisable to retain the services of a man against whom charges have been made—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is not in Order. This

    977
    clause is a clause directing the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury to issue the sum of £20,000,000 out of the Consolidated Fund. The question the hon. Gentleman is raising is not relevant to this clause.
    DR. TANNER: A considerable portion of the salaries are paid to public servants in Ireland—I presume some of this £20,000,000 will be paid to public servants in Ireland. I understand it will cover the salaries paid to Resident Magistrates, and what is more, the salary paid to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is not in Order. This is a clause directing the method by which the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury shall issue a certain sum of money out of the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of the Services of the year, and the question the hon. Member is raising is not in Order.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to move the reduction of the sum of money by the amount of £300.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That would not be in Order. The hon. Gentleman's opportunity for moving an Amendment has gone by. The Question is "That this Clause stand part of the Bill." That is a Question which the Committee may either affirm or reject, but it can do nothing else. No speeches will be in Order that are not addressed to that Question.
    DR. TANNER: Am I to understand that no question can be raised which will, in the main, point out that there are serious objections why this sum of public money should be granted? Am I to understand that on a question of the employment of a man who has been charged as a swindler and a thief—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot argue with the hon. Member. I have decided that the point he has raised is not in Order on this Clause. The Question is, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill." As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"—[Loud, Cries of "Aye!"]—contrary, "No."
    DR. TANNER: No.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The "Ayes" have it.
    DR. TANNER: The "Noes" have it.
    While the House was being cleared for the Division,
    DR. TANNER (sitting in his place with his hat on)said: I beg to say I will not take any Division. I have made my protest.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3 (Appropriation of sums voted for supply purposes).
    DR. CLARKrose to address the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman rise for the purpose of moving an Amendment on Clause 3?
    DR. CLARK: Yes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Will the hon. Gentleman bring up the Amendment?
    DR. CLARK: When I move it I will bring it up, Sir. I desire to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies (Baron Henry de Worms) a very important question—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I cannot allow a Question to be asked unless an Amendment is moved. The hon. Gentleman will bring up his Amendment or indicate the Amendment he is going to move to this clause. I shall then be able to determine whether it is relevant to the clause or not.
    DR. CLARK: Suppose I oppose the clause generally. There are several things to which I object.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman objects to the clause generally, he must wait until the Question is put, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. CLARK: I want an answer from the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies as to whether the statement which has been wired to-day from the Cape, that it is the intention of the Government to increase the armed force, is true?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question the hon. Gentleman is asking does not arise on Clause 3.
    DR. CLARK: Sir John Gorst—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I cannot argue with the hon. Gentleman. If he desires to raise a point of Order I will hear him.
    DR. CLARK: It is a point of Order. I want to know whether Schedule B does not include the Vote for Bechuanaland, and the Vote also for the salary of Secretary of State for the Colonies.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman might put his question in the

    979
    House. Clause 3 is a clause which directs the appropriation of certain sums of money which have been voted by the House itself to purposes for which the House has voted them. This is a Committee of the Whole House, and it is not open to a Committee of the Whole House to vary or negative any Resolution which is a Resolution of the House itself. I understand the hon. Gentleman wishes to vary or alter a Resolution of the House itself. That cannot be done.
    DR. CLARK: I want to get some information in the usual way from the Government.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman can discuss whether it is expedient that the Supply which has been already granted by the House should or should not be appropriated, and the mode of appropriation; but those are the only questions he can raise. Supply has been already voted. The amount has been already determined. The only question for this Committee is, whether the Treasury shall be compelled by law to appropriate the money which comes into their hands in a certain way.
    DR. CLARK: I will raise the question on a different stage of the Bill.
    DR. TANNER: I deprecate as much as any Member of the Committee having any altercation with the hon. Gentleman who, happening to be a Member of the Government, may for the time occupy the position of Chairman. I felt extremely put out just now in having to challenge the decision arrived at by the hon. Gentleman, whom I believe this Committee is always pleased to see in the position which he at present occupies pro tem. But I do not think it is expedient that very large sums of money should be passed by this House without the House having a sufficient answer from the responsible Ministers of the Crown, who come to this House and ask for the sums with which to pay the salaried officers of the Crown—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is now addressing the Committee in opposition to the decision which has been given by the Chair. The question the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise is not relevant to the clause before the Committee. The question before the Committee is whether certain sums of money shall or
    980
    shall not be appropriated by law to certain purposes. That is the only point, and to that point any observations of the hon. Member must be addressed.
    DR. TANNER: That being the case of course I shall—because, as I have already shown, I do not like to enter into any controversy with a salaried officer of Her Majesty's Government—[Cries of "Order!"] I believe I am perfectly in Order in saying that. If I am wrong the Chairman can call me to Order, and not the salaried officers of the Crown who sit below the Gangway, and who ought to know better than to interrupt me. [The CHAIRMAN: Order, order!] As I understand you have ruled it out of Order, I think I had better reserve myself for an attack on the third reading of the Bill. At the same time if this sum is to be taken—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am very reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is not the occasion to give notice of opposition to the third reading of the Bill. The question I have put to the Committee is "That Clause 3 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALDWELL: I shall endeavour to keep in Order. I object to the principle of the application of the grants in the Schedule relating to this clause. I object——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! We are not now discussing the Schedule, but we are discussing whether the sums voted by the House and specified in the Schdules shall or shall not be appropriated by law to the different Services. That is the only question now before the Committee.
    MR. CALDWELL: Then I am quite prepared to wait until the Schedules come on. This clause states that the money shall be appropriated according to Schedule B annexed. I shall, of course, as I am bound to do, bow to your decision, Sir; but it seems to me that if it be your ruling that upon this clause, which expressly states that the sums mentioned shall be appropriated according to Schedule B, and that it is not in Order to discuss the Appropriation in the Schedule upon this clause, we shall have no opportunity of re-raising the question on the appropriation of the money.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to be throroughly understood by the hon.

    981
    Member and the Committee. I cannot say now whether the hon. Member will or will not be in Order in any Motion he may make hereafter. But I think I ought to remind the hon. Member and the Committee that the different items in Schedule B consist of sums of money granted, by Resolutions of Committee of Supply, to Her Majesty for the Services of the year. Those Resolutions of Committee of Supply have been reported to the House, and the House has been pleased, by Resolution, to agree to those Resolutions, and it is not competent for this Committee to either review or alter the decisions which have been come to by the House itself.
    DR. TANNER: Am I to understand, Sir John Gorst, that this Committee of the Whole House is called together and sits merely for the purpose of passing the sums which have already come under the consideration of the House and the Committee of the House, without any discussion of material points—notably, the point I was endeavouring to raise—which is the continuance of the services of a gentleman who has been accused of being a thief and a swindler?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot undertake to lay down any general or universal rule to the Committee. All I am called upon to do is to decide the points brought before the Committee as they arise. But I should not think it fair to decide the point now brought before the Committee without warning the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Caldwell) what it was possible my decision might be, if any attempt were made to raise the discussion he wished on Schedule B. My decision is that the criticisms which the hon. Member now desires to make are not germane to the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALDWELL: Am I in Order in objecting to the appropriation of this money?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Gentleman will adduce to the Committee any reasons for not appropriating Supply in this way, and for not binding the Treasury by law to spend the money in the way provided by the Bill, he will, of course, be in Order.
    MR. CALDWELL: I apprehend I shall be perfectly in Order in speaking on the general question why the money should not be given at all. It is often usual to object to a whole grant because
    982
    one objects to some particular part of the grant. I presume I am entitled to speak in regard to a portion of the grant whether my reasons are sufficient or not for the refusal of the whole grant. I object to the appropriation of this money, because of the unfair manner in which these grants have been allocated. These grants have been allocated in a higher measure to England than they have been to Scotland. I may mention that according to the Probate Duty Bill—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is now travelling into the details of Schedule B, which I have already ruled is not in Order on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALDWELL: Then am I to understand I am not entitled to show why this clause should be rejected?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to show cause why this clause should be rejected; but the question in this case is whether, by law, the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury are or are not to be bound to apply money already voted by Parliament in the way in which Parliament orders. If the hon. Member has any reasons to urge why the Treasury should not be bound by law this year to appropriate the money in this particular way, he will be in Order in urging it.
    MR. CALDWELL: As to your ruling, may I put this question to you, Sir—Suppose that after these sums were voted by the House new circumstances arose whereby the House thought it necessary to intervene and stop the supplies?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member has any reasons to urge why the Committee should stop the Supplies—if there are any new circumstances which would induce the Committee to reject this clause altogether, and not to allow the Government to spend the money at all, I think he would be in Order in stating them.
    MR. CALDWELL: Am I not right in this—that there is a distinction between the question of Order and the merits of my argument? Would it not be in Order for me to state my argument, and would it not be for the Committee to decide as to the validity of my argument?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I am of opinion that if, under cover of argument on the

    983
    Question, "That Clause 3 stall stand part of the Bill," the hon. Member were really to address himself to questions detailed in Schedule B, that would be trifling with the Committee, and I should have to ask the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN (Mr. SEXTON): On a point of Order, Sir—may I ask you whether you, as a casual Chairman, have the power to order a Member to discontinue his speech?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is a question I shall decide when the time comes.
    MR. CALDWELL: Sir John Gorst, I must take that as a distinct refusal to allow me to discuss this clause, and as raising a very serious Constitutional question. It would not be right to allow this refusal to have a discussion on Clause 3 without a distinct ruling. I understand your ruling to be that unless I have something to show against—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. CALDWELL: Well, I will allow you, Sir, to give your ruling yourself, but, in the mean time, I simply seek to show cause why this grant should not be allocated in the way pointed out in Clause 3, and I will wait until I am interrupted. I maintain that we should not grant this Appropriation in Aid in the terms of this Bill until the Committee has had an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question of the division of the grant between England, Scotland, and Ireland.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I have already three or four times decided that that line of argument is not in Order.
    DR. TANNER: I rise to Order, Sir. I was attempting to raise the question of the salary of the Under Secretary of State for India—
    MR. ISAACS: I rise to Order—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) is speaking to a point of Order.
    DR. TANNER: I was merely putting this as an example. I think I should have been in Order in moving a reduction upon Clause 2. I find I am out of Order on Clause 3. Shall I be in Order in moving the reduction on the Schedule?
    THE CHAIRMAN: We must wait until we come to the Schedule. I intimated what probably my decision would be on the point, because I did not wish to take the Committee by surprise.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 4 agreed to.
    Clause 5 (Sanction for Navy and Army expenditure for 1886–87 unprovided for).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: This clause sanctions the Army and Navy expenditure for the year. Am I to understand that this is intended to be anything in the nature of a Supplementary Grant or not?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not part of my business to enter into such explanations. Clause 5 is one which has appeared in every Appropriation Bill for years past. It is a usual clause, and it is to provide for the expenditure in a particular way of the money voted for the Army and Navy. If the hon. Gentleman objects to the way in which the money is to be appropriated he will be in Order in stating his objection.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 6 agreed to.
    Clause 7 agreed to.
    Schedule A (Grants out of the Consolidated Fund).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule A stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: On this Schedule I wish to call attention to a certain sum which is appropriated out of the sum voted by the House.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member is in error about Schedule A. It is a Schedule of Acts under which, during the present Session, sums of money have already been granted for the Services of the year.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Schedule B (Appropriation of grants).
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNERrose to address the Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to propose an Amendment to Schedule B?
    DR. TANNER: Yes.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. Gentleman will bring it up.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to move that a sum of money, which is to be appropriated out of this Schedule, be reduced by the sum of £300.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Which item?
    DR. TANNER: Civil Service, Class III. I do so—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman will bring up his Amendment I shall see exactly what it is.
    DR. TANNERwalked to the Table and proceeded to put his Amendment in writing.
    MR. CONYBEARE: While the hon. Gentleman is writing out his Amendment may I—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. CONYBEARE: I thought it would save time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    DR. TANNERhaving handed in his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid: The hon. Member proposes to move that the Civil Service Estimates, Class III., Schedule B, Part VII., the sum total of which is £6,398,872, be reduced by the sum of £300. I am of opinion that such an Amendment cannot be put, and for the following reasons:—The sums which are specified in Class III., Schedule B, Part VII. are various sums which have been appropriated by Resolution of the Committee of Supply for the Services of the year. Those Resolutions of the Committee of Supply have been duly reported to the House itself, and the House itself has on each occasion passed Resolutions expressing its agreement with the Committee of Supply in the said Resolutions. The various sums so appropriated are, therefore, appropriated by the Resolution of the House itself, and I am of opinion that this Committee of the House now sitting is not competent to entertain any Amendment which would be inconsistent with the Resolutions which have been arrived at by the House itself. This Amendment, therefore, cannot be put.
    MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether in your opinion it would be open to raise this question for determination on the Report of these proceedings to the House itself.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will see that the Report stage will
    986
    be taken with the Speaker in the Chair. It would be most improper for me to express an opinion as to what would be in Order under such circumstances.
    MR. CALDWELL: What is the object of Schedule B being put, when there is no power to move Amendments?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That is not a question which I think I ought to be asked. It is not part of my business to explain the reasons for the various forms of the House.
    DR. CLARK: Is it possible to leave out any portion of this Schedule?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member asks me a general question. I must decline to answer a general question. If the hon. Member will show me what part he proposes to omit I will consider the Amendment.
    DR. CLARK, having handed up his Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member proposes to leave out No. 15 of Part 6. No. 15 of Part 6 appears to be for Salaries and Expenses of the Local Government Board, including various Grants in Aid of local taxation. The total is £4,448,968, and that is the sum resolved upon by the House itself, and, according to the principle which I endeavoured to explain to the Committee just now, it is incompetent for this Committee of the Whole House to alter the decision of the House itself.
    MR. WADDY: May I suggest, Sir, upon the point of Order, that this very narrow limitation of the subjects we are entitled to discuss is, perhaps, not quite in accordance with the principle laid down when this very matter was discussed in the House under the Speakership of Mr. Brand, on the 12th of August, 1876. The principle then laid down was, as you, Sir, will, no doubt, remember, that although we are not in a position to deal with the Appropriation Bill in the same way as we deal will Votes in Committee of Supply—there must be some relevancy, of course—yet matters may be introduced touching the principles upon which the sums have been granted, and even the length of time for which the sums may be granted. The question then suggested to the Speaker was, whether we were not at liberty to limit Supplies to three months, instead of allowing it to go over the whole year. Mr. Speaker

    987
    Brand was not prepared to say that it would be in Order to move an Amendment limiting the Supplies to three months; but he thought the hon. Member for Poole was in Order in asking whether it was proper that the Naval Forces of the country should be sent to Turkish waters in favour of a certain policy, and in calling in question the conduct of the Diplomatic Agents of the Crown for whom Supplies had been appropriated. It appears, therefore, that it is competent for us to discuss the conduct of the servants of the Crown for whom the Supplies have been appropriated, and that we can do so upon the question of appropriating these Supplies. Surely it is competent for us to decline to appropriate a particular sum of money to a particular person on account of the conduct of that person. Perhaps I had better read Mr. Speaker Brand's own words—
    "It is not for me to answer any hypothetical questions which may be put; but with reference to what has fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. Butt), I am by no means prepared to say that an Amendment on the Appropriation Bill limiting the Supplies to three months would be out of Order. As to the question whether the hon. Member for Poole was in Order, I may say that although he made no Motion, yet he gave Notice of calling attention to certain matters, and it appeared to me that he was in Order, because he raised the question of Supplies in a most direct manner. For instance, he asked whether it was proper that the naval forces of the country should be sent to Turkish waters in favour of a certain policy, and he also called in question the conduct of the Diplomatic Agents of the Crown, for whom Supplies had been appropriated. I think it right to observe that I interrupted the hon. Member for Dundee when he proposed to speak generally of the Constitution of the country, and it certainly appeared to me that such a discussion was scarcely relevant to the Appropriation Bill."—(3 Hansard [231], 1161.)
    An hon. MEMBER: What stage was it?
    MR. WADDY: The stage we are now upon.
    An hon. MEMBER: In Committee?
    MR. WADDY: The Speaker was in the Chair, and was laying down what might be discussed upon the Appropriation Bill.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's observations refer to the different stages of the Appropriation Bill in the House itself. It would be most presumptuous in me to state
    988
    what is or is not in Order in the House. Perhaps I may be allowed to say that no doubt, on the various stages of the Appropriation Bill in the House, considerable latitude always has been given as to the topics which may be discussed. I may remind the Committee that, up to the present year, there was always a stage at which a Motion was made that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee. That was a stage of the Bill in the House itself. The function we are engaged in now is of a much more humble character. We are examining the details of this Bill in Committee, and the Question put to me is whether in Committee of the Whole House a Motion to amend Schedule B can be entertained. That is the question which was put to me, and I have given my decision—namely, that in my humble opinion such a Motion is not in Order upon the ground that such a Motion would be inconsistent with the decision which the House itself has arrived at, and to which the Committee of the Whole House is bound to conform.
    MR. CALDWELL: If it is held that we cannot now re-open any of the items, because the Votes have already been passed by the Committee of Supply, and been approved by the House—if the decision of the House already arrived at is final and not subject to repeal—upon what principle is it that we can raise these questions in the House itself when the third reading comes on?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is asking me conundrums which I have several times stated to the Committee I do not consider myself competent to express an opinion upon. But I may, perhaps, remind the hon. Member that, though the House itself may be entitled to review and re consider its own decisions, it does not follow that a Committee of the Whole House can undertake that function.
    MR. SEXTON: With reference to the declaration of the late Speaker, quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Brigg Division of Lincolnshire (Mr. Waddy), to the effect that the conduct of the agents of the Crown can be criticized upon the Appropriation Bill, I would ask you whether it is possible, on any other stage of the Bill than that of Com-

    989
    mittee, to touch the salaries of certain public servants—to move to reduce items?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That, again, is a question I cannot answer. I cannot say what will be done in the House itself, and I cannot say what the procedure of the House will be. In my opinion the items in Schedule B cannot be amended in Committee of the Whole House upon the Appropriation Bill.
    DR. CLARK: Is it in the province of the Committee to consider the policy embodied in the Votes before passing them?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I should say not. The Committee has to consider the details of the Bill—to see that the details of the Bill are satisfactory and correct.
    DR. TANNER: I rise for the purpose of suggesting that Schedule B—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must either move an Amendment to Schedule B or wait until I put the Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    MR. CALDWELL: I have put down as an Amendment that part ("a") of Schedule B be omitted.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I rule, for the same reasons I have already given, that such an Amendment is inadmissible.
    Question proposed, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: Sir, as I disapprove strongly of the policy of murder and assassination, backed up by lying, and as I disapprove of the employment—although such persons may be congenial to certain people—of swindlers and thieves—I wish to put the matter as mildly as I possibly can, in order that the Chief Secretary may understand—I beg to move that Class III. be not appropriated.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! It is too late for the hon. Member to do that. I paused for along time before I put the question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill," in order to allow anyone to propose an Amendment. It is now too late to move an Amendment.
    DR. TANNER: I move that the money be not allocated.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It has already been decided that from the date of the passing of the Act certain money shall be appropriated to certain purposes. The only question now is whether
    990
    Schedule B shall be a Schedule of the Bill.
    MR. CALDWELL: I thought we had precluded ourselves by approving of Clause 3, which provides that Schedule B in its entirety shall be appropriated.
    DR. TANNER: I beg to move a reduction of Schedule B. I for one am of opinion that in the state of affairs in which we are at present landed by Her Majesty's Government, through the horrid and iniquitous manner of proceeding which is their leading and chief characteristic in dealing with any unfortunate people with whom they may happen to come in contact, whether, it be Sir John Gorst—[Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is proper to speak of Members by the constituencies they represent, and not by their individual names.
    DR. TANNER: I was speaking of the Chair. I am always in the habit when Mr. Courtney is in the Chair of addressing him as Mr. Courtney, and I did not know I was out of Order in addressing the present Chairman by the name which he dignifies. I say that when we in this House are doing what we are supposed by our constituents to do, taking into consideration the action of the Government or Governments, and seeing what we see at a time like the present, with all the populations, whether they be those "black people" of whom we have heard—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's observations are not germane to the Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    DR. TANNER: I was coming to that, if you give me time. If I am not to be permitted to speak, if the Chairman tells me not to speak I will resume my seat.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to address the Chair in that way. He is perfectly in Order in addressing to the Committee any remarks relevant to the Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill." If the hon. Member makes remarks of another character, it is my duty to call him to Order.
    DR. TANNER: We all understand that; but I rose for the purpose of calling attention to a fact. I thought Her Majesty's Government would have given me some facility in this matter,

    991
    but I regret to say that they have not done so. I made a very specific charge, and I have done my best in every possible way, consulting, in the first place, the Chair—everybody in this House cannot at all times be thought rashly of because they may make a casual mistake. I say when we are here in Committee of Supply to appropriate sums of money for a swindler and a thief, a servant of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman ought to be in his place, and ought not to be such a coward as he is.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I direct the hon. Member to resume his seat.
    DR. TANNER: I called the Chief Secretary a coward, and he is a coward.
    MR. AIRD: Mr. Chairman, I beg to move—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I must request the hon. Member for Mid Cork to withdraw the word "coward."
    DR. TANNER: I call him a coward and a liar, and he is both: I call him a coward and a liar.
    THE CHAIRMAN: As the hon. Member refuses to withdraw the language which I characterize as un-Parliamentary—as he has not only refused to withdraw it, but repeated it with aggravation in the hearing of the Committee—I have no course but to name Dr. Tanner—[Dr. TANNER: With the greatest possible pleasure]—for disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): Then, Sir, I have to move that Dr. Tanner be suspended from the service of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Dr. Tanner be suspended from the service of the House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. CONYBEARE: On the question of Order, Sir—
    THE CHAIRMAN: As many as are of that opinion say "Aye." [Loud cries of "Aye!"]
    MR. CONYBEARE: On the question of Order, Sir—
    MR. SEXTON: On the question of Order, Sir, I should like to ask whether the power to name a Member to the House is not confined to Mr. Speaker when in the Chair, and to the Chairman of Ways and Means when
    992
    presiding over a Committee of the Whole House? I beg to submit that as you are not the Chairman of Ways and Means, you have no power to name anyone.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is in error. The power is not confined to the Speaker or Chairman of Ways and Means. It is a power which is given to any Member who occupies the Chair; and I may remind the Committee that I am not a mere casual Chairman, but one of those who was designated under the Standing Order by Mr. Speaker.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Whereupon the Chairman left the Chair in order to report the said Resolution to the House.
    MR. SPEAKERhaving resumed the Chair—
    SIR JOHN GORSTreported that Dr. Tanner had been named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Dr. Tanner be suspended from the service of the House.
    Whereupon Mr. Speaker put the Question to the House, "That Dr. Tanner be suspended from the service of the House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
    MR. CHAPLIN: On a question of Order, Mr. Speaker—
    MR. SPEAKER: There can be no debate.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. SPEAKERthen directed Dr. Tanner to withdraw.
    MR. SEXTON: He has withdrawn, Sir.
    MR. CHAPLIN: On a point of Order, Sir, cannot an Amendment be moved?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
  Bill again considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill," put and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report the Bill without Amendment to the House."
  MR. CALDWELL: I object to this Bill being reported to the House in its present state, seeing that we are very anxious to have everything done in order, and that there is a Preamble to this Bill. I submit to you, Sir, that before we report the Bill to the House, and as we are approaching the end of the Session, and as it is inconvenient to prolong the Session, it would be very inconvenient to report the Bill before we get through it. I therefore move that the Preamble to the Bill be adopted.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is in error. There is no Preamble to the Bill.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT, 1875, AMENDMENT (No. 4) BILL.— [BILL 398.]
  Mr. Tomlinson, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Burt, Mr. Bradlaugh, Colonel Blundell, Mr. Wood, Mr. Abraham (Rhondda).

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Exemptions from provisions of Section 30 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, 38 and 39 Vict. c. 60 in certain cases).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, leave out from beginning of line 5 to "which," in line 6, and insert, "Where any society, by reason of its being constituted so as to receive contributions by means of collectors at a greater distance than ten miles from its registered office."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he understood that this Bill could not be proceeded with in "another place" this Session, and therefore it appeared to him that to proceed with the consideration of the Amendments to the Bill at the present time was simply to waste the time of the Committee. He moved that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again, and did so in the interests of Members on both sides of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would not like to absolutely contradict the hon. Member when he said the Bill could not be passed this Session. He could not say whether the Bill could be passed this Session or not, and he certainly had no wish to detain the Committee unnecessarily. If it was the wish of the Committee that the Bill should not proceed further he would not oppose the Motion to report Progress; but he desired to say that it would be a great misfortune to many working men in the country if this Bill were not passed this Session. The Bill was brought in to amend a defect in the Friendly Societies Act, which had excluded large Miners' Associations from the benefits of that Act. No real opposition had been offered to the Bill, and its progress had been stopped hitherto only by hon. Members who probably had never taken the trouble to read the Bill. He desired to leave it to the Committee to say whether the Bill should be proceeded with. If there was any chance of its passing this Session, and it would not occupy more than five minutes, for the Amendments were merely formal, he should personally desire to proceed. With the permission of the Committee he would like to point out that the Members who had backed the Bill were, besides himself, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Burt, Mr. Bradlaugh, Colonel Blundell, Mr. Wood, and Mr. Abraham (Rhondda Division of Glamorgan). The hon. Member for the Camborne Division of Cornwall was, with himself (Mr. Tomlinson), a Member of the Committee which reported in favour of establishing a Miners' Association in Cornwall similar to those affected by the Bill, and that Association could not be formed unless the Bill passed.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, the hon. Member for Preston had attacked him with considerable vehemence and warmth. It was not for the hon. Member to attack him, for the hon. Member certainly did not assist the miners when he sat on the Committee to which he had referred, but he opposed the miners' interests at every point, and was most

  995
  obstructive. That, however, was not the point. He (Mr. Conybeare), in the interests of those who had got other matters to look after, and who did not wish to waste their time in the Committee upon the present occasion, simply pointed out what he understood was the fact from a Gentleman sitting upon the Ministerial Benches. He asked any Member of the Government to say whether the Bill could be passed this Session if it were passed through Committee that afternoon? If it could, he was not going to oppose it on a technical point, but if the Bill could not proceed further than this House during this Session, he maintained that it was a waste of time to proceed with the consideration of the Amendments. He wanted information from a Member of the Government. He did not in the least oppose the Bill on any fictitious ground. If the Bill could be passed this Session he would remain here as long as was necessary to consider the Amendments on their merits, but if the Bill could not go through the House of Lords it was a waste of their time to go any further. Surely, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in a position to say whether there was any likelihood of the Bill being passed through the other House this Session or not.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN)said, the passing of the Bill depended upon whether the Bill reached their Lordships in sufficient time for it to be passed. Unless it was passed that day or to-morrow through all its stages there would be no time to pass it this Session. If hon. Members would allow sufficient time to give the Bill a chance, the Government would offer no opposition whatever. He advised the Committee to pass the Bill through its remaining stages, so that it might be at once sent up to the House of Lords in the hope of it becoming law immediately. If that were not done, the responsibility would rest on those who bad blocked it at this period of the Session.
  MR. CONYBEAREsaid, he was quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He was given to understand that there was absolutely no chance of the Bill passing this Session. He begged to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Amendment proposed to amend the proposed Amendment by inserting the word "friendly" after the word "any."—(Sir Herbert Maxwell.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'friendly' be there inserted."
  DR. CLARKsaid, he wished to understand the meaning of the Amendment. This Bill was brought in for specific purposes, and since it had been brought in there had been a great many Amendments put down.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not in Order in asking for explanation of other Amendments.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, the following Amendments were agreed to:—In page 1, line 8, leave out from "on," to "and," in line 10, and insert "the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies;" page 1, line 12, after "members," insert "thereof;" page 1, line 12, after "may," insert "on the application of the society;" page 1, line 13, leave out "provision," and insert "provisions;" page 1, line 13, leave out "section thirty," and insert "the said section;" page 1, line 17, after "society," insert "affected;" page 1, line 21, leave out "and."
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  Bill reported; as amended, considered.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

AFRICA (EQUATORIAL)—MR. STANLEY AND EMIN PASHA.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN): I rise to move the Adjournment of the House, and in doing so wish to read two letters which have come to hand, and which will, I am sure, be satisfactory to the House. There is a Reuter telegram, dated Zanzibar, Dec. 21, to the following effect:—
  "Letters dated from Stanley Falls on August 29 last reached here by Tippoo Tib's men today, stating that on the preceding day a letter had been received from Sir. Stanley. He was then at Bonalya, on the Aruwhimi. He had left Emin Pasha 82 days previously in perfect health, with plenty of food, and had himself

  997
  returned for his rearguard and loads. He had arrived at Bonalya on August 17, and intended leaving ten days later, presumably to rejoin Emin Pasha. All the white men of the expedition were in good health and wanted nothing."
  There is a further telegram from the Eastern Telegraph Company, who have had the courtesy to put it into our hands. It is dated "Friday, 2 p.m.," and is from the agent of the Company to Sir James Anderson:—
  "I have just received information Stanley has arrived with Emin Pasha on the Aruwhimi; news reliable; further details follow."
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, there were reports that our troops were to march on Handoub. He did not hesitate to accept in good faith what the Government had said on the subject, but he thought it would be satisfactory to them if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say that there was no truth in the reports.
  MR. GOSCHEN: We have no information whatever to that effect from General Grenfell.
  MR. CONYBEAREin reference to an answer by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary yesterday, as to the handcuffing of a boy while being removed from prison to the reformatory, read a letter from an ex-warder of Strangeways Gaol, Manchester, stating, in contradiction of the answer, that it was not only customary but compulsory to handcuff boys in such circumstances, and asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would be kind enough to inquire further into the matter?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (MR. MATTHEWS)said, the information he read to the House, of the accuracy of which he had no doubt, was derived from the prison officials, and it was to the effect that it was not usual to handcuff a boy unless there was apprehended danger either of an attempted escape or rescue. He would be glad, however, to see the letter sent to the hon. Member by an ex-warder.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid he must press for a more distinct answer to the question addressed earlier in the evening to the
  998
  Secretary of State for War (Mr. E. Stanhope) as to whether the British troops at Suakin, having done their duty, would now return, or whether discretionary power had been given to the commanding officer to carry on further operations in the Soudan. He gave as a reason for pressing the question that the answer of the Secretary of State was an evasive one.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Really the hon. Gentleman is so suspicious that it is useless giving him any declaration whatever. We have nothing whatever to take away from any declaration we have made. There is no change whatever in the situation; and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who has himself governed a Province, and who must be acquainted with the ways of the Press, should consider that everything stated as regards the intentions of the Government must immediately be contradicted or otherwise be accepted as correct. I have really nothing to add. We shall not depart one inch from the declaration I have made.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTasked if the telegram read a few minutes before to the House stated the date of the reported arrival of Emin Pasha and Stanley at the Aruwhimi?
  MR. GOSCHEN: We have not got the date.
  MR. H. T. DAVENPORTsaid, that would make it about August.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Further details are to follow. I suppose they will be here in a few hours.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Five o'clock.