Commons Sitting of 17 June 1890

QUESTIONS.

  ADMIRALTY—UNDER-MANNING OF SHIPS.
  MR. COX: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether some of Her Majesty's ships of war are so undermanned in the Engineering Department that, in an engagement, it would be absolutely necessary to draft men from the guns to make up the deficiency, in order to secure the full steaming power of the engines?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): No; such is not the case. The complement is amply sufficient to secure the full steaming power of the engines. If the maximum speed were maintained for a long period help might be required from deck hands to assist in trimming coal.

  THE ROYAL NAVAL RESERVE.
  MR. ROUND): I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware of the growth of the maritime population in the towns and villages upon the River Colne; and whether he will provide some station in the locality where facilities could be granted for training for the Royal Navy or for entering the Royal Naval Reserve?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Admiralty are making inquiries as to whether a suitable site for a drill battery can be obtained in the locality in question; and

  1123
  also as to the number of seafaring men who would probably avail themselves of the facilities for training that might be so afforded.

  SEWERAGE WORKS FOR HARROW WEALD.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, referring to the promise which he gave to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division (Mr. Cobb) on the 20th of August last, and to the determination which he expressed in reply to the same hon. Member on the 18th of February last that something should be done as to the sewerage works for Harrow Weald, he can now state whether there is any probability of anything being done; and, if so, when; and whether, if the delay is continued, he will direct some steps to be taken to compel the Hendon Rural Sanitary Authority to proceed to execute the works?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. RITCHIE,: Since my reply to the hon. Member for the Rugby Division, I have repeatedly pressed the Sanitary Authority with reference to the provision of the sewerage works for Harrow Weald. I am glad to be able to state that the Sanitary Authority have now succeeded in their negotiations for the purchase of eight acres of land for purposes of sewage disposal, and that they have applied for sanction to a loan of £3,500 in connection with the cost of purchase and the execution of the necessary works. It is requisite, however, that the Board should be furnished with plans of the works proposed, and I am informed that plans and sections will be laid before the authorities at their meeting to-day.
  MR. COBB: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that plans were laid before the Local Authority 12 months ago?
  MR. RITCHIE: I do not know whether that is so or not; but a loan is now being applied for in order that the works may be carried out.

  RAILWAYS IN INDIA.
  MR. BRADLAITGH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether ho can state to the House the nature of, or whether he will lay Papers upon the Table showing
  1124
  the various proposals made during the past 12 months, to or by the Secretary of State in Council, and to or by the Government of India, and to either, by any other parsons in relation to particular railways in India, or in relation to any general scheme of Indian Railway finance, together with any correspondence thereon?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Sir J. GORST,): My noble Friend the Secretary of State is of opinion that it is not expedient to give the Papers asked for in the question, nor would it be convenient or practicable to do so. He wishes me to suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he will have an opportunity of discussing the matter on the statement in connection with the Indian Budget.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to give notice to the right hon. Gentleman that if he does not lay these Papers on the Table before the discussion of the Indian Budget takes place I shall feel it my duty to submit to the House a summary of the proposals made to the Government, with the criticisms of the Government of India upon them.

  RAJAH BROOKE.
  MR. NORRIS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is a fact that Rajah Brooke has seized a large part of the Independent State of Brunei, against the wishes of the lawful Sovereign of the State; and, if so, has Rajah Brooke broken the agreement made between the Sultan of Brunei and Her Majesty's Government, also his own agreement with the Sultan; whether Her Majesty's Government has received a strong protest from the Sultan of Brunei, informing them that Rajah Brooke has interfered with the independence of the State of Brunei, and thereby violated the terms of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and His Highness, dated 17th September, 1888; and if Her Majesty's Government will take steps to insure that their Treaty with the Sultan shall be respected, and if they will award compensation for any losses suffered by the Sultan in any breach of such Treaty?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir J. FER. GUSSON,: Rajah Brooke

  1125
  has annexed the Limbang District, which was nominally under the Sovereignty of the Sultan of Brunei, though his authority over it does not appear to have been recognised by the inhabitants for some years. The annexation is subject to the approval of Her Majesty's Government. The Sultan of Brunei has protested. We are not yet in possession of sufficient information to enable me to make any statement as to the course which Her Majesty's Government may feel bound to take in the matter.

  FISHING IN THE LOWER HOPE.
  MR. BAZLEY-WHITE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has received a Memorial from the fishermen of Gravesend, praying that boats from Greenwich and Blackwall may be prevented from fishing in the Lower Hope with illegal nets, called "stobard nets," by which the fry and spawn of all kinds of fish are destroyed, and the livelihood of the fishermen taken away; also that sewerage matter may be prevented from being brought down the river and deposited at the entrance by the steamships Barking and Bazalgette, whereby great harm is done to the fishing; and whether the Board of Trade will take such steps as may be necessary to remove the nuisance complained of?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): I have received the Memorial to which the hon. Member refers, in which complaint is made of the use of stow be it nets, and the deposit of sewage in a part of the River Thames which is under the jurisdiction of the Thames Conservancy. A copy of the Memorial was forwarded to the Conservators, who have replied that instructions have been given to their Harbour Master to carefully watch and report all cases of a breach of their bye-laws.

  TREATMENT OF PRISONERS IN MOROCCO.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will cause our Minister in Morocco, Sir W. Kirby Green, to make representations to the Sultan in order to alleviate the alleged
  1126
  ill-treatment of the prisoners confined in the prisons at Tangiers and Tetnan?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: The attention of Her Majesty's Minister has been already called to the subject, and he has authority to make representations respecting the state of the prisons to the Moorish Government whenever he sees any prospect of doing so with success. I regret to say that, according to his latest Report on the question, he had found that diplomatic representations were ineffectual to abate the evils complained of.

  FLASH SIGNALS—ADMIRAL COLOMB'S INVENTION.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all letters, agreements, and receipts given by Admiral Colomb, relating to his invention of the Flash Signals?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: As the question of this officer's services in the introduction into the Navy of the system of flashing signals is still under consideration, it would be inexpedient to present to Parliament at the present time any Papers on the subject.

  EGYPTIAN LOAN.
  MR. WOOTTON ISAACSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will ascertain from the Financial Adviser of the Egyptian Government the amount of commission paid to Messrs. Rothschild and Sons for issuing the new Egyptian 3½ per Cent. Loan?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: This is a matter entirely within the discretion of the Egyptian Government.

  MORELL'S CHARITY.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Penrith Division of Cumberland (Mr. J. W. Lowther) whether the Charity Commissioners have, since the date of the Report of the Royal Commission on the City Livery Companies, in 1884, dealt with Morell's Charity of the Goldsmiths' Company; and, if so, in what way, both generally and with special reference to 30 acres of land at Barking, part of the corpus of the Charity?
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: The Charity Commissioners are taking proceedings for the establishment of a new scheme. The scheme does not deal with the land at Barking.

  CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great inconvenience which is occasioned in the several Public Departments by the existence of vacancies in the staff, and the stagnation of promotion which has occurred since the appointment of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, the Treasury will expedite the settlement of the various establishment questions now under their consideration, and sanction the promotion of those clerks of the Second Division who have already been recommended by the Heads of their Departments under the new Regulations set forth in the recent Treasury Minutes and the Order in Council?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): The Treasury has been busily engaged upon these questions, and material progress has been made towards their settlement. But the reduction of various establishments to a fixed cadre, in accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, is a matter concerning which a great variety of opinions may be legitimately expressed, and which demands the most careful adjustment. The promotion of Second Division clerks to the upper class in that Division and to staff posts, must necessarily depend on the schemes adopted for the entire Departments, as it is these schemes which will determine the classification and distribution of the work.

  THE LADIES' GALLERY.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works what is the height from ground floor of the House to the Committee Rooms and the Ladies Gallery, and would it be possible to put up a lift or lifts for the convenience of Members and of ladies visiting the House?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. PLUNKEX,): I find that the height of this building, from the ground floor to the
  1128
  Committee Rooms, is 39ft. 3in. It would be possible to introduce into the staircase leading to the Ladies' Gallery a small lift to contain three people, but it would be an expensive undertaking.
  SIR G. CAMPBELL: Is there not already a lift for coals, and could not the ladies be substituted for coals?
  MR. PLUNKET: Such a lift does exist, and it certainly could be used either for the ladies or the coals; but I think it would be very difficult to combine the two. I can give no undertaking at present.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: During the recess will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the matter?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have no objection to do that.
  MR. LENG: Has the right hon. Gentleman obtained any estimate of the cost?
  MR. PLUNKET: No, Sir.

  THE CORPORATION OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can fix an early date for the holding of the promised inquiry into the way in which the Corporation of Newcastle-under-Lyme have expended the proceeds of a loan of £23,624, originally borrowed for certain specific purposes, several of which have not been carried out; whether, when an urban Sanitary Authority borrows money under the sanction of the Local Government Board, that Board has any control which will enable it to secure that the money is expended for the purposes for which it is borrowed; and whether such authorities are under statutory or other obligation to publish to the ratepayers any accounts which will show how the proceeds of loans are expended and from time to time otherwise dealt with?
  MR. RITCHIE: The Local Government Board have received a communication from one of the Councillors of the Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, in which it is alleged that certain monies which have been raised under the sanction of the Board have not been wholly applied to the purposes for which the loan was sanctioned. The Board have forwarded a copy of the communication as regards these allegations to the Town

  1129
  Council, but have not yet received their reply. The Board have been informed of a further proposal of the Town Council to borrow. No sanction to a further loan will be given without a local inquiry, and at that inquiry the question as to the appropriation of the proposed loan will be considered. In the case of Local Boards and other authorities, whose accounts are subject to the audit of the District Auditors, it would be the duty of the Auditor to satisfy himself that monies borrowed for a particular purpose are applied to that purpose. In the case, however, of a Municipal Corporation the accounts are not audited by the Auditors appointed by the Board. Cinder Section 233 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, the Treasurer's accounts are open to the inspection of the Council, and an abstract of these accounts is to be open to the inspection of all the ratepayers of the borough, and copies thereof are to be delivered to ratepayers on payment of a reasonable price. These provisions are made applicable to the accounts of a Town Council acting as an Urban Authority by Section 246 of the Public Health Act.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: Am I to understand that an inquiry will be made if the right hon. Gentleman is not satisfied In regard to the manner in which the money has been expended?
  MR. RITCHIE: The inquiry I have spoken of would be an inquiry as to the circumstances connected with a further application for a loan. In regard to all applications for power to raise money by loan an inquiry is held; but I have pointed out that the Local Government Board have no power to appoint Auditors. They do not possess the same control over the expenditure of money in the case of Corporations as they do in the case of Local Boards.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: If the application for a further loan is not persisted in have the Local Government Board no authority to inquire as to the expenditure of the money already borrowed?
  MR. RITCHIE: No, Sir; we have no authority; none.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS—BAYONETS.
  MR. HANBURF: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary for War what contracts and for what total number of bayonets have been made with
  1130
  Messrs. Wilkinson, and what number of bayonets have been delivered under such contracts; whether, subsequent to the respective contracts or any of them being originally made, any alterations were made in the shape of the bayonets or the test to which they were to be submitted; and whether the short bayonets or knives now being used with the new magazine rifle are those for which the first contract was given to Messrs. Wilkinson?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY FOE WAR (Mr. BEODEICK,): Only one contract has been made with Messrs. Wilkinson for bayonets, namely, for 150,000. Originally they were to have been of the pattern known as the Enfield Martini, 1877, and to a specification dated September, 1888; 42,000 were made under this order. In September, 1889, it was decided that the remaining 108,000 should be made of the 1888 pattern, and to a revised specification, which was sent to the contractors on November 11, 1889. These are the short bayonets used with the magazine rifle, for which the test naturally differs from that of the longer weapon of the 1887 pattern. Consequently, the bayonets ordered in 1889 are not those for which the original contract was made.
  MR. HANBURY: In the new contract was the price altered?
  MR. BRODRICK: I believe there was some alteration in the price.

  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Chief Commissioner of Metropolitan Police submitted an estimate of £138 for gratuities to the police who performed extra duty, and the Secretary of State granted £100 only, and, inconsequence, the allowances have had to be reduced below the usual scale; and, if so, will he say why the usual course has not been followed?
  MR. G. BRUCEalso asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the Police Order quoted in the Daily Telegraph, of Saturday last, relating to the grant of refreshment allowances or gratuities to the officers and men of the Metropolitan Police Force; whether it is the fact that the

  1131
  police have been deprived of the usual refreshment allowance to which they are entitled under the Rules; what is the Rule governing the grant of refreshment allowances, and was the claim, in respect of which the £100 (mentioned in the Order) was given, made under that Rule; have any other payments of that character been made; and whether any steps have been taken to mitigate the pressure of exceptional work falling upon officers and men of the Police Force?
  MR. BURDETT-COUTTS: I have also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, with reference to the grants of refreshment allowances or gratuities to the Metropolitan Police for extra service in times of emergency, whether the sum of £138 represented the allowances, calculated on the usual scale for the extra work done by the police during the recent gas and dock strikes; whether that sum was reduced to £100; whether he is aware that this reduction has caused great discontent amongst the men, and whether he will explain his reasons for the reduction?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE TOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Pickersgill), and my hon. Friends the Members for Westminster (Mr. Burdett-Coutts), and Holborn (Mr. G. Bruce), numbered 26 and 28, at the same time. Refreshment allowances are governed by the Regulations of the Police Force, and are allowances for expenses incurred, subject to two conditions, namely, that a man has been on duty over nine hours continuously, and that he was on duty too far from his home or Division to return for meals. This refreshment allowance has never been refused, and has never been reduced in any case which comes within the Rules. Last September the Commissioner asked that the refreshment allowance should be granted to men who were not entitled to it, because they had not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the Rules, but who had done extra duty or had suffered loss of leave in connection with meetings in Hyde Park, and these demands were made on several occasions. They involved the principle that the police had an equitable right to be paid
  1132
  for loss of leave or for overtime beyond their usual spell of eight hours' duty. This principle has not hitherto been admitted in the administration of the police. It appears to me contrary to the terms on which the police are employed. It carries with it the consequence of payment for all overtime beyond an eight hours' day. I did not feel justified in allowing this novel claim. But whilst I declined to grant a refreshment allowance, which had not been earned, I awarded in recognition of the zeal and good services of the police a round sum of £100, to be distributed by the Commissioner at his discretion among those men who had been most inconvenienced by extra work or loss of leave. The Commissioner asked that this gratuity might be increased to £138, on the ground that £138 would enable him to grant the refreshment allowance, which I had just declined to allow as unsound in principle, and contrary to the Rules. I had had no previous estimate of this amount I declined this application. This was in February last. No distribution of the £100 gratuity was made till the 13th inst.; and the distribution, contrary to my intention, is not on the basis of rewards for exceptional hardship, but on the basis of a reduced refreshment allowance. It is very possible that discontent has been caused by the manner in, which this gift has been distributed. On May 28, I awarded another gratuity of. £200 for extra work done by the police on other occasions when the refreshment allowance had not been earned. Altogether, I have distributed in gratuities of this kind, beyond and outside the Rules governing refreshment allowances, over £900 since July last. I also, in December last, sanctioned the substantial increase of 1,000 men to the Police Force, largely with the view of mitigating the pressure of exceptional work falling upon officers and men, and my desire has always been to treat the Force with consideration and liberality, and to recognise, so far as I could, the zeal and devotion displayed by the Metropolitan Police of all ranks.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: How many of the 1,000 men have been already added?
  MR. MATTHEWS: If I am to answer the question with perfect accuracy I must ask for notice. The increase was

  1133
  sanctioned in December last, and is to be made at the rate of 100 men a month. MR. T. M. HEALY: Is that the increase which was sanctioned by the right hon. Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt)?
  MR. MATTHEWS: No; it was sanctioned by me in December last.
  MR. E. HARRINGTON: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to confer with the Chief Secretary in order to see how English money is spent upon the police in Ireland.
  MR. JAMES STUART: When will the question of the addition to the Police Force, and the consequent provision of expense, be brought before the House?
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am afraid I must ask for notice of that question. It will not be in the Vote this year.
  MR. STUART: Am I to understand that this House has no voice as to the number of the police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: All I intended to say was that no Vote of the House will be asked for in order to meet the expense.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Then how is the expense to be met?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Out of the income of the Metropolitan Police Fund.
  MR. JAMES STUART: Is it not the case that the income of the Metropolitan Police Fund was not too much in the past year; and how is it to be made sufficient to meet the necessities of more policemen?
  MR. MATTHEWS: On the Police Vote the fullest explanation will be given to the House.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do I understand the Secretary of State to say that no Vote is going to be taken this year in the Estimates for the sum which is to be paid out of public money for the Metropolitan Police?
  MR. MATTHEWS: Certainly.
  MR. J. ROWLANDS: Is it intended to bring forward the Police Vote at such a time that the House may have an opportunity of discussing it?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): The Police Vote will lie brought forward on an early day.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: May I ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, before the Second
  1134
  Reading of the Police Bill is taken, he would publish the fixed scale (within the meaning of Clause 3) which he proposed to adopt for ordinary pensions in the Metropolitan Police Force.
  MR. MATTHEWS: Publication of the scale at the present time would be premature. It is enough for me to say that it is my intention, if the Bill passes in its present shape, to adopt the maximum scale in the schedule as the scale for ordinary pensions in the Metropolitan Police Force, and not to prescribe any limit of age as a qualification of the right to claim pension after 25 years* service.

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.
  CAPTAIN PRICE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Greenwich Hospital Accounts will be in the hands of Members; and whether any opportunity will be afforded for their discussion?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: On the 20th June. The usual facilities in discussing Estimates will be offered.

  SHEERNESS DOCKS.
  MR. H. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether steps are being taken, or will be taken, to enlarge the docks at Sheerness, so as to obviate the necessity for large ships having to go to Chatham?
  LORD G. HAMILTON: The Admiralty are at the present time considering a suggestion to lengthen one of the docks at Sheerness for accommodating vessels of a certain class, as it is proposed by the present Board of Admiralty to build vessels of a larger size at Sheerness than have hitherto been constructed there.

  CONSTITUTION HILL.
  CAPTALN VERNEY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the experience gained of the traffic on Constitution Hill during the height of the season, this road can now be thrown open to cyclists?
  MR. PLUNKET: I have not received any official Report on the subject; but it seems to me that the volume of traffic on Constitution Hill is steadily increasing.

  THE SCIENCE AND ART DEPARTMENT.
  MR. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether a Circular has been issued by the Science and Art Department, to the effect that in future no pupil on the register of an elementary school can be examined in science by that Department; whether he is aware that several School Boards in Scotland have, on the strength of encouragement held out to them by the Department, incurred considerable expense in providing laboratories and apparatus, as well as teaching power, all of which will, under the new conditions imposed by the Circular referred to, be rendered useless; and whether, in the circumstances, the Department will withdraw the conditions imposed by the said Circular so far, at least, as it refers to Scotland?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I ask whether the Minute in question will apply equally to Board Schools in England?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,): The Circular in question was issued to check the duplication of payments caused by the overlapping of the functions of the Education Departments in the three Kingdoms and the operations of the Science and Art Department; but representations having been made to me that paragraph 2 of the Circular will have a detrimental effect upon science instruction in many schools, I am considering the possibility of substituting for the rule there laid down some regulation which, without being open to the same exception, will promote the object we have in view.
  DR. KENNY: Will a similar Rule apply to Ireland?
  SIR W. HART DYKE: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be good enough to put the question down.

  THE POST OFFICE SERVANTS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the East Central letters of the French Mail, which arrived on Saturday night at 6.40, and should have gone out by the 8.15 delivery
  1136
  the same night, were still in the office on Sunday night; whether the block in the East Central Office on Saturday night was as great as is usually the case at Christmas time; and what is the cause of such unusual pressure? I have to ask, further, whether it has been reported to him that on Friday last, on the Western District, postmen who should have finished their delivery at 4.20, and be on duty again at 5.20, only finished their delivery at 5.40, and were then deprived of their usual time allowance for tea; whether such delay was caused by the non-arrival in due time of the district bags from the Central Office; and what was the cause of such delay; whether it is the case that a large quantity of circulars which were received at the General Post Office on the 13th instant were not despatched till 10 a.m. on Monday the 16th instant; whether, in consequence, the usual 10.20 a.m. delivery was delayed fully half-an-hour; whether a special staff was asked to work on all through Saturday night; and whether, in the ordinary course, such circulars would have gone out on Saturday morning? I have also to ask how much has been expended at the E.C. and W. District Post Offices in payment for extra duty caused by the suspension of postmen at those offices for attending a Trade Union meeting on the 16th May; and why the letters by the Dutch mail arriving at 8.15 a.m. on Saturday and Monday were not delivered until between 11.30 and 12.45; whether this was two hours beyond the usual and proper time; and whether he can take steps to prevent this delay, which causes great inconvenience to business men in the City?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES,): To questions Nos. 29, 30, 31, and 33 the answer is, in each case, There is no foundation for the statements suggested. To question 32 the answer is £5 6s. 6d.
  MR. CONYBEARE: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is the same which he gave me two or three days ago. I should like to ask him on what authority he makes the statement that there is no foundation whatever for these allegations? I can only say that the information has been supplied to me on the very highest authority.
  MR. RAIKES: I have made the statement on the best official information I could obtain at the Post Office.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will state the number of postmen who had a part of their wages forfeited for attending a Trade Union meeting on 16th May, the ordinary weekly wage of the men, and the total amount forfeited?
  MR. RAIKES: Thirty one; but three having given satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour, the punishment in their case has been remitted. The wages of the men ranged from 18s. to 32s. The total amount forfeited cannot be stated at present or until it be known how many of the men, besides those who have already done so, are prepared to give satisfactory assurances for their good behaviour.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state what are the satisfactory assurances these men have given?
  MR. RAIKES: They have given their word, which I regard as a satisfactory assurance.
  MR. WINTERBOTHAM: Do, the Regulations apply to the superior officers as well as the working men?
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Post master General if he will state whether the persons he sent to obtain, or from whom he did obtain, the names and numbers of the men who attended the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on 16th May, have reported some men as being at that meeting who were not there; and whether the officers who performed this work were the ordinary overseers or assistant overseers, or whether they were from the Confidential or Criminal Investigation Department?
  MR. RAIKES: It is the fact that some of the men who were reported as being at the meeting on Clerkenwell Green on the 16th May have stated that they were not there, or that they happened to be passing on their way without any intention of attending the meeting. In all such cases the assurances of the men have been accepted. The officers employed were of various grades, and did not belong to the Confidential Inquiry Branch.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Mr. Raynor, assistant or second class overseer, and Mr. Birch, foreman porter, at the Western District Post Office, were sent to Cavendish Square on 16th May to take the names and numbers of the postmen who assembled there for a Trades Union procession; whether these gentlemen went on their own responsibility; and, in either case, whether their information was made use of; whether, in consequence, Mr. Raynor lost all control over his subordinates, and had to be removed to a new position; and whether such officials will be so employed in future?
  MR. RAIKES: I have to say that the officers employed on this occasion acted under the instructions of their official superiors. It would therefore serve no useful purpose to mention the names of individuals so employed. Mr. Raynor has been removed to a fresh duty, but not in consequence of his having lost control over his sudordinates. For the future the same or some other Post Office servants will be similarly employed as occasion may require.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that in 1882 a meeting of postmen, including delegates from country postmen, was held in the Memorial Hall, to which the public were admitted, at which a Member of Parliament and several postmen made speeches; and whether postmen were punished for attending or speaking at such meeting?
  MR. RAIKES: I am not aware of the circumstance to which the hon. Member refers, and the shortness of the notice has not admitted of my making inquiry.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has taken any steps to ascertain the objects and methods of organisation and action of the Postmen's Union; whether he will communicate the result to the House; and whether, if he should be satisfied that it does fully represent the postmen, and that they wish matters affecting their wages, hours of labour, &C., to be negotiated between the Department and their Trade Union officials, he will take steps to give effect to their wishes?
  MR. RAIKES: No, Sir. I must absolutely decline to discuss matters

  1139
  affecting the postmen, except with the I postmen themselves.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he declines to treat with anyone but the postmen themselves? Is the Secretary to the Postmen's Union to be excluded from discussions as to the interests of the men?
  MR. RAIKES: The postmen are perfectly well aware that the person described as the Secretary to the Postmen's Union is not, and never has been, a Post Office servant; and it is the universal rule that matters relating to persons engaged in the Service can only be discussed between them and their superior officers.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: Do these men, on becoming postmen, forfeit their right to join a Trades Union; and has the right hon. Gentleman any right to subject them to quasi-military discipline?
  MR. STOREY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ancient contention of the employers of this country was that they alone should settle any disputes with their workmen, without the interposition of the Secretary of a Trades Union? There were continual conflicts in consequence; but since the employers of labour have taken the more common-sense plan of discussing these matters with the Secretary of the Union there has been much peace. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not take the advantage of the experience gained by the employers of labour, and adopt the same plan in his Department?
  MR. RAIKES: I must point out that I have only endeavoured to carry out the Regulations of my Department, which, I may add, have been considerably relaxed for the benefit of the men. In regard to the question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey), the most recent experience indicates, I think, the advisability of maintaining a firm and resolute attitude.
  MR. C. GRAHAM: I wish to have a decided answer in the affirmative or negative as to whether these men are prohibited from joining a Trade Union, or whether they are not?
  MR. RAIKES: I can only say, again, that the men are quite free to form or join Associations for their mutual benefit
  1140
  and mutual consideration of matters affecting their status;but it is impossible for the Department to recognise any combination which attempts to dictate to it on matters relating to its administration.

  MALTESE MARRIAGES.
  MR. SUMMERS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is a fact, as stated by Lord Salisbury—
  "That mixed marriages in Malta, where one party is a Roman Catholic and the other is not, remain in the same position which they have previously held, and are not in any way affected;"
  and whether the Governor of Malta will, in accordance with the practice which has been in existence for many years, continue to issue licences to Protestant ministers authorising them to celebrate such marriages?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Yes. It is not intended to alter the law regulating mixed marriages in Malta. I cannot say, positively, within what limits it has been the practice of the Governor of Malta to issue licences authorising Protestant ministers to celebrate marriages. Further inquiry will be made as to this. But our intention is that Protestants shall not be placed, in any respect, in a worse position.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What does Sir Lintorn Simmonds want at Rome? Who asked him to be sent there? Was it the Maltese people?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: He went there in order to settle some matters affecting the welfare of the people of Malta. Of course, he was sent by the responsible Government.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the Catholics of Malta ask that he should be sent to Rome?
  SIR J. FERGUSSON: Not that I am aware of.

  IRISH LIGHT RAILWAYS—MAYO AND DONEGAL.
  MR. CRILLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if any decision has as yet been come to by the Treasury as to what line or lines of light railways are to be constructed in Mayo under the Light Railways Act of last year?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. JACKSON,): Negotiations are going on, and I hope that a satisfactory arrangement may be arrived at.
  MR. CRILLY: Seeing that the chief aim of these schemes was to give employment to the people of the district, and that the spring crops are now cut down, and the people will have nothing to do until harvest time, will the Government endeavour to over come this unaccountable delay in making these lines? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Mr. Barton, whose line in Donegal is being pushed forward, is the same Mr. Barton who reported upon the line to Belmullet, and why should his schemes be favoured while nothing for Mayo is being favoured?
  MR. JACKSON: It is obvious that the hon. Member ought to give notice of a question of that kind, containing as it does allegations in which I do not agree.

  THE TIPPERARY AND CASHEL MEETINGS.
  MR. LEAKE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is true that large bodies of constabulary assaulted with batons and chased the people of Tipperary Town on Sunday 25th May, without previously giving them authoritative notice to disperse, and although no resistance was offered or attempted; whether it is true that on the same day Colonel Cadell, R.M., referring to Father Humphreys and the honourable Members for East Mayo, East Tipperary, Mid Tipperary, South Gal way, and South Louth, who were conferring together, gave the orders to the police: "Men, draw your batons," and "Charge, and clear these fellows out;" whether it is true that similar assaults on the inhabitants, many of whom were women, were committed in Boherlahan village in the presence of Mr. Bruan, R.M., and at Cashel, in the jurisdiction of Mr. Shannon, R.M., and in both cases without any preliminary request to disperse being made by the proper authority; whether it is true that on Mr. Bruan entering Cashel at the head of a body of military and police, he was publicly addressed by Mr. Shannon in the words, "Bravo, Bruan! we have bátoned them like hell in Cashel to-day,"
  1142
  and whether he will consider the advisability of separating the magisterial from the police functions of the Resident Magistrates in Ireland?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): I am informed the people were not dispersed without previous warning. With regard to Mr. Bruen, previous notification was given. The statement as to Colonel Caddell that gentleman completely denies. Mr. Shannon likewise denies that he used the language attributed to him. I quite agree with the last part of the question, and I shall take care that arrangements are made even more effective than those now existing.
  MR. LEAKE: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman takes the denial of the Magistrates mentioned, rather than the statements made by eyewitnesses and ear-witnesses, and by hon. Members in their place in this House?
  MR A. J. BALFOUR: Those Magistrates were eye-witnesses and ear-witnesses of the facts.
  MR. SEXTON: Will evidence on oath be received if tendered; or does the right hon. Gentleman prefer to take the simple word of Magistrates who are themselves incriminated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should like to know the circumstances under which the evidence on oath would be tendered.
  MR. GILL: Five hon. Members agree in making a statement. Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that sufficient for an inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The grounds for an inquiry on oath are not so simple as the hon. Member seems to imagine. I am strictly following precedent.
  MR. GILL: Is the word of Colonel Cadell to be taken in preference to the word of five hon. Members?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Colonel Caddell is a man in everyway worthy of credence.
  MR. SEXTON: If four or five affidavits are laid before the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman order an inquiry on oath?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no power to order an inquiry on oath.
  MR. SEXTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the Constabulary Code provides for an inquiry?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: For a Departmental Inquiry. If sufficient evidence is placed before me which, in my opinion, justifies a Departmental Inquiry, that may be held; but I will give no antecedent promise on the subject until I see the nature of the evidence.
  MR. LEAKE: Is the House to understand that the very explicit words alleged to have been used by Mr. Shannon are due to the imagination of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon).
  MR. GILL: Does the Chief Secretary consider the words of five Members of this House worthy of the same credence as the words of Colonel Cadell. Does the right hon. Gentleman desire to imply that they are not worthy of consideration?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir; I do not.
  MR. FLYNN: Is it customary for Resident Magistrates to exercise judicial as well as executive functions?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is perfectly true that any Resident Magistrate may be called upon to exercise judicial as well as executive functions; but he does not exercise a judical function in regard to the same services and transactions as he exercises an executive function. The two functions are divided.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman call a baton charge an executive function?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Certainly, Sir.

  IRISH PRISON WARDERS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what is the number of warders that constitutes a complete staff in each of the three classes into which the ordinary prisons of Ireland are divided; whether the staff in all classes have to do the same duty, and observe the same hours; what is the average number of hours per week each warder in each class of prison has to work; how often has a warder in each class to do night duty per month; how many holidays or half-holidays (exclusive of half-days before and after night duty) a warder gets in a month; is a warder ever entitled to a holiday except on the recommendation of the Governor; if the staff of a prison is reduced, owing to sickness or from
  1144
  any other cause, must the other warders in the prison do the duty of the absent warder or warders; do the warders performing such extra duty get any extra pay; and have old-service warders been deprived, by a Minute of the Treasury, of the pension they were entitled to as prevailing at the time they entered the Service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The General Prisons Board report that the number of warders is not uniform in any class of prisons, but is regulated under Treasury sanction, according to the circumstances of each prison. The duties and hours of the staffs of the different prisons necessarily vary considerably according to circumstances. The average number of hours of actual duty per week may be taken to be about 82 in the larger prisons. In small prisons, where the staffs are limited, these hours are sometimes necessarily exceeded, but in these cases the general duties are of a much lighter character. In most prisons night duty is taken by each warder about three or four times in the month. In most prisons the warders get a half-holiday on every second Sunday and prison holiday. No holidays are granted, except on special application, but each warder is entitled to 14 days' annual leave. When the staff of a prison is temporarily reduced owing to the sickness of a warder or other cause, sometimes the other warders of the prison are required to do the duty of the absent warder; in other cases extra assistance is supplied, if possible, from another prison. There is no provision enabling the Board to give extra pay in such cases. The Board are not aware what Treasury Minute is referred to; but the Prisons Act of 1877 (section 27) provides that old prison officers shall hold their offices on like terms and tenure as before the Act.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Have not many warders refused the half-holidays because they had to wear uniform?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have no such information.
  MR. MACNEILL: Is it not the fact that before the right hon. Gentleman took office warders were allowed to spend their holidays out of uniform?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may be so, but I have had nothing to do with it.

  CHARGES OF RIOT AND ASSAULT AT PORTUMNA.
  MR. ROCHE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to the inquiry made by the Constabulary Authorities into the conduct of Constables O'Gowan and M'Grady, as disclosed in the evidence given in the dismissed cases of riot and assault brought by them against five men before two Resident Magistrates at Portumna, on 27th May last, whether he can now state the result of that investigation?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Constabulary Authorities report that the officers who inquired into the case find that the constables, while not drunk, had taken more intoxicating liquor on the occasion in question than men employed on responsible duty should indulge in. With regard to one of the constables, I am informed some further steps will be necessary before his case can be dealt with. The case of the other constable does not now arise in connection with this matter, as lie is being discharged from the force in consequence of a serious breach of discipline, subsequently committed.
  MR. SEXTON: Has there been any finding upon the evidence given by the constables, which was found to be false?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have given the hon. Member all the information I possess.
  MR. MACNEILL: Has it been found that the constable who said he discharged his gun in self-defence was justified in discharging his gun?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The case of one constable is still sub judice, and the other constable has been dismissed.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any objection to prosecuting the constables for perjury, as they apparently perjured themselves in getting up the case against the five men?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The whole matter is under consideration.

  "SHADOWING" BY THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what are the authorities or official persons who determine whether any individual is so notoriously engaged in boycotting or intimidation as
  1146
  to be rightly subject to shadowing by the police in Ireland; whether such authorities or official persons take any evidenee before they order a man to be shadowed; whether the accused has any opportunity of defence; and is there any limit fixed to the period during which a man may be shadowed without being brought before a legal tribunal to be tried for the offence in which he is held to be notoriously engaged?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Divisional Commissioner or other Local Authority responsible for the carrying out of the law' in the district directs the duty in question. The directions are given on information being forthcoming that the suspect is actively engaged in promoting illegal practices. It is not usual to inform the suspected person that he is being watched. To do so would render the obtaining of evidence with a view to prosecution more difficult. No limit of the nature mentioned in the last paragraph can be fixed, but, as I explained! Yester day, the shadowing is at once stopped as soon as there is any ground for thinking it unnecessary.
  MR. PICTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer apply to the new method of shadowing, by which one constable walks abreast of the shadowed man and another at his heels?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It applies to all shadowing in Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: On what authority can anyone connected with the police give directions which could not possibly be for the detection or prevention of crime?
  MR. SEXTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that a record of these orders for shadowing is kept, so that it may not be in the power of any constable to inflict this nuisance without leaving some trace of it behind?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is always some such record kept, I imagine. With regard to the question of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) the prevention and reduction of crime is the justification for this shadowing.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Will the right hon. Gentleman state on what authority, or upon what suspicion of crime, three ladies—namely, Lady Sandhurst, Miss Conybeare, and Miss Vivian—were

  1147
  shadowed by the police in Tipperary in the early days of July last year?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. Member will give notice of that question I will make inquiries on the subject.
  DR. KENNY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that this system of shadowing has gone on to such an extent, and is of such an indiscriminate character, that two most respectable persons, who came from Manchester to Tipperary from mere motives of curiosity and to gain information, were also shadowed by the police to such an extent that that they were obliged to return to Dublin in disgust; and whether one of the persons shadowed was not connected with the right hon. Gentleman's Election Committee in Manchester?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the hon. Gentleman has got an incorrect version of the facts; but I will, if he wishes me to do so, make further inquiry.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statistics as to the number of persons shadowed, and the number of police employed in that service?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must have notice of the question.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know the number?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course I do not know the number. I do not carry these statistics in my head.
  MR. GILL: With reference to the new method of shadowing—namely, walking side by side with the person shadowed, and another policeman following at his heels—1 desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman what constitutes the superiority of that system over the old method?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. LENG: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether any charge of boycotting or intimidation has been made against the Rev. David Macrae, a minister of religion at Dundee, who is at present travelling in Ireland for the benefit of his health; and on what grounds he was recently "shadowed" by the police while travelling from New bridge to Clongorey?
  MR. CAREW: I have also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether
  1148
  the Rev. Mr. Macrae, of Dundee, and his wife, when visiting Clongorey on Thursday last, were shadowed by a policeman-man name Keating, who followed them from point to point on a bicycle, going everywhere the visitors went to; and whether he can say why they were so shadowed?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have asked for information, but have not yet obtained it. It is, therefore, necessary that I should ask for further time.

  TENANTS OF TOWN PARKS IN IRELAND.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state under what provision of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill the tenants of town parks in Ireland are entitled to relief without the consent of the landlord; and whether he will introduce a clause to enable them to have fair rents fixed in respect of their holdings?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Of course, the purchase must be by mutual consent.

  COLOUR BLINDNESS AMONG SAILORS.
  MR. WIGGIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the Committee who were appointed to investigate the subject of colour blindness amongst our Mercantile Marine have yet reported; and, if not, when they will be likely to do so; and if he could briefly state the mode adopted for testing?
  SIR M. HICKS BEACH: I conclude that the hon. Member refers to the Committee of the Royal Society, which is investigating this subject. The Committee was only appointed in March, and I have not yet heard when it is likely to make its Report.

  LITERATURE FOR IRISH PAUPERS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether Boards of Guardians in Ireland are empowered, as similar Bodies are in England, to defray out of the rates the cost of supplying the inmates of workhouses with newspapers, periodicals, and books; whether he is aware that the President of the Local Government Board in England has directed that the Inspectors of the Local Government Board shall be

  1149
  instructed, in connection with their visits to workhouses, to give this subject their special attention, and to report to the Board as to the views and practice of the Guardians with respect to such supply; whether he will give, if he can do so legally, similar directions to Local Government Board Inspectors in Ireland; and whether, if the law in Ireland is in this respect different from the law in England, the Government will introduce a measure for the assimilation of the law in Ireland to the law in England on this subject?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is no enactment specifically authorising Boards of Guardians to provide a supply of literature for workhouse inmates from the rates, though it is possible they may have such authority under their general powers. I am aware of the action taken in England referred to in the second paragraph. I am causing similar action to be taken in Ireland, and shall give the whole matter careful consideration.

  THE FERMOY PROSECUTIONS.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether civil processes for damages have been issued by Mr. Thomas Barry, P.L.G., against District Inspectors Ball and Sergeant, R.I.C., Currabeha, Fermoy, in which the defendants are charged with assaulting and wounding the plaintiff; and whether, since plaintiff announced his intention of proceeding by civil bill for the assault, he has been served with a summons for having obstructed the police?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The legal proceedings appear to be still pending, and it would not be proper for me to make a statement in the matter.
  MR. FLYNN: It is because legal proceedings are still proceeding that I put the question on the Paper.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am unwilling to answer a matter of fact in the question, because it might prejudice the action.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What is the matter of fact which might prejudice the case?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As far as I am concerned I should be glad to answer the question; what I refer to is the question of the dates of the two actions.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: When Mr. Barry said that he would proceed against the police did they say that if he did so they would bring that charge against him?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in error. As he presses the question I will inform him that the police summons was on the 6th; the notification of the civil case was on the 9th.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: That is not the point, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. The point is that Mr. Barry, having informed the police that he should proceed civilly against them they immediately served him with notice of prosecution.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I know nothing of any threat on the part of Mr. Barry.

  CATHOLICS IN IRISH PRISONS.
  MR. CONYBEARE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state, for each of the months since September last, the number of Catholic prisoners confined in Derry Gaol, and the terms for which they have been imprisoned; whether any Catholic clergyman has, during that period, been permitted to visit such prisoners; has any Catholic service been conducted in the prison chapel during that period; whether he still refuses to sanction the appointment by the Bishop of the Diocese to the prison chaplaincy of such clergyman as the Bishop may see fit to nominate?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask if the hon. Member for Camborne, when in prison, received the ministrations of a Catholic chaplain?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The answer to the first paragraph is too long to read to the House, but I have directed a copy to be sent to the hon. Member who puts the question. Many of the prisoners have been confined but a very short time in Londonderry Prison, as since December last those Roman Catholic prisoners; whose sentences amounted to a month or more have from week to week been removed to another prison to which a Roman Catholic clergyman is attached. In accordance with the practice of the Service, in relation to prisoners of any denomination other than those of the paid chaplains attached to a prison, the

  1151
  Governor of Londonderry Prison duly reports to the nearest officiating Roman Catholic clergyman the committal of every new prisoner of that religion, with an intimation that permission can be had for visiting such prisoners. Such permission has, however, been availed of by the Roman Catholic clergyman of the district only eight times during the period in question, and then only at the request of individual prisoners. Owing to the refusal of the Vicar Capitular to nominate a successor to the late Roman Catholic chaplain, as fully explained in reply to a Parliamentary question in February last, no service has been conducted in the Roman Catholic Chapel in this prison during the period named. The Board are and have been most anxious that the Roman Catholic Bishop should nominate a clergyman to this prison, and in two letters addressed to the Vicar Capitular in September last they specially invited him to nominate some clergyman as successor to the late chaplain. Up to the present, however, they regret to state no such nomination has been made.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Was this one of the questions with regard to which Sir L. Simmonds was sent to communicate with the Pope, while pretending to go over about the Malta marriage question?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. MACNEILL: IS it not a fact that the Rev. Dr. O'Doherty, the Roman Catholic chaplain of Derry Gaol, was dismissed from his office because he refused to attend a local inquiry held by Mr. Joyce, and refused to answer questions which he considered ought not to have been put to him as a Roman Catholic chaplain; has his action been ratified by the Vicar Capitular of the diocese; whether since September last there has been no Roman Catholic chaplain in Derry Gaol; and whether Catholics under lengthened terms of punishment have been removed to Belfast and other prisons?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman will obtain better information by putting a question on the Paper.
  MR. MACNEILL: As a matter of personal explanation, I may say that I have asked every one of these questions before.
  DR. KENNY: Has not Dr. O'Doherty been re-nominated?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. O'Doherty was dismissed for breaking the Prison Regulations. If hon. Members wish for the details I must ask them to put a question on the Paper. I think it will not be denied that the ordinary procedure expected from a prison official was not followed, and we cannot accept his re-nomination by the Bishop of the diocese.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Have the Government gone the length of remonstrating at Rome as to the conduct of the Bishop?
  MR. PARNELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Roman Catholic prisoners should be permanently deprived of the consolation of their religion, in order to gratify his feelings as to the duties of the Roman Catholic Bishops? I think that this is not an unreasonable question, seeing that many months have elapsed during which these prisoners have been without any of the administrations of their religion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have done my very best to minimise the evil effects of the action of the Vicar Capitular in this case, by sending the prisoners, as far as possible, to other prisons; I wish that my efforts in this direction had been seconded by the acting Bishop.
  MR. P. O'BRIEN: Was not a summons served on Dr. McAlroy, chaplain of Tullamore Gaol, to give evidence before Mr. Joyce relative to a suit of clothes which was taken in to the hon. Member for North-East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) when a prisoner in that gaol; and is it not a fact that although Dr. McAlroy refused to appear or give evidence he was neither dismissed or censured; and whether he, the Chief Secretary, can explain why Father O'Doherty has been differently dealt with?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I musk ask for notice of that question.
  MR. MACNEILL: Was not the only offence of the Rev. Dr. O'Doherty that Mr. Joyce, the Prisons Board Inspector, had written a letter asking him to come over and give evidence in an investigation in a friendly way, and that Dr. O'Doherty had not done so?
  DR. KENNY: What are the ill-effects of the action of Dr. O'Doherty?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The principal evil effected is that some of these prisoners have been deprived of the administrations of their religion.

  "REGINA V. MITCHELL."
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney General, with reference to the confidential character of communications which passed between the Attorney General and the counsel for General Mitchell, whether he is aware that Messrs. Hare & Co., Agents to the Treasury, produced in Taxing Chambers Court of Queen's Bench a copy of one of these confidential letters to Master Archibald, taxing master, in support of a series of claims in their bill of costs in connection with the compromise; whether the gallant plaintiff reported the fact some weeks ago to the Attorney General; and whether Master Archibald struck out the whole of the items, and commented strongly on the course pursued by the Agents for the Crown?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R, WEBSTER,): The hon. Member has been completely misinformed. One letter from Colonel Mitchell's counsel was produced at his request; otherwise it could not have been read. As I, in common with other members of the Government, have received a large number of letters from Colonel Mitchell, it is not possible for me to say whether he had referred to the fact or not. There is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that Master Archibald commented strongly or adversely on the course pursued by Messrs. Hare & Co. in the matter referred to in the hon. Member's question.
  MR. CUNINGHAME GRAHAM: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will, in view of the decision in the Courts of Law in "Mitchell v. Regina," cancel the letter dated Treasury Chambers, 31st March, 1888, addressed to the Secretary of State for War?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Search has been made, and no Treasury letter, relative to the Mitchell case, of the date named, or approaching that date, can be traced. If the hon. Member will furnish me with fuller particulars further search will be made.

  HEREDITARY PENSIONS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when he expects to be able to state to the House the long-promised proposals of the Treasury for the extinction of the remainder of the hereditary pensions, including some of the most contested of them; and whether, meanwhile, these all alike continue to be paid in full?
  MR. GOSCHEN: With regard to the proposals that were promised by the Treasury for the extinction of the remainder of the hereditary pensions, it is necessary that every case should be gone into separately. I am so much engaged at present that I am unable to give that minute attention to the subject which I desire that it should have. The pensions will be paid, as the Government have no option in the matter.

  THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE ON LICENSING.
  MR. CAINE: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for the St. Ives Division of Cornwall, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the intention of the Government to appoint a Select Committee to inquire into the licensing system, especially with regard to the question of compensation, he will consider the desirability of instructing County Councils not to part with any money allocated to them for the extinction of licences until the Committee has reported to the House?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I understood the hon. Member was not going to put this question, and, therefore, am not prepared with an answer. The Committee referred to in the question at one time appeared to be desirable, but now it appears it is objected to. It must not be assumed the Government had the attention ascribed to them.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Arising out of this question I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a question of which I have given him private notice. The following letter appeared in the Times of this morning:—
  "Lord Wolmer has addressed the following letter to Mr. J. Shelly, Chairman of the Executive of the Devon and Cornwall Literal Unionist Association:—

  1155
  'Great George Street, Westminster, June 14.
  'Dear Mr. Shelly,—Lord Hartington desires me to thank you for the information which you have given him of the strong opinions averse to certain clauses of the Local Government Bill, held by many of the staunchest and most valuable members of the Liberal Unionist Party in Devonshire and Cornwall. The opinion of these gentlemen is naturally a matter of much importance to the Liberal Unionist Party, and Lord Hartington desires me to assure you that he has given the very fullest consideration to the views and objections which they have put forward. The Government have consented to accept the Amendment proposed by Mr. Heneage, to insert a clause to the following effect:—"Provided always that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed as altering the existing law affecting the renewal of licences, or as giving to the holder of any licence any right or privilege other than that now enjoyed by him." Before it was known that the Government were willing to accept this Amendment, it is certain that many earnest temperance reformers honestly feared that the Bill would have the effect of altering the legal position of the publican: but now that this clause is to be added to it, Lord Hartington is unable to understand how it can be seriously contended, either that a vested interest not at present existing is created by this Bill, or that temperance legislation in the future can be prejudiced by it. The Government have also determined to propose next year that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into and consider the questions on compensation which have been raised by the present and other proposals. The facts elicited by such an inquiry and the Report of such a Select Committee cannot fail greatly to facilitate the progress of temperance legislation in the future. The consideration of these facts will, Lord Hartington hopes, tend to allay the opposition of Liberal Unionists to the present attitude of the Government on this question.
  'Believe me yours very truly,
  WOLMER.'"
  Having read that letter I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the statement made by Lord Wolmer in the name of Lord Hartington is or is not well founded?
  VISCOUNT WOLMER: Perhaps the House will allow me to make a personal explanation in relation to this letter. I am authorised by Lord Hartington to say that he saw the draft of my letter to Mr. Shelly before it was sent, but that he did not particularly notice the expression "determined to propose," and that if he had he should have altered it into "are prepared to assent to," but that he did not, and does not now, attach the importance to the distinction which the right hon. Member for Derby appears to attach to it.
  MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord's remarks are hardly in the nature of a personal explanation.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: After what the noble Lord calls a personal explanation, I have to repeat my question to the right hon. Gentleman—namely, whether the statement made by Lord Wolmer, on, behalf of Lord Hartington, to induce the Liberal Unionists to vote for this Bill, is or is not well founded?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I thought we discussed this subject sufficiently last night; and I then stated to what extent the statement of the intentions of the Government was accurate. Lord Hartington appears to have been under the impression that the Government, were willing that a Committee should be appointed. I have already explained, in answer to the hon. Member for Barrow, that the Government were under the impression that such a Committee was desired in many parts of the House, but certainly it was not the intention of the Government to move for such a Committee, and it is not the intention of the Government to ask the House to accept such a Committee, unless it is the strong desire of the House they should do so.
  MR. H. GARDNER: Does the right hon. Gentleman still adhere to the statement that the announcement of the Committee was not made to influence public opinion?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am strongly of the belief that that was so; but the hon. Gentleman is quite able to form his own opinion, and is not bound by mine.
  SIK W. LAWSON: Is it the present intention of the Government to propose the Committee next year?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I stated a few minutes ago that we had certainly no intention of moving for such a Committee.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I will ask why the intention to appoint that Committee, which, as was explained by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, was entertained ever since the introduction of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington's Bill, was not divulged to the House during the discussion on the Local Taxation Bill, considering it would have had a most important bearing on the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I must really demur to the statement the hon. and learned Gentleman has made. He has attributed to the Government an intension which we do not entertain.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if to can now say whether the Government intend to ask the House to pass the Land Purchase Bill this year; and what proposal, if any, they will make in regard to the business of the House? I should also like to ask when the Government intend to introduce the Local Government Bill for Ireland, which was promised in Her Majesty's speech at the opening of the Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps it will be convenient that I should now make the statement which has been promised as to the course of public business. With reference to the last question asked, I am afraid I can make no engagement, so far as the present Session is concerned, and I think the hon. Member will see himself that the work which we have in hand would not justify the Government in asking the House to consider a question of such very great magnitude and complexity as that.
  MR. SEXTON: You might print the Bill.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am myself of opinion that that course would be very undesirable. I have been under an engagement to the House to refer to the course of public business and the recommendations of the Government to facilitate the further progress of business. I must ask the House to cast its recollection back to the Debate which took place in March last on the Motion made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Bridgeton, in which he endeavoured to bring us to the conclusion that it was most desirable that our sittings should tie terminated earlier than has hitherto been customary, and also to bring about an earlier meeting of Parliament. I have from time to time been asked by hon. Gentlemen opposite as to the measures which the Government would propose with a view to effect what we understand to be the general wish of the House. Although that wish was not expressed by a decided majority of the House, it was the duty of the Go-
  1158
  vernment to give its serious consideration to the arguments used and the vote by which those arguments were supported. We were sensible of the fact that hon. Gentlemen who voted with us, in opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet, did so although desiring that the Session might, as a rule, be brought to a conclusion at an earlier period. The Government have very carefully considered the measures necessary to accomplish that wish. One of those measures certainly would be an earlier assembly of Parliament, than has hitherto been customary. Another would be, I hope, and I say so with great respect, some curtailment of the Debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. A more important measure which we desire to propose for the consideration of the House is that a Standing Order should be passed under which it would be possible to suspend a Bill of great complexity, great detail, and considerable minutiæ which has been frequently in the possession of the House, but as to which when the month of June or July is reached insufficient time remains for its careful consideration in Committee. I refer to Bills of the character of the Land Purchase Bill, which ought not to be pushed through the House at any great or accelerated speed, on account of the varied and important interests involved.
  An hon. MEMBER: you pushed the Coercion Act through the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am endeavouring to avoid any question which will occasion any controversy. I am endeavouring to avoid questions of controversy now. I am endeavouring to propose to the House regulations for the conduct of the business of the House, in the belief, and with a desire, that they will improve the procedure of the House, and enable it, whatever Government may be in power, to dispose of its business in a more satisfactory manner. The proposal we desire to make to the House is one by which it will be possible to suspend a Bill which has reached the Committee stage, by a Motion made in the then Session of Parliament, to carry it over to the next Session of Parliament, it being always understood that that Session is a Session of the existing Parliament. It will not be proposed that

  1159
  any suspended Bills should be taken up in a new Parliament, but that Parliament should be at liberty to take the suspended Bill up in a Session of the same Parliament, and to take it up on nearly the same footing as if it were an adjournment of the Session. The proposal we shall make is that a Standing Order should be passed, the terms of which will be placed on the Table either to-morrow or on Thursday. I will read the general terms of that Standing Order, without binding myself absolutely to the exact words. I am sure no hon. Member would desire that I should be bound absolutely to every word I will now give to the House. I shall move—
  "That, in future Sessions after July 15, and in the present Session, after a day to be hereafter appointed, no public Bills (except money Bills, Continuance Bills, and tills returned from the Lords, with Amendments) shall be further proceeded with, provided that, in respect of any public Bill which is in progress in Committee of the whole House, or in a Standing Committee, or which has been reported there from, a Motion may be made, after notice given, that further proceedings on such Bill be suspended until the next Session. If such Motion be carried, then in the ensuing Session (being a Session of the same Parliament) any Member whose name was on the suspended Bill may claim 'that the Resolution of the previous Session be read.' Thereupon the Speaker shall direct the Clerk to read the Resolution, and shall proceed to call on the Member to present the Bill in the form in which it stood when the proceedings thereon were suspended; and the questions on the First and Second Readings thereof shall be successively put forthwith. If both these questions be carried, the Bill shall be ordered to be printed, and if it had been partly considered in Committee in the previous Session, it shall stand committed to a similar Committee, and it shall be an Instruction to such Committee to begin, their consideration of the Bill at the clause on which Progress was reported in the previous Session; but if it had been reported from Committee in the previous Session, the consideration of the Bill as reported shall be appointed for that day week."
  We have sought, in framing this proposed Standing Order, to preserve to members all the rights and duties which belong to them in respect of the progress of any measure as far as the future progress of the measure is concerned, so that it will be taken up, after the formal first and second reading has been approved by the House, precisely at the point at which it was left in the previous Session, and any Amendments and any notices regarding the Bill will have to be dealt with according to the ordinary
  1160
  Rules and Regulations of the House. I think the best explanation I can give of the measure is that, consistently with the Rules of the House and consistently with the fact that in every Session a Bill must be read the first and second time, it will be simply an adjournment of the proceedings on a Bill, analogous in all respects to the adjournment which may take place with regard to a Bill in Committee from one day to another, from one week to another, and from one month to another. It will, perhaps, save-time if I refrain from going into any argument in support of the proposal which I shall make on a later day seeing that that will probably be the best time for the consideration of any objection that might possibly be urged. Presuming—which I hope may not be a rash presumption—that the House will be willing to adopt the Standing Order, which, I believe, will tend greatly to facilitate our business, I should ask the House to adjourn certainly the consideration of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill in Committee until next Session. I shall ask the House to continue and to pass the Local Taxation Bill which I believe is the only seriously contentious business, apart from the Irish Land Bill, which remains for the consideration of the House. I hope it may be possible to pass the Tithe Bill without very serious contention. I believe that the House generally does not desire that that question—a very thorny and difficult one—should remain undisposed of, and that we shall, if possible, arrive at a settlement which, shall be fair and reasonable to all concerned, and which shall preserve a property which certainly neither the land lord, nor the farmer, nor the occupier-in any sense has any claim or right to? I regard with apprehension the continuance of a condition of things which renders it possible that such a property may be in any degree damaged or lost. There, is another Bill of very considerable importance which arises out of the proposals of Her Majesty's Government, and which is now in possession of the House, although it has not yet been read a second time, and that is the Police Bill. That, I hope is a Bill which is to be regarded as not a contentious measure or a Party measure, and, having regard to the im-

  1161
  portance of the claims of a most deserving body of men throughout the country, I hope I may regard that Bill as one which will not be met by what I should call Party opposition; and in case of that Bill being read a second time within a reasonable time, I think it may well go to a Standing Committee, in order that all the clauses and the schedules may be most carefully examined in the manner in which Standing Committee of this House do discharge their duties to the House. The Government will be prepared to accept the work of that Committee—I will not say absolutely, because it would be dangerous to say beforehand what the Government may feel it their duty to do—but the Standing Committee will, I am sure, deal with a Bill of this character in such a manner that the Government will, I hope, be able to accept their conclusions. There are two other Bills which have been frequently referred to, one by my hon. Friend behind me, and one by the junior Member for Northampton. I refer to the Western Australia Bill and to the Indian Councils Bill. These Bills must be passed. I say that with due respect to the House; but we feel that they must be passed in the course of the present Session, and we shall certainly put them in a front place at the earliest possible period, and shall ask the House to consider them as soon as we are relieved from Committee on the Local Taxation Bill. The Barracks Bill is also a measure of very great importance. It is not a large measure. It is one on which some difference of opinion prevails, and it is right that that difference of opinion should be fairly and fully discussed, but I hope it will pass without much delay. There is a Bill which has not been introduced, and as to which I hope little difficulty will arise. That is the Census Bill, which must also be passed this year. There remain two or three other measures, which, I think, are not contentious measures—one is the Housing of the Working Classes Amendment and Consolidation Bill—as to which I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House are in agreement that it is desirable that these measures should be passed into law this Session. The course we shall take with regard to these measures is to read them a second time,
  1162
  as quickly as possible, and send them to a Standing Committee. There is the Savings Banks Bill, to which I hope there will be very little opposition. There is a Bill which we should have been very glad to have pased into law this year, if time had permitted, but hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House have given notice of opposition, and have informed me privately, in the most frank manner, that they would feel it their duty to raise considerable discussion upon it. I refer to the Employers' Liability Bill. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be possible for us to persevere with that Bill this Session. There is also another Bill with which we should wish to proceed, if possible, and I hope that an arrangement may be made with Scotch Members which will enable progress to be made with that measure. I refer to the Private Bill Procedure (Scotland) Bill, but if it should meet with anything like persistent opposition, it is not one in regard to which we should ask the House to prolong its sitting. I have not referred to all the Bills on the Paper, but I have referred to all the Bills of an important character, or rather of a character that would be likely to cause considerable discussion. There is also the Electoral Disabilities Removal Bill, which is a measure of some importance, and we shall endeavour to find time for it, but it is obvious that we cannot ask the House to sit for a prolonged period in order to pass that Bill. With regard to the Friendly Societies Bill, I am afraid it is not possible to pass that Bill this Session. The question is one of importance, but it is again one of those measures which, although not of a Party character, still deserves to be fully discussed, and, looking at the period of the Session and the desire of the House for an earlier adjournment than we have been accustomed to of late years, I am afraid it will be necessary to postpone its consideration for another Session. I am not aware whether there is any other point to which I need refer on the present occasion. It is obvious that we shall be desirous of proceeding with Supply at the earliest possible moment. We have no wish but to wind up the business of the Session as soon as possible. Probably there are few persons in this House on whom public business presses with so

  1163
  much severity as those who sit on these Benches, and there can be no desire on our part to prolong the Session.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he intends going through this enormous legislative programme before he comes to the financial business of the Session?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The hon. Gentleman will find, when he considers the various measures I have referred to, that the legislative programme is not so enormous as he supposes. We desire to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill, but my impression is that a very few days will be sufficient to dispose of the other business to which I have referred. Almost the whole of them are practically of a non-contentious character. The Government do not intend to take up Supply until the Local Taxation Bill has been disposed of. There is the question of the Police Vote. With reference to all the circumstances of the case, the Government think it desirable that this should be considered as early as possible. We propose, therefore, to take the Vote on Friday—[An hon. MEMBER: What Vote?]—the Metropolitan Police—and the Standing Order on Monday. I shall endeavour to place the Standing Order in the hands of Members on Thursday, and not later than Friday.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Do the Government propose to take a Vote on Account?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I hope not, Sir.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise for a very narrow and specific purpose, because I draw a broad distinction between the important statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made with respect to the arrangement of the business for the present Session, and the notice he has given for the introduction of a new mea sure with respect to the business both now and hereafter. I presume the statement of the arrangements for the present Session may require some discussion, but into that I do not intend to go. I rise merely for the purpose of giving a notice and putting a question. We have heard the right hon. Gentleman's draft of the Standing Order, and I quite concur that he ought not to be held bound to the particular expressions of his Standing Order, particularly after the doctrine laid down to-night as
  1164
  to the explanation of a very important letter which appeared in the Times. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to that after what we have heard as to the licences of construction and amendment. But that is not the matter in hand. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have given his notice, and I wish to give another notice on the same subject and in the same sense. I do not give the precise terms, but I wish to state that a Motion will be made, when the right hon. Gentleman proposes his Standing Order, from this side of the House, to the effect that so grave a change in the usage of Parliament and the practice of the Constitution ought not to be made without our having, agreeably to former precedents, previous examination by a carefully-selected Committee. That is the notice I have to give; but I wish also to put a question in the nature of a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope this further proposal will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman. It is in the nature of a suggestion—it is that, inasmuch as the subject has been on previous occasions before the House, all Bills which would now be extremely difficult of access—those Bills representing the positive action of the other branch of the Legislature, or representing proposals which that portion of the Legislature has entertained; I would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will give directions for the re-printing of those Bills, and that they be circulated so that hon. Members may have the benefit of knowing the contents of those Bills?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall endeavour to comply with the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and the Bills shall be printed and circulated.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have no doubt there will be included the Report of the Committee of this House upon a Bill sent down in 1848.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I shall take care that the fullest information, as far as possible, shall be communicated to the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I wish to ask a question of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, after the announcement which we have just heard as to the Land Purchase Bill. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, with regard to the Ashbourne Act of 1888, it is not in the

  1165
  power of the Commissioners to receive applications after the funds placed at their disposal are exhausted. I have reason to believe that the funds will be exhausted certainly before the end of this year. The announcement that the Land Bill is to be abandoned for this year puts us in this position—the Bill can hardly become law for another 12 months, so that for a period of six months the Ashbourne Act will be suspended. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared for that suspension.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think the right hon. Gentleman is unduly depressed both as to the amount of money and with regard to the time that it will take for the Land Bill to pass into law. He anticipates that the surplus money under the Ashbourne Act will all have been exhausted. I hope both prophecies are below the mark. I trust the money will last longer than he thinks, and I have every expectation that the Bill will have passed into law long before another year has passed by. If lie asks me whether I should regret that any interval should elapse between the final conclusion of the Ashbourne Act and the inception of the policy of the Land Bill, I reply I should greatly regret it; and if it should arise it will be from other causes than those over which I have control. I shall not be responsible for it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman says that he should regret if there should be any suspension, and yet he says that the applications will not be sufficiently numerous to exhaust the funds. Those statements are opposed to each other.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Surely not.
  MR. DILLON: I hope, now that the Land Purchase Bill has been abandoned till next Session, and in view of what took place in the Second Reading Debate, the Local Government Bill will be laid before the House and printed and circulated before we are called on to proceed further with the Land Bill.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should require notice of that.
  MR. DILLON: I shall repeat it tomorrow.
  MR. BRADLAUGH: I ask as to the India Councils Bill. I hope we shall have full notice when it will be taken. We ought to have at least two days'
  1166
  notice, and that should be possible under the new arrangement.
  MR. CHILDERS: I shall be glad if the First Lord will inform us when we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Report of the Royal Commission presided over by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I beg to give notice that when the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House moves his Standing Order, I shall move that it be extended to Bills passed by this House and rejected by the House of Lords.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: What will be done with regard to the Industrial Schools Bill and the Reformatories Bill, which have lately come from the House of Lords?
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Are we to understand that when Bills are suspended by the Standing Order the Amendments will also be carried over?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Will there be an earlier meeting of Parliament than usual next year?
  CAPTAIN VERNEY: I should like to remind the Government that two years ago the light hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury gave a definite and personal pledge to introduce a District Councils Bill in the Session next ensuing.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to state whether, in arranging the programme, he has made any estimate of the day in December this Session will come to a close?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to sacrifice the Employers' Liability Bill to this Compensation Bill? I want a definite answer. If that Bill is not proceeded with very great objection will be taken to the Compensation Bill. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to employ the time of the House on the Local Taxation Bill, to the exclusion of the Employers' Liability Bill?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Will the Tithes Bill be taken after the Local Taxation Bill?
  MR. BADMANN: Will the Leader of the House consider the propriety of taking Wednesdays?
  MR. D. CRA WFORD: The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the Corrupt Practices (Municipal Elections) Bill. It has been returned by the Grand Committee.
  MR. HUNTER: There is the Police Superannuation Bill for Scotland. Is it intended to pass that during the present Session; and, if so, will it come into operation during the current year?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: May I ask whether it is intended to take any action on the Report of the Sweating Committee?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I would ask why, when the Government pledged themselves to introduce a measure of Local Government for Ireland, nothing has been heard of it, while the Licensing Bill, of which no mention was made in the Queen's Speech, has been thrust to the front. As the Land Purchase Bill has been dropped, when may the House expect to see signs of the great Government policy for Ireland which was promised as far back as 1886?
  MR. SEXTON: I would inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman's plans are sufficiently far advanced to enable him to indicate on what day he will move his Resolution?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I will endeavour to reply to the numerous questions which have been addressed to me in the order in which they were asked; but in reply to the hon. Member for West Belfast, I may say that I proposed to move the Resolution on Monday next. In view of the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, that the House should be furnished with copies of certain Bills and that every effort should be made to place them in the hands of Members at once, I shall have to see whether it is possible to adhere to Monday. As to the Indian Councils Bill, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) must see that at present I cannot hold myself bound to any particular date. Notice will be given before the Bill is taken. The Government hope that the Employers' Liability Bill will be received with consideration and without occupying much of the time of the House. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. Broadhurst) shakes his head, and if he implies by that that much time will be occupied in
  1168
  dealing with the measure, I am afraid it will be impossible to take it. This, and the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, are non-contentious Bills—if they are contentious, there will be difficulties in the way of proceeding with them. But we shall place the Bills before the House, and it will be for the House to say whether they are to become law. As to the Report of the Royal Commission, the understanding is that any observations which hon. Gentlemen may think it right to make on that Report will be properly taken on the War Office Vote, which we shall put forward as soon as possible. An hon. Member asked whether the Amendments on the Paper to the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill, which is to be suspended, can be carried ever to next Session. My impression is that it will be possible to do that; but under any circumstances, the Amendments can remain on the Paper, and it will be for hon. Members to direct the clerk at the Table to put them back again as they are next Session. It certainly is the intention of the Government to recommend an earlier meeting of Parliament next year, with a view to securing an earlier adjournment. [An hon. MEMBER: When will the Session commence?] I am afraid I can hardly say that. Perhaps all that is desired by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bridgeton will not be attained, but a great deal of it will be, we hope. I can only say that we hope and desire to pass the Tithe Bill, and as to the District Councils Bill, we have a great desire to bring it in; but the prolonged discussion on other Bills has made it impossible to do so. It is suggested that, with reference to the Votes in Supply, Wednesdays should be taken by the Government. No doubt it will be the duty of the Government to ask the House for Wednesdays later in the Session. [An hon. MEMBER: What about Sundays?] But there are still some Bills which private Members have in hand, and I think it would be hardly fair to them to ask the House to give the Government Wednesdays, at any rate, not for two or three more Wednesdays. The Scotch Police Superannuation Bill, I am informed by the Lord Advocate, is in a forward state of preparation, and I hope it will be accepted by Scotch Members, and will not meet with opposition. The Corrupt Practices

  1169
  (Scotland) Bill is practically, I believe, accepted by Scotch Members. It has been passed by the Standing Committee and is now for consideration on Report, and I take it for granted that it will pass without much delay. In regard to the Local Government (Ireland) Bill, I cannot enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Longford about the precedence due to this Bill. We are anxious to introduce such a measure, but we must introduce measures in the order we think best; and we cannot undertake to introduce this Bill until the Land Purchase Bill has, at all events, attained considerable progress in this House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to extend the remarks I have made, but I think it is impossible that I should allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to remain without one or two observations. It appears to me that the upshot of what we have beard is this: that everything in the House in which the Government are interested, or in which anybody else is interested, is to be sacrificed for the Licensing Bill. It is the Licensing Bill obviously, and it is the Licensing Bill alone, which blocks the way. If it remains in the position in which it now stands, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, to which we had all fondly looked forward as the harbinger of shortened labours is, on the contrary, a distinct intimidation to us of a Session of indefinite length. The right hon. Gentleman has been very laudably anxious to pass the Tithe Bill, because, whether all its principles are right or not, the object of the Government is to save a property which is recognised as national property. But whenever the right hon. Gentleman is asked about the Licensing Bill, the answer always is that the Government are determined to pass it. Yet to-day, in reference to the Tithe Bill, he can only say that he desires and hopes to pass it. Desires are uncertain and hopes are shadowy and unsubstantial affairs. The determinations of the Government are confined, as it appears—except in regard to an Indian Bill and the Western Australia Bill—to the Licensing Bill, which was never mentioned in the Queen's Speech or even heard of before the middle of the Session. Therefore, I am justified in pointing out the extraordinary position in which we stand.
  1170
  Even as to the Indian Councils Bill, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say when the discussion will be taken on that Bill and on the Western Australia Bill. Then the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill is of the greatest importance; but that is to be sacrificed for the sake of the Licensing Bill, if any difficulty should arise, and some time, it appears, must be required in disposing of it. For the Barracks Bill, one of the important measures of the Government, which they think to be essential to the well-being and comfort of the Army, no-time can be mentioned, although we have now passed a half of the month of June. The Employers' Liability Bill is a Bill directly touching the welfare of the mass of the labourers of this country, and this Bill is, if need be, to be sacrificed—for it is virtually given up this evening—in order to prosecute a measure which the working classes of this country, from one end of this country to the other, absolutely detest.
  SIR C. LEWIS: Is it in order, Sir, that any hon. Member disagreeing with the right hon. Gentleman should enter into this controversy?
  MR. SPEAKER: Although there is no question directly before the House, it is usual on such special occasions as this to allow some latitude.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will, for the convenience of the House, allow this very limited discussion to take place.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The only alternative to the latitude which it is usual to grant on such a special and peculiar occasion as this is to make a Motion for the adjournment on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman's statement raises questions of pressing urgency for the House. I do not desire to take that course. What I want to ask is, partly in the tone of a question and inquiry and partly in the tone, if I may so say, of expostulation and even of entreaty, whether we are still to see in this Licensing Bill, not only the measure to which, on its merits, we so fundamentally object, but also the instrument by which this Session is to be indefinitely prolonged and other valuable measures, which we are anxious to welcome and discuss fairly, and to pass, are to be placed in the extremest danger or are at once to be sacrificed? Is it the intention

  1171
  of the Government still to press forward this Licensing Bill and to pass it into law?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Perhaps the House will allow me to reply very shortly to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman. He asks me in a tone of expostulation and entreaty whether it is the intention of the Government to press forward the Licensing Bill; and he attributes to the Government the whole of the delay and responsibility for the whole of the delay in public business which has been caused by the Bill to which he refers. The right hon. Gentleman has a very long experience of this House, and I think he must admit that the Government are at liberty and are bound to press forward measures which they believe to be necessary in the interests of the country at large, even although a minority of the House may entertain very strong views as to those measures. I think I should be inclined to address to the right hon. Gentleman, and to those who are acting with him, an entreaty that they will permit a measure, after reasonable discussion, to be passed by a majority of this House. There are times and seasons in which opposition may fairly and properly be developed, and it is right that those who differ from any measure should put their reasons and statements frankly before the country and the House. After that has been done, I venture to ask whether the Government is responsible for the repetition of Motions, of statements, and of arguments which unduly occupy the time of the House? Is it to be laid down by the right hon. Gentleman as a canon of Parliamentary law that if the Opposition take a strong view as to a particular measure they are at liberty to demand from the Government that that measure shall not be pressed? Those who are responsible for the business of the House are at least bound to take the course which they believe to be right, and we are at liberty to appeal to the House not indefinitely and unreasonably—if I may use the word without offence—to prolong Debates upon questions which have been already decided by the House. With ordinary discussion it may yet be possible, without asking for any sacrifice on the part of Members, to pass many of those Bills which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I should be glad to
  1172
  avail myself of the opportunity of passing those measures, and I am therefore unwilling to be responsible for discharging them from the Orders. If the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends can assist the House in discharging its duty I shall heartily welcome their aid.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Are we to understand that the Government intend to proceed with the Local Taxation Bill until it has gone through Committee, and that until that is done they will postpone the consideration of all other measures?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I am afraid that we must take that course.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that when the Census Bill is introduced, I shall move clauses in it to enable the Irish people to express their views as to the government of their country, so that we may be able to ascertain the exact strength of the contented minority.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Do the Government seriously mean to postpone their proposals as to Irish Local Government until the Land Purchase Bill has been disposed of, next year, or the year after?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have already stated that the Local Government Bill for Ireland will not be introduced in the present Session. It would be contrary to all precedent for me to state the course which the Government may take in the next Session of Parliament.
  MR. WADDY: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has formed any estimate as to when we are likely to finish the Session?
  MR. PICTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has any evidence, through the usual channels of Party information, that the majority of the people in this country prefer the Compensation Bill to the Irish Local Government Bill?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: I have no evidence whatever as to any agreement in the country about the Irish Local Government Bill.
  DR. TANNER: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not re-consider this question with regard to Irish Government, which was referred to in the Queen's Speech this year, or whether he will remain satisfied with his

  1173
  present lucrative position of public executioner?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, following the precedent of the Local Government Bill of 1888, he will lay on the Table a Paper showing the probable amount which will be given to each county under the three heads of the provisions of the Local Taxation Bill?
  MR. RITCHIE: I will endeavour to meet the right hon. Gentleman's views. I may say, however, it will be impossible to give with any accuracy the amount which will be received by counties and county boroughs in those counties in which there are county boroughs.

  ENDOWED CHARITIES (OXFORDSHIRE).
  Return ordered—
  "Of the Digest of Endowed Charities in the County of Oxford, the particulars of which are recorded in the books of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, but are not recorded in the General Digest of Endowed Charities in that County, 1869 –70 (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 292 (2), of Session 1871)."—(Mr. James William Lowther.)

  METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
  Ordered, That the parties appearing before the Select Committee on the Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment Bill have leave to print the Minutes of the Evidence

  BANKRUPTCY CASES (CORK AND BELFAST).
  Return ordered—
  "Of Petitions in Bankruptcy and Arrangements, within the jurisdiction of Belfast and Cork Local Bankruptcy Courts respectively, tiled in the Court of Bankruptcy in Dublin from the 1st day of June 1889 to the 1st day of June 1890:—

  Number of Petitions filed.

  By debtors.

  By creditors.

  Number of creditors in each case.

  Number of creditors resident in Ulster in the case of a Belfast Petition.

  Number of creditors resident in Munster in the case of a Cork Petition.

  Number resident elsewhere.

  1

  2

  3

  4

  Total

  —(Mr. Peter M'Donald)
  taken before the Committee, day by day, from the Committee Clerk's Copy, if they think fit.—(Sir George Trevelyan.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolutions reported from the Committee.

  1. "That, in the case of the Welling borough and District Tramroads Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, provided that Clause 54 be struck out of the Bill:—That the Committee on the Bill do report how far such Order has been complied with."

  2. "That, in the case of the Great Eastern Railway Bill, Petition of the 'Commissioners of Sewers of the City of London,' for dispensing with Standing Order 129 in the case of their Petition against the Bill, the said Standing Order ought to be dispensed with."

  3. "That in the case of the Stratford-upon-Avon, Towcester, and Midland Junction Railway, Petition for leave to deposit a Petition for Bill, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with. That the parties be permitted to deposit their Petition for a Bill."

  Resolutions agreed to.

  WELLINGBOROUGH AND DISTRICT TRAMROADS BILL [LORDS].
  Report from the Select Committee on Standing Orders read.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time.

  PUBLIC PETITIONS COMMITTEE.
  Twelfth Report brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

  ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  Returns ordered—
  "Of the number and amount of the Increases of Pay granted to Civil Assistants employed on skilled duties in each year, from 1877–8 to 1889 –90—

  Year.

  Number of Civil Assistants on the 1st day of April—

  Number who received Increases of Pay—

  Percentage who received Increases of Pay.

  Aggregate amount of Increases for the Year.

  Average for each person.

  Amount of Survey Vote.

  Entitled to pension.

  Not entitled to pension.

  Entitled to pension.

  Not entitled to pension.

  Per diem.

  Per annum.

  "Of the number and amount of Increases of Pay granted to Royal Engineers in each year, from 1877–8 to 1889–90:—

  Year.

  Total number employed on the 1st day of April.

  Number who received Increases of pay.

  Percentage who received Increases of Pay.

  Aggregate amount of Increases for the year.

  Average for each person.

  Amount of Survey Vote.

  Per diem.

  Per annum.

  "And, of the numbers and Rates of Pay of the Civil Assistants and Temporary Civil Assistants employed on skilled duties on the Ordnance Survey on the 1st day of April in each of the years 1877, 1880, 1885, and 1890.

  Date.

  Numbers of Civil Assistants and Temporary Civil Assistants.

  Under 5s. per diem.

  5s. and under 10s. per diem.

  10s. and under 15s. per diem.

  15s. and under 20s. per diem.

  20. to 25s. per diem.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  Number.

  Percentage.

  —(Mr. T. M. Healy.)

  BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883.
  Return ordered—
  "Showing for the High Court and for each County Court District (1) the total number of Cases closed during the years 1888 and 1889 which were administered in a summary manner under section 121 of 'The Bankruptcy Act, 1883;' (2) the number of such Cases in which the Statement of Affairs showed Assets exceeding £300, and in which the Assets realised more than £300 and less than £300 respectively; and (3) the number of such Cases in which the Statement of Affairs showed Assets less than £300, but in which the Assets realised more than £300:—

  District.

  Total number of closed Cases administered Summarily.

  Number of summary Cases in which Statement of Affairs showed Assets exceeding £300—

  Number of summary Cases in which Statement of Affairs showed Assets less than £300, but in which the Assets realised more than £300.

  In which Assets realised more than £300.

  In which Assets realised less than £300.

  1888.

  1889.

  1888.

  1889.

  1888.

  1889.

  1888.

  1889.

  —(Sir Charles Lewis.)

MOTION.
  PUBLIC BUSINESS.

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. LABOUCHERE,Member for Northampton, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the serious condition of Public Business, which has been caused by the mismanagement of the Government: but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen:—
    MR. LABOUCHERE: The First Lord of the Treasury has given notice of his intention to move an alteration in the Standing Orders with regard to carrying Bills over until the next Session, and he has also laid down a programme of business to be taken during the present Session. The right hon. Gentleman seems to be under the impression that his programme will be received with thanks by the Opposition side of the House, and that it is a fair and legitimate
    1178
    and proper one for the facilitation of public business. The House ought to look back a little in order to consider what it is that has brought it into the present difficulty, because most unquestionably the House at the present moment is in a very great mess and muddle, which, I contend, is entirely due to the action of the Government. At the beginning of the Session there was, as usual, a Speech from the Throne. In it the House was told that certain Bills would be brought forward, but, in addition to this, it is desirable to remember, for no particular reason that I could understand, Parliament met later this Session than in any previous Session. I think, however, that the Government programme, as then laid down, was a full programme. We were told there was to be a Bill to alter the present system of Tithes, a Bill for Land Purchase in Ireland, and it was indicated there would be a Bill for the Local Government of Ireland. These were to be the Government Bills, as the House understood. But the Irish Local Government Bill has disappeared. It was only after Whitsuntide that the Bill for Land Purchase in Ireland was read a second time; but suddenly, just before Whitsuntide, it was sprung upon the

    1179
    House in a sort of indirect, incidental way at first, that it would have to consider the question of compensation for the publicans whose licences were not to be renewed. If Her Majesty's Ministers had looked at the question as practical men, seeing what is the ordinary habit of the House in regard to discussion, knowing that the Land Bill for Ireland would meet with the strongest opposition, knowing that the Tithe Bill would be most exhaustively discussed, they must have seen that it was monstrous and preposterous for the First Lord then to spring upon the House this Compensation Bill. But surely the House had a right to suppose that the prominent and important measures of the Session were those mentioned in the Queen's Speech. So far as I can see, Ministers were not entirely at one with each other. Each Member of the Government had his own little Bill. The Chief Secretary had his Land Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to distinguish himself in the matter. I do not say that it is a case of absolute jealousy between the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but they are two eminent Gentlemen, sitting on the same Bench, and each is eager to distinguish himself. Then there is another element. We have not the advantage of possessing the Prime Minister as a Member of this House, but the House has the son of the Prime Minister perpetually coming forward like Master Wackford Squeers, and asking when a Bill in which his father was apparently especially interested was going to be put before the House. We have heard of persons trying to drive three coaches abreast through Temple Bar, but here we have three gentlemen on the Treasury Bench trying to cut each other out and each trying to push forward his own Bill. This is the cause of the block. But, surely, the First Lord of the Treasury does not forget that he is under a pledge to the House. During the last two or three Sessions the consideration of the Estimates has been persistently put off until the end of the Session. We know what that means. We know that in August there is the greatest anxiety on the part of Members to get away for the holidays, and any hon. Member who wishes fairly to discuss questions connected with the Estimates
    1180
    finds the greatest difficulty in resisting the general feeling then prevalent, and the question is probably allowed to drop. The House was told last Session that the Government would bring forward the Estimates early this Session. Undoubtedly, some Estimates were considered at an early period, and I and my hon. Friends showed ourselves to be most kindly disposed towards the right hon. Gentleman. In two or three days a great many Votes were passed—an exceptional number, considering the time devoted to them. About 32 days are ordinarily devoted to the Estimates in the course of a Session. Up to the present this Session we have only had six or seven days. If, then, we take the average number of days, the First Lord of the Treasury will see that we have a claim for at least 20 more days for Supply. There are most important matters connected with the Estimates at the present time. There has hardly been a single Irish Debate during the present Session. The Irish Members have given a free hand to Ministers, but they wish to raise most important points on the Estimates. At present Ireland is governed under exceptional legislation, and the right hon. Member for Mid Lothian once said that so long as this kind of legislation is in force every Irish Representative has a perfect right to bring forward any case of injustice or unfairness in the administration of the law. The Law Courts in Ireland are closed, but the House of Commons is open to the Irish Members and the Irish people. The Government now say that they are going to proceed with this miserable Publicans' Compensation Bill. How long do they think the discussion will last? I think that the Bill will scarcely get through all its stages within a fortnight. There is also the proposal to alter the Standing Order. How long does the right hon. Gentleman think this will take? The First Lord of the Treasury seems to be under the impression that the House is not going to discuss this alteration; in limine I protest against the proposed alteration being a Standing Order, but Amendments will have to be proposed and discussed. Then, when will there be time for the Estimates? Their consideration will have to be put off until some time in August, and if the House takes 20 days for their considera-

    1181
    tion, this will carry the sitting of the House into September. There will be protests raised by the Government against what is described as the obstruction of the Opposition, but it ought to be clearly laid before the country that it is not obstruction which causes the delay, but the utter muddling of Her Majesty's Ministers. The Government have no right, at any time, to put off the consideration of the Estimates until August or September, and they have especially no right in the present Session, in view of their former pledges, and in view of the fact that they have taken away the Private Members' days. In these circumstances it would be desirable that the House should have an opportunity of registering a protest against the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government in the present Session, and, therefore, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    MR. PARNELL: I think the hon. Member for Northampton is entitled to the thanks of the House for the action he has taken in reference to this important subject. There is no question which can more profitably occupy the time of the House than an attempt to search out some method by which we may rescue the House from the entanglement, the morass in which Her Majesty's Government have landed us by their utter mismanagement of public business. We have listened to-night with the utmost interest to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman as to the Government proposals. Speaking for myself, I can only say that the result of my attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is to fill my mind with dismay as to the future. When I heard the right hon. Gentleman calmly going over the long list of measures that he proposed to save from the annual slaughter of the innocents, and ending with 108 Votes in Supply, and with the Amendment of the Rules of Procedure under the guise of a new Standing Order, I was obliged to bring my mind forward to the almost certain probability that the House, if it is to carry out the programme of the right hon. Gentleman, will find itself sitting at
    1182
    the beginning of October. If there is to be proper attention given to the various measures named by the right hon. Gentleman, and proper discussion of the financial, colonial, English, Scotch, and Irish questions which must arise on the various Votes in Supply, we cannot possibly hope to leave this House for our holidays before an interval of three month. It is time for the House to do something to help the Government out of this mess, to accept the invitation extended to it by the First Lord of the Treasury to assist the Government, not, indeed, in the futile way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, but to assist the Government against their own incapacity. For the position in which we are now, and the tenfold worse position in which we shall be if we are to allow the Government to plunge deeper into the morass, is due to the want of all ordinary power of calculation, on the part of the Government, as to the management of their business since the beginning of the Session. I should not be justified in doing more than referring to the new Standing Order to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. It may be a good thing in a small way, but it appears to be ludicrously inadequate for the object in view. The right hon. Gentleman himself seems to be conscious of the ridiculous mouse he has produced, and every one who listened to him must know that his proposal will be utterly inadequate. The fact of the matter is that the Government proposal is not a proposal to do more work, but to throw away the work which it has undertaken unwisely, and without due calculation of its own powers, after much time has been lost upon it. The proposal does not go to the root of the question. It will not enable the House to do a particle more work. It will, when we have lost valuable time, leave us, after we have lost days and nights in considering grave Constitutional questions, in as bad a position as we are in at present. Surely it is not too late to ask the Government to retrace their steps, to take the House into their confidence, and ask the House how we may save the relics of the Session. We have not had a single Irish Vote brought forward yet. We have been asked for various Votes on Account. The Constitutional power of the House

    1183
    over the grant of money to the Crown for the service of the year is a real question with us in Ireland, although it may be only a formal question with you in England. In Ireland the Crown has unfettered control, and the Estimates give us the only opportunity we have of stopping the Chief Secretary in his arbitrary career in Ireland. In these circumstances we have a right to ask that the Estimates should be brought forward in reasonable time, and that the Constitutional powers of the House should not be constantly abrogated as they have been by Her Majesty's Government. The House has been considering the question of procedure for many years. I remember when an attempt was made to deal with the subject 15 years ago. I then ventured to predict that no Amendment of the Standing Orders would be over worth the time spent upon it, and I venture now to predict that you will lose your time more completely than you have done before in discussing the new Standing Order. If the Government had been composed of statesmen, they would not have ventured to come down to the House with this absurd and preposterous proposal, utterly insufficient as it is for the rescue of the House from the embarrassing position in which they have placed it by the mismanagement of the affairs intrusted to their keeping. I will only say, in conclusion, that if the Government will come before the House with a reasonable proposal with regard to the business to be transacted during the rest of the Session, and with a selection of such measures as are measures of public utility, sought by the country and by all parts of the House, and measures which can be passed without exciting political passion, and if they will carry into effect the mind and the wish of Parliament, they may use the limited time still left at their disposal most profitably to the public interests, and most satisfactorily to the House and the country at large.
    MR. HANBURY: I do not propose to offer any arguments whatever on the proposal of the Government, to make a new rule for the despatch of business; but I do ask the Government seriously to consider whether they are taking a wise, or even a Constitutional, step in postponing Supply while
    1184
    they press forward legislation. The first duty of the House is, in my opinion, to vote the ordinary Supply for the services of the country, and I also firmly believe it is the duty of hon. Members to discuss the proposals for Supply at adequate length. This Session the House has treated the Government very generously with regard to Supply. Two or three Votes on Account have been taken, and the Government are really drifting into a false position if they insist upon passing their Bills before they deal with Supply. I do not want to see them drift into a false position; and I believe they will be neglecting their duty if they endeavour to vote large sums of money for the service of the country without adequate discussion at the end of a very long Session, and when the House is wearied. Before they definitely make up their minds on the subject I ask them to seriously consider the matter, and to let the House have a proper opportunity of voting Supply in the ordinary way.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: In relation to the question of the conduct of public business, I desire to draw attention to what occurred last night. I had the honour of moving an Amendment, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs, which related to the unfortunate Licensing Bill, and the Debate was closured in 50 minutes.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot raise the question upon the present Motion.
    MR. S. T. EVANS: What I wish to do, Sir, is to call attention to the fact that the Government have invariably this Session closured Welsh Members. A. very important Instruction on the Tithes Bill was proposed by the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. F. S. Stevenson), on which one of the oldest and most respected Welsh Members was desirous of speaking, and yet the Government thought it their duty to closure the hon. Member.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not think that line of argument is at all permissible on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House on "a definite matter of urgent public importance."
    MR. S. T. EVANS: I will only say I can assure the Government that it is not the best way to facilitate business to

    1185
    closure Members who are not obstructing.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I have looked at the Amendment Paper, and find that there are exactly 18 pages of Amendments which have to be dealt with on the Local Taxation Bill. I will simply remark with regard to them that a large number raise questions of very serious and grave importance. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) has had an opportunity—I daresay a very painful opportunity to him—of seeing how slow the progress has been on that Bill. I think he may fairly infer what the future of the Bill will be from what has already taken place, and I think he needs a warning from us that the importance which we conscientiously attach to the Amendments will justify us in discussing them at considerable length, and, therefore, in monopolising a considerable portion of the time left us this Session. To a certain extent I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman, and we have heard with universal regret that his labours have had a prejudicial effect upon his health. He has our hearty sympathies on that account, whatever may be our political differences. I noticed the other day a statement to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed to his political supporters that if they persisted in their demand for an Autumn Session he would have to retire from his arduous duties. Well, but he proposes to inflict upon himself that very Autumn Session against which he warned his supporters with a threat of retirement. If the Government persist with this Licensing Bill we shall be sitting in this House through September and October, and probably even later; we shall have all the inconveniences of an Autumn Session without the compensating advantage an Autumn Session sometimes gives. The right hon. Gentleman is bound to look with a considerable amount of alarm and distress on the present condition and temper of Parliament. I join in the desire that the Parliamentary machine should be thoroughly effective, that our proceedings should be carried on with order and decorum and all necessary dispatch. But the management of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues has brought us to some-
    1186
    thing little short of chaos and anarchy, and if we are to proceed with these clauses of this Bill that chaos and anarchy will increase day by day. The right hon. Gentleman must know that Members on this side would not dare to take the attitude of uncompromising hostility to this Bill we have taken if we were not convinced that the opinion of the country is at our back. I do not wish to depart one hairs-breadth from the narrow limits of such a Motion as this, and if I do so it is in spite of my intention. Upon this Bill, for which the Government are sacrificing everything, they had the opportunity of knowing long ago the mind of the country. Two years ago those same proposals were rejected by the voice of the country, and the Government listened to that voice. So far as this Standing Order which is to be proposed may lead to the acceleration of the business of the House the object of the right hon. Gentleman will have our sympathy, but let me point out that interference with the rules that govern the proceedings of this assembly is one of the greatest enterprises a Minister can embark upon, and whoever essays to change the time-honoured usages of Parliament must do so seriously, carefully deliberating with due regard to many important considerations, and he must be prepared to have his proposals sharply criticised. Why, some years ago, the Minister of the day thought it necessary to devote the whole of an Autumn Session to the carrying out of new rules, and certainly it is not the proper time to make such an alteration suddenly towards the end of a Session, when Members are fagged and irritated with protracted discussions. Such a proposal should come at the beginning of a Session, when the House is fresh and Members Milling to undertake the task of considering such an alteration. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if we consider it our duty to examine his proposal with due reflection, and I give him fair warning—he has received a warning from the leader of the Opposition, and I repeat it—in bringing a new Standing Order before the House, to relieve himself from the difficulties of his own mismanagement, he must not calculate upon the Order being allowed to pass without serious discussion. The attention of the right hon.

    1187
    Gentleman, has been called to the serious character of the Bills he is sacrificing to this most unfortunate, this iniquitous, measure. What will the working classes say when they learn that a Bill to protect their lives and limbs is, in spite of an almost unanimous feeling in its favour, sacrificed in favour of a Bill to support which the Government cannot bring forward their ordinary majority in this House. Here is a serious question for the right hon. Gentleman's consideration. He has been an attentive and a pained observer of the fortunes of the Compensation Bill. He has seen his majority, which a few years ago was upwards of 100, and even at the beginning of this Session 70 or 80, reduced to a majority of 32. There is the handwriting on the wall. There is a state of almost mutiny among his followers, only kept from public expression by the strong ties of Party discipline and the sense of common danger. If he paid any attention to these signs he would see in the face of a vehement Opposition, supported by public opinion, that it is almost insane to press these proposals as he is pressing them. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not think I have spoken in language too warm as to this measure. Sincerely I deplore the position into which he has got himself. I offer him hearty sympathy in his difficulties. If hon. Members think they help the right hon. Gentleman by compelling us to sit here until October, they do not take my view of the personal difficulties of his position. I repeat, in spite of the jeers of hon. Members opposite, I sympathise with him in the grave difficulties imposed upon him by the Government attitude on this Bill, and I hope, even at the eleventh hour, he may see his way to abandon the path of fatuous obstinacy upon which he has entered, and will withdraw a Bill condemned by a united Opposition, by the country, and by the murmurs of his own followers.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. H. SMITH,): I have listened with interest to the epithets that have been applied to me in the course of this Debate. I accept them as Parliamentary language which hon. Gentlemen unfortunately feel themselves compelled to use: in regard to a political opponent.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say that any epithets I may have used were applied to measures and not to himself.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No doubt, it was. Parliamentary language used under the belief that it was justified as applied to the leader of the House for his conduct of public business. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Debate by way of forwarding our discussions and assisting public business, has moved the adjournment of the House, is the hon. Member who, I think, I am not wrong in saying has taken pride in the difficulties he has placed in the way of business. From time to time, both here and out of doors, he has avowed his intention to obstruct the business of the Government as far as he possibly can. I apprehend that, whether it were the Licensing Bill er any other Bill which the Government had thought it necessary to proceed with the same system of opposition to the Government he is desirous of destroying would undoubtedly have been adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: I said I would oppose all bad Bills. If the right hon. Gentleman would bring in any Bill that I consider good I should be happy to support it.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: In other words, if we would make arrangements by which the hon. Gentleman could pass his judgment upon all measures we propose to introduce, and proceed only with those having his approval, then we would be free from his opposition in this House. I have stated what I understand to be the view and the attitude of the hon. Member in regard to public business. His practice has been what I have stated, without, colour or exaggeration. I shall not go back on what I have before said, that Her Majesty's Government must be responsible for the measures they ask the House to take into consideration, and the House will consider whether the practice which now prevails of carrying on a protracted Debate on measures of which the principle has been accepted is for the advantage of the House, and is calculated to establish the reputation of the House as a legislative machine and as the representative body of this Empire; or whether such practice will not endanger the efficiency of this House whatever Government may be in power,

    1189
    when this method of opposition—I do not use the word obstruction, which might more correctly describe the attitude taken up—when this practice is adopted as the usual custom. What is done to-day and now under the belief that it is justified 'by the peculiar circumstances of a particular measure will be done to-morrow, next year, and in future Parliaments and with regard to successive Governments that may be in Office. It is for the House to take the matter into its own hands. We may be wrong; hon. Gentlemen opposite believe us to be wrong in having introduced this measure, and wrong in pushing it forward; but the Government believe that they are right. I regret that the practice and traditions that have hitherto prevailed are being abandoned—the practice that, when the House of Commons has fully considered a measure, the opposition to it shall not be continued to such a degree that all the time of the Session shall be occupied with that measure, and no time shall be left for the consideration of any other measures. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton remarked that the Government were sacrificing the interests of the working man. I deny absolutely that this is the case. I do so without desiring in the least degree to make any statement that might produce heated controversy in this House; but, again, I say that we are acting upon our rights and in accordance with our duty in pressing forward measures which we believe to be necessary. If those measures are to be opposed at such length in this House, that other measures which are of great importance to the interests of the country cannot be considered, the responsibility rests upon those who protract the Debates and who will not permit the House to come to a conclusion upon them, and so postpone the passing of measures that are admitted to be of importance to the country. That is the view I humbly take in this matter. It is only reasonable that the Opposition should charge the Government with having involved the House in difficulties, and with having introduced chaos and anarchy into its proceedings. I am accustomed to charges of that character. Very likely I have not been successful in my conduct of business, but I must act according to the best of Ely lights. I must speak plainly and
    1190
    honestly to the House, and I entreat them to give us permission to go forward, after a fair protest, with the measures which we believe are for the interest and the good of the country, and which can be disposed of in the course of the present Session without unduly protracting it, without putting an undue tax upon the time of hon. Members. I trust the House will credit me with honesty of statement. In the conduct of public business I think it is only right that when a Bill has been entered upon it should be proceeded with, and so soon as this Bill (the Local Taxation Bill) is concluded, I will endeavour to make fresh arrangements which will, I hope, meet the reasonable desires of hon. Gentlemen, and take steps for making further progress with business—with Supply and the other important measures which can be considered by the House—without making any further great claim on the health and time of hon. Members.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman he will hear from me no epithets of personal disrespect, for I am sure every Gentleman on both sides of the House regards with the highest esteem the character and abilities of the right hon. Gentleman. In any comment we make on the conduct of the Government—and the object of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton in making this Motion has been, in my opinion, to pass a just condemnation on the conduct of the Government for their mismanagement of public business in this House—we speak of the Government as a Corporation; we speak of them as possessing those attributes which have been remarked as belonging to Corporations, both physical and moral, in a definition well known to the House. Therefore, I can speak of the conduct of the Government in this matter without fear of personal offence. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has said that all these charges of mismanagement and misconduct are the fruits only of a factious spirit on our part—that it is only by factious and obstructive opponents that the Government are charged with the misconduct of public business. In answer to that, I will call his attention to what is thought of the Government

    1191
    by their own friends—what is said of them by their own supporters. If there is any representative of public opinion; which is a more ardent supporter of the Government than another, it is, I suppose, the Times newspaper. That paper has counselled the Government to use violence towards the House in order to get out of the scrape in which they find themselves. This is what the Times newspaper, the great friend of the Government, says, only two days ago, of the Government and their conduct of public business. I will call a witness into Court whom, at all events, you cannot accuse of factious motives and Party enmity against you. This is what the Times says of the action of the Government and of their conduct of public business in the House of Commons—
    "We cannot congratulate the Conservative Party on the position it presents to-day."
    Well, that is very true. I do not think that anyone who has watched the proceedings of that Bench for the last week would be disposed to congratulate them on the position they hold to-day. The Times goes on to say—
    "Unfortunately, Ministers themselves have been the first to forget the physical limitations under which they work. They have committed the tactical blunder of pledging their reputation to the transaction of an amount of business for which their time and endurance are inadequate."
    That is the first and fundamental mistake of the Government—that they have not understood the nature of the business they have proposed or the power of the House of Commons to transact it.
    "We shall assuredly not be charged with having excused or minimised the wilful obstruction, offered by the Opposition upon every available opportunity."
    I am sure a charge cannot justly be brought against the Times of having minimised the misconduct of the Opposition. But hear what it says of you—
    "But we are bound to say that the Government have displayed a want of common prudence in creating needless difficulties for themselves. A Lord Melbourne, with his 'can't you let it alone?' would have been an invaluable adviser at an early period of the Session. The Irish Land Purchase Bill, a large and complicated measure, touching many interests, raising many difficult questions, and certain to encounter the stubborn opposition of a Party whose very existence, political and material, it directly assails, was of itself nearly sufficient occupation for a Session."
    MR. W. LOWTHER: I rise to order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman is in order in reading from a newspaper in the House?
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Why, the President of the Board of Trade the other day made half his speech from readings from a newspaper.
    MR. SPEAKER: The Rule which precludes the reading from a newspaper has, in accordance with the general feeling of the House, been relaxed of late years. I need hardly say that of late years extracts, from newspapers have been much used in the House, though I have not seen the actual newspaper from which an extract is taken produced and displayed so conspicuously as on the present occation. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had brought an extract from the paper instead of the paper itself; and, doubtless, if he had had the opportunity he would have prepared extracts among his notes.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The fact is, Sir, that my extract, which I have treasured so much, is at home, and this Motion having come on rather by surprise, I was obliged to get this copy of the newspaper, and inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill made a large portion of his speech consist of extracts from newspapers, I thought I might read this extract, and with the leave of the House I will conclude the extract, which is very instructive, and, I think, very true.
    "It ought to have been regarded as a misfortune that the tithe question had assumed a phase calling somewhat peremptorily for treatment in the same Session, but to raise in addition the thorny questions connected with public house licences was a piece of gratuitous rashness, all the less excusable because the present Administration has already had a sharp lesson from temperance fanaticism."
    Then, with more comments on the-wickedness of obstruction, it goes on—
    "But even in the absence of this extraordinary development the Ministerial tactics would have been rash and dangerous. As things are these tactics have led to a damaging rebuff. Whatever soothing phrases may be employed to describe the arrangements contemplated by the Government, the plain truth is that the Land Purchase Bill was the principal measure of the Session, and that they fail to carry it. We are not concerned to deny that there is a moral difference between dropping it altogether and carrying it forward to next Session as a partially debated measure, though we attach

    1193
    little importance to moral triumphs accompanied by substantial defeat. But it is not at all clear—"
    [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Well, I will make this article a part of my speech, if you please. It is an agreeable novelty to me to adopt and speak the language of the Times. You may take it as my speech, if you please, though I am afraid it is against the Rules of the House to read a speech; but there are only two sentences more that I wish to read.
    "But it is not at all clear that the labour already expended upon the Bill will make much difference in the labour it will require next Session, and in the meantime the broad fact stands out plainly and unmistakably that the principal measure of this Session has failed. That is not a pleasant condition of affairs for the Government or its supporters in any case, and least of all when there are fair grounds for holding that the measure might have been passed in spite of obstruction had not the Government wasted time and energy upon legislation which might have been postponed."
    Do not tell us now that criticism of your conduct comes only from factious opponents. That is the language held about you by your strongest supporters in every part of the country. You may read it in any Conservative or Liberal Unionist newspaper in the country. I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham is not in the House. If he were I would refer him to what looks like an inspired article in the Birmingham Daily Post, to which. I commend the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. All the difficulties you find yourselves in are due to your own mismanagement of public business. You have proposed a great measure for discussion—whether a good measure or not—the Irish Land Purchase Bill. You have frittered away the time of the House. Having named as your first Bill a remedial measure for Ireland, the first business you entered upon was a discussion, the object of which was to blacken and defame the Irish Members. Upon that subject a great number of days were necessarily expended. Then you have introduced a number of Bills which you ought to have known would produce the strongest and most violent opposition. An hon. Member on your own side of the House has called attention to the position of Supply. You have spent veryfewdays—10 only—upon Supply. If you are to devote to Supply the ordinary time which has been given
    1194
    to it in former Sessions, you still owe 27 days to Supply, which would occupy nearly the whole of the remaining time of this Session if it were an ordinary one. The Debates on the Irish Votes under a Coercion Act must necessarily be protracted. When the ordinary law is suspended it is inevitable that the Executive Government should be challenged and questioned in a way which is not necessary when the ordinary law only is in force. You have the additional advantage of private Members' days, and yet this is the situation to which you have brought the House and country. Now you come forward at the end of the Session and propose a desperate remedy to cover your own humiliation and mismanagement. You have proposed this Standing Order, which must, of course, be discussed at considerable length. I think that the hon. Member for Northampton was perfectly justified in making this Motion, which he has made with the object of calling attention to the real situation. We told you from the first that we were determined to offer to this Compensation Bill every resistance in our power, and we shall continue to do so. In doing this we believe, and are confident, that we have with us the wishes of the great majority of the people. If you doubt that, you have the means of refuting us. What is the meaning of your dwindling and waning majority? You are forcing this Bill through by majorities which are not half of your normal Party majority. What is the meaning of that? It is that the Members of this House know that the opinion of this country is against the policy of this measure, to which the Government, in a frame of mind bordering upon insanity, have given precedence. We shall oppose your proposals because, in our opinion, they are not the result of due deliberation, but are a hasty and desperate expedient to which you have recourse in order to get out of the mess in which you have involved yourselves. Far from constituting a wise, well-considered, deliberate measure for forwarding public business, these proposals are only an expedient to cover the ignominious defeat of a discredited Administration.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: I should not have risen had it not been for the remark of the right

    1195
    hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, in reply to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool, who alluded to the fact of no progress having been made with the Employers' Liability Bill. I ask the House whether during the whole of the Session the Government have made any attempt to place the Bill in such a position that it would, come on for Second Reading, notwithstanding that they have been asked to do so time after time. The whole responsibility of not dealing with that question rests with Her Majesty's Government. If two years ago, when they had the opportunity, they had listened to those who had a right to speak on behalf of the organised trades of the country, we should have had facilities offered for the Employers' Liability Bill such as we on this side have offered to the President of the Local Government Board with regard to the Bills brought before the House for the housing of the working classes of London. We protest against the First Lord of the Treasury trying to deceive the country by throwing upon the House the responsibility for the Employers' Liability Bill being withdrawn. We listened to the long statement which the First Lord of the Treasury made, and the impression left on my mind was that it was the first day of the Session, and he was putting before the House the amount of business that could be got through. But let me remind the First Lord what took place with respect to one Vote in Supply. We raised the whole question of contracts, a very important subject. But hardly had the Secretary for War replied—it was a Morning Sitting—when it was found that there was not time for further discussion. The Vote was not taken again until the end of the Session, when there was not time to discuss it. I tell the First Lord of the Treasury now that there are some of us who are interested in this question of contracts, and at whatever time this particular Vote comes on this year, we shall resume the discussion which was burked last year. It is scandalous in the extreme at this time of the Session that these Bills should be put down as though they were to be run through. We are told that they are non-contentious, but that is the opinion of the First Lord of the Treasury, it is not the opinion of the House in
    1196
    general. If these Bills are pressed through we shall be debarred, as in the past, from discussing the serious Votes in Supply. That is the conduct of the Government against which we protest. With regard to the Licences Bill, the Government knew two years ago how much opposition they created by a similar proposal; yet they have flung on the floor of the House a new Bill, and if they find the most determined opposition it is only what they can expect.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I was really amazed to hear the defence made for himself by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. No one has made any personal accusation against the right hon. Gentleman, but when the whole policy of the Government is arraigned, we should have heard something else than this kind of general appeal for the interests of the House and the dignity of the country, which we have heard 9,999 times from the lips of the First Lord of the Treasury. We say that your declared policy four years ago was the policy of expenditure of public money, and simultaneity, and so on, in dealing with Ireland, and in applying to Ireland the same measures as to England and Scotland. You declared, at the beginning of the Session, by the mouth of the Queen, through her most gracious Speech, that you would extend to Ireland a measure of Local Government, and we ask you, when you get up in the House to defend yourselves, why it is that a Bill not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but hatched by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with his Budget, is pressed forward, while a Bill declared to be the key-stone and corner-stone of Her Majesty's policy, is to be held over to another Session. We ask for an explanation on that point, and how are we met? We are met by the right hon. Gentleman, the head of the Party who consumed 60 days of Government time in 1881 discussing the Land Bill, at a time when Ireland was almost in a state of revolution, at a time when every moment was precious, and at a time when, strongly as we were opposed to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lothian, we found ourselves obliged to continue to vote with them. It is they who, in the following year, spent 19 days in discussing the Closure

    1197
    —now applied by the right hon. Gentleman every quarter of an hour. It is the head of that Government, and of that Party, who now comes forward and appeals to us with regard to a measure on which the Opposition are united, and upon which the followers of the Government are disunited, as to which there is no demand, and for which there is no agitation in the country. When you have that situation, what does the First Lord of the Treasury do? He gives us a lesson in Parliamentary deportment. We are tired of these Turveydrop lectures. The right hon. Gentleman beseeched us to have regard for the dignity and position not only of this but future Parliaments. Future Parliaments can take care of themselves. The right hon. Gentleman is teaching us our lesson very late. What we say is this: that this ill-fated measure—this ill-starred measure—being introduced out of time, and in the most offensive manner, there is no conduct almost that would not be justified in giving opposition to a measure so conceived. What is the position? I invite the House to consider the high price which the Tory Party have to pay for Liberal Unionist support. I should like to have the opinion of the Chief Secretary on the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Why is this Bill persisted in? We are told because it is demanded in the interests of the House and the dignity of the country. If I inverted the phrase it would be all the same. The right hon. Gentleman simply gives utterance to a sort of Parliamentary abracadabra, whichever way it is read it will do. I once knew a poet who wrote his verses backwards as well as forwards, and whichever way you read them they were always equally good. Each sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches is in its essence a most admirable piece of literary mosaic. If the first sentence were put last and the last first it would come to the same thing. What is the real reason why the Government are sticking to the Compensation Bill? The real reason is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can almost picture the Cabinet meeting in Downing Street after the Chief Secretary introduced his Land Purchase Bill, and conceived to himself the fond delusion that he would be dangling before the House during the
    1198
    months of June, July, and August, and I can fancy his attitude when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came gently down and said, "Oh, yes; but there is a little Bill of mine I want to appear on the stage at Westminster for a brief period to show my Parliamentary dexterity, and how I can manage figures and finance." And then the Chief Secretary may have said, "Oh, yes;"—and I venture to say this is what occurred in the Cabinet—"but my Bill is promised in the Queen's Speech; it is part of the Government Programme; it is the corner-stone of the Government policy; what have we got to do with your Bill?" Then, I suppose, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would say, "Oh, yes; but I have a large Stock Exchange experience, and I know that there is a large number of Limited Liability Companies starting, and a number of people have a great interest in brewing shares and in whisky shares, and it will greatly strengthen and consolidate and cement the Tory Party all over the country if we show these people that we are determined, by means of our Bills, to back up the interests in which so much money has been invested." I have not the smallest doubt that it is due to that attitude on the part of the right hon. Gentleman that he induced the Government to bring in his Bill, and, having brought in his Bill, that he induced the Government to stand by it by the threat of resignation, simply because he did not want to be discredited, as he was discredited in regard to his Van and Wheel Tax. And, then, what is the House asked to do? It is proposed, in order to save four days of Parliamentary time occupied in the Second Reading Debate on the Irish Purchase Bill, to revolutionise the procedure of this ancient Parliament. By what means? To borrow another illustration from the Stock Exchange, by a species of Parliamentary "contango"—that is, the carrying over by Standing Orders, and it is Members of this House who will have to pay the difference. We will have to sit here during the months of June, July, August, and September. And Parliament is to be revolutionised for what? That we may save four days next year of Parliamentary time that have been wasted upon the Irish Land Bill, and that is the sop which the Irish

    1199
    Chief Secretary gets for being thrown over. That is what the Government are paying for Liberal Unionism, for a manipulative Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, if we are to believe the Times, that great newspaper which everybody believes now, they are paying rather dearly. They are obliged to admit that themselves. Their own newspapers admit it; their majority is waning; while the Opposition, I venture to say, is engaged in one of the holiest causes in which Members of Parliament have ever been engaged. We are engaged in resistance to a measure which we believe justifies every word that has been uttered against it. Yet we are besought and implored, for the sake of our dignity, by those who are sacrificing the ancient traditions of Parliament, to pass this Public House Endowment Bill. Who are the true champions of Parliamentary tradition and privilege? Are they the gentlemen who wasted 40 days during the Irish revolution of 1881 discussing the Amendments, or 18 days discussing the Closure Rule of 1883—that Closure which is now applied every quarter of an hour by the right hon. Gentleman who now proposes to revolutionise Parliament to save four days of Parliamentary time—are they the true champions of Parliamentary dignity? Is it to them that the country should look for the way in which Parliamentary business is to be conducted, or is it to the Opposition, who have done nothing in this matter except under the ordinary and usual traditions, to which we always consider we are entitled to look? Supposing we were in a normal state, I hold that the Opposition are justified in considering that they are dealing with a Government which practically puts lies into the Queen's mouth, because that is what it comes to. Session after Session Her Majesty is made to declare her anxiety to deal with Irish government. Session after Session, on platform after platform, there have been repeated declarations of the anxiety of the Government to deal with Ireland in the same way as England and Scotland. Two years ago we had the English Local Government Bill; last year we had the Scotch Bill; and Ireland, the Cinderella of the three countries, is to be left out until some future time, which is not even specified, and Irish Members cannot even get; a sight of a corner of the Land Bill,
    1200
    while the Government are passing measures to endow public houses. A splendid programme for the country, truly, a policy of simultaneity and synchronising, and all the other "isings." That is abandoned, and we have now gone in for a policy of pints and quarts and pewters. That is the position of Her Majesty's Government. On behalf of the English and the Irish public, whose votes have been got on false pretences, we would be false to our duty if we did not protest against the conduct of the Government. Even the Tory Party itself is now finding the poison in the wound of Liberal Unionism; it is finding what it is to have a Chancellor of the Exchequer with one eye on the polling booth and the other on the Stock Exchange, who does not hesitate to sacrifice all the traditions of Parliament, every one of them if necessary, to promote a policy that is founded on some of the most sordid considerations that have ever actuated any Government of the day. The position of the Opposition in this matter is clear. The Government have broken every pledge they have made. Members of Parliament find that they cannot get what they are entiled to, namely, a fair and reasonable time for the discussion of matters of importance arising on Supply. The business of the House has always been supposed to be chiefly the voting of moneys to the Crown. That opportunity of stating our grievances has been taken away in order that we may discuss the endowment of public houses. If the Government will only bring forward Supply nobody will find fault with them if they never bring forward legislation. The Liberal Party do not ask or urge them to legislate. The Conservatives themselves do not want to legislate, because they are conservative. There is not in the Conservative intellect any momentum or main-spring for legislation. The true policy of the Conservative Party would be to give the House plenty of business to do in the nature of Supply, and then in the smaller interstice to bring in pretended Bills for the benefit of the working classes and other objects of so called benevolence of that kind. Business like the Census Bill, for instance, might he up to the Constitutional high-water mark of Toryism—for this reason, that they would only be called

    1201
    upon to pass it every 10 years. Instead of that we have a set of measures of a most contentious and embarrassing kind, measures which have disrupted the solid phalanx of the Tory Party itself; and I, for one, protest against the policy which, while it attempts to lay upon the Opposition the blame for the delay of business, is in reality a policy in itself calculated to embarrass and irritate the Opposition and irritate the country, and which in the end, in my opinion, will find its reckoning day at the poll.
    MR. ALLISON: I am very glad that the Adjournment of the House has been moved, because it has given an opportunity for Gentlemen opposite to fulminate against us on this side of the House those charges which they have been constantly bringing against us in the speeches they have made in the country, that we have been in the habit of obstructing the business of the House. We, of course, know that those charges are untrue, and that the position in which the Government now find themselves is due to their own mismanagement, and to the imbecility they have displayed in the conduct of public business. Another proof of that imbecility has been afforded tonight. They might have accepted an Amendment for devoting the money provided by the Bill to the cause of education, instead of for the benefit of the publicans; they might have accepted the suggestion of the appointment of a Committee put forward by the noble Lord the Member for Rossendale, or they might, as another alternative, have dropped these proposals altogether. But instead of doing either of these things, they have decided on going on with the Bill. But I wish to point out that there is another course which might have been adopted, and which ought to commend itself to their supporters. In the personal devotion which is felt by those supporters to the present Government, they might, out of sympathy for the occupants of the Treasury Bench, have endeavoured to place them in a minority, in which case we on this side of the House would have gladly accepted the appeal that would have been made to the country. That is the course I would have recommended them to adopt, and even now I strongly invite hon. Members opposite to come to the relief of the
    1202
    Government by adopting this suggestion.
    Mr. MUNTZ(7.34.) Mr. MUNTZ rose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question, and no Member rising to continue the Debate, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
    (7.34.) The House divided:—Ayes 181; Noes 233.—(Div. List, No. 141.)

    AGRICULTURAL COMPENSATION PROCEDURE BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Channing, Bill to amend the procedure in references under "The Agricultural Holdings Act (England), 1883," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Channing, Mr. Seale-Hayne, Mr. Halley Stewart, Mr. Cobb, and Mr. Francis Stevenson. Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 343.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL TAXATION (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) DUTIES BILL.—(No. 241.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.
    Clause 1.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I desire to point out that owing to an accident the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. Waddy), which stood first on the Paper last night, has been placed on the Paper for this evening in its wrong place, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) having been put in the first position. Therefore it is necessary to take the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg first, although that of the hon. Member for Sunderland will come on for discussion at the same time, inasmuch as they both involve the question of giving the County Councils the option of varying the use of the money which the Bill proposes to place at their disposal from the purpose stated in the Bill. If that question be decided in the negative on the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg, the hon. Member for Sunderland's Amendment must fall with it. The second Amendment of the hon. Member for Sunderland, and that of the hon. Member for the Launceston Division

    1203
    (Mr. C. Acland) belong more properly to a later clause. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd-George) is out of order, the question having been practically decided last night. Some other Amendments to the 1st clause relate to later clauses, and therefore will be out of order on the first. I would, however, add that although the Amendments of the hon. Members for Brigg and Sunderland are in order, a good deal of the ground they take up has already been covered by the Debate on the Amendment for Rotherham. The main point to be discussed is whether the money provided by the Bill should or should not be given exclusively for the purchase of licences, and much of that ground has already been covered by previous debate.
    MR. STOREY: Am I to understand that if it be decided on, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brigg, that there should be no option, my Amendment falls to the ground? Would it not, then, be competent to me to move a third use of the money as a subsequent Amendment? At present the Bill proposes to give the County Councils £350,000 for a certain purpose, £350,000 more for another purpose, and the residue for their own purposes. Will it not be competent to me to move that a further sum of £50,000 or £100,000 should be applied for the purpose of extending the amount of 1d. in the £1, which is at present allowed for the adoption of free libraries?
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the residue be sufficient to cover the amount so to be allocated the hon. Member might no doubt make that proposal.
    MR. WADDY: I rise, Sir, to move the Amendment I have placed on the Paper, namely, at the end of line 19 of Clause 1, page 1, to insert the following words:—
    "Or if the County Councils shall so determine, any part of the said sum of £350,000 may be applied in England in relief of the School Board rates, or of the fees payable by or on behalf of the children in elementary Schools aided by the State in such proportion as the County Councils may determine."
    I have listened with attention to the observations which you, Sir, have made as to how far this is, and how far it is not, a reasonable Amendment, and how far the principle of my Amendment has
    1204
    been anticipated by the discussion which has already taken place. I shall endeavour, as closely as I possibly can, to follow the course which you. Sir, have indicated, and to say as little as possible on that portion of the question which has already been covered. But it will be impossible for me entirely to avoid touching on matters that have already been referred to, for this reason: that we on this side of the House—at all events, the majority of us, some of us expressing our views and others not expressing them in consequence of a certain pact that we have made—the majority of us, I say, probably consider that the whole thing from beginning to end is as bad as bad can be. But I will not pursue this point any further; it is settled and done with; and at present we are in this position: that the sum of £350,000 which is provided for by this Bill is to be taken and allotted, either for the benefit of the public houses, or in some other way, according to one or other of the Amendments upon the Paper. I am sincere in what I have to say with regard to the Government. I asked a question of the leader of the House a short time ago which he would not answer. I did not ask that question disrespectfully, but for the purpose of ascertaining when it was that, in his own mind, he anticipated we should probably rise. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question because, no doubt, it was a very difficult question to answer at that time, but now I want to suggest to my right hon. Friend opposite, the President of the Local Government Board, that, after all, the course I am about to propose to him may save the Government an enormous amount of time and labour should they be disposed to adopt it. They are at the present moment committed to a Bill which I truly believe in their own inmost hearts they are very sorry they ever touched, and thereby they are committed to the fighting of principles which they do not like. The differences which have already manifested themselves among the Government supporters on the opposite Benches may be taken as strongly indicative of the views of their own Party; and I put it to the Government, is it not possible that they may take a weapon even from our side of the House? If they were to accept this Amendment it would get

    1205
    them clear of all the difficulty, or of a great portion of the difficulty, which still remains. And I will tell you why, apart from the ridiculous position of the Aldermen on the County Councils, the country generally would, undoubtedly, have perfect confidence in the way which those bodies would administer the powers and duties conferred upon them by this Bill. It may be that in some model districts where there are not too many public houses there would be little need of the exercise of the purchasing power, while there may be many other districts in which the state of things is so bad that a number of those houses ought to be immediately extinguished. What in those cases are the County Councils to do? Each of these bodies is entitled to its proper share of this £350,000, but the major portion of them do not want the money for public house purposes, and are unable to apply it to any other source that would be of real advantage What, then, are they to do? In the division which I have the honour to represent the County Council, although largely composed of the Conservatives of North Lincolnshire, has already actually passed a vote opposed to the carrying out of this Bill. Why then, I ask, are they on the one hand to lose the benefit of the application of this money to purposes of which they approve, and why, on the other hand, should they be compelled to devote it to purposes of which they disapprove? Well, Sir, my Amendment gives the Government the opportunity of saying, "Here is a certain amount of money to be devoted to some purpose;" and I say to the Government, "Do not fasten yourselves so absolutely to the chariots of the big brewers. Give yourselves some opportunity of taking a better course. Give your friends some chance of acting in accordance with their own views." We ask the Government to say that these bodies shall not be compelled to apply the money, as it is not really needed; to say that they are not going to select particular places or to make any particular choice, but that they propose to leave the choice generally to the County Councils, who know best what is most wanted. We ask you, in point of fact, to say that, having created these bodies,
    1206
    having been the means of calling them into existence, you will give them the opportunity of saying to what purpose this money shall be applied, although there can be no objection to the imposition of some kind of limitation, such as, say, for instance, the money shall not be allowed to be used for the purpose of public parks or objects of amusement and recreation, but that it shall be applied to some good and useful purpose. It is for this reason that we ask you to accept this Amendment. The objects I have mentioned will probably, not all of them, commend themselves to hon. Members on this side of the House. I say, however, the Amendment is as good as, under the circumstances, I can undertake to make it, and I ask the Committee to accept it on that principle. I propose that this money shall be given partly in relief of the children's pence. I know perfectly well there are several Members on this, side of the House who will say I am simply anticipating free, or rather assisted, education. Some Members will say, "Give all the money to the rates," and others will say, "Do not give any of it to the rates." It is just possible there may be found off the Government Bench a few who think it had better be given to the public houses. With regard to the children's pence, I think the Government had better accept the Amendment. I think they had better not let it be said at the next General Election—which may be adjourned for some time, but which, sooner or later, will come down upon, them as surely as fate or death—that when there was a choice in this House between giving the money to drink and giving it to the children, if the County Council desired it, they said, "We will have the drink, the whole drink, and nothing but the drink." I advise them to put away this cup from their lips. The cry they are preparing against themselves by opposing this Amendment will do them great harm, and a perfectly legitimate instinct of self-preservation may induce them to say that, on the whole, they think they had better accept an Amendment like this. The Amendment, if adopted, will not hinder the County Council from laying out the whole of the money, if they like, on public houses. There is nothing whatever in

    1207
    the Amendment which calls upon them to divide the £350,000 into three equal parts and to give one to each purpose mentioned. If the County Council find when they get the money that the best way of expending it, and the most useful for morality and for the people generally, is to buy up licences, there is nothing in my Amendment to hinder them from using it in that way. By accepting this Amendment, all the Government do is to say that the County Council knows better than they do, having local knowledge, how the money may best be spent in their own locality, and being able to deal with the question intelligently, honestly, and fairly. If they refuse this Amendment, it amounts to this: that they are prepared to say to the whole of the County Councils of this country, "We do not believe either in your honesty or your intelligence." I apprehend that will be a very strong thing to say. No doubt, if there has been some previous arrangement which ties the Government to their own proposal in spite of everything, they will have to carry this ridiculous Bill as it stands. We offer them the opportunity of giving the County Councils power to spend on the public houses every single farthing they will get if they think it wise. If the County Councils say they do not want the money for this purpose, why should Gentlemen opposite say that money which is not wanted for public houses should, nevertheless, go to public houses? Supposing that the County Councils say that they do not want this money for enfranchising', or extinguishing, or purchasing, or compensating the licencee of public houses, what follows? Why, we propose that the County Councils, who, it may be presumed, know the wants of their districts, should be entitled to hand the money over in relief of children's pence to people who are absolutely unable to find the money for the education of their children. If there is one thing standing in the way of education in this country and making it unpopular, it is the, perhaps, necessary and inevitable harshness with which the law has to be administered now and then with regard to the poorest of the poor. We are told by a distinguished person in this country that he has a notion of introducing as soon as he can, before his
    1208
    term of office expires—and I am afraid, under the circumstances, he will have to be very quick—something in the nature of free education or assisted education. That will be a bold stroke when it is done, and you must remember that when you have given that stroke you can never retract. You will be taking a leap in the dark of a very serious character, involving an enormous expenditure of money. See, then, what an opportunity this proposal of mine offers you for making an experiment without taking this serious leap in the dark. The opportunity is one that you ought to be extremely glad to avail yourselves of. You can here make an experiment—a small one—in the direction of paying school pence and freeing or assisting education, which will serve to give you experience. The more I consider this pro-proposal of mine the more am I impressed with the fact that I am the greatest benefactor the Government have ever had. I come to them with my hands full of gifts, and nothing but what theologians call "obstinate impenitence" induces them to refuse these gifts. We heard from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board last night, in opposition to the views enunciated by the hon. Member for Rotherham, his objection to the application of the principle of subvention to anything but a public house. It is said, "The amount you propose to give to education is too small to be of any use." Well, that is a very dangerous proposition to set up, because if it is a very small amount to contribute to children's pence, it is a much smaller amount to give for the purchase of publican's licences. If it is inadequate for the purpose of sending a few children to school, it is very much more inadequate for dealing with the quantity of licences you propose to deal with—so inadequate, in fact, as to lead to the pretty general belief that your true object is not to pass a practical and useful measure for the purchase of licences, but to lay down a principle which will be binding on us and on yourselves. The principle of the Amendment is already in the Bill itself, because, under the 2nd clause, £40,000 is to be, applied in relief of school fees in Scotland, and in the 3rd clause a portion of Ireland's share of

    1209
    the duties is to be paid to the Commissioners of National Education. If such, an application of the money is good for Scotland and Ireland, surely it is good for England. Why should these distinctions be drawn between the one country and the other? I maintain that this country is not a bit better educated than are Scotland and Ireland; why, then, are you going to subsidise Scotland and Ireland and leave England out in the cold? There has been some talk about money coming from spirits going to spirits; but there is a distinct fallacy in that argument, for money coming from spirits goes to the payment of education in Scotland and Ireland, and I submit that, having acknowledged that principle in the case of those countries, you are bound to acknowledge it in the case of England. If not, you must make out a case for the exception, which, as yet, you have not attempted to do. The measure, as a matter of fact, is purely a patchwork one. Its main object is to give something to the public house keepers, but it has a fringe designed to conceal that object, which is of the most illogical character. If you will not give the whole of this money to education, divide it between the publicans and the children, but do not let it go forth that the one thing dear to your heart is the adequate payment of the public house keeper. Last night the President of the Local Government Board said he objected to giving away money for any other purpose because we have already passed a Resolution indicating that the money is all to be devoted to one object. But there are alternative objects before the Committee; and is it to be said that, whenever alternative proposals are put forward in a measure and the House chooses the first of these, it shall not be competent to go on to the second and propose as a compromise that both objects shall be secured? The only other objection to my proposal is one which it does not lie in the mouths of the Government to make. The President of the Local Government Board last night stated distinctly that there is an objection to handing over this money to a National Council—as was proposed in the case of the Principality of Wales—as distinguished from a Local Authority. His righteous soul revolted against anything
    1210
    that might seem even distantly to savour of Home Rule. I do not think it reasonable, but I can understand the right hon. Gentleman's objection. It is true the Government have not given us National Councils for Ireland, Wales, or Scotland, but there is one thing they have done: they have given us County Councils, and have told us that those bodies are admirably well adapted for dealing with these matters. When the Government first brought in the Local Government Bill, under which the County Councils are now operating throughout the length and breadth of the land, they themselves declared with great effusion and earnestness that this licensing question of all others was the one the County Councils were fittest to deal with, and it does not lie in their mouths to object to conferring the powers I propose on these Councils. We know why they backed out of their original proposal, as they did out of the Wheel and Van Tax and out of their proposals as to sugar; but we say to them, "You have now an opportunity of doing to a limited and tentative extent that which you were anxious to do in 1888. Give to the County Councils—your own offspring, the children of your own bringing up—the very duties and responsibilities which your leading men in 1888 declared that It was a right and proper thing to entrust them with." This proposal is not unreasonable and not illogical. I offer the Government the opportunity of doing this in the interests of temperance. If there is one thing more than another which conduces to temperance, it is a good, sound education; therefore, I claim that my Amendment is in the interest of education, and that such being the case, it should commend itself to the Government. It will please us, as it will be something like a rift in the cloud, and will give us an opportunity of escaping from the consequences of a Bill which, between ourselves, is an abomination. It will be very much to the benefit of the people—which is a thing you care more about than pleasing us. It will be in favour of the County Councils as showing your confidence in them, and, lastly—and this is the strongest reason, of all—it will be in favour of yourselves. If this be

    1211
    carried I verily believe that it will disarm the opposition to the Bill from this side of the House almost entirely. I, for one, should be prepared to say that, bad as the Bill is, I would listen to the pathetic appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the House, who not only urges, but entreats us not to oppose a measure which we believe to be horrible. By accepting my Amendment the Government will take from us the opportunity of saying what we undoubtedly shall say throughout the country in the absence of such an Amendment, namely, that when in the stress of their difficulties we offered them fairly and openly this opportunity of saving themselves from getting entirely in the hands of the publicans and of enabling the County Councils to do something useful with this money, they declined to allow it to be spent usefully, or on any thing which would war with the interests of their pets—the publicans. I do not look at this matter from a Party point of view, although I declare that from such an aspect I wish you would refuse this Amendment, because, in that case, the gain to us would be very great. Already the rift between ourselves and some of our friends who used to work with us earnestly and energetically in times gone by is beginning to close. Already in that section of our Party which has left us there is another rift beginning to manifest itself more and more clearly. Already the consequences of this absolutely insane attempt at legislation has been that you have been flooded with Petitions to an extent almost unparalleled. When you have an opportunity of escaping from your folly you will not seize it. It will be batter for us as a Party if you persevere with your Bill, if you continue to bring back to our standard right through the length and breadth of the land, hundreds and thousands of men who voted against us at the last Election, but who will never do so again as long as this Bill is not only fathered, but is pushed through by main force, although the force is becoming less and less main force with every Division. You will do to us as a Party more good by pressing forward this Bill than we can do for ourselves by anything we can devise. It will be in vain
    1212
    for you to talk of obstruction. The country will sanction, and will be delighted with any amount of legitimate obstruction which we can put in the way of the passing of this measure, and we shall put such obstruction in the Bill's way. Behind all your bravado we know what your intelligence teaches you, and I ask you, for your own sake as well as for the sake of the country, to accept this Amendment while there is time.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 19, after the word "mentioned," to insert the words "or if the county councils shall so determine, any part of the said sum of £350,000 may he applied in England in relief of the School Board rates, or of the fees payable by or on behalf of the children in elementary schools aided by the State in such proportion as the county councils may determine."—(Mr. Waddy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or if the county councils shall so determine' be there inserted."
    THE SECRETARY OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. LONG, Wilts,): The proposal of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division is one on behalf of which a great deal might be said on its merits, but the Committee is not now concerned in discussing free or assisted education on its merits. The hon. Gentleman has given the Committee his views on the present condition of the working classes in reference to the cost of the education of their children, and has suggested to the Government that it would be desirable if a portion of this fund could be devoted to purposes of assisting education in the country. Well, the Committee is aware of the fact that announcements have already been made in reference to the question of assisted or free education, and I venture to submit to the hon. Gentleman that his proposal will not go any considerable distance towards, relieving the working classes from the difficulties under which they labour in this respect. But I do not propose to discuss the question of free education now. Whether it be good or bad, I look forward to the opportunity Parliament will have of considering the question

    1213
    upon adequate and definite proposals. But I would suggest to opponents of these clauses who are fond of making references to the increasing difficulties of the Government in connection with this measure—statements easily made in regard to this or any other measure—that they should consider their own position. I have a very shrewd suspicion that hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting into far greater difficulties themselves, because, in their extreme desire to attack the Bill, they approach it from so many different points that it is impossible for them to be united, expect in a general spirit of hostility to the Bill. One of the chief arguments advanced against the measure is that the sum of money proposed is ludicrously insufficient for the purpose of extinguishing licences. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) gave us last night the result of some interesting calculations he had made, by which he arrived at the exact sums which he said would be distributed to various districts. But this money is to be spread over the whole country; there is no special share to town or village, forming an unit in the whole area over which the sum is to be distributed. But the contention is, that the money we propose for the purpose is ludicrously insufficient, and, therefore, our proposal ought not to be entertained by Parliament. Well, but surely it is 10 times more insufficient for the purposes the hon. Member for the Brigg Division has recommended. He does not even propose that the whole sum of £360,000 should be devoted to the subject of his Amendment. Even if Parliament were to accept the hon. Member's proposal, and the County Councils were to act upon it, what would be the practical result? In certain parts of the country, in a very limited number of cases, there would be assisted or free education, while everywhere else the present system would prevail. I therefore submit, in the first place, that the money is inadequate for the purposes of the hon. Member, and, in the second place, even were the hon. Member's proposal accepted, it would do very little good for the cause he has at heart, namely, free education. The good it would do would make no real mark on the difficulties; it would only accentuate
    1214
    those difficulties in a great many districts by the relief afforded in a very limited number of cases. The hon. Gentleman said the Government had already proposed to devote a certain portion of this money to assisted education in Scotland; but the hon. Gentleman will remember that distinction has already been made in the case of Scotland in the Local Government proposals passed by the House dealing with Scotland. Everybody knows the conditions of education in Scotland differ from those which exist in this country, and the proposals in the Bill with regard to Scotland make no greater distinction between this country and Scotland than already exists. Does any hon. Member who supports this Amendment ask us to believe that the proposal is really made in the interest of the Bill? ["No."] I am glad to have that admission; it is what I expected and desired. Undoubtedly, the desire of hon. Members opposite is to wreck this Bill. ["No; to improve it."]
    SIR W. LAWSON: Only the Compensation Clauses.
    MR. LONG: Of course, I mean to wreck the licensing clauses. We are justified in the belief that the Amendment is directed to the wreckage of those clauses rather than to the improvement of the measure. Our desire is not in that direction. In the course of his speech the hon. and learned Member for Brigg spoke of the want of intelligence on the part of members of the Government; but if our intelligence is to be estimated by our acceptance or non-acceptance of this Amendment, I am afraid we must continue under his displeasure, and be liable to the description he has given. The proposal contained in the Amendment would only have a very partial effect, and would serve no particular end. The money available is totally inadequate to secure the object aimed at by the hon. Member for Brigg. Without saying a word against the principle of freeing the poorer classes from the burden of school fees I must, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, oppose this Amendment, because it is directed against the Bill, and because, if

    1215
    adopted, it would not effect the object which it pretends to have in view.
    MR. STOREY: The hon. Gentleman has indulged in the usual "Pecksniffian" statement that occupants of the Front Bench opposite are burning with anxiety to secure the advantages of education to the poorer people of this country.
    MR. LONG: I said I had no desire to contest in any way the sentiments expressed as to the advancement of education.
    MR. STOREY: Now, I am disposed to test these allegations. Are the Government really anxious for the cause of education or not? Here is a chance—here is a sum of money which is now at the disposal of the Government, or may be, and the Government have the alternative of providing a fund for the endowment of public houses, or of employing the money, or part of it, as my hon. Friend proposes, for the payment of school fees of poor children in our large towns. The hon. Gentleman says the amount of money in question being ludicrously insufficient, as we allege, to endow public houses——
    MR. LONG: No.
    MR. STOREY: The hon. Gentleman surely does not remember what he said. That the amount of money being, as we allege, ludicrously insufficient for the endowment of public houses—for the purpose proposed in this Bill—therefore, it is much more insufficient for the purpose of providing for the fees of poor children.
    MR. LONG: The hon. Member attributes to me a form of words I did not use. I said an argument used by hon. Gentlemen opposite was that our proposal ought not to be accepted, because the money was inadequate for the purpose; and I said that if hon. Members made that a ground of objection to our proposal, then much more did such an objection apply to the proposal in the Amendment. I did not adopt the suggestion that the amount of money is ludicrously insufficient for the purpose we propose.
    MR. STOREY: Quite so; the hon. Gentleman said the inadequacy was greater in regard to this Amendment. On that I wish to meet the hon. Gentleman with figures. Although the £350,000 will be inadequate for the object the Bill proposes, it would be fairly adequate for the purpose suggested in the Amendment. For instance, the amount to be allocated to the town of Sunderland would be about £1,200 a year, and this, though ludicrously inadequate for the purpose of buying up public houses, would pay the school fees, of 1,500 children out of the 12,000 children in Board schools—a number which fairly represents the proportion whose parents require assistance^ in this matter. So, I say, this sum, paltry as it is, would break the back of the practical difficulty we have in Sunderland, a difficulty, we feel most keenly in bad times, and which is present even in good times. It is a most unpleasant thing for poor parents to go before the School Board, in some instances to go before the Board of Guardians, to plead for exemption from the payment of their children's school fees. All the answer we can give them when they complain is, "It is the law; we have no other method by which you can get relief." But here is a method. The Government have the money in their pouch, and to our request the only answer they will give is that the amount is ludicrously inadequate. I show you an instance in which the amount is not insufficient, and it is my belief that the amount placed at the disposal of County Councils, throughout England would be adequate, in many instances, for the purpose we have in view. Let me ask hon. Gentlemen to look at this matter from the point of view and position of a northern artisan. What would be the idea among his fellows if such a man, having an increase in his wages barely sufficient for the maintenance of his family, devoted that increase to such extravagances as that class fall into, instead of devoting it to improving the food and condition of his wife and family? He would be censured for his folly and want of thrift. Yet the Govern-

    1217
    ment, with this money at their disposal, insist that it shall be used in a manner that is universally condemned by the working classes. It is to be used in utter defiance of the opinion of all the people concerned. I will not go so far as to prophecy what any particular County Council may do; but I will say, from my knowledge of feeling in the North, and I think other Members will confirm me, that, generally speaking, County Councils will not use this money which is to be forced upon them for purposes such as the Bill indicates. The Government have public money at their disposal, and worthy objects on which to employ it. They know that the object to which they propose to apply it is one with which the County Councils in large districts will have nothing to do, and yet they try deliberately to force on Parliament the employment of the money in this particular direction. For my part, I have been taught ever since I was young that when you get a surplus of money you ought to spend it wisely and worthily, and for the best objects. We do not regard the Government object as a good object, and we consider the alternative objects suggested in this Amendment as more valuable. So much for the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Brigg. You, Sir, were good enough to tell me that the particular Amendment which I have suggested was one that must fall with the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I confess I do not quite see why that should be so; but one must not compete with masters of legions, and I, therefore, accept the ruling which, doubtless, in good time you will give. But I hope I shall be in order in explaining that the Amendment I wished to propose was not in antagonism to that of my hon. Friend—it was rather supplementary. It sought to provide that, if the County Councils so determined, the money might be employed for the establishment and maintenance of free libraries and museums. As an argument against the Amendment of my hon. Friend, it might be urged that the County Councils have at present nothing to do with education, although we hope that shortly those duties will be entrusted to them. But it cannot be denied that the County Councils have the right—and the sole
    1218
    right—to deal with the question of museums and libraries. I apprehend there is no Member in this House who would not be willing to see a free library in every town and in every village, and a public museum in all the large centres of population. What prevents that end being attained at the present time is not the lack of willingness on the part of the people, but a lack of funds at their disposal. It may be alleged that on numerous occasions in the past the ratepayers of towns have, on a poll, decided against the establishment of a free library. I confess with shame and sorrow that that has sometimes been the case, and, that being so, I think it is incumbent on Parliament to do what it can to' improve the mind of the people on this subject. Still, considerable progress has been made in this matter. I hold in my hand a Return made as long ago as February, 1885, which shows that at that time there were no fewer than 99 places in England where free libraries had been established. Since that date there has been a very large increase in the number of places in which they have been established, and, probably, there are in England at the present time more than twice 99. In Scotland, in 1885, there were only 11 places in which there were free libraries, and in Ireland only four or five, but doubtless in the two sister islands there has also been a considerable improvement. How does the law stand as to the money which the Municipal Authorities may employ for free libraries. They are limited to expending 1d. in the £ on the rateable value. I never could see why the Legislature should have-imposed such a limit, and I think that as the Government have so much superfluous time and energy at their disposal they might utilise it in removing that limit. At present, as I have said, municipalities can only spend 1d. in the £1.
    MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I may point out that the sum has been altered in some cases, and notably in the case of Birmingham.
    MR. STOREY: I was just going to reinforce my argument by drawing attention to the case of Birmingham. It is a

    1219
    fact that a few years ago Birmingham, and several other municipalities, by special local Acts, extended the limit of a 1d. rate, and many others would have been, no doubt, as likely to do so had not my right hon. Friend, who is nothing if not extremely accurate in his dealings with the Committee charged with such matters—I mean the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton—induced them to agree with him that none of the Committees dealing with private Acts should in future give to municipalities any power exceeding the powers of a general Act of Parliament. Now, what is the case in Sunderland, which I have the honour to represent in this House I Sunderland, which was one of the first towns in the country to adopt the Free Libraries Act, is considerably hampered by that limit of Id., and can-Dot buy the more expensive books they think necessary. A penny in the £1 there produces £1,700 a year. We built out of the rates a very handsome library building, and, after paying the interest on the Sinking Fund and other charges, we are seriously crippled. Our people read the books with avidity, and if the Government would only give us the money they are now going to so vilely misuse we would show what a progressive Radical town in the North can do. The Town Council if Sunderland will not apply 1d. of this money to the purposes of buying up public houses, which they have another way of getting rid of, and the result will be that the Government will be putting this money by in a stocking, and it will be used for no beneficial purpose whatever. We know quite well that we are not discussing this matter for the sake of argument. We do not expect to be argued with. We do not want to be argued with. We know exactly what is being meted out to us. We may argue and we may convince the consciences of hon. Members opposite, but we know that, by-and-by, they will vote us down. For my part, I give the Government fair notice that we shall continue to oppose this Bill. I call the action of the majority in voting us down without argument, brutally un-Parliamentary. By discussion you may take the words of the complaint and condemnation out of
    1220
    our mouths. But you sit still. You listen to what we say; you may think in your hearts that what we say is right, but you add—you supporters of the Ministry add—"We must vote with the Government." If you treat us in this way, I give you fair notice, you shall never get a vote until you compel the Division by the power vested in the Chair. And then, of course, we shall be twitted with obstruction.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    MR. STOREY: If we are twitted with obstruction on these grounds, I shall frankly reply that I have obstructed in this matter, and that I will obstruct. When I once make up my mind, and state a thing, hon. Members know I generally mean it. I have obstructed this Bill, and I will obstruct it by every means in my power, and the Front Opposite Bench have nothing to do with this action of mine.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member must address himself to the Amendment.
    MR. STOREY: The proposal of this Amendment is to secure the spending of this money for the education of poor children, instead of for the endowment of public houses, and I was complaining that the Government had not argued this matter. This question was not before the country at the last General Election; it was not even mentioned in the Queen's Speech. So far as we know, the great body of the people are opposed to it, and I think it is the duty of independent Members like myself to force matters until the Government are compelled to go back to the constituencies whom they are so deceiving.
    MR. F. S. POWELL: I have no doubt that the hon. Member who has just delivered a speech, characterised by no great delicacy of language, has passed much time in, but has not derived much improvement from, free libraries and museums. In the town I represent may be found one of the best institutions of the kind in the North of England. I wish the hon. Gentleman would have delivered such

    1221
    a speech as we have just heard before an audience of the working' men of that town. I do not think it would have been well received.
    MR. STOREY: I will come whenever the hon. Member invites me.
    MR. POWELL: If his own political friends will invite him I will do my best to secure for him a fair hearing. He has complained of the inadequacy of the sum at present devoted to the maintenance of free libraries. Now, we have in Wigan a splendid library, the first collection of books being the result of private beneficence. The building in which it is stored was a gift, and yet, notwithstanding that double munificence, the amount of 1d. in the £1 was found to be inadequate; last year, therefore, the borough came to Parliament and the limit was extended to 2d. This is being done by other boroughs year after year, and it is a duty which the Police and Sanitary Committee is frequently called on to perform. Now, there is a Bill before the House, introduced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London, which has for its object the extension of the limit; and I should like to know what assistance the hon. Member opposite has given in its promotion. Has he used his influence with any of his friends to prevent its progress being objected to after midnight? So long as he remains passive in that matter I think we are entitled to interpret his views on this Amendment in the light of his conduct in regard to that Bill. I wish to see the Bill of my right hon. Friend carried. I wish to see free libraries established throughout the length and breadth of the country. Great progress has been made in the past, and I hope still greater progress will be made in the future. This seems to me to be a dilatory Amendment. It is devised for the purpose, I will not say of wasting time, but of consuming time. I do not think the cause either of free or of assisted education would be strengthened by the adoption of this Amendment. Such a course would have the effect of throwing local funds into confusion. Hon. Mem-
    1222
    bers have said that the County Councils in Wales, and in the North of England, will not use this money for the extinction of licensed houses. No prophecy could be more uncertain, and I believe that if the Bill becomes law its provisions will gradually be put in force throughout the country, and that the cause of temperance will be advanced. Much has been said in the course of this Debate on the subject of free and assisted education, but it appears to me that hon. Members opposite only become energetic on this matter when the Government are seeking to push forward their Bills. Now, Sir, I think the House would do well to allow the Prime Minister to develop the scheme he has already shadowed forth. It is only reasonable that, having suggested a scheme on this subject, he should be allowed to give form to it. I do not understand whether the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is intended to be specifically in the interests of the rates, or of the children, or of the schools; whereas every person who is dealing with the question of education ought to say distinctly and definitely what he proposes to do when he is asking Parliament to devote money for educational purposes, letting us know clearly whether it is in relief of rates, for the benefit of the children, or for the advantage of the schools, as forming part of a great educational institution. Unless you set clearly before your minds the objects for which the money is to be granted, your scheme must be vague, shadowy, and unreal, and must necessarily fail. In regard to the question of rates, no tiling can be more calculated to stir up strife than to give County Councils the power of applying public money in aid of the rates for educational purposes, especially where there are two systems of education, which have been, and are, the cause of much difference of opinion. I am sure it is in the interests of education that the two systems should exist, side by side, and that there should be a wholesome rivalry, without which the voluntary schools must perish. But here we have a scheme to enable County Councils to apply money entirely for the School Board schools, without any corresponding aid to

    1223
    the voluntary schools. This is the first time that such a proposal has been made. To adopt such a system would be to inflict great wrong on the voluntary schools, and would be strongly resented by those who have hitherto laboured in the cause of education. It was only the other day there was a chorus of applause from every part of the House in favour of the action of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council, who was then said to be an enlightened man and a pioneer in advancing the cause of education. Now, however, this chorus is at an end, and we are being condemned, as we have been before, for neglect and apathy in regard to the education of the country. Nevertheless, in the course of this controversy we on this side of the House have ever been the first to endeavour to advance the cause of popular education, and I believe we are in the front now. We shall certainly not be deterred from the course we are taking on this subject by the kind of obstacles which are raised by this Amendment. We regard the question of education as our own, we are proud of the work we have done in past days, when we were leading the way in this matter, and knowing all this, and being conscious of our present sincerity, we shall not be deterred from opposing a proposition which we believe to be inopportune in its initiation, uncertain in its results, and calculated rather to hinder than to advance the great work of education.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not rise to speak at any length on this subject, but I think the House ought clearly to understand the issue raised by this Amendment. The last speaker has made the singular appeal that we should leave this question of education in the hands of the Prime Minister, in consequence of the speech he made five years ago. Well, we all know that when a person takes out a patent the rule is that he ought to give the public the benefit of it, or not be allowed to maintain his patent-right. Considering that the speech made at Newport by Lord Salisbury was made as long ago as 1885, and that nothing has yet come of it, we may, perhaps, be forgiven if we infringe the
    1224
    patent-right of the Prime Minister, and suggest that we can now take out a patent-right for ourselves. The House has, undoubtedly, but contrary to our opinion, determined that a portion of the money or the whole sum provided by the Bill shall, if the County Councils think fit, be applied to the purchase of public houses; but we assert, and I do not think hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite will deny the assertion, that a great number of the County Councils will not use the money for such a purpose. You know that the London County Council would not so use it, and that no County Council in Wales will apply it in this way. I think you may also assume that no County Council in Scotland will so apply it, and I may take it, on high authority, that the County Council of Derby will not so use it. Indeed, I doubt whether you will find anyone in this House, if you were to poll the assembly, who would say that he thinks the County Council of the district to which he belongs would use the money for such a purpose. I do not know whether, even in the wilds of Wiltshire and the neighbourhood of Stonehenge, where there are very few public houses, the County Council would be disposed to apply the money in this manner. And I doubt whether, even in the district of the Under Secretary (Mr. Long), where the squires and brewers govern the country, they would give the power to use the money for this purpose. All, however, I ask you to admit is, that there are a considerable number of County Councils who would not apply the money for the purpose intended by this Bill. Therefore, I ask, can there be anything more reasonable than that you should give an alternative to those County Councils who do not like your proposal? Is it rational to say to those bodies, "Here is a sum of money. You shall use it for this purpose. If you do not approve of that purpose you shall not use it at all?" I ask the right hon. Gentleman, the author of the County Councils, is it rational to treat County Councils in this way? Why, Sir, it is treating them with contempt; it is saying to them, "You are no judges of the interests of the community of which you have charge. We have determined what you shall do; we dictate to you a public

    1225
    policy, and if you do not adopt it the money we offer you shall lie idle." Now, the hon. Member for Brigg proposes to say to these bodies, "Here is so much money, we will authorise you to devote it, if you think fit, to the interests of the brewers and the publicans, but you may also devote it to another purpose, should you desire to do so." I have read a good many of the speeches made in the country by the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and I may say of him that a more thorough, going publicans' and brewers' man I do not know. I think he is a sincerely convinced publicans' man; in fact, a more upright and downright or outright liquor man I cannot imagine. No doubt he is so from profound moral conviction, and, from the language lie holds, his belief in good liquor is the foundation of all his speeches. Therefore, I read this Bill a good deal more with the mind of the Under Secretary than with that of the President of the Local Government Board. But I cannot help thinking that this Bill would enable the publican minded man to have it all his own way. What I say is, let the education minded man have his chance. Well, Sir, I want to make it quite clear to the Committee what the issue is on what we are about to vote. The Committee is going to vote on the one side for the public houses, and on the other side for the village schools. That is the point at issue. We demand for the County Councils that they, at least, shall have the opportunity of applying this money to educational purposes, if they think fit. I appeal—not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he is what I should call a vested-interest-minded man; ho judges of these great moral questions, as we have already been told in witty language, by the Standard of Consols—I am appealing to the President of the Local Government Board, who looks at things from a rather more common sense point of view, who appreciates the fact that there is a Party in this country who prefer the interests of education to the vested interests of the publicans. I ask him whether he will not afford his own children, the County Councils, their own choice between education and liquor. We do not insist on education There are some
    1226
    people who think education is dangerous and mischievous. I believe that in Wiltshire they think it takes children away from the plough and raises wages. These are views which I know are still held in the more enlightened and Conservative parts of the country. But there are places where these views are not held—where the population is large, and the people prefer education. All we now ask is that the County Councils shall be allowed to make their choice. I do not wish to detain the Committee any longer. I am quite ready that the vote shall be registered, and that the country shall understand that it is between the public house and the village school.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GOSCHEN,): I am not going to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the whole of his speech. I wish, in one or two sentences, to point out the utter hollowness of the right hon. Gentleman's contention. The right hon. Gentleman has before him the declaration of the Government that next Session—[Opposition cries of "Oh!" and "Next Session!"] The Government and their supporters have listened patiently to the rigmarole of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby; they have even allowed him to use most insulting expressions; and the moment there is to be a reply, hon. Members opposite, who are so temperate, cannot control themselves. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are pledged to introduce a measure next Session [Opposition cries of "Oh!" and "Next Session!"] I am surprised that it is impossible to conduct an argument with any degree of regularity. The Government are pledged to bring in a measure next year with regard to assisted education, by which fees in elementary schools will be paid; and now the right hon. Gentleman wishes to set up the plea that it is a question between the village school and the public house. The right hon. Gentleman never thought of the village school or of any department of education before the Government introduced the proposals now under consideration. Education is not one of the

    1227
    specialties of the right hon. Gentleman. The village school will be provided for next Session, but the Government welcome the declaration which has been made, because we see that the Party opposite are about to pledge themselves to give £350,000 of public money to elementary schools aided by the State. The Government welcome this declaration, made for the first time by the Liberal Party, of a desire to devote this money to all schools aided by the State, for the Amendment contains no distinction between denominational schools and other schools. The hon. Member for the Brigg Division, in his eagerness to attack the Government and establish a bogus contrast between the public house and the school, has blundered into an Amendment by which he and his Dissenting friends, who are pledged up to the hilt not to give a farthing to denominational schools, propose to give £350,000 to all State-aided schools. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, in their keen desire to prove the wickedness of the Bill, are accepting a principle which they have denounced for years. There will be an interesting Division. Hon. Members on this side of the House will vote for the application of the money to the diminution of public houses—a principle which has been advocated by the Liberal Party generally. On the other hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite will vote for the application of the money to the relief of school fees, which the Government have promised to remit next year; and they will vote for an Amendment embodying a principle which all those Dissenting bodies who have condemned this Bill have protested against with equal emphasis and loudness.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman finds fault with my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, and says, forsooth, that we are now for the first time showing our zeal for free schools. Yes; but my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, in 1885, strongly and widely advocated free schools at the moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fighting his election at Edinburgh expressly on the ground of his inveterate hostility
    1228
    to free schools. And yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer taunts my right hon. Friend with inconsistency, forgetting his own attitude on this very question! I was amused to see the Pharisaic air with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked the Committee how it was they had any doubts as to the views of the. Government, because they had pledged, themselves. The House has had a pretty good example to-night of the value of the Government's pledges. They have, been pledged for four years to Local Government for Ireland, and yet that measure is put off, certainly till 1892. What security is there that next year, as in the present year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not interpolate into the Government programme some measure which is not in the Queen's Speech, and which neither the House nor the country, still less the right hon. Gentleman's followers, expected or desired. No, Sir, we shall certainly vote for the proposal of my right hon. Friend. We shall vote for it without the slightest compunction or idea that we are losing any boon which Her Majesty's Government now find it convenient to offer, but which, judging from the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman himself upon the question, we can have very little confidence will be carried out on the lines we pursue.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I protest against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's presumption that we are committing ourselves, by the words of this Amendment, to anything like what he pretends. We are merely voting for a principle which is already established in Scotland. However, speaking for myself, I would rather every shilling of this money went into the parsons' pocket than go to the purchase of public houses. On the old motto, "Of two evils choose the least." We think that we are choosing the lesser of two evils. But the words of the Amendment are clear enough. We desire by it to entrust popularly-elected Bodies, namely, the County Councils, with the distribution of this money for the purposes of elementary education. Well, we have no hesitation at all. The vote is between this money going for beer or books, and

    1229
    I am going to vote for books. I rise for a specific object, and I will say it in as few words as I can, and without giving unnecessary offence. Are yon hon. Members going to vote for "beer" with your hands perfectly clean, and are you satisfied that you ought to vote at all on this matter? On Petty Sessional Benches, when there are questions of licensing, members who are connected with the brewing trade leave the Bench. I ask the Government whether they are prepared to tell the House how many hon. Gentlemen on the opposite Benches have their hands steeped in this trade? I have received letters from the west country, on the strength of which I ask for this Return. A letter from a constituent of one of the occupants of the Government Bench says that that Member is interested in a brewery to the extent of £35,000, and is the owner besides of public houses. I hold in my hand another letter from a constituent of a Cabinet Minister, saying that that right hon. Gentleman is a trustee or a director of a largo company owning 153 tied houses. Then I challenge the hon. Member for Wigan to say that he has no interest in public houses.
    MR. P. S. POWELL: If the hon. Member is referring to me, I may say that, as far as I am the owner of houses of that kind, I have always kept them under my own control.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: All I desire to say is whether hon. Members who are interested in property of this kind ought not to act on the same principle as Magistrates, who, when they are personally interested in a question brought before them, leave the Bench. And I do not hesitate to give my own opinion that hon. Members opposite whom this legislation will benefit pecuniarily ought to refrain from voting, and that if they did, this unhappy Bill would be quickly defeated.
    MR. WADUY: I should not have said a word in reply if it had not been for the ill-advised attack made on mo by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, with his usual candour, read only
    1230
    the half of the Amendment, and represented it as the whole. Having done that, the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to refer to me as one among a number of Dissenters who are now committed to proposals which they have never hitherto accepted. With an ignorance that belongs, I suppose, to Chancellors of the Exchequer with regard to matters of this kind—although they are omniscient with regard to matters of another kind—he says that the religious body to which I belong passed a certain Resolution. I beg to tell him that the religious body to which I belong never resolved in the direction the right hon. Gentleman indicates, but resolved exactly the opposite. He is entirely wrong in his facts, and is entirely wrong in the conclusions he draws from them. The only other observation the right hon. Gentleman made upon which I wish to make a remark was that we should not pass this Amendment, because the Government are pledged to produce a certain Bill hereafter. In reply to that, I would say that, although the Government may have pledged themselves to introduce a Bill, from our experience of their pledges we have no right to expect that they will fulfil their promise, unless it relates to a measure for the benefit of someone from whom they have a reasonable expectation of receiving votes. They will get no votes from poor children who would be benefitted by free education, therefore we must not be too sanguine of a redemption of their pledges in this regard. We should put no more faith in the pledges of the Government than we do in their power as prophets, when they foretell where they will be or what power they will be exercising next year.
    MR. J. ROWLANDS: We have had some very interesting arguments from the other side of the House as to why we should vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Brigg Division. We first had an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Wigan, who showed his great zeal for free libraries by refusing to do anything to help them, because, forsooth, a certain Bill that he is interested in has met the fate that many of our Private

    1231
    Bills have met on account of the 12 o'clock Rule. And then he objects to any of this money going to relieve him of the necessity of passing the Bill, which he is anxious to see placed on the Statute Book. Then we were accused by the hon. Member of new-born zeal in favour of free or assisted education. He said he had not heard much about the matter, but if he will make inquiries he will find that early in the Session an interesting discussion took place on free education, initiated by the hon. Member for Rother-ham, on an Amendment to the Address, when the whole of this side of the House went into the Lobby in favour of free education. And the hon. Member also knows that hon. Members on this side! of the House have freely expressed an opinion in favour of this money being devoted to purposes of education, instead of being frittered away in the manner proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is, I may say, a very strong opinion outside the House that; many of the Members opposite who vote in favour of the Government proposals have some very distinct reason for the zeal they exhibit. No doubt the Bill is in favour of the great brewers, and I think that the observations of the hon. Member for the Circencester Division require some answer. I find that a newspaper which represents the brewing interest, amongst other things of a like nature, referring to a new issue of Bass & Co's stock, £910,000 in 5 per cent, debentures, offered to the public at a premium of £12 for every £100, says—
    "We suppose it will be used like the last debenture issue, that is, in in extension of the London and tied trade. The wisdom of this admits of no argument, and its result is seen in the enormous increase of this trade for the last 12 months."
    That is the sort of thing you are doing, that is what hon. Members mean when they talk about protecting "the poor publican's widow and orphans—" building up enormous profits for these large Brewery Companies. It is simply a matter of greasing the fat sow over again in the person of the great brewers. I could almost wish that the Government would pursue its course, because I am firmly convinced it is a course most objectionable to the majority of the
    1232
    people of the country. There will be a time when the people will have an opportunity of pronouncing upon the policy of the Government, and, for our part, we hope that that opportunity will be given as speedily as possible. I have great pleasure in supporting any Amendment which will devote this money to a legitimate and useful purpose, and I believe sincerely that if the Government accept the alternative of this Amendment it will not wreck their Bill, but will prove beneficial to them and to the people at large.
    MR. JAMES ELLIS: I can speak as to the vast amount of good which can be effected by the utilisation of small amounts of money in our rural districts. I know a case in which £100 a year was left to be spent for the benefit of a village, and where the legacy has been productive of a vast amount of benefit to the locality. But the money to be given to the localities under this Bill is worth absolutely nothing. It is said that there is only one "bottomless pit," but I know of two others in addition to the one ordinarily referred to, and they are war and drink. I hold the latter to be the worst of the two, and I submit that in subsidising it, as is now proposed, infinite harm will result. Your money will be worse than thrown away; whereas, if spent in the manner suggested in the Amendment, it will be productive of a vast amount of good in almost every direction.
    Mr. RITCHIErose in his place and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Question be now put."—(Mr. Ritchie.)
    MR. STOREY (sitting with his hat on): I wish, Mr. Courtney, to ask for your ruling on a point of order: whether a gentleman charged publicly in this House, and sitting on the Front Bench, with having a pecuniary interest in this question should be allowed to vote? I beg to point out that I was prevented from rising to a point of order by the President of the Local Government Board prematurely moving the Closure to end the discussion.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of order on which I can pronounce. I am unable to ascertain the accuracy or inaccuracy of the statements made.
    MR. STOREY: May I point out that the hon. Member for Wigan distinctly said he was the owner of a public house? And I find that under Sections 211 and 212, as I read them, if he had been in a Town Council he would not have been allowed to vote.
    (11.0.) The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 201.—(Div. List, No. 142.)
    (11.10.) Question put accordingly.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 248.—(Div. List, No. 143.)
    MR. STOREY: I rise, Sir, to move that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. I do so for the purpose of having the Speaker in the Chair, so that the House may at once be able to consider and inquire into the allegations which were made by an hon. Member on this side of the House (Mr. Winterbotham) during the Debate, and which have been left absolutely unanswered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen whose conduct was impugned. The allegation of my hon. Friend was that a Member of the Cabinet was directly interested in the liquor traffic, and that another hon. Member (Mr. Long) on the Government Bench, who is conducting the Bill, was also directly interested in it, and that, notwithstanding that, they continued to vote for this Bill. [Ministerial cries of "Whitbread" and "Stansfeld."]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order.
    MR. STOREY: Now, Mr. Courtney, how absurd an interruption surely is. When I made that assertion, hon. Members opposite called out the name of a brewer on this side of the House, but has that brewer voted for his own interest? Hon. Members on our side of the House who are interested in this traffic have either voted against your Bill, or they have had the decency to stay away. The Standing Order to which I direct the attention of the House reads as follows:—
    "No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he has a direct pecuniary
    1234
    interest, and the vote of any Member so interested will be disallowed."
    And then Standing Order, No. 212, is as follows:—
    "By Resolution, 27th June. 1844 (Instruction to the Middle Level Drainage Bill Committee), the Rule of this House, relating to the vote upon any question in the House, of a Member having an interest in the matter upon which the vote is given, applies likewise to any vote of a Member so interested in a Committee."
    The question I have to ask——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I have had some doubt as to whether this is a point which should be considered with Mr. Speaker in the Chair—Mr. Speaker has no knowledge of what goes on in Committee—and I have found a reference to an express case. If the matter is considered at all it should be considered by the Committee itself. It would, therefore, be out of order to move to report Progress, in order that this question should be considered with the Speaker in the Chair.
    MR. STOREY: Then I shall simply repeat my Motion, that you do now report Progress, in order that we may consider the question in Committee.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If I reported Progress the Committee would at once be separated. That is not the appropriate Motion. The Motion, if a Motion is to be made, must be that the vote of such and such a person be disallowed on account of his having a direct pecuniary interest.
    MR. STOREY: Then I will go to the root of the question, and move that the vote of the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks Beach) be disallowed, that the vote of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board (Mr. Long) be also disallowed, and that the vote of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. E. S. Powell), who informed the House that he is the owner of public houses, shall also be disallowed.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Now that the subject has assumed a definite shape, I think I may give an opinion

    1235
    from the Chair. There is authority which expressly bears upon it. The Motion for disallowing the vote which a Member has given in a Division must be made on the ground that that Member has a direct pecuniary interest in the vote. It must be made, as it has been laid down by a predecessor of my own in the Chair, on the ground that the Member has a private pecuniary interest, and one not relating to a question of public policy. I think, on that ground alone, it would be incompetent to make such a Motion as has been made; but, looking at the fact that the action of the County Councils, in respect of the extinction of licences, is not an action forced upon them, but, as has been said, in many cases County Councils would not act upon it at all, the interest which any Member could take in the action of a County Council hereafter is so contingent and so foreign to the direct pecuniary interest contemplated by the Order that I think the Motion is not in order.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): As the hon. Member thought fit to mention my name, I should like to ask him on what authority he did so? I desire to say I have not a single share in any Brewery Company, but that I am the owner of a single village public house which brings me in £20 a year.
    MR. STOREYagain rose, and was greeted with loud cries of "Withdraw."
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! If the hon. Gentleman has any observation to make no doubt the Committee will be glad to hear him, but it is evident the discussion could not be continued.
    MR. STOREY: The observation I wish to make is this. I singled out the name of the Member of the Cabinet because I understood—[Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"]—I will take my own time. Of course, there is no doubt about the name. It is that of my hon. Friend who made the statement
    1236
    in the House, and no doubt he will speak for himself. As far as I am concerned I say at once frankly that I withdraw what I said, and frankly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman; and I shall only be glad, for the credit of this House and for the sake of decency, if I can have the same opportunity with regard to the hon. Gentleman whom I also mentioned.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I ask the kind indulgence of the House in a matter of personal explanation. I hold in my hand a letter which I had with me when I made my speech. I stated then that I had a letter from a gentleman of repute—[Cries of "Name!"]—charging a Cabinet Minister—["Name!"] I am first of all going to tell the House, if hon. Members will allow me, what the letter states. I decline, without the consent of the writer, to give the name; but I shall be happy to show it to any gentleman on the Front Bench as a proof of bona fides. Having stated what the charge is I shall accept gladly the word of either of those two gentlemen that the statement is not true, and will apologise willingly for having brought their names before the House. The first charge is, that the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last "is a Director or Trustee, or both, of the firm of Messrs. Agg-Gardner & Co., brewers, Cheltenham." My correspondent mentions the name Sir M. Hicks Beach. The next charge is——[Ministerial cries of "Charge!" J I beg pardon; I withdraw the word. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Charge?"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: Hon. Gentlemen will be good enough to allow the hon. Member to proceed.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I withdraw the word, and I substitute the word statement. [VOICES: "Allegations."] The second statement refers to my hon. Friend the Under Secretary to the Local Government Board, and it states that he has a considerable pecuniary interest in the firm of Messrs. Robert Long & Co., brewers, Marlborough. I again repeat that I will show this letter to any hon. Gentleman opposite who would like to see it; but I do not think it would be right for me, nor, I think,

    1237
    would hon. Gentlemen opposite wish me, to mention the writer's name without his consent; and I repeat that if my correspondent is in error I shall gladly accept the word of either of those two hon. Gentlemen, and shall gladly apologise for having brought their names before the House.
    SIR M. HICKS BEACH: With reference to the statement just made, I have to say that when my hon. Friend, whom I have known for many years, the Member for Cheltenham, converted his brewery into a Limited Company lie asked me, as a personal favour, to become a Trustee. I did so; I am a Trustee for the shareholders of that Company. Yet, if the County Council bought up every public house belonging to that Company, not one single penny would go into my pocket.
    MR. LONG: As far as I understand the assertion of my hon. Friend opposite, it is that I am a partner or interested in the concern of Messrs. Robert Long & Co., of Marlborough. Robert Long, of Marlborough, is my brother; I naturally am extremely interested in him. I am desirous to see my brother's affairs prosper, and to assist him in any way I can; but I am not a partner nor a shareholder, nor am I in any way interested in the concern.
    MR. RITCHIE: I think it right, as an allegation was made in the course of the Debate that my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Local Government Board was more responsible for this Bill than myself, and as his name has been mentioned in connection with this matter, to say that my hon. Friend had no part whatever either in the inception or in the preparation of this Bill, and was not aware either of the Bill or the propositions in the Bill until it was printed.
    MR. WINTERBOTHAM: I willingly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for being the cause of his name being brought before the House. At the same time, I desire to point out that my correspondent said "a Trustee or Director, or both," and therefore there
    1238
    is no inaccuracy in my correspondent. If there is any blame it belongs to me. I am sorry [Interruption and crias of "Order!"]; but I am bound also to point out that the statement of my correspondent as regards the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Lo al Government Board was not that he was a partner at all, but that he had a pecuniary interest in the firm of Robert Long and Co. However, I understand him to deny that he has any pecuniary interest in the firm.
    MR. LONG: I do not know, of course, how far terms may be strained. I am extremely anxious not to mislead or to be misunderstood. I can assure the House that I feel very acutely the uncomfortable position in which I have been placed by this allegation. There is a matter that did not occur to me, and I think I am justified in saying that when my hon. Friend opposite made reference to this matter to me in the House the other day, I understood him then to say that his information was in the direction that I had a large pecuniary interest in a brewery concern. This I denied, and I think my hon. Friend will bear me out that I then told him I wished it were true, that I should be very glad if it were, and that nobody would rejoice more than I should, and I told him it was true that I was a shareholder in a Brewery Company, and did not refer to this matter of my brother, because I did not know it was referred to at all. I have no pecuniary interest in it at all. All I have done to my brother I have done to other members of my family; I have lent him some money. I suppose this is not the first time transactions have passed I between relatives of that kind I think it necessary and right to state this, because it might be said afterwards that I had an interest in having lent money to my brother in his concern. All I can say is that that is the extent of my interest. I have now put the House in possession of the whole information.
    MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Amendment I have to propose is to provide that the

    1239
    residue of the English share of the Local Taxation Duties should be distributed
    "Among the several counties and county boroughs in proportion to the amounts which the Commissioners of Inland Revenue shall certify to have been received by them in the then last preceding financial year on account of licences granted by them in respect of on-licences of premises in such counties and county boroughs."
    I think the Committee would be in a false position if we attempted to discuss this Amendment this evening. The President of the Local Government Board laid upon the Table of the House last night a most important Return showing how the sums appropriated to Local Taxation account were distributed in the last financial year, and that Return is now in the printer's hands. It is impossible to discuss the Amendment until we have this Return before us; and, therefore, I venture to suggest not that the clause should be postponed, that would be a foolish suggestion, but that the words after "fund" should be omitted, in order that the words "hereinafter provided" may be inserted; so that when we have had the opportunity of studying this Return and checking it, a subsequent clause can be brought up to regulate the principle on which this money should be distributed.
    MR. ROWNTREE: In order that the question of boroughs may not be prejudiced I would ask that the words be inserted after the word "distributed."
    Amendment proposed, to leave out all the words after the word "distributed," in page 1, line 20, to end of clause, and to add the words "as hereinafter provided" inserted.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question proposed, "That Clause 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. STOREY: I desire to move that the clause be left out of the Bill. I do so for several reasons, some general and some specific in their nature. I do so, first of all, on the general ground that the Government received from the
    1240
    country at the General Election no authority to deal with this question. They are creating a precedent and establishing a principle which, though the pecuniary dimensions of the present measure may be slight, will ultimately involve the country against its will in a large expenditure of money. Besides, the country has not even had a few months in which to consider this important question. If the Bill is considered of such extreme importance, surely the Government might have done the House the honour of mentioning it in the Queen's Speech; but for the first time in the history of recent Parliaments it is found that, whereas the Speech from the Throne mentioned several important measures, in this case the attention of the House is forcibly directed to a question which has not been mentioned therein, and the other important measures which have been mentioned are set aside. I believe that the people of the country, by an enormous majority, are dead against this measure; and I deny the moral right of this Government to force such a Bill through the House of Commons in face of the expressions of public opinion against it. We do know something of public opinion on the subject, for this is not the first time the Government have proposed some such measure as this, not the first time the Government have tried to benefit their friend the publicans. A similar attempt was made in 1888, and we know how public opinion went then. Public opinion, so far as we have had opportunity to judge, has not changed. We see this in the Press, in public meetings, in Petitions to this House. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board has told us that people who have signed these Petitions do not understand the precise points of the question as to which they sign the Petition; and, if I mistake not, he, or one of the right hon Gentleman's colleagues, said this in reference to the great Wesleyan Body.
    MR. RITCHIE: I do not think I ever referred to Petitions. What I did refer to was the passing of resolutions, and it

    1241
    was on the terms of these resolutions I made the statement.
    MR. STOREY: I have looked through a considerable number of Petitions, and, in my judgment, the gentlemen who prepare and sign them understand precisely the points upon which they appeal to the House. The Primitive Methodists, for example, recently held a meeting at Sunderland, and discussed the Bill. They sent a Memorial to Parliament representing 190,000 members, more than a quarter of a million of adherents, and 1,000 ministers, protesting against the proposals of the Government to pay takes for withdrawing licences from public houses. That Petition seems to be very much to the point. ["No."] Not to the point?
    MR. RITCHIE: No.
    MR. STOREY: The Bill does not pay public money for the withdrawal of licences I Well, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means to trip me up on some purely technical term——
    MR. RITCHIE: No; I have no wish to do that. I only want to make myself understood. The hon. Gentleman will observe the expression "compensation for licences withdrawn." I only want to be understood. I do not mean a merely technical objection—the expression seems to imply that a licence being refused, compensation would be given, whereas when licences are withdrawn by the Licensing Authority the publicans have no title to compensation or any payment under the Bill.
    MR. STOREY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right; mine was not the proper way of putting it, but I have made reference to the resolution I was referring to, and I find that the Primitive Methodists in this resolution, which I find represents the opinion of some 195,000 members, and 580,000 adherents, protest against the
    "Payment of public money for the extinction of licences which are only granted for a year, believing, as we do, that to create a property in licences is unjust to the tax payers."
    Here, then, it is evident there is no misapprehension of the proposals in the
    1242
    Bill. Indeed, it is not easy to deceive the people of this country on public questions of this character. You may do it for a week, I have known a Government do it for a month, but the natural shrewdness of the people soon discovers the truth. The right hon. Gentleman tried to make out a case in opposition to our statements of the result of public meetings, and gave instances of votes being carried at public meetings-in favour of the Government proposals. He referred to Gates head, a borough I know pretty well—and let me say of Gates head, as of other towns, that I should not be surprised if votes were carried at public meetings in favour of the Government, knowing, as I do, the conditions that obtain in large towns, and the number of persons interested in the licensed victuallers' trade. We, the opponents of this Bill, engage the largest hall in the town, and invite free attendance without tickets; naturally, the trade is interested. But what are the methods employed by the drink traffic to get a vote in favonr of the Bill? In Sunderland, for instance, when a public meeting was called by the Mayor, a circular was issued among the licenced victuallers, saying—
    "Being a member of the trade, your presence, with four or ^five other friends, is most particularly needed … You will have no difficulty in inducing four or five, or even more, of your customers and friends, to accompany you and vote for your just claim to compensation."
    That is the great meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and at which the Times and other newspapers stated that opinion was pretty evenly divided, whereas the Mayor declared that the resolution against the Bill had been carried by a large majority.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

    TRAMWAYS ORDER IN COUNCIL (IRELAND) (SOUTH CLARE RAILWAYS) BILL—(No. 301.)
    Bill read a second time, and commited for Thursday.

    ELECTORAL DISABILITIES (NAVAL, MILITARY, AND POLICE) BILL.
    (No. 146.) COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: This is a Bill in which a number of us take a great deal of interest. Now, the Government say that they are anxious to facilitate the business of the House. Will they agree to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, so that its scope may be widened? The right hon. Gentleman has promised to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea, but there are a number of other questions of a somewhat technical nature which will have to be raised. This is not a contentious Bill; and I hope that this suggestion of mine will be adopted.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): This Bill was brought in at the request of hon. Members on both sides of the House, in order to deal with a great hardship. The necessity for it has also been called to my attention by many Revising Barristers. A discussion on it at this stage would be quite out of order; but I would suggest that, by acting in concert, the difficulty may be overcome in a way which would obviate the necessity of acting on the suggestion of the hon. Member.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the Government go further than they are doing in accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Chelsea? If not, I must object to further progress.
    Committee deferred till Thursday.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. (No. 154.)

    Order for Second Reading read and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.

    PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS.
    Copies ordered—
    "Of the Parliamentary Proceedings Adjournment Bill (Session 1848), of the Parliamentary Proceedings [Lords] Bill (Session 1809), and Extracts from the Reports of Select Committees relating to such proposals."—(Mr. Jackson.)
    Copies presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be Printed. [No. 233.]

  MOTIONS.

    COUNTY COURTS ACT (1888) AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Milvain, Bill to amend the Law relating to the Practice of Registrars and other Officers of the County Court, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Milvain, Mr. Gully, Mr. Henry H. Fowler, and Sir-Albert Rollit.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 334.]

    GERMANY AND AFRICA.
    On the Motion for adjournment:—
    MR. HOWARD VINCENT: I wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the importance of the despatch to Sir E. Malet issued to-night, he will cause a map to be placed in the Library, showing exactly the limits of German influence in East Africa, and the territory to be acquired by this country?
    SIR J. FERGUSSON: I am sure the Secretary of State will be Glad to have a map placed in the Library; but I should not like the House to assume that all the territories that are to be placed under the sphere of influence of this country are at present in the German sphere. The agreement provides a delimitation of the respective spheres, and for the most part deals with regions not hitherto defined.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope the map will explain what a sphere of influence is.
    House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock.