§ SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT (Sussex, N.W.)desired to know whether it was intended to hold a Morning Sitting to-morrow?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH) (Strand,564 Westminster) , in reply, said, the Government were entirely in the hands of the House, and desired to meet the convenience of the House, with regard to the adjournment over the Whitsuntide Recess. There were, however, two steps which must be taken before the adjournment could be moved. In the first place, he must ask the House for a Vote on Account; and, secondly, he hoped that the House would read the Employers' Liability Bill a second time, so that it could be sent to the Grand Committee on Trade. If these steps were taken they would be prepared to move the adjournment that evening. But if those steps were not taken, he should have to ask the House to meet to-morrow at 2 o'clock.
§ MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)said, he had proposed, on the Motion for Adjournment, to discuss the question of the emigration of crofters; but as he found that it would be possible to raise that question on the Vote for the salary of the Secretary for Scotland, he would deal with it then, and so avoid the necessity of delaying the adjournment.
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that he would take care that all the Papers on the subject should be in the hands of Members before the end of the Recess.
In reply to Dr. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.),
§ MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he was not able to say precisely when the Lunacy Acts Amendment Bill would be taken; but it was possible they might be able to reach it on the 4th of June.
In reply to Mr. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford, W.),
§ MR. W. H SMITHsaid, that if the Employers' Liability Bill was not read a second time that night he should have to ask the House to come to a decision on the measure at the Morning Sitting to-morrow.